Images of Old Hawaiʻi

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
    • Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance
    • American Protestant Mission
    • Buildings
    • Collections
    • Economy
    • Missionaries / Churches / Religious Buildings
    • General
    • Hawaiian Traditions
    • Other Summaries
    • Mayflower Summaries
    • Mayflower Full Summaries
    • Military
    • Place Names
    • Prominent People
    • Schools
    • Sailing, Shipping & Shipwrecks
    • Voyage of the Thaddeus
  • Collections
  • Contact
  • Follow

January 17, 2023 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Overthrow

Some suggest the overthrow of the Hawai‘i constitutional monarchy was neither unexpected nor sudden.

Dissatisfaction with the rule of Kalākaua and Lili‘uokalani initially led to the ‘Bayonet Constitution,’ then, the overthrow. “(M)ounting dissatisfaction with government policies and private acts of officials led to the formation of the Hawaiian League, a group of Honolulu businessmen.” (Forbes)

Challenges with Kalākaua
• Polynesian Confederacy
• “(Gibson) discerned but little difficulty in the way of organizing such a political union, over which Kalākaua would be the logical emperor, and the Premier of an almost boundless empire of Polynesian archipelagoes.” (Daggett; Pacific Commercial Advertiser, February 6, 1900)

Opium License Bribery Case
• Initially the king, through his minister of foreign affairs, disclaimed any involvement. However, “To cap the climax of the opium matter, the Attorney General proceeds to acknowledge that the money was paid over by the Chinese … (H)e informed the gentlemen interested in getting the money back that he would never accomplish his object so long as he allowed the newspaper to speak of the affair.” (Hawaiian Gazette, May 17, 1887)

Extravagance/Debt
• Although Kalākaua had been elected and serving as King since 1874, upon returning from a trip around the world (1881), it was determined that Hawaiʻi’s King should also be properly crowned.
• “ʻIolani Palace, the new building of that name, had been completed the previous year (1882), and a large pavilion had been erected immediately in front of it for the celebration of the coronation. This was exclusively for the accommodation of the royal family; but there was adjacent thereto a sort of amphitheatre, capable of holding ten thousand persons, intended for the occupation of the people.” (Liliʻuokalani)

Bayonet Constitution (1887)
• In 1887, the struggle for control of Hawaiʻi was at its height with David Kalākaua on the throne. But some of the businessmen were distrustful of him. “So the mercantile element, as embodied in the Chamber of Commerce, the sugar planters, and the proprietors of the ‘missionary’ stores, formed a distinct political party, called the ‘down-town’ party, whose purpose was to minimize or entirely subvert other interests, and especially the prerogatives of the crown, which, based upon ancient custom and the authority of the island chiefs, were the sole guaranty of our nationality.” (Liliʻuokalani)

Concern with Lili‘uokalani’s Attempt to Rewrite the Constitution
• “When Lili‘uokalani became Queen, she took the following oath: ‘I solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God, to maintain the Constitution of the Kingdom whole and inviolate, and to govern in conformity therewith.’” (UH Law School)
• “On January 14, 1893, Lili‘uokalani was prepared to ignore the constitutionally mandated approval-by-two-successive Legislatures process for amending the 1887 Constitution by announcing a new constitution in place of Kalākaua’s 1887 Constitution.” (UH Law School)
• “She did not do so because the Cabinet she appointed on January 13, 1893, refused her authorization request. The members of that Cabinet were Samuel Parker, William Henry Cornwell, Jr,, Arthur P. Peterson and John Colburn. Parker was a Native Hawaiian.” (UH Law School)

Some Native Hawaiian Dissatisfaction with the Acts of Kalākaua and Lili‘uokalani
• Robert W Wilcox – the man who figured so prominently & conspicuously in the revolution of 1889 (All quotes from Wilcox, Morgan Report)
o “Queen Lili‘uokalani brought these evils upon herself and the country both by her personal corruption, and that of her Government.”
o “I believe that if we can be annexed to the United States, the rights of all of our citizens, and especially those of the native Hawaiians, will be protected more carefully than they have ever been under the monarchy.”
o “They are naturally somewhat prejudiced against (the Provisional Government), as monarchy is the only form of Government with which they are familiar, but this feeling will quickly wear away as the Hawaiians are led to see that the Government is friendly to them and their interests. They already have confidence in the integrity and patriotism of President Dole.
o “I have repeatedly (advocated annexation to the United States) in public meetings held in this city. … but I am compelled to move cautiously or I shall lose my influence over them. I believe I am doing a good work by constantly conversing with them on the subject.”
o “I have told my countrymen that the monarchy is gone forever, and when they ask me what is the best thing to follow it I tell them annexation, and I firmly believe that in a very short time every Hawaiian will be in favor of that step.” (Robert W Wilcox – the man who figured so prominently & conspicuously in the revolution of 1889; Morgan Report)

