Annexation

August 12, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

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)

“… 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”.

“… 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

American_flags_on_Iolani_Palace,_Annexation_ceremony_(PP-36-1-008)

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-016-400

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-008)

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-011)

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-022)

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-017

Annexation_of_Hawaii–PP-35-8-025

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-36-1-018

Annexation-Here to Stay-PCA-July 14, 1898

July 25, 2016 by Peter T Young 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

Uncle Sam Hawaii Annexation Cartoon

Uncle Sam Annexation Cartoon

Japanese Ambition

July 7, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Annexation Into US – Is A Treaty Required?

“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.”

“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)

“In the Legal Tender Cases, Mr. Justice Strong, speaking for the majority of the court, said that the adoption of the first ten amendments indicated that in the judgment of those who adopted the Constitution there were powers created by it not specified nor deducible from, or ancillary to, any one specified power ‘but which grew out of the aggregate of powers conferred upon the government, or out of the sovereignty instituted.’”

“Mr. Justice Bradley in a concurring opinion characterized the United States as ‘a national government and the only government in this country having the character of nationality,’ and added:”

“Such being the character of the General government, it seems to be a self-evident proposition that it is invested with all those inherent and implied powers which, at the time of adopting the Constitution, were generally considered to belong to every government as such, and as being essential to the exercise of its functions.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“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))

“An act of congress passed in 1856, declared that guano islands taken into possession and occupation by American citizens, might be declared by the President to be ‘appertaining to the United States.’” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“An act of Congress provides for the acquisition by Executive proclamation of any islands valuable for their deposits of guano, discovered by citizens of the United States and not, at the time of discovery, occupied or possessed by any other government or its citizens.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“In regard to this statute, the supreme court has recently declared that ‘by the law of nations, recognized by all civilized states, dominion of new territory may be acquired by discovery and occupation, as well as by cession or conquest …”

“‘… and when citizens or subjects of one nation, in its name, and by its authority or assent, take and hold actual, continuous, and useful possession (although only for the purpose of carrying on a particular business, such as catching and curing fish, or working mines) of territory unoccupied by any other government or its citizens …’”

“‘… the nation to which they belong may exercise such jurisdiction and for such period as it sees fit over territory so acquired. This principle affords ample warrant for the legislation of congress concerning guano islands.’” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

In 1811, another annexation of foreign territory (West Florida) resulted from a Presidential Proclamation followed by an act of Congress (House and Senate participation.)

The Supreme Court, in speaking of the power of Congress to establish the Territorial Government in Florida until it should become a state, declared, “In the mean time, Florida continues to be a territory of the United States …”

“… governed by virtue of that clause in 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 is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned.” (Canter Decision – Decision also cited in Dred Scott Decision)

Then, 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….”

“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)

On May 5, 1898, 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.

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-Here to Stay-PCA-July 14, 1898

April 23, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

If the Newlands Resolutions is Not Valid – What does Hawaii Revert to?

“This was resisted by the foreign element of the community, which at once appointed a committee of safety of thirteen members, which called a mass meeting of their classes, at which 1,200 or 1,500 were present.”

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 (American parentage;)) 5-Americans, 1-Englishman and 1-German (none were missionaries and only 3 had missionary family ties.)

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.”

“About 5 o’clock in the afternoon (January 16, 1893,) the USS Boston landed about three hundred men. Each man had two belts of cartridges around his waist and was armed with a rifle. The men marched up to the office of the Consul-General of the United States where a halt was made.”

“The Marines were detached and sent to the American Legation on Nuʻuanu Avenue, while the sailors marched out along Merchant Street with two gatling guns and made a halt at Mr JA Hopper’s residence. About sundown they moved to the grounds of Mr JB Atherton’s and after a stay of several hours returned to the Arion Hall, where they camped overnight.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 17, 1893)

“HE Cooper read a proclamation abrogating the Monarchy and creating a Provisional Government. The proclamation dismissed the present Ministry and the Marshal. The following Cabinet was then read: …”

“… Hon. SB Dole, Minister of Foreign Affairs; PC Jones, Minister of Finance; Captain JA King, Minister of Interior; WO Smith, Attorney-General. (They made up the Executive Council of the Provisional Government.) They will call on the protection of the American Government.”

