Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hawaii State Constitution of 1950

“In January 1948, the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs directed Senator Cordon of Oregon to make an investigation of Hawaii’s statehood qualifications.”

“The investigation was made in January, 1948. Senator Cordon supported the recommendations of previous congressional committees and himself recommended that the United States Senate take immediate action favorable to statehood.”

“His report stated in part. ‘Any other recommendations would be inconsistent with the facts and evidence disclosed during the investigation, the desires of Hawaii’s people and the conclusions reached by the last two Congressional Investigating Committees.’”

“Additional hearings were held by the Senate SubCommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs on April 15, 1948, but no report was issued.”

“An effort was made by Senator Knowland of California, by resolution, to discharge the committee and to have the statehood issue come to the floor directly. On May 20, 1948, the Senate voted 21 to 50 against Senator Knowland’s resolution discharging the committee.”

“In anticipation of statehood, and prior to the passage of Act 334 by the 1949 territorial legislature, authorizing a constitutional convention, the Hawaii Statehood Commission in 1948 established a number of subcommittees to prepare general materials dealing with the problems involved in the drafting of a constitution.”

“These subcommittees met and submitted reports dealing with major constitutional areas, which were discussed with various groups. The Legislative Reference Bureau of the University of Hawaii prepared a number of reports in connection with the work of the subcommittees.”

“These reports, drafted by the Bureau from 1948 to early 1950, became part of a 400-page publication, which was later made available to members of the constitutional convention, entitled Manual of State Constitutional Provisions.”

“The work of the subcommittees established by the Hawaii Statehood Commission served to create a great deal of interest in the convening of a constitutional convention. It also resulted in many of the committee members seeking election as delegates to the Constitutional convention.”

“Act 334 provided for the election of 63 delegates from all of the islands which constitute the Territory of Hawaii. The delegates were to be elected at a primary and then general elections, similar to the normal political elections in Hawaii.”

“The elections were to be held throughout the islands and all qualified voters of the islands were eligible to run for office. The use of the election procedure adopted by the legislature indicated a desire to provide broad representation from the community and for opportunity for full discussion, particularly important since this was to be the first State Constitution for Hawaii.”

“The delegates first met on April 4, 1950, and the document which they agreed upon was signed on July 22, 1950. More than 110 days elapsed during the period of the deliberation of the delegates to the convention.”

“Of this period 78 days were devoted to actual working sessions, which included the debates and other formal actions leading to the formulation and adoption of the constitution.”

“The convention kept a complete verbatim transcript by means of electronic tape recordings of all of the plenary and Committee of the Whole sessions after April 9, 1950. More than 365 reels of recording tape were used. This is about 87 miles of electronic tape.”

“It was estimated by the engineers that approximately 5 million words were spoken during the floor debates, apart from those spoken in the various committee meetings. (During the 15 weeks of the convention, there were an average of some 20 to 30 committee meetings per week.)

“Only some 14,000 words, however, are to be found in the constitution and of these approximately 4,000 are in the “schedule” which describes the political districts to be used in the initial elections and for subsequent reapportionment every ten years. The constitution proper, therefore, is only about 10,000 words in length, a measure of brevity achieved by only eight other state constitutions.”

“The document signed by 62 of the 63 delegates (one delegate refrained from signing the document on the grounds that it improperly ‘constitutionalized’ the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920) reflects the thinking of the community as expressed by the elected delegates.”

“The constitution is substantially ahead of its time (recall that it was prepared in 1950) in reducing the voting age from 21 to 20 – only one other state, the State of Georgia, then had a voting age of less than 21.”

“It includes a provision guaranteeing the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining, a constitutional protection which had been included in only three states prior to 1950, in New York, Missouri, and New Jersey.”

“The constitution of the State of Hawaii was signed by the delegates in a public ceremony at lolani Palace, Honolulu, on July 22, 1950. The document then went before the territorial legislature under the terms of the 1940 act which had established the constitutional convention.”

“(W)hen the legislature met in special session on September 29, 1950, it found (in joint Resolution 1) that the constitution was ‘acceptable in its entirety to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii,’ and proposed no changes or alternatives.”

