Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by 1 Comment

Revolt, Republic, US Annexation, Statehood

Revolt, Republic … then US Annexation, then Statehood … sound familiar? … How about this? Anglo-American insurrectionists sneaked into and captured the lightly defended government facility; the leading revolutionaries signed a declaration.

Shortly after, several hundred insurrectionists, assembled and declared it a “free and independent state,” adopted a constitution and formed a Republic.

The leader of the fledging Republic, in addressing the new legislature, stated, “Called by your joint and unanimous suffrages, to fill the office of chief magistrate, under the constitution adopted by the people … believing it to be the duty of every citizen at this moment implicitly to obey the call of his country.”

“Placed like you, but as to day, to carry into effect a new system of government, little more it is presumed, might be expected from me at the moment of my entering into office, than the ordinary professions of a governor, addressing the immediate representatives of the people …”

“… yet my solicitude, during these first hours of the convulsive birth of our infant republic, induces me on the present occasion, to ask something more of your attention and indulgence. …”

“We are then entitled to independence, and wherever the voice of justice and humanity can be heard, our declaration, and our just rights will be respected.”

“Our brave volunteers, conducting themselves with temperance and fortitude, like the patriotic chief who is to lead them, will teach the enemy, that Americans understanding the principles of liberty and a free government, are ever ready to sacrifice their lives in its defence; for our cause is too glorious, to be disgraced by fear or by submission.”

“The genius of Washington, the immortal founder of the liberties of America, stimulates that return, and would frown upon our cause, should we attempt to change its course.” They sought annexation to the US.

The US President proclaimed, “a crisis has at length arrived subversive of the order … whereby a failure of the United States to take the said territory into its possession may lead to events ultimately contravening the views of both parties”.

“Considering, moreover, that under these peculiar and imperative circumstances a forbearance on the part of the United States to occupy the territory in question, and thereby guard against the confusions and contingencies which threaten it, might be construed into a dereliction of their title or an insensibility to the importance of the stake …”

“… considering that in the hands of the United States it will not cease to be a subject of fair and friendly negotiation and adjustment; considering, finally, that the acts of Congress, though contemplating a present possession by a foreign authority, have contemplated also an eventual possession of the said territory by the United States, and are accordingly so framed as in that case to extend in their operation to the same”.

Then the president proclaimed, “in pursuance of these weighty and urgent considerations, have deemed it right and requisite that possession should be taken of the said territory in the name and behalf of the United States.”

Shortly thereafter, the US Senate and the House of Representatives passed a joint resolution authorizing the President to ‘occupy and hold all of the tract of country.’

In his subsequent State of the Union address, the President stated, “Among the events growing out of the state of the … Monarchy, … a situation produced exposing the country to ulterior events which might essentially affect the rights and welfare of the Union.”

This wasn’t the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in 1898, it was a revolution by American insurrectionists, Presidential Proclamation and subsequent Congressional Act (House and Senate) annexing West Florida to the US in 1811.

In 1779-81 Spain acquired West Florida, as well as East Florida by right of conquest, confirmed by treaty of 1783. The Treaty of Paris (ending the American Revolutionary War in 1783) transferred British control of East and West Florida back to Spain.

West Florida stretched from the Mississippi River eastward to the Perdido River (the current border of the American states of Alabama and Florida,) up to the 31st parallel.

Things were peaceful until 1808, when Spain appointed Col. Charles Delassus as governor. The inefficiency and corruption of officials under him threatened the prosperity of American colonists in West Florida, who presented demands for political reform.

In the predawn fog of September 23, 1810, about 50 men, led by Revolutionary War veteran Philemon Thomas, walked in the open gate of Fort San Carlos in Baton Rouge. An additional 25 men on horseback rode through a gap in the fort’s wall.

Spanish soldiers discharged a handful of muskets before Thomas’ men let go a single volley that killed or wounded five Spaniards. The remaining soldados surrendered or fled. (Smithsonian)

The beginning of the ‘Free and Independent State of West Florida’ dates with the assembling of the convention, September 23, 1810. (Fulwar Skipwith was elected Governor.) US President James Madison issued the West Florida Proclamation on October 27, 1810.