Repeated Changes in Cabinet Ministers in the Kalākaua and Lili‘uokalani Reigns
• “Under every constitution prior to 1887 the ministers were appointed by the King and removed by him; but until Kalākaua’s reign it was a very rare thing that any King changed his ministry. They had a pretty long lease of political life.” (Judd; Blount Report)
• “It was a very rare political occurrence, and made a great sensation when a change was made.” (Judd; Blount Report) if

January 14, 1893 Lili‘uokalani’s Ministers Refused to Support Her Constitution – Threats of Bloodshed were Made Against Her Cabinet Ministers
• “The Queen retired to the blue room and summoned the ministers (Samuel Parker – Minister of Foreign Affairs; John F Colburn – Minister of Interior; William H Crowell – Minister of Finance; Arthur P Peterson – Attorney General) who repaired at once to the palace. The Queen was at a table, still dressed in the magnificent costume of the morning, and sparkling in a coronet of diamonds.”
• “She at once presented them with the draft of the new constitution, demanded their signatures, and declared her intention to promulgate the same at once.”
• “Attorney-general Peterson and Minister of Interior Colburn decidedly refused to do so, and Ministers Cornwell and Parker, though more hesitatingly, joined their colleagues in this refusal.”

The Provisional Government (and subsequent Republic, Territory & State) did not steal the land from the Hawaiian people – Crown Lands Remain in the Public Trust
• Crown and Government Lands, though under the control of changing sovereigns and governments (Kingdom to Provisional Government to Republic to Territory to State,) were in and continue to remain in the ‘public domain’ for the public good.
• US Court of Claims concluded, “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)
• We now generally refer to the Crown and Government Lands as ‘ceded’ lands. 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:
o support of the public schools and other public educational institutions
o betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians (per the Hawaiian Homes Act, 1920)
o development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible
o making of public improvements
o provision of lands for public use

The United States does not have to acquire property only through a Treaty of Annexation with a concurring vote by the US Senate.
• 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)
• “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.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

To read more on the overthrow Click HERE:

Here is the URL: https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/Overthrow.pdf

One more correction to the many misconceptions … on January 17, 1893, the Hawai‘i constitutional monarchy was overthrown, not the Hawaiian race.

Commenters, please focus on the facts and if referring to the linked document. Please note the page and line number you are referring to (please include your source reference, as well).

© 2023 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Raising_of_American_flag_at_Iolani_Palace-1898
Raising_of_American_flag_at_Iolani_Palace-1898

Filed Under: General, Economy, Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance, Military, Prominent People Tagged With: Liliuokalani, Constitutional Government, Queen Liliuokalani, Extravgance, Kalakaua, Debt, Hawaiian Constitution, Polynesian Confederacy, Hawaiian Citizenship, King Kalakaua, Constitutional Monarchy, Overthrow, Opium

January 17, 2020 by Peter T Young 6 Comments

Hawaiian Citizenship – It’s About Nationality, Not Race

Who are Hawaiian Citizens and Hawaiian Subjects?

“Nationality” means the legal bond between a person and a State and does not indicate the person’s ethnic origin. Everyone has the right to a nationality. (European Convention on Nationality)

One of the earliest laws in Hawaiʻi dealt with citizenship (nationality – not ethnicity;) it was part of King Kamehameha III’s Statute Laws 1845-1846. The Chapter for that law was headed: “Of Subjects and Foreigners” and the specific Article was labeled “Aliens, Denizens and Natives.”

Following is the law concerning Hawaiian citizenship, part of King Kamehameha III’s Statute Laws 1845-1846 (first, the original law in Hawaiian; then, the English translation:)

Pauku 3. O na kanaka a pau i hanau malalo o ka malu o keia Aupuni, ina na na makua o ke Aupuni e, a ina na haole hoohiki i kanaka Hawaii, a ina na na kanaka maoli, a me ka poe i hanau ma ka aina e, ina no keia Aupuni na makua, a mahope hele mai na keiki e noho haanei, e manaoia kela poe a pau, he aie i ka hoolohe i ka Moi, ke alii ka lakou ma ka hanau ana, a e kau no ke kanawai o keia Aupuni maluna o lakou.