“At 3:15 o’clock a wagon load of men and ammunition arrived at the Government building.” (Daily Bulletin, January 17, 1893) “Armed volunteers arrived from the Beretania Street Armory to reinforce the force already at the Government building, and were posted over the yard.” (Daily Bulletin, January 18, 1893)

To avoid bloodshed, the Queen yielded her throne on January 17, 1893 and temporarily relinquished her throne to “the superior military forces of the United States”. The Committee immediately proclaimed itself to be the Provisional Government.

Almost immediately following the overthrow, Consulate offices in Honolulu recognized the Provisional Government as the “de facto government of the Hawaiian Islands.” John L Stevens, for the US Legation, acknowledged the Provisional Government on January 17, 1893.

The ‘recognition’ of a state under international law is a declaration of intent by one state to acknowledge another power as a ‘state’ within the meaning of international law. Recognition constitutes a unilateral declaration of intent. It is entirely at the discretion of any state to decide to recognize another as a subject of international law.

A distinction is also drawn between de jure and de facto recognition. If a state is accorded de jure recognition that means all the preconditions under international law for final and complete recognition have been fulfilled. De facto recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional. (Blazek, Swiss Government Portal)

On January 18, 1893, 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 wrote letters acknowledging (de facto) the Provisional Government.

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.

US President Benjamin Harrison signed a treaty of annexation with the new government, but before the US Senate could ratify it, Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison as President and subsequently withdrew the treaty. (archives-gov)

“On December 18 of the same year, President Cleveland, unimpressed and indeed offended by the actions of the American Minister, denounced the role of the American forces and called for restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.” (US Supreme Court, Rice v Cayetano)

Act 69 of the Provisional Government called for “a convention to frame a Constitution,” as well as the election of delegates to the convention. (March 15, 1894)

Qualifications of electors to decide who the delegates would be included “Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands, of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have taken the oath by this Act provided …”

“… who shall have paid his taxes for the year 1893, unless exempted by law from paying taxes; who shall have attained the age of twenty years; who shall have been domiciled in the Hawaiian Islands for one year, and shall have caused his name, to be entered on the list of voters of the precinct in which he reside, and …”

“… who is not insane or an idiot, or who shall not have been convicted of a felony, unless pardoned, shall be entitled to a vote for the delegates to be elected from the island on which such voter resides.” (Act 69, Section 4, Laws of the Provisional Government)

These limitations to voting eligibility are generally typical for this time frame. US Women’s right to vote (19th Amendment to the US Constitution) was ratified on August 18, 1920.

The ‘oath’ electors and delegates swore noted that he does “solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God that I will support and bear true allegiance to the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and will oppose any attempt to reestablish monarchical government in any form in the Hawaiian Islands.” (Act 69, Section 18, Laws of the Provisional Government)

Oaths like these were typical. Following the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who surrendered were required to sign oaths before they could return to their homes (1860s.) It noted, in part, “…I will bear true faith, allegiance, and loyalty to the Government of the United States; that I will support and defend its constitution, laws, and supremacy against all enemies whether domestic or foreign …”

“Further, that I will not in any wise give aid or comfort to, or hold communication with any enemy of the Government, or any person who sustains or supports the so-called Confederate States; but will abstain from all business, dealing, or communication with such persons.” (Schraf)

Today, naturalized citizens “declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic …” (US Citizenship and Immigration Services)

Today, in Hawaiʻi (and elsewhere,) “All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii …”

“As used in this section, ‘eligible public officers’ means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate.” (Article XVI, Section 4, Hawaiʻi Constitution)

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.”

It’s interesting to note that fifty years prior, on November 28, 1843, the British and French Governments united in a joint declaration and entered into a formal agreement recognizing Hawaiian monarchy independence (Lord Aberdeen signed on behalf of Britain, French ambassador Louis Saint-Aulaire signed on behalf of France.)

The Declaration states: “Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, taking into consideration the existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations have thought it right to engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent State and never to take possession, either directly or under the title of protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed.”

“The undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and the ambassador extraordinary of His Majesty the King of the French, at the court of London, being furnished with the necessary powers, hereby declare in consequence that their said majesties take reciprocally that engagement.” (Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics)

However fifty years later, both Britain and France acknowledged the Republic of Hawai‘i through de jure recognition as an independent state. Queen Victoria noted in a September 19, 1894 letter to President Sanford Dole, “We thank you for this communication, and we request you to accept our congratulations on this distinguished mark of the confidence of your fellow citizens …”

“… and we offer you our best wishes for your health and welfare, and for the prosperity of the Republic over which you preside.” Casimir Perier, President of the Republic of France, sent similar sentiments and congratulations to President Sanford Dole.

