Annexation | Page 3 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

January 18, 2018 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Nationality of Membership in Annexation Club

We are often told that American businessmen overthrew Queen Lili‘uokalani and the Hawai‘i Constitutional Monarchy.

The fact is, the organizers of the overthrow, the Committee of Safety, were made up of 6-Hawaiian citizens (naturalized or by birth,) 5-Americans, 1-Scotsman and 1-German. (They were all residents of Hawai‘i and registered voters. None were missionaries; only 3 of the 13 had any link to the American Protestant missionaries.)

Shortly after the overthrow, “An association has recently been formed here known as the Annexation Club.” Various regional Annexation Clubs formed in several communities.

There were: “Hawaii annexation clubs. Hilo, North Kohala, South Kona, Ho‘okena, Napo‘opo‘o, Kapalilua. Maui annexation club. Wailuku. Kauai annexation clubs. Lehui, Waimea, Kealia. I would also state that we have lists in the Hamakua District on Hawaii, the Lahaina, Hana, and Paia districts on Maui, and at Kaluaaha on Molokai.” (JW Jones May 15, 1893)

“The first steps to form this association were taken on the 21st of this month, and its membership now includes some 2,000 of the residents of this city, who are, it is believed, fully representative of the intelligence and respectability, as well as of the material interests of this community.” (Resolution of Annexation Club, March 31, 1893; Blount Report)

“The majority of those who have joined the organization have done so after careful consideration and because it is their firm conviction that the country can no longer maintain a good and stable independent government.”

“Numerous reasons may be given for this, but I will state only a few of the more prominent.”

1) “The unfitness of a majority of the voters for representatives in this country to have the franchise and use it for upright and progressive government.”
2) “A growing jealousy among the natives of foreigners, who, they feel, are acquiring the property and business of the country.”
3) “The diversified foreign population of the country, who come from all parts of the world. This population consists of all classes of men who come here for different purposes, a great many to make what they can out of the country and then leave.” (HP Baldwin to Blount, April 25, 1893; Blount Report)

As with the diversity of nationalities of the folks orchestrating the overthrow, so was the make-up of the Annexation Club (July 9, 1893):

By the end of September 1893, the number of Hawaiians on the roster of the Annexation Club surpassed the Americans; then, the top three were noted as:

“A large number of the members of this association were not actually concerned in the establishment of the present Government, but all the members are convinced that it is essential to the safety and security of life and property in the Hawaiian Islands, and to the permanent welfare of the people here, that this country shall become an integral portion of the American Union.”

“The need of a strong permanent Government to steady political passions, and keep this community free from dangers both of internal discord and foreign interference, has become apparent to all of us, and we look forward with earnest hope to the time when Hawaii can enter the great Republic.”

“We have learned with profound satisfaction that President Cleveland has appointed you to visit these islands, as we understand, for the purpose of investigating their political conditions and needs.”

“We are confident that the most searching examination and analysis will disclose the fact that the present Government was established as a matter of necessity and duty, in the interest of humanity as well as of civilization, and not as a scheme to promote the selfish objects of any set or clique.”

“The head of the recent Government having disavowed her obligations to the only authority under which she held power, the constitution of 1887, and having publicly announced her solemn intention to govern by royal proclamation and not by law, the only course to follow to preserve the body politic was to establish this Government in the interests of law and order.”

“It is the hope of the members of this association that a treaty of annexation may soon be accomplished between Hawaii and the United States, which, while securing all the safeguards of a free and stable government to all native aboriginal Hawaiians as well as to those of foreign ancestry, will entail no burdens on the United States, but on the contrary will be a source of additional strength and satisfaction.”

“We are aware, Mr. Commissioner, that your own views on any of these matters will depend on the result of the observations and inquiries which you will make during your visit here, and that our call upon you must be regarded as entirely informal and unofficial.” (Resolution of Annexation Club, March 31, 1893; Blount Report)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Iolani Palace, circa 1889

January 14, 2018 by Peter T Young 5 Comments

No Treaty, No Annexation … or, No Need

‘No Treaty, No Annexation’ are common buzz words from some arguing that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Constitutional Monarchy on January 17, 1893 was ineffective and the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists.

However, where, specifically, does it say, then and now, that a ‘Treaty’ is required, or the Senate must vote on ‘Annexation’ in a certain way?

Annexation of Hawai‘i to the US was not a hostile takeover, it was something the Republic of Hawai‘i sought.