O na kanaka a pau i hanau ma na aina e, ina no ka aina e na makua, a hoohiki ole hoi e like me ka olelo iloko o keia haawina alaila. e manaoia lakou he lahui e, a e hanaia’ku lakou e na’lii o keia Aupuni pela, e like nae me ka olelo o ke kanawai.

Section III. All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty.

All such persons shall be amenable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects. All persons born abroad of foreign parents, shall, unless duly naturalized, as in this article prescribed, be deemed aliens, and treated as such, pursuant to the laws. (Ka Huli Ao Digital Archives – Punawaiola-org)

Hawaiʻi followed the Anglo-American common law rule of “jus soli;” those born in the country and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. The common law rule traces back to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.

Subsequent interpretation of the laws and practices affirmed who were Hawaiian citizens and what rights and obligations they possessed.

In 1850, HW Whitney, born in Hawaiʻi of foreign parents, asked the Minister of the Interior, John Young II, about his status. The question was referred to Asher B Bates, legal adviser to the Government, who replied …

… “not only the Hawaiian Statutes but the Law of Nations, grant to an individual born under the Sovereignty of this Kingdom, an inalienable right, to all of the rights and privileges of a subject.” (Hanifin)

In 1856, the Kingdom’s Supreme Court decided Naone v. Thurston, recognizing that persons born in Hawaiʻi of foreign parents were Hawaiian subjects.

On January 21, 1868, the Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency Ferdinand Hutchison, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality:

“In the judgment of His Majesty’s Government, no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents, (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the kingdom, or unless having been the subject of another power, he becomes a subject of this kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.”

Subsequent laws through the Republic, Territory and State provide that “All persons born or naturalized in the Hawaiian Islands, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic, are citizens thereof.”

Today, there remain ongoing claims and discussions about restoring the Hawaiian Government that was deposed on January 17, 1893 and replaced by the Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi, later the Republic of Hawaiʻi, then annexation and statehood.

The Hawaiian nation was overthrown … not the Hawaiian race (it was a constitutional monarchy, not race-limited.)

Yet, to date, apparently, the only people permitted to exercise their rights related to discussions on restoration, reparation, sovereignty, independence, etc related to the Hawaiian nation have been those of one race, the Native Hawaiians.

In the ongoing nation-building exercise, lately there was Kau Inoa (registration of Native Hawaiians in Hawaiʻi and abroad who will be a part of the new Hawaiian nation and receive benefits provided by the new government,) later Kanaʻiolowalu (registration on an Official Roll and joining together to rebuild a Hawaiian nation,) and now Na‘i Aupuni (who are guiding an election, convention and ratification process where Hawaiians who wish to participate can be heard.)

Kanaʻiolowalu limits participation to “lineal descendant[s] of the people who lived and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778”; a goal of the registration is “self-recognition of our unrelinquished sovereignty”. The latter and latest, suggests an ʻAha (“convention … gathering of elected delegates”) that may conduct a ratification vote.

Likewise, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (Akaka Bill,) and groups like Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi, Nation of Hawaiʻi, Ka Pakaukau, Poka Laenui, Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiian Kingdom Government and the rest seem to seek to restore or reclaim on behalf of Native Hawaiian. (This does not even count the endless rhetoric on social media.)

A Hawaiian citizen or subject is someone that has the political status of being a Hawaiian national. And it’s not limited to the native race or the aboriginal blood. (Keanu Sai)

If annexation did not happen, today descendants of Hawaiʻi-born or foreign-born naturalized Hawaiian citizens (with no proof of later naturalization to another nation) are still Hawaiian subjects, as their predecessors were in the Kingdom era. (Keanu Sai)

All Hawaiian citizens lost their nation in 1893 … Hawaiian citizens with their varying ethnicities, not just those who lived in the Islands prior to 1778.

Listening to the ongoing rhetoric, some seen to argue that only those of the Hawaiian race have rights and benefits of the Hawaiian kingdom (including claims to the ceded lands).

Why aren’t all Hawaiian citizens included in the recognition and sovereignty discussions and decisions today?

The kingdom was not raced based; all citizens (Native Hawaiians, born here or naturalized) have “an inalienable right, to all of the rights and privileges of a subject.”