Hawai‘i was later annexed to the US through the Newlands Resolution. “The Newlands Resolution further provided that all ‘property and rights’ in the ceded lands ‘are vested in the United States of America.’” “Two years later, Congress established a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i. … The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in ‘absolute fee’ under that resolution.”

“In 1959, Congress admitted Hawai‘i to the Union (hereinafter Admission Act). Under the Admission Act, with exceptions not relevant here, ‘the United States grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union, the United States’ title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.’”

“In 1993, Congress enacted a joint resolution ‘to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawai‘i and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians.’ Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, … (hereinafter Apology Resolution).”

“The Apology Resolution did not strip Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.” (US Supreme Court)

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.

Even with repeated judicial acknowledgement of Newlands Resolution, some have suggested the Newlands Resolution was not done properly. As such, they suggest the monarchy remains.

However, there were two internationally recognized entities that followed the Hawaiian Monarchy – the Provisional Government (with international de facto recognition) and the Republic of Hawai‘i (with international de jure recognition.)

The last being the Republic of Hawai‘i, that negotiated and agreed to the terms of the Newlands Resolution … that led to annexation, territorial status and Hawai‘i becoming the 50th state.

So, a point to ponder, if the Newlands resolution is not valid – what does Hawai‘i revert to?

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

1845 (May) - Feb 1893 The current Hawaiian flag introduced in 1845

March 31, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

US Annexation (almost, in 1854)

“I have positive and undeniable information, from the highest sources at Honolulu, to the effect that a Treaty is about concluded between Mr (David Lawrence) Gregg, the United States Commissioner, and the Government of the Islands, for their annexation to the United States forthwith. “

“The only unsettled question in relation to the annexation is, whether the Islands shall come in as a Territory or a State. Mr Gregg insists on the former.” (New York Daily Tribune, July 20, 1854)

Whoa, let’s look back …

The subject of annexation to the United States was for the first time seriously considered by the Hawaiian Government in 1851. (Alexander)

Through a Protectorate Proclamation (March 10th, 1851,) King Kauikeaouli “By and with the advice of our kuhina nui and counsellors of native chiefs … hereby proclaim as our royal will and pleasure that all our islands and all our rights as sovereign over them are from the date hereto placed under the protection and safeguard of the United States of America …”

“… until some arrangements can be made to place our said relations with France upon a footing compatible with my rights as an independent sovereign under the laws of nations and compatible with my treaty engagements with other foreign nations; or, if such arrangements be found impracticable, then is our wish and pleasure that the protection aforesaid under the United States of America be perpetual.”

On March 31, 1851, an appeal to the President of the US, by Robert Crichton Wyllie, Hawai‘i’s Minister of Foreign Relations and Luther Severance, Commissioner of the United States (and signed by King Kauikeaouli and Keoni Ana (Kuhina Nui,)) noted, in part:

“the King and chiefs remembering the events of 1839 and 1849, distrust France and fear her”
“France has not kept her engagement with Great Britain and does not mean to treat this Kingdom as under the protection of international law”
“The King … believes that Great Britain is so fettered with France that she can afford him no certain hope of present relief”
“the King, … appealed in his helplessness to the Commissioner of the United States, and now solemnly appeals to the President”
“the King would prefer that this Kingdom be received as an Independent State, under protection merely from foreign aggression”
“If that cannot be done, rather than continue to be the victim of foreign aggression, the mere shadow of a king without the power, but with responsibilities measured out by the arbitrary rule of the strong, We will resign the Sovereignty of these Islands into the hands of the United States”

On June 21, 1851, a Joint Resolution by the Nobles and Representatives of the Hawaiian Islands in Legislative Council Assembled, resolved that “if France should persist … it will be the duty of the King to shield himself and his kingdom from insult, and oppression by placing this kingdom under the protection of some friendly state …”

“The discovery of gold in California in 1848, which led to the speedy settlement of that State, and to the opening of new routes across the American continent, ushered in a new era in the history of the Hawaiian Islands. It opened a new market for their productions, and brought them into closer commercial relations with the United States.”

“During the years 1850-54 a considerable immigration from California took place. It embraced many restless, ambitious spirits, some of whom came for the purpose of exciting revolution. They found the foreign community already split into factions, between which bitter feuds existed of long standing.”