“There was no ‘conquest’ by force in the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands nor ‘holding as conquered territory;’ they (Republic of Hawai‘i) came to the United States in the same way that Florida did, to wit, by voluntary cession”. (Territorial Supreme Court; Albany Law Journal)

In Hawai‘i, “In 1893, ‘[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.’ ‘That government sought annexation by the United States’ (Newlands Resolution).” (US Supreme Court)

“Then the provisional government grew into the constitutional Republic of Hawai‘i, and we have fully recognized that as the rightful and permanent government of Hawai‘i, and have kept our minister and consul-general at Honolulu and our war ships in that bay to protect them and the Republic….” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“No nation in the world has refused recognition of the Republic of Hawai‘i as the rightful Government, and none of them question its soverign [sic] right to deal with any question that concerns the people of Hawai‘i.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State.”

“… the Republic of Hawai‘i approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 32 of the constitution promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby …”

“The President (of the Republic of Hawai‘i,) with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawai‘i and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

The Hawaiian resolution for ratification of the annexation treaty was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the Republic of Hawai‘i on September 9, 1897.

“There is no provision in the [US] Constitution by which the national government is specifically authorized to acquire territory; and only by a great effort of the imagination can the substantive power to do so be found in the terms of any or all of the enumerated powers.”

“The United States has acquired territory through cession, purchase, conquest, annexation, treaty, and discovery and occupation. These methods are permissible under international law and have been approved by the Supreme Court.”

“The executive and the legislature have performed different roles in the acquisition of territory by each of these means. Unfortunately, the historical practice does not supply a precise explanation of where the Constitution places the power to acquire territory for the United States.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“The power of congress to acquire new territory, either by conquest, purchase, or annexation, was much debated at the time of the acquisition of Louisiana from France, in 1803, and in a less degree in connection with the purchase of Florida and of Alaska.”

“It has now come to be recognized and established, rather by precedent and the general acquiescence of the people, than by any strict constitutional justification. In fact, the power cannot be derived from any narrow or technical interpretation of the constitution.”

“But it is necessary to recognize the fact that there is in this country a national sovereignty. That being conceded, it easily follows that the right to acquire territory is incidental to this sovereignty. It is, in effect, a resulting power, growing necessarily out of the aggregate of powers delegated to the national government by the constitution.” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“Territory is acquired by discovery and occupation where no other recognized nation asserts sovereignty over such territory. In contrast, when territory is acquired by treaty, purchase, cession, or conquest, it is acquired from another nation.” (Footnote, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“We have acquired much territory under treaty provisions and by conquest, and in such case the acquisition may be regarded as incidental to the powers mentioned …”

“… but we have also acquired territory by original discovery and appropriation alone. Such is the fact with reference to a large portion of Oregon; and such is peculiarly the fact with reference to certain small islands of the sea— the so-called Guano Islands.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

Some cite the ‘Apology Resolution’ as evidence of a faulty process; however, as noted below, ”the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

“The State Supreme Court, however, read [this] as a congressional recognition – and preservation – of claims against Hawai‘i. There is no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another.”

The US Supreme Court concluded, “First, ‘whereas’ clauses like those in the Apology Resolution cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. As we recently explained in a different context, ‘where the text of a clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as ‘whereas’ clauses in federal legislation …, a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do.’”

“Second, even if the ‘whereas’ clauses had some legal effect, they did not ‘chang[e] the legal landscape and restructur[e] the rights and obligations of the State.’”

“The Apology Resolution reveals no indication – much less a ‘clear and manifest’ one – that Congress intended to amend or repeal the State’s rights and obligations under Admission Act (or any other federal law); nor does the Apology Resolution reveal any evidence that Congress intended sub silentio to ‘cloud’ the title that the United States held in ‘absolute fee’” and transferred to the State in 1959.”

“Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to ‘cloud’ Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union. We have emphasized that ‘Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.’”

A later Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case noted (in 2014,) “The US Supreme Court reversed this court, holding that the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

It’s interesting to note the Supreme Court’s repeated references to the Republic of Hawai‘i, Annexation, Territory, Newlands Resolution, Admission Act, State, etc.

Commenters, please focus on the question here: Where, specifically, does it say, then and now, that a ‘Treaty’ is required, or the Senate must vote on ‘Annexation’ in a certain way?

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Raising_of_American_flag_at_Iolani_Palace-1898

July 2, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hawaiian Patriotic League

“A Great Meeting of Makaʻāinana will be held at Palace Square, at 5 pm on this very day, July 2, 1894; to show our steadfastness in our patriotism.”