“This joint resolution set forth the form of the plebiscite ballot on the proposed constitution, submitted to the voters at the general election of November 7, 1950. At that election, 82,788 ballots were cast in favor of adopting the proposed constitution, against 27,109 ‘no’ votes, a favorable ratio of approximately three to one.”

It was a little over eight year later, “in the wake of Alaska, Hawaii was admitted into the Union, under Public Law 3 of the 86th Congress, signed by President Eisenhower on March 18, 1959.”

“Public Law 86-3 made three relatively minor changes in the provisions of the Hawaii constitution. One was the deletion from the boundaries of the state (Article XIII, Section 1) of Palmyra, a small atoll lying some 960 nautical miles south of Honolulu.”

“Second, the article on Hawaiian Homes lands was ‘deemed to include’ a section of Public Law 86-3, which listed the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act which could be amended only with the consent of the United States.”

“The third change was to reduce from two to one the number of Representatives in Congress to which Hawaii the state was initially to be entitled (Article XVI, Section 10), subject to increase at the next reapportionment of the House of Representatives.”

“The admission act also required that the people of Hawaii again vote on statehood. A three-question plebiscite was prescribed, each requiring an affirmative majority vote if Hawaii were to be admitted to the Union: (1) Shall Hawaii be admitted? (2) Are the state boundaries set by the act approved? (3) Are the provisions of the act with respect to the disposition of public lands in Hawaii approved?”

“The three-fold proposition was submitted to the Hawaii electorate at the primary election of June 27, 1959, at which time the people also balloted on the first state officers. Some 140,000 persons cast valid ballots on each portion of the plebiscite. In each case the result was approximately identical: a 17 to 1 vote in the affirmative.”

“On July 28, 1959, the voters of Hawaii elected their first state governor, lieutenant governor, members of the state legislature, two federal senators and a representative in Congress.”

“The results of the election were certified to the President of the United States, as required by Public Law 86-3. On August 21, 1959, President Eisenhower signed the proclamation admitting Hawaii as the 50th state of the American Union of states. Thereupon, this constitution became effective.” (Roberts, Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii 1950)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2018 Hoʻokuleana LLC

State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-043-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-043-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-1-016-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-1-016-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-057-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-057-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-056-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-056-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-055-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-055-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-054-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-054-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-053-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-053-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-052-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-052-00001
State-Constitutional-Convention-1950-PP-28-2-051-00001
State-Constitutional-Convention-1950-PP-28-2-051-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-050-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-050-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-049-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-049-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-058-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-058-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-048-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-048-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-047-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-047-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-046-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-046-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-044-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-044-00001
State Constitutional Convention - 1950-PP-28-2-039-00001
State Constitutional Convention – 1950-PP-28-2-039-00001

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

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Prior to the Hawaiian Constitution

Collaboration between Ali‘i and the American Protestant missionaries resulted in, among other things, the introduction of Christianity, the creation of the Hawaiian written language, widespread literacy, making Western medicine available, and the evolution of a new and distinctive musical tradition with harmony and choral singing.

In addition, the missionaries collaborated with the Chiefs on the promulgation of a constitutional government. William Richards, a member of the Second Company of American Protestant missionaries was instrumental in transforming Hawaiian governance, through a constitution with individual rights.

In a March 15, 1841 letter from Richards to Captain Charles Wilkes, he gives his general observations on Hawaiian culture and description of economic and political conditions leading up to Declaration of Rights (1839) and Hawai‘i’s first constitution (1840.) The following are excerpts from that letter:

“As far as there was a regular government it was mainly of a feodal character and vested in the various ranks of landlords from the king down. The power of each particular lord was generally supreme or nearly so, over his own vassals, nor was that power entirely confined to personal dependants.”

“There was so much politeness, or respect, or fear, whatever it might be called, existing between the different chiefs, that any one chief might call on the dependants without much danger of giving offence.”