On December 10, 1810, the Republic of West Florida’s lone star came down and the Stars and Stripes took its place. For the first time, the United States had acquired significant territory from another sovereignty without war or compensation. (Smithsonian) Texas later used the Lone Star layout for its flag.)

President Madison then sent to Congress a secret message regarding the occupation of the Floridas, in response to which Congress, in secret session, passed on January 15, 1811, a resolution which recited that:

“Taking into view the peculiar situation of Spain and of her American provinces, and considering the influence which the destiny of the territory adjoining the southern border of the United States may have upon their security, tranquility and commerce.”

“Be it Resolved, That the United States, under the peculiar circumstances of the existing crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see any part of the said territory pass into the hands of any foreign power …”

“… and that a due regard for their own safety compels them to provide, under certain contingencies, for the temporary occupation of the said territory; they at the same time declaring that the said territory shall, in their hands, remain subject to future negotiations.” (US State Department)

January 22, 1812, by act of Congress, Louisiana was admitted to the American Union as a State. April 14 following, an act adding that part of West Florida lying between the Pearl and Mississippi rivers to Louisiana as constituted, was approved by the President. (Chambers)

In 1828 (in which the court, in speaking of the power of Congress to establish a Territorial Government in Florida until it should become a State,) the Supreme Court declared:

“In the mean time, Florida continues to be a Territory of the United States, governed by that clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress ‘to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.’”

“Perhaps the power of governing a Territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States.”

“The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power may be derived, the possession of it is unquestionable.” (Canter Decision – Decision also cited in Dred Scot Decision)

Flag_of_the_Republic_of_West_Florida_(1810)
Flag_of_the_Republic_of_West_Florida_(1810)
Sketch map showing the territorial changes of 'West Florida'-1898-WC
Sketch map showing the territorial changes of ‘West Florida’-1898-WC
West Florida (including Pensacola, which was not part of the US claim) in the hands of Spain-1806-
West Florida (including Pensacola, which was not part of the US claim) in the hands of Spain-1806-
Congress Joint Resolution Annexing West Florida-Feb_12, 1812

by Leave a Comment

DOJ Opinion of October 4, 1988

“There is no provision in the 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.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“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)

“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)

Some suggest that Hawai‘i was never annexed to the United States and, as proof, refer to the October 4, 1988 Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice Opinion and a subsequent (March 12, 2000) Op-Ed by Steven Newcomb in the Advertiser to support their conclusion.

Some even go as far as adding a quote – “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion notes same. (That was the heading on Newcomb’s Op-Ed and apparently his opinion, not the Department of Justice’s.)

In fact, the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion makes the definitive statement, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898. Joint Res. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (1898). Again, the Senate had already rejected an annexation treaty, this one negotiated by President McKinley with Hawaii.”

“And again, Congress then considered a measure to annex the land by joint resolution. Indeed, Congress acted in explicit reliance on the procedure followed for the acquisition of Texas.”

Before we get far ahead of ourselves, we should first look at the noted Office of Legal Counsel Opinion and its purpose. While some would have you believe it was an opinion addressing Hawai‘i annexation, in fact, that Opinion was prepared to address “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea”.

The Opinion clearly notes on its first page, under Introduction and Summary, that “This responds to the requests, made by your Office (State Department) and an inter-agency working group, for analysis of the constitutional and statutory questions raised by a proposed presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea of the United States from its present breadth of three miles to twelve miles.”

The Opinion was not about Hawai‘i, nor its annexation – in fact, of the 26-pages of the Opinion (not counting appendices,) only 2-pages referenced the process of annexation of Hawai‘i. And Hawai‘i and its annexation to the US are not even mentioned in the Opinion’s Conclusion.

It does note, however, “(t)he constitutionality of the annexation of Hawai‘i, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act.”

“Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable.”

“The stated justification for the joint resolution – the previous acquisition of Texas – simply ignores the reliance the 1845 Congress placed on its power to admit new states. It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”

“Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawai‘i can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

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)

“Whether the Republic is a government de facto or dejure it is entitled to American sympathy, and when it has been recognized, successively, by the United States and all other powers, first, as a government de facto and then as a rightful government, republican in form, and is in a successful career of constitutional authority, our national obligations and all our better sentiments compel us to admit its full power and authority to dispose of any question that concerns its sovereign will and the welfare of its people.”

“If it is true, as some rashly venture to assert, that the United States minister at Hawai‘i and the commander of the warship Boston, in violation of our international duty, assisted a band of revolutionists to depose the queen and to usurp the government of the islands …”

“… it is also true that President Harrison recognized that de facto and provisional government as having the rightful sovereignty in Hawaii, in so far that it could conclude a treaty of annexation with the United States, and such a treaty was duly signed and sent to the Senate.”

“Then President Cleveland, when he came into power, sent Mr Blount as his special commissioner and accredited him to President Dole as the representative of the sovereignty of Hawaii. If he, or those in the Senate who still suffer from the pangs and compunctions of conscience which he is supposed to have felt when he recognized President Dole had then renounced the actions of Minister Stevens and Captain Wiltse …”

“… and if Mr Cleveland had sent a minister to Lili‘uokalani as the rightful sovereign, they would have fully established the sincerity of their objections and would have shown ‘the courage of their convictions.’”

“But, instead of observing that logical course, they sent Mr Willis as minister to Hawai‘i and accredited him to President Dole as the chief executive of Hawai‘i.”

“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)

“Now, after the lapse of five years, it is urged that the Republic is a usurping government; that it is a fraud contrived for the personal advantage of its promoters, and that Lili‘uokalani is still the rightful queen of Hawai‘i….”

“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)

“This act also establishes the fact that a treaty with a foreign State which declares the consent of such State to be annexed to the United States, although it is rejected by the Senate of the United States, is a sufficient expression and authentication of the consent of such foreign State to authorize Congress to enact a law providing for annexation …”

“… which, when complied with, is effectual without further legislation to merge the sovereignty of such independent State into a new and different relation to the United States and toward its own people.” (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.” (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.) (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

And, as noted in the purported document that is inferred to suggest “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Opinion notes same – it does not; that document states, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Click Here to read the DOJ Opinion for yourself.

Click Here to read Newcomb’s Op-Ed.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001
annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001

by Leave a Comment

Statehood

“Hawai‘i is America in a microcosm – a melting pot of many racial and national origins, from which has been produced a common nationality, a common patriotism, a common faith in freedom and in the institutions of America.” (Senator Herbert
Lehman; GPO)

On June 27, 1959, Hawaiʻi registered voters voted on three propositions related to Statehood:

Shall the following propositions, as set forth in Public Law 86-3 entitled “An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union” be adopted?

1. Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?
Yes – 132,773 (94.3%)
No – 7,971 (5.7%)

2. The boundaries of the State of Hawaii shall be as prescribed in the Act of Congress approved March 18, 1959, and all claims of this State to any areas of land or sea outside the boundaries so prescribed are hereby irrevocably relinquished to the United States.
Yes – 132,194 (94.5%)
No – 7,654 (5.5%)

3. All provisions of the Act of Congress approved March 18, 1959, reserving rights or powers to the United States, as well as those prescribing the terms or conditions of the grants of lands or other property therein made to the State of Hawaii are consented by said State and its people.
Yes – 132,281 (94.6%)
No – 7,582 (5.4%)

(There was a 93.6% voter turnout for the General election – as compared to generally less than 50% in recent times – total turnout for the 2016 primary election was only 34.8% (a new low.))

While Hawaiʻi was the 50th State to be admitted into the union on August 21, 1959, Statehood is celebrated annually on the third Friday in August to commemorate the anniversary of the 1959 admission of Hawaiʻi into the Union.

Contrary to comments by some, the Crown and Government lands were not ‘stolen’ from the people with Territorial status, Statehood or any other change in governance. Those lands have been consistently recognized as part of the public domain or government property, as decided by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.

That court noted, “In 1840 (Kamehameha III) granted the first Constitution by which he declared and established the equality before the law of all his subjects, chiefs, and people alike.”

“By that Constitution, he voluntarily divested himself of some of his powers and attributes as an absolute Ruler, and conferred certain political rights upon his subjects, admitting them to a share with himself in legislation and government. This was the beginning of a government as contradistinguished from the person of the King …”

“… who was thenceforth to be regarded rather as the executive chief and political head of the nation than its absolute governor. Certain kinds of public property began to be recognized as Government property, and not as the King’s.”

The Court noted, “These lands are to be in the perpetual keeping of the Legislative Council (Nobles and Representatives) or in that of the superintendents of said lands, appointed by them from time to time …”

“… and shall be regulated, leased, or sold, in accordance with the will of said Nobles and Representatives, for the good of the Hawaiian Government, and to promote the dignity of the Hawaiian Crown.”

The Court found, “while it was clearly the intention of Kamehameha III to protect the lands which he reserved to himself out of the domain which had been acquired by his family through the prowess and skill of his father, the conqueror, from the danger of being treated as public domain or Government property …”

“… it was also his intention to provide that those lands should descend to his heirs and successors, the future wearers of the crown which the conquerer had won; and we understand the act of 7th June, 1848, as having secured both those objects.” (Supreme Court Decision in the Matter of the Estate of Kamehameha IV, 1864)

Following the overthrow, these lands remained for public benefit when they were transferred through changing governments and governance to the Provisional Government, Republic, Territory and State.

This was affirmed by the US Court of Claims noting, “The constitution of the Republic of Hawai‘i, as respects the crown lands, provided as follows: ‘That portion of the public domain heretofore known as crown land is hereby declared to have been heretofore, and now to be, the property of the Hawaiian Government …” (Lili‘uokalani v The United States, 1910)

Beneficiaries of these lands have also not changed – those lands remain part of the public trust for the benefit of Hawai‘i citizens. The government and governance of the Kingdom through Statehood has not been, nor are they now, based on race. People of many races have been and continue to be citizens.

Under the Admission Act, about 1.2-million acres are to “be held by (the) State as a public trust” to promote one or more of five purposes:
1. support of the public schools and other public educational institutions
2. betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians (per the Hawaiian Homes Act, 1920)
3. development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible
4. making of public improvements
5. provision of lands for public use

So, as Statehood is celebrated in the Islands, the lands that were in the public domain over the changing levels and entities of government and governance continue to be held in public trust, for all citizens (just as in the times of the constitutional monarchy.)

“Today, one of the deepest needs of mankind is the need to feel a sense of kinship one with another. Truly all mankind belongs together; from the beginning all mankind has been called into being, nourished, watched over by the love of God.”

“So that the real Golden Rule is Aloha. This is the way of life we shall affirm.”

“Let us affirm ever what we really are – for Aloha is the spirit of God at work in you and in me and in the world, uniting what is separated, overcoming darkness and death, bringing new light and life to all who sit in the darkness of fear, guiding the feet of mankind into the way of peace.”

“Thus may our becoming a State mean to our nation and the world, and may it reaffirm that which was planted in us one hundred and thirty-nine years ago: ‘Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.’” (Reverend Abraham K Akaka; Given on: Friday, March 13, 1959)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

usa-flag
usa-flag

by 3 Comments

Annexation

The Committee of Safety, formally the Citizen’s Committee of Public Safety, was a 13-member group also known as the Annexation Club; they started in 1887 as the Hawaiian League.

The Committee of Safety was made up of 6-Hawaiian citizens (naturalized or by birth;) 5-Americans, 1-Englishman and 1-German (of the 13, none were missionaries and only 3 had missionary family ties.)