“Hawai‘i’s own Lahui, as well as the other ethnicities who are of the same mind, are invited to go in unity and show their insistence behind the Resolution that will be passed at that time.”

“Invited are the Men, the Women, and all the young people of the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Āina,) and all friends, to go immediately with great enthusiasm and festivity to fill the meeting with numbers of Twenty and more thousand people.

“And provided that the Marshal (Ilamuku) of the Provisional Government has approved our meeting. Therefore, we have nothing to be concerned about. Let us however maintain the peace.” (Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Buke II, Helu 974, Aoao 2. Iulai 2, 1894)

“This afternoon at five o’clock the loyal citizens of Hawaii will meet on Palace Square, and enter a solemn and earnest protest against the infamous outrage, which it is proposed to perpetuate on Wednesday—the proclaiming of a republic of filibusters, the proclamation of a constitution framed by aliens and for the sole benefit of certain classes.” (Hawaii Holomua, July 2, 1894)

“Over five thousand people gathered, among whom were all classes, all nationalities and all friends of popular government. The meeting was most orderly, and as Nawahi urged in opening the meeting, free from any undue demonstration, free from noise generally attached to a political meeting.”

“Mr JO Carter, one of the oldest and best known citizens in the country read the resolution, protesting against the so-called republic. Messrs Bush, Nawahi and Kaulia spoke to the Hawaiians in most eloquent terns, and translated the resolution which was received with tremendous cheering by the Hawaiians”. (Hawaii Holomua, July 3, 1894)

“Be it resolved, that the Hui Aloha ‘Āina and other Patriotic Leagues, together with the Loyal subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in Mass Meeting assembled, representing by far the greater majority of the legitimate voters of this country …”

“… do hereby most solemnly protest against the promulgation of a new Constitution, formed without the consent and participation of the People, and we also protest against changing the form of government from the one under which we have lived peacefully and prosperously for many years.”

“And that we maintain that the will of the majority of the legitimate voters of Hawaii should be the supreme power of the land, as such power is so recognized and accepted by all the enlightened countries and by all the enlightened governments of the world.” (Daily Bulletin, July 3, 1894)

Ka Hui Hawaii Aloha ‘Āina (Hawaiian Patriotic League) was “composed of only respectable Hawaiians according to a statement made by one of its officers. Foreigners who are in sympathy with the movement can join and become honorary members only.”

“The object of this association is to preserve and maintain, by all legal and peaceful means and measures, the independent autonomy of the islands of Hawai‘i nei; and if the preservation of our independence be rendered impossible, our object shall then be to exert all peaceful and legal efforts to secure for the Hawaiian people and citizens the continuance of their civil rights.” (Hawaiian Gazette, March 21, 1893)

On September 6, 1897, the Hui Aloha ʻĀina held a mass meeting at Palace Square, which thousands of people attended; Hui President James Kaulia gave a rousing speech, saying “We, the nation (lahui) will never consent to the annexation of our lands, until the very last patriot lives.”

Following Kaulia, David Kalauokalani, President of the Hui Kālaiʻāina, explained the details of the annexation treaty to the crowd. He told them that the Republic of Hawaiʻi had agreed to give full government authority over to the United States, reserving nothing. (Hawaiʻi State Archives)

Between September 11 and October 2, 1897, Hui Aloha ʻĀina O Nā Kane and Hui Aloha ʻĀina O Nā Wahine prepared, circulated and obtained names under a petition opposing annexation with the United States.

Later, “the Woman’s Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Patriotic League (sent) out by special messengers to every district in the Hawaiian Islands petitions against annexation for signature by Hawaiian citizens in order that the people’s will may be accurately ascertained as a plebiscite is not at present to be permitted by the Annexation Oligarchy.” (The Independent, September 13, 1897)

Their 556-page petition totaled 21,269-names, 10,378-male and 10,891-female. Of these 16,331 adults were adults and 4,938-minors. (The petition is now stored at the US National Archives.)

(In his March 4, 1898 review and reporting on the petition, LA Thurston noted several “reasons for discrediting the petition”:
1. The petition certified that the minor petitioners are between 14 and 20 years of age; however the names of hundreds (677) noted ages under 14 years of age.
2. The ages of many petitioners who are under 14 were changed to 14 or above.
3. Many of the signatures are in the same handwriting (he called them “forgeries”.)
4. In a great number of instances, the ages are all in the same handwriting and in round numbers only.
5. The signatures of the petitioners 2 and 3 years of age were in good, round handwriting.)