“Thus the people were often compelled to serve many masters, and often too out of the regular line of landlords landholders &c …. As a general thing however each chief had his particular lands, & tenants, and agents and servants, and ruled his own little kingdom according to his own laws, being himself however entirely subject to his superior, as his own agents were to him.”

“Civil rights were very little respected, nor were they scarcely known to exist. There were some general rules however a kind of common law, which when violated, the offender was often and perhaps generally punished, particularly if the crime was of an aggravated kind.”

“Kamehameha I in repeated instances punished murder by death. Grand larceny was a capitol offence if the injured person had power to execute what was considered to be law, and the chiefs and even the king not unfrequently espoused the cause of the injured party, and inflicted punishment for flagrant crimes.”

“As far as there was any real system to the government, it was deeply interwoven with their religious tabus, as well as with their feodal tenures, and a full account of the government therefore, would embrace an entire history of the tabu & also of the feudal system.”

“From the earliest periods of Hawaiian history, it appears that the tenure by which the lands have been held has in most respects been feodal, and the origin of the feuds was nearly the same as among the Goths, the Huns, the Vandals, and other northern nations of Europe.”

“A chieftain who could collect a sufficient number of followers to conquer a district or an Island, as soon as he had accomplished his object collected his victorious army about him for the purpose of dividing the spoil, or what they called ‘Cutting up the lands.’”

“The leader or king took his choice among the best of the lands, and on these lands placed some of his own particular servants, as agents to superintend the cultivation for himself.”

“The originall tenants who were on the farms at the time they were seized by the invading army usually remained under the new conquerers, at least many or most of them, and by these the land was cultivated for the king under such new agents as he saw fit to appoint.”

“After the king had taken his choice, he then divided out the whole conquered territory among the leaders of his army, giving the most valuable portions to those who had acted the most distinguished part.”

“In doing this, the king had full opportunity to show his skill & wisdom, for it was no easy task to give satisfaction in the division of the lands. Before the work was finished, difficulties often arose, and not unfrequently rebellions and new wars.”

“Every receiver of lands or feudatory was bound to his particular benefactor in the same manner as the first ranks were to the king, and thus a perfect feodal connexion was established between the king and his lowest subject through the various ranks of lords and tenants.”

“By this means, the chiefs secured and retained their authority over the people—and the rich over the poor. The authority and controll was almost perfect. It was the only system of governing with which the Hawaiians have been acquainted, and even to the present day, it is next to impossible to convince the elder chiefs that authority and subordinations can be maintained by any other means.”

“An old chief said to me, ‘If we can not take away their lands, what will they care for us? They will be as rich as we.’”

“The consequence of this system was that the common laborers did not themselves receive probably on an average more than one third of the avails of their labors, while the different orders of chiefs received the remaining two thirds.”

“The great amount however taken by the superiors was not the worst feature of this oppressive system. The remaining one third was not safe. Or rather there was no distinct dividing line by which the tenent might know and hold his own.”

“If a man by uncommon industry, brought his farm to a higher state of cultivation than his neighbor, he was not thereby sure of having more for his own use, and he could not distinctly lay his hand on any article of value and say that was his own.”

“But notwithstanding all these advantages which the superiors enjoyed over their inferiors, yet favoritism, jealousy, but more than all natural fickleness of character were so universal, that no landholder considered himself safe in his possessions, and therefore even ridiculed the idea of making extensive improvements.”

“So insecure did the people feel themselves to be in the possession of their lands, that the more reflecting class always tried to obtain and often did obtain a small division under different chiefs, so that when they were dispossessed of one, they might be saved from starvation by the produce of the other.”

“There were however customs, rules, and an acknowledged propriety of conduct in relation to taxation and dispossessions of lands. But there being no fixed law, nor courts of justice, or source of appeal, the people were in effect tenants at will, each particular class to their direct landlords.”

“And what was more, it was usually the case that when a man was dispossessed of his lands, he was usually dispossessed of most, if not all of his personal estate which had been acquired either directly or indirectly from the lands he had possessed.”

“The greatest changes took place at the death of the landlords, when the right to the feuds descended to their heirs. These heirs almost as a matter of course would have a different class of favorites from their predecessors, and therefore would dispossess the old tenants, and put their personal favorites in their places.”