“Queen Lili‘uokalani attempted on Saturday, Jan. 14 (1893,) to promulgate a new Constitution, depriving foreigners of the right of franchise and abrogating the existing House of Nobles, at the same time giving her the power of appointing a new House.”

“That meeting unanimously adopted resolutions condemning the action of the Queen and authorizing the committee to take into consideration whatever was necessary for the public safety.” (New York Times, January 28, 1893)

On January 16, 1893, the Committee of Safety wrote a letter to John L Stevens, American Minister, that stated: “We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Honolulu, respectfully represent that, in view of recent public events in this Kingdom …”

“… culminating in the revolutionary acts of Queen Liliʻuokalani on Saturday last, the public safety is menaced and lives and property are in peril, and we appeal to you and the United States forces at your command for assistance.”

Then, “[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawaii, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.” (US Supreme Court; Hawaii v OHA, 2008)

On January 18, 1893, letters acknowledging (de facto) the Provisional Government were prepared by the Imperial German Consulate, Austro-Hungarian Consulate, Consul for Italy, Russian acting consul, Vice-Consul for Spain, Consulate of The Netherlands, Royal Danish Consulate, Consulate of Belgium, Consul for Mexico, Consulate of Chile, Office of the Peruvian Consulate, Consul-General and Charge d’Affaires of Portugal, Consulate and Commissariat of France and Chinese Commercial Agency.

On January 19, 1893, the British Legation and His Imperial Japanese Majesty’s Consulate-General acknowledged the Hawaiian monarchy has been abrogated and a Provisional Government established.

The Provisional Government convened a constitutional convention, approved a new constitution and the Republic of Hawaiʻi was established on July 4, 1894. Shortly after (from August 1894 through January 1895,) a number of letters of formal diplomatic recognition (de jure) of the Republic of Hawai‘i were conveyed to the Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole.

These included formal letters from Austria/Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Chile, China, France, Germany/Prussia, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain , Switzerland and the United States. (These were countries that had prior agreements and treaties with the Hawaiian Monarchy.)

An August 7, 1894 ‘office copy’ letter notes US President Grover Cleveland wrote to Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford B Dole, saying “… I cordially reciprocate the sentiments you express for the continuance of the friendly relations which have existed between the United States and the Hawaiian islands”.

In his annual ‘Message to Congress’ (1895,) President Cleveland noted, “Since communicating the voluminous correspondence in regard to Hawai‘i and the action taken by the Senate and House of Representatives on certain questions submitted to the judgment and wider discretion of Congress …”

“… the organization of a government in place of the provisional arrangement which followed the deposition of the Queen has been announced, with evidence of its effective operation. The recognition usual in such cases has been accorded the new Government.”

Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole sent a delegation to Washington in 1894, seeking annexation to the US. John Sherman, US Secretary of State, prepared a report reviewing the negotiation between representatives of the Republic of Hawai‘i and the US, and provisions of the Treaty of Annexation. That report (June 15, 1897) noted, in part:

“The undersigned, Secretary of State, has the honor to lay before the President, for submission to the Senate, should it be deemed for the public interest so to do, a treaty, signed in the city of Washington on the 16th instant by the undersigned and by the fully empowered representative of the Republic of Hawaii …”

“… whereby the islands constituting the said Republic, and all their dependencies, are fully and absolutely ceded to the United States of America forever.”

“As time passed and the plan of union with the United States became an uncertain contingency, the organization of the Hawaiian Commonwealth underwent necessary changes; the temporary character of its first Government gave place to a permanent scheme under a constitution framed by the representatives of the electors of the islands …”

“… administration by an executive council not chosen by suffrage, but self-appointed, was succeeded by an elective and parliamentary regime, and the ability of the new Government to hold – as the Republic of Hawaii – an independent place in the family of sovereign States, preserving order at home and fulfilling international obligations abroad, has been put to the proof.”

“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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” (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.)