(The text and translation of documents here are from Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law, William S. Richardson School of Law.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2020 Hoʻokuleana LLC

1845 (May) - Feb 1893 The current Hawaiian flag introduced in 1845-400

Filed Under: Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance Tagged With: Hawaii, Hawaiian Citizenship, Kanaka Maoli

July 25, 2017 by Peter T Young 6 Comments

It’s Not About Race

“When you talk about minorities in Hawaiʻi, you’re talking about everyone. Unlike in most states, no racial or ethnic group constitutes a majority in the Aloha State.” (Time)

In the dawn hours of January 18, 1778, on his third expedition, British explorer Captain James Cook on the HMS Resolution and Captain Charles Clerke of the HMS Discovery first sighted what Cook named the Sandwich Islands (that were later named the Hawaiian Islands.) Hawaiian lives changed with sudden and lasting impact, when western contact changed the course of history for Hawai‘i.

At the time of Cook’s arrival, the Hawaiian Islands were divided into four kingdoms: (1) the island of Hawaiʻi under the rule of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, who also had possession of the Hāna district of east Maui; (2) Maui (except the Hāna district,) Molokai, Lānaʻi and Kahoʻolawe, ruled by Kahekili; (3) Oʻahu, under the rule of Kahahana; and at (4) Kauai and Niʻihau, Kamakahelei was ruler.

In 1782, Kamehameha started his conquest to rule the Islands. After conquering the Island of Hawaiʻi, he moved on to defeat the armies in Maui Nui and concluded his wars on Oʻahu at the Battle of Nuʻuanu in 1795. After failed attempts at conquering Kauaʻi, he negotiated peace with Kaumualiʻi and the Island chain was under his control (1810.)

Providing the Means, as well as Ways to this End, many foreigners (mostly white men) supported Kamehameha, including John Young, Isaac Davis, Don Francisco de Paula Marin, George Beckley and Alexander Adams (and others.)

In April of 1819, Spaniard Don Francisco de Paula Marin was summoned to the Big Island of Hawai‘i to assist Kamehameha, who had become ill. Although he had no formal medical training, Marin had some basic medical knowledge, but was not able to improve the condition of Kamehameha. On May 8, 1819, King Kamehameha I died.

Following the death of Kamehameha I, leadership was passed to his son, Liholiho, who would rule as Kamehameha II. Kaʻahumanu (Kamehameha I’s favorite wife) recruited Liholiho’s mother, Keōpūolani, to join her in convincing Liholiho to break the kapu system which had been the rigid code of Hawaiians for centuries.

“An extraordinary event marked the period of Liholiho’s rule, in the breaking down of the ancient tabus, the doing away with the power of the kahunas to declare tabus and to offer sacrifices, and the abolition of the tabu which forbade eating with women (ʻAi Noa, or free eating.)” (Kamakau)

Kekuaokalani, Liholiho’s cousin, opposed the abolition of the kapu system and assumed the responsibility of leading those who opposed its abolition. These included priests, some courtiers, and the traditional territorial chiefs of the middle rank. Kekuaokalani demanded that Liholiho withdraw his edict on abolition of the kapu system. (Daws)

Kamehameha II refused. After attempts to settle peacefully, “Friendly means have failed; it is for you to act now,” and Keōpūolani then ordered Kalanimōku to prepare for war on Kekuaokalani. Arms and ammunition were given out that evening to everyone who was trained in warfare, and feather capes and helmets distributed. (Kamakau)

In December 1819, just seven months after the death of Kamehameha I, the two powerful cousins engaged at the final Hawaiian battle of Kuamoʻo, on the jagged lava fields south of Keauhou Bay. Liholiho had more men, more weapons and more wealth to ensure his victory. He sent his prime minister, Kalanimōku, to defeat his stubborn cousin.

Kaʻahumanu would rule as an equal with Liholiho and created the office of Kuhina Nui (similar to premier, prime minister or regent.) Kaʻahumanu was, at one time, arguably, the most powerful figure in the Hawaiian Islands, and helped usher in a new era for the Hawaiian kingdom.

She ruled first with Kamehameha II until his departure for England in 1823 (where he died in 1824) and then as regent for Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III). Kaʻahumanu assumed control of the business of government, including authority over land matters. Kaʻahumanu was such a powerful person and Kuhina Nui that subsequent female Kuhina Nui adopted her name, (Kaʻahumanu II, III & IV.)

Some have suggested it was the missionaries that ended the kapu that disrupted the social/political system in the Islands; that is not true – the missionaries had not even arrived in the Islands, yet. The kapu was abolished by Hawaiians and it affected only Hawaiians.

On April 4, 1820, the Pioneer Company of American Protestant missionaries arrived from the northeast US at Kailua-Kona (after the death of Kamehameha I and the abolition of the kapu by Liholiho, Kaʻahumanu and Keōpūolani.) There were seven American Caucasian couples sent by the ABCFM to convert the Hawaiians to Christianity.

Soon after the first anniversary of their landing at Honolulu on April 19, 1821, Kaʻahumanu, Kalanimōku and Kalākua visited the mission and gave them supplies. This visit became important because during it Kaʻahumanu made her first request for prayer and showed her first interest in the teachings of the missionaries. From that point on, Kaʻahumanu comes into more constant contact with the mission.

On February 11, 1824, Kaʻahumanu made one of her first public speeches on religious questions, giving “plain, serious, close and faithful advice.”

At a meeting of the chiefs and school teachers, Kaʻahumanu and Kalanimōku declared their determination to “adhere to the instructions of the missionaries, to attend to learning, observe the Sabbath, Worship God, and obey his law, and have all their people instructed.” The Hawaiian people followed their native leaders, accepting the missionaries as their new priestly class. (Schulz)

Ka‘ahumanu had requested baptism for Keōpūolani and Keʻeaumoku when they were dying, but she waited until April, 1824, before requesting the same for herself. “She was admitted to the church in 1825, and was baptized by the name of Elizabeth.” (Lucy Thurston)

“Her influence and authority had long been paramount and undisputed with the natives, and was now discreetly used for the benefit of the nation.”

“She visited the whole length and breadth of the Islands, to recommend to her people, attention to schools, and to the doctrines and duties of the word of God, and exerted all her influence to suppress vice, and restrain the evils which threatened the ruin of her nation.” (Lucy Thurston)

The arrival of the first company of American missionaries in Hawai¬ʻi marked the beginning of Hawaiʻi’s phenomenal rise to literacy. The chiefs became proponents for education and edicts were enacted by the King and the council of chiefs to stimulate the people to reading and writing. Missionaries taught, but also taught the Hawaiians to be teachers.

By 1831, in just eleven years from the first arrival of the missionaries, Hawaiians had built 1,103 schoolhouses. This covered every district throughout the eight major islands and serviced an estimated 52,882 students. (Laimana)

In 1839, King Kamehameha III called for the formation of the Chiefs’ Children’s School (Royal School.) The main goal of this school was to groom the next generation of the highest ranking Chiefs’ children and secure their positions for Hawaiʻi’s Kingdom.

The King asked white missionaries Amos Starr Cooke and Juliette Montague Cooke to teach the 16-royal children and run the school. The Hawai‘i sovereigns who reigned over the Hawaiian people from 1855 were educated in this school.

This included, Alexander Liholiho (King Kamehameha IV;) Emma Naʻea Rooke (Queen Emma;) Lot Kapuāiwa (King Kamehameha V;) William Lunalilo (King Lunalilo;) Bernice Pauahi (Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, founder of Kamehameha Schools;) David Kalākaua (King Kalākaua) and Lydia Liliʻu Kamakaʻeha (Queen Liliʻuokalani.)

Interestingly, these same early missionaries taught their lessons in Hawaiian, rather than English. In part, the mission did not want to create a separate caste and portion of the community as English-speaking Hawaiians.

Kamehameha III asked missionary William Richards (who had previously been asked to serve as Queen Keōpūolani’s religious teacher) to become an advisor to the King as instructor in law, political economy and the administration of affairs generally.

Betsey Stockton served with Richards at Lāhainā; she was an African American missionary who was part of the American mission, and the only single woman missionary to the Islands.

Richards gave classes to King Kamehameha III and his Chiefs on the Western ideas of rule of law and economics. His decision to assist the King ultimately resulted in his resignation from the mission, when the ABCFM board refused to allow him to belong to the mission while assisting the King.

“The Hawaiian people believed in William Richards, the foreigner who taught the king to change the government of the Hawaiian people to a constitutional monarchy and end that of a supreme ruler, and his views were adopted.” (Kamakau)

Of his own free will, King Kamehameha III granted the Constitution of 1840, as a benefit to his country and people, that established his Government upon a declared plan. (Rex v. Booth – Hanifin)

That constitution introduced the innovation of representatives chosen by the people (rather than, as previously, solely selected by the Aliʻi.) This gave the common people a share in the government’s actual political power for the first time. Hawaiʻi was not a race-based constitutional monarchy – Hawaiian citizens were from varying ethnicities.

Today, there remain ongoing claims and discussions about restoring the Hawaiian Government that was deposed on January 17, 1893 and replaced by the Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi, later the Republic of Hawaiʻi, then annexation and statehood.

Some suggest that “American white supremacist racists” overthrew the constitutional monarchy and initiated a calculated campaign of social, cultural and spiritual genocide.

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.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 17, 1893)

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 (3-by birth and 3 naturalized (1-former American, 1-former German & 1-former Tasmanian;)) 5-Americans, 1-Scotsman and 1-German.

Most were not American, and, BTW, none were missionaries and only 3 had missionary family ties – the Missionary Period ended in 1863, a generation before the overthrow. I am not sure where the evidence is that they were racist, or what the details were for the ‘calculated campaign.’

Some suggest the make-up of the 1901 Legislature (the first Legislature in the Territory of Hawai‘i) as an example of racial tensions and concern for lack of racial representation of the people.

In 1900, the Kanaka Maoli (aboriginal Hawaiians) had formed their own political party, called the Home Rule Party, through merging two organizations, Hui Aloha ‘Āina and Hui Kālai‘āina, who had worked together to support Queen Lili‘uokalani and oppose annexation. (Silva)

That year, the Home Rulers elected Robert Wilcox as Hawaiʻi’s first delegate to the US Congress. (However, on July 10, 1902, Prince Kūhiō split from the Home Rule Party, joined the Republican Party and won the Congressional seat in the election on November 4, 1902.)

Some suggest the early Legislative elections and party affiliations were based on race (Home Rule for Hawaiians and Republicans for whites.) However, it’s interesting to note that in 1901, 1903 and 1905 there was successive decline in representation by Home Rule candidates in the Legislature, although there continued to be a total of around 30-Hawaiians (out of 45) in the Legislature.

The next election (1907,) there was only 1-Home Rule party member serving in the Senate, and none in the House; however, a total of 32-Hawaiians were in the Legislature; there were more Hawaiians in the Legislature then, than that first 1901 session. With Republicans dominating both chambers, it is clear that most of the Hawaiians were Republicans. (While the Home Rule Party was race-based, the Republican Party was not.)

It is evident that native Hawaiians did not need the ‘Home Rule’ race-based political party to get representation in the local or national legislatures. After a decade of election losses, the Home Rule Party was disbanded after the elections of 1912.

However, Hawaiian representation in the Legislature continued to be just under 30 – out of a total of 45 (15-Senators and 30-Representatives.) (Report of Secretary of the Interior)

Since ‘contact,’ Hawaiians (especially Hawaiian Aliʻi and Chiefs) had partnered and collaborated with the white foreigners. Kamehameha was successful because of his collaboration with the white foreigners.

Over the years, the growing partnership and collaboration between native Hawaiians and the American Protestant missionaries resulted in the introduction of Christianity, a written Hawaiian language, literacy, constitutional government, Western medicine and an evolving music tradition.

Today, “White residents make up just a quarter of the population — the lowest proportion in the country (which is 66% white overall, according to US Census figures.) Nearly 40% of Hawaiians are classified as Asian, with an additional 9% native Hawaiian. … Hawaii (is) a place where ‘racial and ethnic lines are often blurred or deemed irrelevant.’” (Time)

Our forefathers of different races got along fine; I am not sure what the benefit (or goal) is with repeated slurs and racial rants, today. The Hawaiian nation was overthrown … not the Hawaiian race (it was a constitutional monarchy, not race-limited.)

By international practice and laws, as well as the specific laws and practice of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiian citizenship in the constitutional monarchy included people of other races (not just native Hawaiians.) Their descendants carry the same right to citizenship as the native Hawaiians.

Yet, to date, apparently, the only people permitted to exercise their rights related to discussions on restoration, reparation, sovereignty, independence, etc related to the Hawaiian nation have been those of one race, the native Hawaiians.

All Hawaiian citizens lost their nation in 1893 … Hawaiian citizens with their varying ethnicities, not just those who descend from those who lived in the Islands prior to 1778.

Why aren’t all Hawaiian citizens included in the recognition and sovereignty discussions and decisions today? And, why don’t people stop the racial focus, name-calling and racial rants (and other inappropriate distractions), and start working together?

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2017 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Hawaiian-Islands-NASA1

Filed Under: Economy, General, Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance, Missionaries / Churches / Religious Buildings, Prominent People Tagged With: Constitutional Monarchy, Medicine, Nationality, Christianity, Hawaii, Literacy, Music, Race, Hawaiian Constitution, Education, Sovereignty, Hawaiian Citizenship

July 31, 2015 by Peter T Young 7 Comments

It’s About Nationality, Not Race

Today, we celebrate Ka La Hoʻihoʻi Ea, Sovereignty Restoration Day; it relates back to 1843 when Lord George Paulet, purportedly representing the British Crown, overstepped his bounds, landed sailors and marines, seized the government buildings in Honolulu and forced King Kamehameha III to cede the Hawaiian kingdom to Great Britain.

Queen Victoria, on learning the injustice done, immediately sent Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas to the islands to restore sovereignty to its rightful rulers. After five-months of occupation, on July 31, 1843, the Hawaiian flag was raised and sovereignty restored.

The ceremony was held in an area known as Kulaokahuʻa (The Plains;) the site of the ceremony was turned into a park, it was later called Thomas Square.

Today, there remain ongoing claims and discussions about restoring the Hawaiian Government that was deposed on January 17, 1893 and replaced by the Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi, later the Republic of Hawaiʻi, then annexation and statehood.

The Hawaiian nation was overthrown … not the Hawaiian race (it was a constitutional monarchy, not race-limited.)

Yet, to date, apparently, the only people permitted to exercise their rights related to discussions on restoration, reparation, sovereignty, independence, etc related to the Hawaiian nation have been those of one race, the native Hawaiians.

In the ongoing nation-building exercise, lately there was Kau Inoa (registration of Native Hawaiians in Hawaiʻi and abroad who will be a part of the new Hawaiian nation and receive benefits provided by the new government,) later Kanaʻiolowalu (registration on an Official Roll and joining together to rebuild a Hawaiian nation,) and now Na‘i Aupuni (who are guiding an election, convention and ratification process where Hawaiians who wish to participate can be heard.)

Kanaʻiolowalu limits participation to “lineal descendant[s] of the people who lived and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778”; a goal of the registration is “self-recognition of our unrelinquished sovereignty”. The latter and latest, suggests an ʻAha (“convention … gathering of elected delegates”) that may conduct a ratification vote.

Likewise, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (Akaka Bill,) and groups like Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi, Nation of Hawaiʻi, Ka Pakaukau, Poka Laenui, Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiian Kingdom Government and the rest seem to seek to restore or reclaim on behalf of kanaka maoli.

However, all Hawaiian citizens lost their nation in 1893 … Hawaiian citizens with their varying ethnicities, not just those who lived in the Islands prior to 1778.

Why aren’t all Hawaiian citizens included in the recognition and sovereignty discussions and decisions today?

Nationality derives from what nation you are from. It’s your citizenship. Another term for nationality is your political status. Race is not nationality. It’s not a political status. Race is your ethnicity. (Keanu Sai; noted in AlohaQuest)

Hawai‘i was built up of many racial ethnic extractions or heritage, but they all came under one nationality, called a Hawaiian citizen or subject. (Keanu Sai)

A Hawaiian citizen or subject is someone that has the political status of being a Hawaiian national. And it’s not limited to the native race or the aboriginal blood. (Keanu Sai)

If annexation did not happen, today descendants of Hawaiʻi-born or foreign-born naturalized Hawaiian citizens (with no proof of later naturalization to another nation) are still Hawaiian subjects, as their predecessors were in the Kingdom era. (Keanu Sai)

‘Nationality’ means the legal bond between a person and a State and does not indicate the person’s ethnic origin. Everyone has the right to a nationality. (European Convention on Nationality)

At one time, jus sanguinis (right of blood) was the sole means of determining nationality in Asia and Europe (where it is still widespread in Central and Eastern Europe.) An individual belonged to a family, a tribe or a people, not to a territory. It was a basic tenet of Roman law.

Jus soli (right of the soil,) also known as birthright citizenship, is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state.

At times, exceptions limit citizenship, typically when a child was born to a parent in the diplomatic or consular service of another state, on a mission to the state in question or a child born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory.

One of the earliest laws in Hawaiʻi dealt with citizenship; it was part of King Kamehameha III’s Statute Laws 1845-1846. The Chapter for that law was titled: “Of Subjects and Foreigners” and the specific Article was labeled “Aliens, Denizens and Natives.”

Section III of that law noted: All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. All such persons shall be amenable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects.

All persons born abroad of foreign parents, shall, unless duly naturalized, as in this article prescribed, be deemed aliens, and treated as such, pursuant to the laws. (Ka Huli Ao Digital Archives – Punawaiola-org)

Hawaiʻi followed the Anglo-American common law rule of “jus soli;” those born in the country and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. Subsequent interpretation of the laws and practices affirmed who were Hawaiian citizens and what rights and obligations they possessed.

In 1850, HW Whitney, born in Hawaiʻi of foreign parents, asked the Minister of the Interior, John Young II, about his status. The question was referred to Asher B Bates, legal adviser to the Government, who replied that, “not only the Hawaiian Statutes but the Law of Nations, grant to an individual born under the Sovereignty of this Kingdom, an inalienable right, to all of the rights and privileges of a subject.” (Hanifin)

In 1856, the Kingdom’s Supreme Court decided Naone v. Thurston, recognizing that persons born in Hawaiʻi of foreign parents were Hawaiian subjects.

On January 21, 1868, the Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, Ferdinand Hutchison, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality:

“In the judgment of His Majesty’s Government, no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents (either native or naturalized,) during their temporary absence from the kingdom, or unless having been the subject of another power, he becomes a subject of this kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.”

Subsequent laws through the Republic, Territory and State provide that “All persons born or naturalized in the Hawaiian Islands, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic, are citizens thereof.”

A lot of non-kanaka maoli were born in the Islands or became naturalized citizens, or are descendants of such. By laws and practice, they, too, are Hawaiian citizens … history and the laws related to Hawaiian citizen status are clear and unambiguous.

In 1893, all Hawaiian citizens lost their nation … Hawaiian citizens with varying ethnicities. As noted by Keanu Sai, “Hawai‘i was a country of laws and nationality and not necessarily a specific race.”

If there are to be discussions and decisions leading to restoration, reparation, sovereignty, independence, etc that affect all Hawaiian citizens, whatever their ethnicity, all should be included in that process.

Again, why aren’t all Hawaiian citizens included in these discussions and decisions, today?

I am sure these others will be heard from at some time – it would be better that they are included, sooner than later.

The image shows the Hawaiian Kingdom flag, ‘Ka Hae Hawaii’ as observed by Louis Choris in 1816. It flew over the Islands from 1816-1843.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2015 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Hawaiian Flag - 1816-1845
Hawaiian Flag – 1816-1845

Filed Under: Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance Tagged With: Hawaii, Ka La Hoihoi Ea, Sovereignty, Hawaiian Citizenship, Nationality

Images of Old Hawaiʻi

People, places, and events in Hawaiʻi’s past come alive through text and media in “Images of Old Hawaiʻi.” These posts are informal historic summaries presented for personal, non-commercial, and educational purposes.

Info@Hookuleana.com

Connect with Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Posts

  • James Otis
  • Raising the United States Flag
  • Kamehameha III’s Secret Agreement of US Annexation
  • Daguerreotype
  • Wahiawā
  • Math’s Life Lessons
  • The Great Ocean

Categories

  • General
  • Ali'i / Chiefs / Governance
  • Buildings
  • Missionaries / Churches / Religious Buildings
  • Hawaiian Traditions
  • Military
  • Place Names
  • Prominent People
  • Schools
  • Sailing, Shipping & Shipwrecks
  • Economy
  • Voyage of the Thaddeus
  • Mayflower Summaries
  • American Revolution

Tags

August Hering Charles Sheldon Judd Chief D-Day Dentistry DOE Dredging Ephraim Weston Clark Floating Island Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Hawaii Invasive Species Council HECO Henry AP Carter Henry Martyn Whitney John Webber Joseph Boyd Poindexter Kalaniopuu Kanaina Ka Wai O Pele Keei Kini Popo Lava Tube Liliuokalani Educational Society Makai Arterial Makanau Makaweli Molokai Oklahoma Paia High School PASH Patricia Jennings Pohaku O Lanai Ponoholo Ranch Puuhonua Richard Boone Robert Boyd St Catherine's St John Vianney Termite Palace Territorial Hospital Waikiki Roughwater Swim Waikolu Yale Yokohama Specie Bank Zephaniah Swift Spalding

Hoʻokuleana LLC

Hoʻokuleana LLC is a Planning and Consulting firm assisting property owners with Land Use Planning efforts, including Environmental Review, Entitlement Process, Permitting, Community Outreach, etc. We are uniquely positioned to assist you in a variety of needs.

Info@Hookuleana.com

Copyright © 2012-2021 Peter T Young, Hoʻokuleana LLC

 

Loading Comments...