A second petition, conducted by Hui Kālaiʻāina, is reported to have contained 17,000-names of people who supported the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy (its whereabouts is unknown.)

The Hui Aloha ʻĀina held another mass meeting on October 8, 1897 and at that time decided to send delegates to Washington, DC to present the petitions to President McKinley and to the Congress. (Silva)

Four delegates, James Kaulia, David Kalauokalani, John Richardson and William Auld, went to DC on December 6 to deliver the petition; the second session of the 55th Congress opened at that time. The delegates and Queen Liliʻuokalani planned a strategy to present the petition to the Senate. (Hawaiʻi State Archives)

They chose the Queen as chair of their Washington committee. Together, they decided to present the petitions of Hui Aloha ʻĀina only, because the substance of the two sets of petitions was different. Hui Aloha ʻĀina’s was called “petition protesting annexation,” but the Hui Kālaiʻāina’s petitions called for the monarchy to be restored. (Silva)

In the end, the motion to annex needed a two-thirds majority to pass (60-votes;) only 46-Senators voted for it (down from the 58 who supported it when they arrived.) The annexation vote failed. However, the win was short-lived.

President William McKinley called for a Joint Resolution of Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands, a process requiring only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. (In 1845, a Joint Resolution was used to admit Texas to the Union as a State; Hawaiʻi was not being annexed as a State, but rather, as a Territory.)

On May 4, 1898, nine days after the Spanish-American War began, Representative Francis G Newlands of Nevada introduced a Joint Resolution in the House of Representatives to annex the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.

The House approved the Joint Resolution on June 15, 1898 by a vote of 209 to 91; the Senate approved the resolution on July 6 by a vote of 42 to 21, with 26 senators abstaining. (umn-edu)

House Joint Resolution 259, 55th Congress, 2nd session, known as the “Newlands Resolution,” passed Congress and was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898; the US flag was hoisted over Hawaiʻi on August 12, 1898.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

RG46 Records of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 5/28/1897 – 2/18/1899 SEN55A-J11.2 Hawaii Anti-annexation Petition 1897 Folder 01 Men 001-119

Petition_Against_Annexation-claimed forgery (same writing style for several signatures-as well as for younger signers)

RG46 Records of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 5/28/1897 – 2/18/1899 SEN55A-J11.2 Hawaii Anti-annexation Petition 1897 Folder 04 women 001-124

RG46 Records of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 5/28/1897 – 2/18/1899 SEN55A-J11.2 Hawaii Anti-annexation Petition 1897 Folder 01 Men 001-119

Hui_Aloha_ʻĀina_o_Na_Kane

Hui_Aloha_ʻĀina_o_Na_Wahine

Anti-Annexation_Meeting in Hilo-(hawaii-edu)

March 27, 2017 by Peter T Young 2 Comments

Father of Annexation

“There is a gentleman still living at Honolulu whose boast is that he was the father of the project to annex Hawaii to the American Union.”

“It may, therefore, be perfectly permissible to mention here that the Pearl Harbor scheme of 1873 is declared with good reason to have originated with him …”

“Dr. John S. McGrew, – and was then openly advocated by him as a preliminary to the obliteration of the native government by the annexation of the whole group to the United States.” (Lili‘uokalani)

Let’s look back …

John Strayer McGrew was born at Lancaster, Ohio, on December 23, 1825. He moved at an early age with his family to Cincinnati where his father, Robert McGrew, founded the ‘Cincinnati Enquirer.’ He attended the public schools of Cincinnati.

At the age of fifteen young McGrew entered Oxford College, where he graduated, then entered the Ohio Medical College, in which be qualified as a physician and surgeon. His MD was earned in 1847.

During the Civil War, Dr McGrew was among the first to volunteer. He served as a surgeon with the 83rd Ohio Regiment and was later promoted to staff surgeon of the US Volunteers.

At the close of the war, Dr. McGrew married Pauline Gillet at Washington, D.C. This was a second marriage for both parties. Mrs McGrew had a son, Henri Goulden, whom Dr McGrew adopted and who later became a doctor and practiced in Honolulu.

Following their wedding, the McGrews started on a world tour which brought them to Hawaiʻi on March 6, 1867, aboard the ‘AA Eldrich.’

Enchanted with the Islands, they abandoned their tour and settled in Honolulu. By April, McGrew had established an office over Dr. Edward Hoffmann’s drug store at the corner of Kaʻahumanu and Merchant streets. In 1869, he was appointed by the US Consul medical officer of the US Marine Hospital, a position he held for a number of years.

Dr and Mrs McGrew were widely known for their hospitality and entertained distinguished guests from all parts of the world. It was estimated that it cost Dr. McGrew $10,000 a year to keep open house for his guests.

His home, which was originally built by Dr. Robert Wood in 1840, stood on the former site of the Alexander Young Hotel on Bishop and Hotel streets (now Bishop Square) and was a Honolulu landmark and social center of the city.

McGrew was a member of the commission which worked with Generals Alexander and Schofield in making a survey in 1873 for an American naval base at Pearl Harbor, as provided for by the Reciprocity Treaty. He assisted in making plans for the coaling station and lived to see a portion of the harbor improvements completed.

His business interests, which were many, included leasing the Hawaiian Hotel for a time, being a shareholder in the Mutual Telephone Company and serving as vice-president of the People’s Ice and Refrigeration Company. In 1900, he limited his medical practice so that he could devote more time to his extensive real estate holdings.

‘Annexation’ McGrew, he was called by King Kalākaua, who, although opposed to Dr McGrew’s political program, expressed his admiration for the doctor’s sincerity and honesty of purpose.

McGrew was an earnest advocate of annexation long before the Hawaiian monarchy was destroyed by revolution, and not for an instant did he waver from his purpose.

“Three things were embodied in Dr. McGrew’s life here, which, apart from his strong personality, or perhaps because of it, made him a man of mark.”

“He was the most vigilant and hospitable American in Honolulu, especially toward his countrymen. Americans who came here with a claim to consideration found it at his hands; and he was the personal host of visiting admirals and generals.”

“He also kept the medical profession at a high standard; he may be said to have sustained its honorable ethics with as firm a hand as he did the patriotism of the little American community of which he was the inspiring center.”

“Then Dr. McGrew was first, last and all the time an advocate of the United States, and from this object neither royal blandishments nor social or political opposition could swerve him. After the revolution of ’93 he became editor-in-chief of the new annexation paper, the Star.” (Mid-Pacific Magazine, 1912)

When annexation finally became an accomplished fact in 1898, five years after the revolution, Dr McGrew was hailed as “The Father of Annexation,” just as Judge Sanford B. Dole, president of the Republic of Hawaii and first governor of the American Territory, became known in later years as “The Grand Old Man of Hawai‘i.”

“The idea of annexation did not originate with him; but if there is one man to whom it should be assigned, that man is Dr JS McGrew. Twenty years before Mr Stevens ever saw Hawaii, Dr McGrew stated in the strongest terms to me, as he did to about every person who would talk on the subject, that these islands should be, and would be, a part of the United States.” (Plamer)

“The Democratic Party of Hawaiʻi was formed on April 30, 1900 by supporters of the queen in the wake of a plague quarantine in Honolulu. The meeting brought together five men: John H Wilson, son of Marshal of the Kingdom Charles B. Wilson; John S. McGrew, a doctor and supporter of Kalākaua …”

“… Charles J. McCarthy, a saloon owner and former Honolulu Rifle; David Kawānanakoa, prince of the House of Kawānanakoa; and Delbert Evener Metzger, an engineer from Kauai”. (Democratic Revolution)

The godfather of the Democratic party in Hawai‘i was acknowledged to be John S McGrew, a haole medical doctor, who had brought his political allegiance with him to the monarchy of King Kalākaua. (Krauss)

On October 9, 1911, McGrew fell and fractured his right hip; he died from the injuries on November 18, 1911. (Lots of information here is from Nellist, Democratic Revolution and Mid-Pacific Magazine.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

John Strayer McGrew

March 7, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Timeline Tuesday … 1890s

Today’s ‘Timeline Tuesday’ takes us through the 1890s – Kapi‘olani Hospital is formed, Kalākaua dies, Overthrow, Annexation, Pali Road is completed and the first Beachboys organization is formed. We look at what was happening in Hawai‘i during this time period and what else was happening around the rest of the world.

A Comparative Timeline illustrates the events with images and short phrases. This helps us to get a better context on what was happening in Hawai‘i versus the rest of the world. I prepared these a few years ago for a planning project. (Ultimately, they never got used for the project, but I thought they might be on interest to others.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Timeline-1890s