“Turning, then, to the various practical forms of political union, the several phases of a protectorate, an offensive and defensive alliance, and a national guarantee, were passed in review. In all of these the independence of the subordinate state is the distinguishing feature, and with it the assumption by the paramount state of responsibility without domain.”

“There remained, therefore, the annexation of the islands and their complete absorption into the political system of the United States as the only solution satisfying all the given conditions and promising permanency and mutual benefit. The present treaty has been framed on that basis”.

“As to most of these, the negotiators have been constrained and limited by the constitutional powers of the Government of the United States. As in previous instances when the United States has acquired territory by treaty, it has been necessary to reserve all the organic provisions for the action of Congress.”

“If this was requisite in the case of the transfer to the United States of a part of the domain of a titular sovereign, as in the cession of Louisiana by France, of Florida by Spain, or of Alaska by Russia, it is the more requisite when the act is not cession, but union, involving the complete incorporation of an alien sovereignty into the body politic of the United States.”

“For this the only precedent of our political history is found in the uncompleted treaty concluded during President Grant’s Administration, November 29, 1869, for the annexation of the Dominican Republic to the United States.”

“Following that example, the treaty now signed by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and the Republic of Hawaii reserves to the Congress of the United States the determination of all questions affecting the form of government of the annexed territory, the citizenship and elective franchise of its inhabitants, and the manner in which the laws of the United States are to be extended to the islands.”

“In order that this independence of the Congress shall be complete and unquestionable, and pursuant to the recognized doctrine of public law that treaties expire with the independent life of the contracting State, there has been introduced, out of abundant caution, an express proviso for the determination of all treaties heretofore concluded by Hawaii with foreign nations and the extension to the islands of the treaties of the United States.”

“This leaves Congress free to deal with such especial regulation of the contract labor system of the islands as circumstances may require. There being no general provision of existing statutes to prescribe the form of government for newly incorporated territory, it was necessary to stipulate, as in the Dominican precedent …”

“… for continuing the existing machinery of government and laws in the Hawaiian Islands until provision shall be made by law for the government, as a Territory of the United States, of the domain thus incorporated into the Union …”

“… but, having in view the peculiar status created in Hawaii by laws enacted in execution of treaties heretofore concluded between Hawaii and other countries, only such Hawaiian laws are thus provisionally continued as shall not be incompatible with the Constitution or the laws of the United States or with the provisions of this treaty.” (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

Meanwhile, the breaking of diplomatic relations with Spain as a result of her treatment of Cuba so completely absorbed public attention that the matter of Hawaiian annexation seemed to have been forgotten.

The war drama moved swiftly. The destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor precipitated matters, and on April 25, 1898, President McKinley signed the resolutions declaring that a state of war existed between the United States and Spain.

On May 5, Representative Francis Newlands, of Nevada, offered a joint resolution addressing the annexation of Hawai‘i. Though considerable opposition to annexation was still manifested in the House, the Newlands resolutions were finally passed.

The resolutions were immediately reported to the Senate, which had been discussing the treaty for nearly a year. That body referred them to its Committee on Foreign Relations, which in turn at once favorably reported them.

On June 15, 1898, the Newlands resolution passed the House by a vote of 209 to 91; the vote on the Newlands Resolution in the Senate was 42 to 21 (2/3 of the votes by Senators were in favor of the resolution, a significantly greater margin was cast by Representatives in the House.) (Cyclopedic Review of Current History, 4th Quarter 1898)

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 2 states: “(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …” The following day, July 7, 1898, President McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution it into law.

“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”.

On August 12, 1898, there were ceremonial functions held in Honolulu at which the Hawaiian government was formally notified by the United States minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary of the adoption and approval of the joint resolution aforesaid, and at which the Hawaiian government made, an unequivocal transfer and cession of its sovereignty and property. (Territorial Supreme Court; Albany Law Journal)

On June 27, 1959, when the matter of Statehood was put to a popular vote, Hawaiʻi registered voters voted on the question of Statehood (there was a 93.6% voter turnout for the General election – as compared to less than 50% today.)

Shall the following proposition, as set forth in Public Law 86-3 entitled ‘An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union’ be adopted? 1. Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State? – 94.3% voted in support.

While Hawaiʻi was the 50th State to be admitted into the union on August 21, 1959, Statehood is celebrated annually on the third Friday in August to commemorate the anniversary of the 1959 admission of Hawaiʻi into the Union.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

American_flags_on_Iolani_Palace,_Annexation_ceremony_(PP-36-1-008)
American_flags_on_Iolani_Palace,_Annexation_ceremony_(PP-36-1-008)
Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-016-400
Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-016-400
Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-008)
Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-008)
Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-011)
Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-011)
Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-022)
Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-022)
Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-017
Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-017
Annexation_of_Hawaii--PP-35-8-025
Annexation_of_Hawaii–PP-35-8-025
Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-36-1-018
Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-36-1-018
Annexation-Here to Stay-PCA-July 14, 1898
Annexation-Here to Stay-PCA-July 14, 1898

by 1 Comment

Japan’s Hawaiian Protest

Sugar growers, who dominated the Hawaiian Islands’ economy, imported thousands of immigrant laborers first from China, then Japan. (Mintz & McNeil)

“Although the efforts of Hawai‘i to establish treaty relations with Japan met with success in 1871, no considerable number of Japanese immigrants arrived during the years immediately following. Primarily to offset the numerical preponderance of the Chinese plantation laborers, the Hawaiian Government signed an immigration convention with Japan in 1886.”

“With startling rapidity the islands were flooded with Japanese, whose numbers increased from 116 in 1883 to 24,407 in 1896, out of a total population of 109,020.” (Bailey)

“The great influx of Japanese into the Hawaiian Islands during the last several years and especially during the last few months is causing anxiety to the Hawaiian government and to Americans who favor the annexation of the islands to the United States.”

“According to the recent reports of Consul-General Ellis Mills, the Japanese rank second in numerical strength among the nations represented in the Hawaiian Islands.” (The Chautauquan, 1897)

“Faced with the prospect of domination at the hands of a foreign people, the Hawaiian government began as early as 1887 to take fruitless measures to stem this oriental inundation.”

“The situation finally became so desperate that her Hawaiian officials, alleging irregularities, refused admittance to 1,174 Japanese immigrants during March, 1897, and sent them back to Japan.” (Bailey)

“This threatened monopolization of power by the Japanese has been urged during the McKinley administration as a plea for the annexation of the islands by the United States. However, no occasion for special alarm occurred till early in April.” (The Chautauquan, 1897)

At the time, the Republic of Hawai‘i and the US were in discussions for annexation of the Islands by the US. Japan protested Hawaiian annexation.

“Japanese minister, Toru Hoshi, calls the attention of Secretary Sherman to the rumor that the governments of the United States and of Hawai‘i were upon the point of concluding a treaty of annexation, a rumor the circumstantiality of which had caused it to be the subject for an interview between them before the note was sent to the secretary.”

“In the note itself the minister stated that the Japanese government could not view without concern the prospects of a sudden and complete change in the status of Hawai‘i, whereby the rights of Japan and of Japanese subjects may be imperiled, and that while they confidently relied upon the United States to maintain towards them a just and friendly attitude …”

“… they felt that under the circumstances they could not be regarded as spectators merely, without interest in the important change which was about to be made. For these reasons the minister said he felt himself justified in inquiring of the secretary what provision had been made for the preservation and maintenance of the rights acquired by Japan under treaty.” (Los Angeles Herald, July 25, 1897)

At the time, the “Japanese in the islands with large property rights, and under the present conditions they are entitled to become citizens of Hawai‘i.”

“In case of annexation these Japanese could not become citizens of the United States, as the decisions of United States Circuit Courts are to the effect that no Asiatic can become a citizen of the United, States.”

“The Japanese base their opposition to annexation almost entirely upon the ground that it is an interference with the treaty rights of Japan and complain especially that the treaty was negotiated in the face of the most friendly protestations from Japan and at a time when the Japanese authorities had been led to believe that no such treaty would be undertaken.”

“The Japanese insist, as on all former occasions, that the Japanese Government has not now and never has had any designs against Hawai‘i. This they consider a most important point because of the talk about colonization which they say apparently has had so much weight in the discussions of the question.”

“They contend that the Japanese just went to Hawai‘i in response to the demands for labor in the islands under provision of a treaty concluded in 1886 at the solicitation of the Hawaiian Government.” (New York Times, June 27, 1897)

“Hawaiians in Washington insist that the reason for the protest of Japan against annexation is that Japan really desires to acquire the Islands herself.” (New York Times, June 25, 1897)

“The evident intention of Japan to take possession of the islands has caused some uneasiness in Washington among those who favor annexation, and it is said that prompt action should be taken by this Government to prevent such a calamity.”

“It is now known here that, notwithstanding the demands at the time concerning the reason of the Philadelphia’s hurried trip to Honolulu …”

“… that ship was really ordered there on account of news received from the American representative there calling attention to the floods of Japanese pouring into the country and the evident intention of the Japanese to overwhelm the other people there, both native and foreign.” (Sacramento Daily News, April 13, 1897)

“The Japanese assert that Hawai‘i took no steps to restrict immigration from Japan until last February, when a sudden and suspicious demand was made upon Japan to this end. This, it is claimed, is evidence sufficient that there is no flooding of the Island.”

“The Japanese regarded this demand from the island Government as capricious and concluded that it was made for increasing the agitation in the interest of annexation, and to furnish a pretext for speedy action in that direction.”

“In view of these explanations on their part to the United States, the Japanese complain of the suddenness of the announcement of the Hawaiian treaty of annexation, and say the treaty was consummated when they had reason from official assurances for believing that no hasty action in that direction was contemplated.” (New York Times, June 27, 1897)

US Secretary of State John Sherman relied to the Japanese protests saying, “What the Hawaiian treaty of annexation proposes is the extension of the treaties of the United States to the incorporated territory to replace the necessarily extinguished Hawaiian treaties in order that the guarantees of treaty rights to all may be unquestionable and continuous.”

“To this end the termination of the existing treaties of Hawai‘i is recited as a condition precedent. The treaty of annexation does not abrogate these instruments. It is the fact of the Hawai‘i’s ceasing to exist as an independent contract that extinguishes those contracts.”

“As to the vested rights, if any be established in favor of Japan and of Japanese subjects in Hawai‘i, the case is different, and I repeat that ‘there is nothing in the proposed treaty prejudicial to the rights of Japan.’”

“Treaties are terminable in a variety of ways; that of 1886, between Japan and Hawai‘i, to which your protest is supposed to relate, is by either party on six months’ notice, but its extension would no more extinguish vested rights, previously acquired under Its stipulations, than the repeal of a municipal law affects rights of property vested under its provisions.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 14, 1897)

“This reply of Secretary Sherman was not satisfactory to the Japanese government, for in three days thereafter the minister having communicated with the Japanese minister for foreign affairs In the meantime, he laid before the secretary his formal protest against the annexation of the islands.”

“The protest concluded with an emphatic and unequivocal repudiation of the suggestion or report that Japan had designs against the integrity or sovereignty of Hawai‘i and a declaration that Japan has not now and never had such designs or designs of any kind whatever against Hawai‘i.”

“In this shape the incident remains for the present. It is scarcely conceivable that the protest of Japan can have any appreciable effect upon the fate of the treaty.” (Los Angeles Herald, July 25, 1897)

With the country aroused by the Spanish American War and political leaders fearful that the Islands might be annexed by Japan, the joint resolution easily passed Congress. Hawai‘i officially became a US territory in 1900. (Mintz & McNeil)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Uncle Sam Hawaii Annexation Cartoon
Uncle Sam Hawaii Annexation Cartoon
Uncle Sam Annexation Cartoon
Uncle Sam Annexation Cartoon
Japanese Ambition
Japanese Ambition