“Many of the newcomers naturally joined the opposition party, which claimed to be the liberal and progressive element in the country. The plan of the leaders of the new movement seems to have been to reconstruct the government, and then to turn it over to the United States.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, May 11, 1909)

In February 6, 1854, an order of the King to Wyllie noted, “that plans are on foot inimical (unfavorable) to the peace of Our Kingdom and the welfare of our people, and such as if carried out would be wholly subversive of Our Sovereignty, and would reduce Us to the most deplorable of all states, a state of anarchy …”

“Whereas, exigencies (emergencies) may arise of such a nature as to render it imperative upon Us, for the security of the just rights of Our chiefs and people, that We should seek the alliance of the United States of America.”

“We Do Hereby command you, Our Minister of Foreign Relations, to take such immediate steps as may be necessary and proper, by negotiation or otherwise, to ascertain the views of the United States in relation to the Annexation thereto of these Islands …”

“… and also the terms and conditions upon which the same can be affected, with the object of being fully prepared to meet any sudden danger that may arise, threatening the existence or independence of Our Kingdom.” (Signed by the King and Keoni Ana (Kuhina Nui))

Subsequent instructions from the King to Wyllie (February 21, 1854) noted, “You will immediately enter upon a negotiation ad referendum with the Commissioners of the United States of America, in case of necessity, and which shall fully secure Our rights and the rights of Our chiefs and people …”

“When the treaty ad referendum as aforesaid, is completed, you will submit the same to Us, which will be subject to Our approval, modification or rejection; and in case We shall deem it wise and necessary, to submit it to the Representatives of Our people, subject also to their approval.” (Signed by King Kamehameha III, and approved by Prince Liholiho, Keoni Ana and all the Ministers)

“On the 4th of July, 1854, the foreign community expressed their hopes of annexation by a grand celebration of the day. A car, decorated with evergreens, in which were seated thirty-two girls of American parentage, dressed in white, wreathed in flowers, each bearing the name of a State on her sash, in large gold letters, was drawn by a power unseen.”

“Next followed ‘Young America,’ a company of very young men in uniform, with another triumphal chariot, on which was placed a beautiful boy, the very personification of health, strength, and beauty. ‘Young Hawaii’ was in tow, and represented by a boat gaily trimmed, in which were eight young native lads, fancifully dressed, and carelessly eating sugar-cane.”

“The procession marched through the principal streets to the stone church, where an eloquent address was delivered by the American Commissioner, in which it was more than hinted that a new star was about to be added to the glorious constellation.” (Judd)

As noted above, “a Treaty is about concluded … (for Hawaiʻi’s) annexation to the United States … The only unsettled question in relation to the annexation is, whether the Islands shall come in as a Territory or a State.” (New York Daily Tribune, July 20, 1854)

The issue of State vs. Territory was a little deeper than that simple choice – it related to when Hawai‘i was annexed whether Hawai‘i would or would not allow slavery. (US President Franklin Pierce wanted Hawai‘i to have Territorial status.)

At that time, the US was on the verge of a civil war over the slavery issue.

If the Islands came in as a State, it would have been with a constitution forever excluding slavery, while if came in as a Territory, the people of the Territory would decide the slavery question for themselves. (Alexander)

It is interesting (and important) to note that, “The protestant missionaries at these Islands have never engaged in any scheme of annexation. It has been their cherished wish, that the government may remain independent under the present constitution and rulers.”

“Whatever may have been done by merchants, planters, or others, the protestant clergymen at the Islands have neither advised, nor signed any memorial to the King touching annexation.” (American Protestant Missionaries Ephraim Weston Clark and Peter Johnson Gulick, in a statement in The Polynesian, September 10, 1853.)

Later, “In a letter published in August, 1864, Mr. Clark stated that at the annual convocation in May, 1853, he had frequent conversations with other missionaries on this engrossing subject. ‘Not one of them expressed an opinion in its favor …”

“… but on the contrary, they did express doubts as to its expediency, and grave apprehensions of disaster to the natives from the influx of lawless and unprincipled foreigners.’” (Alexander; Pacific Commercial Advertiser, May 11, 1909)

The Annexation Treaty was never finalized, “The signatures were yet wanting; His Majesty more determined and impatient than ever, when he was taken suddenly ill, and died in three weeks (December 15, 1854.)” (Judd)

As Mr Severance truly said, “His partiality to Americans has always been strong, and it will be universally conceded that by his death they have lost a faithful and honorable friend.”

His adopted son and heir, Alexander Liholiho, was immediately proclaimed king, under the title of Kamehameha IV. Soon afterwards he expressed his wish that the negotiations that had been begun with Mr Gregg should be broken off, which was done. (Alexander)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger