Annexation | Page 4 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

February 8, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

John Leavitt Stevens

“That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu, and declared that he would support the said provisional government.” (Lili‘uokalani, January 17, 1893)

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.” (US Supreme Court; Hawaii v OHA, 2008)

John Leavitt Stevens, journalist, author and diplomat, was born in Mount Vernon, Maine, August 1, 1820. By his own efforts he was educated at the Maine Wesleyan Seminary and the Waterville Liberal Institute for the Universalist ministry.

After ten years in the service of this denomination, he was attracted by the intensely interesting condition of national affairs, of which he was always a keen observer, into newspaper work, entering into partnership in 1855 with the late James G. Blaine in conducting The Kennebec Journal.

There he remained for nearly fourteen years, and it was during this period that he obtained that influence in the political world that was afterward recognized by his foreign appointments from the Government. He was repeatedly sent to the State Legislature and Senate, and was one of the chief movers in the formation of the Republican Party in Maine.

In 1870, Stevens accepted the position of United States Minister to Uruguay and Paraguay under President Grant. He resigned after remaining in Montevideo about three years.

He took a very active part in the Presidential campaign of 1876, acting as Chairman of the Republican State Committee of his native State,

He was rewarded with an appointment as Minister to Sweden and Norway in 1877, which position he held until 1883. In June, 1889, Stevens was appointed Minister to the Hawaiian Islands, his title soon after being changed to Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary. (NY Times, February 9, 1895)

“Although Stevens exaggerated the threatening situation in Hawai‘i, there was indeed some cause for American uneasiness. After the constitutional reforms of 1887, the split between foreigners and native nationalists had widened”

“British capitalists, stimulated by the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, sought new investments; a rumor circulated that Britain would welcome a protectorate.” (Pletcher)

“When the long-expected revolution finally began in January 1893, it was brought about by two interacting and partly indistinguishable groups, one wanting an independent Hawaiian republic and another seeking annexation to the US.”

“The immediate cause lay in two actions by Queen Liliuokalani. First she replaced a pro-American cabinet with a group of ill-qualified timeservers on whom she could rely.”

“Then, and more important, she revealed her determination to proclaim a new constitution, increasing the royal power and requiring all voters to be naturalized and take an oath of loyalty to her.”

“The course of the revolution was considerably simpler than its causes; it lasted two days and was almost entirely bloodless. (With) the queen’s announcement that the new constitution would be introduced …”

“… the Annexation Club carried out plans already discussed with Stevens and Captain GC Wiltse of the American Cruiser Boston, then in port. Wiltse landed 154 marines to restore order”. (Pletcher)

Stevens supported annexation by the US and in December 1893, he wrote ‘A Plea for Annexation’ in The North American Review where he concluded, “To say that we do not need the Hawaiian Islands as a security to our immense future interests is but the babble of children or of incompetent men.”

“It is blindly and recklessly to ignore the logic of irresistible circumstances, and to scoff at the plainest teachings of history. No! America cannot get rid of her future responsibilities if she would, and all attempts to do so will be at the cost of her future generations.”

“In the light of these inexorable truths, in the name of what is most sacred in Christian civilization, in behalf of a noble American colony, holding the advanced post of America’s progress …”

“… I cherish the faith that the American people, the American statesmen, and the American government, thoughtful of America’s great future, will settle the Hawaiian question wisely and well will see to it that the flag of the United States floats unmolested over the Hawaiian Islands.” (Stevens, The North American Review, December 1893)

“President Cleveland, directly after his inauguration, sent a message to the Senate withdrawing the question of annexation from further consideration; and a Commissioner, Mr. Blount, was sent to report on the situation. He ordered the protectorate withdrawn as unnecessary.”

“Mr. Stevens immediately resigned and returned home. He then devoted himself, in the public prints and on the platform, to a denunciation of the Administration’s Hawaiian policy.” Stevens died February 8, 1895 at his home in Augusta Maine. (NY Times, February 9, 1895)

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 Leavitt Stevens

January 17, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

John Lota Kaulukou

“John Kaulukou, ‘racked native candidates who sympathized with Caucasians … after carefully piling up factual evidence against his opposition concluded … that his native opponents ‘kissed the hoofs’ and ‘did the bidding’ of white enemies of the Hawaiian race, and that they ‘wanted to run the country in their own interests.’” (Osorio)

John Lota Kaulukou was speaker of the House of Representative of the Kingdom of Hawaii of the district of Honolulu from 1880 to 1886 and also served in many posts including Postmaster General, Attorney General (October 13, 1886 – October 23, 1886) and Marshal of the Kingdom.

Kaulukou was the leading native lawyer in Honolulu, a man of strong native sense and force, with much combativeness and insistence, but genial manner. (Bishop)

As an ardent Royalist, he’d been a strong supporter of Kalākaua and was outspoken in his opposition to the ‘Bayonet Constitution’ of 1887, which weakened Kalākaua’s power to rule and restricted voting rights only to Hawaiian, American, and European men, provided they met prescribed economic and literacy tests. (Soboleski)

When Kalākaua’s Hale Nauā Society was forming, at its initial meeting on September 20, 1886 were King Kalākaua and Queen Kapiʻolani … members included John Lota Kaulukou, elected representative in the Hawaiian legislature during the 1880s. (HJH)

According to its constitution, the society was “the revival of Ancient Sciences of Hawaii in combination with the promotion and advancement of Modern Sciences, Art, Literature, and Philanthropy.” (Daws)

The original hale nauā scrutinized the genealogical qualifications of those who claimed relationship to the chiefs, as Hawaiian historian David Malo described in a short passage of Moʻolelo Hawaiʻi.

The doings at the house were conducted in the following manner. When the king had entered the house and taken his seat, in the midst of a large assembly of people including many skilled genealogists, two guards were posted outside at the gate of the pa. (The guards were called kaikuono.) (Malo)

If the genealogists who were sitting with the king recognized a suitable relationship to exist between the ancestry of the candidate and that of the king he was approved of. (Malo)

“(O)n or about 2:30 pm of the 17th day of January last (1893,) it had been declared in front of the Government building a new form of government for Hawai‘i nei known as the ‘Provisional Government’ …”

“… that at the said time the troops of the Boston were lined between the Government building and the Arion Hall, and well supplied with ammunition and Gatling guns, which were faced to the palace, where Her Majesty the Queen, was then residing”.

“(T)he Provisional Government at the aforesaid time had only 50 armed men, more or less, and it could have been suppressed by the guards of the Queen’s Government in a short time …”

“… at the aforesaid time Her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani was residing in the palace and had charge of that building, the barracks, the guards, and the ammunition, and also the police station, where Marshal Chas. B. Wilson, the constables, and those who lent their assistance to Her Majesty the Queen’s Government, who have been well armed.”

“That at the aforesaid time the said buildings, the police force, and the other public buildings were riot under the charge of the Provisional Government, and that in or about 2:45 pm of said date …”

“… Chas L Hopkins took a communication from the Queen’s cabinet from the police station, where they were then, to JL Stevens, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, residing at the court of the Hawaiian Islands”.

“ (O)n or about 3:15 pm of said date the said Chas L Hopkins returned to the said police station with a letter from said JL Stevens; and that after that it had been announced to the public, who were there then …”

“… that said United States minister, JL Stevens, had recognized the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and will back and help the said Provisional Government, and not to Her Majesty the Queen’s Government.” (Affidavit of John Lota Kaulukou; Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, May 18, 1894)

While a Royalist, he appears to appreciate the actual political situation of Hawai‘i better than a majority of the natives, and seems likely to be of service to his countrymen. (Bishop)

“I regard Annexation as the best thing that could happen for Hawaii, both native and foreign population. I have advocated it ever since it became an issue in political politics and I rejoice heartily that it has come.”

“For years I have looked upon it as being, if not inevitable, at least as the only way in which the best interests of Hawaii could be protected and advanced.”

“The Queen and some of her partisans were then striving for an entirely new Constitution. … The platform upon which I went before the people was that an attempt to replace the then Constitution with an entirely new instrument was, in the condition of affairs that existed at that time, dangerous both to the Queen and to the Native Hawaiians.”

“I urged that the better way was to secure the changes that seemed desirable by amendment. I told the people that the country was in no mood to submit to the Queen’s notions of unlimited power, and that if the effort to entirely overthrow the constitution and replace it with a new one were persisted in, there would be an end of monarchy.”

“I said that the interests of the natives and of the foreign residents were identical; that both wanted a stable, efficient and well-administered government, and that the way to this lay through representative government, and not through unlimited monarchy.”

“I said that what the Hawaiians needed was better schools, better public improvements and more of them, an equitable assessment of taxes and an honest administration of the revenues for public purposes, and not more power in the monarchy and more … display and ostentation in the court.” (John Lot Kaulukou; San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 1898)

“With the establishment of the Provisional Government and the Republic, I advised my people to take the oath of allegiance, to take part in public affairs and to join with the ‘haoles’ …”

“… among whom were many of their best friends and very many of their best advisers, in securing good government and that advance in material and intellectual prosperity which our race pride made us believe was within our power and the achievements of some of our people have demonstrated that it is so.”

“In annexation, I saw, or thought I saw, that stability of government and constant source of influence and association in governmental, social and educational affairs which would enable the Hawaiian people to develop and advance to the plane of the highest civilization.”

“I, too, am an Hawaiian. These islands bear in their bosom the bones of my ancestors to the remotest generation. I am proud of my race. I am proud of my nationality. But in annexation I see a larger place for my race, and the stream of national life merging in a still larger national life will flow in deeper and wider channels, in larger and more widespread influence.”

“I shall, as I have done in the past, urge my people to take part in public affairs, to cultivate both individual and civic virtues, to be Americans in that enjoyment and exercise of liberty which is the birthright of an American, as it is the greatest guarantee of race progress and national perpetuity.” (John Lot Kaulukou; San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 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

John_Lota_Kaulukou-WC

December 10, 2016 by Peter T Young 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)

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-

Congress Joint Resolution Annexing West Florida-Feb_12, 1812

October 4, 2016 by Peter T Young 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

annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001

August 21, 2016 by Peter T Young 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

usa-flag