“When the king deceased, great changes in every part of his dominions was the consequence. If a chief either of higher or lower rank deceased, then all the estates in his particular feoffment, and those only, were affected.”

“But among all the better classes it was considered improper to eject the direct cultivaters of the land and hence it was often the case that all the different ranks of chiefs were dispossessed, while the last dependants, the cultivaters of the soil, were continued in their possessions. Had this always been the case it would have greatly mitigated the evils of the system.”

“This feodal tenure under the present system of government has not entirely ceased to exist, but it is greatly modified. Indeed in principle it has nearly ceased, but in practice it continues to a very considerable extent.”

“The new laws define the rights of the different classes, and prescribe the rules by which each class shall be governed. Officers are also appointed to see that the rules are observed, and assess damages according (to) law where the rights of one class are invaded by the people of another class.”

“No tax whatever can be laid and no property seized, not even by the king, except by express provision of law. No landlord can disposs(ess) his tenants of their fiefs for the right of the tenants is declared perpetual.”

“The tenure therefore by which the lands are now held may be considered that of perpetual lease, subject to forfeiture for non payment of rent, the amount of which is regulated by laws in which the people have a voice and no new tax can be laid without the assent of their representatives.”

“The principle evils which no[w] remain to weaken the tenure by which lands are held, are the ignorance of the officers of the new system, and their fear of acting against the interests of chiefs and persons of rank. These evils however are fast diminishing.”

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

Miloli‘i Valley, showing two grass-thatched houses-19th_century-(Carpenter)
Miloli‘i Valley, showing two grass-thatched houses-19th_century-(Carpenter)

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

William Richards

William Richards, the seventh child and third son of James and Lydia (Shaw) Richards, was born at Plainfield, Massachusetts, August 22, 1793.

His grandparents were Joseph and Sarah (Whitmarsh) Richards, and Captain Ebenezer and Ann (Molson) Shaw. The Richards family is descended from William Richards, who came to Plymouth before 1633, and ultimately settled in Weymouth, Massachusetts.

William’s father was a farmer, but was also a teacher and held many public offices. His mother is described as a most excellent woman. The parents gave to their children the best of pious instruction.

William was a younger brother of James Richards, Jr. In the summer of 1806, in a grove of trees, in what was then known as Sloan’s Meadow at Williams College, James Richards, Samuel John Mills, Francis L Robbins, Harvey Loomis and Byram Green debated the theology of missionary service.

Their meeting was interrupted by a thunderstorm and they took shelter under a haystack until the sky cleared. That event has since been referred to as the “Haystack Prayer Meeting” and is viewed by many as the pivotal event for the development of Protestant missions in the subsequent decades and century and catalyst to formation of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission (ABCFM.)

At the age of fifteen, William became hopefully pious, and three years later he united with the church in his native place, under the care of the Rev. Moses Hallock.

His desire to become a missionary was, probably, awakened by his older brother, who, about the time of his graduation, disclosed his plan for life to the younger brother.

As his brother had done, William entered Williams as a Freshman in 1815. He had as classmates two sons of his pastor, Gerard and William Allen Hallock.

“His intellectual powers were of a high order. When at college, he excelled in mathematics, natural and intellectual philosophy, and logic, while, in the languages and belles lettres, he scarcely rose above the common average.” (Gerard Hallock; Hewitt, Williams College)

In college he was a member of the Mills Theological Society, and also of the Philotechnian Literary Society, of which he was, for a time, president. He was a superior student, graduating with Phi Beta Kappa rank. At Commencement, he had a Philosophical Oration, the subject of his address being “The Nature and Effects of Dew.”

After graduating in 1819, Richards pursued his theological studies at Andover. In February, 1822, the ABCFM having planned to reinforce the mission at the Sandwich Islands, Richards offered himself for that service and was accepted.

He was ordained in New Haven, Connecticut, on September 12 of the same year, with two other missionaries, the Rev. Dr. Miller of the Princeton Theological Seminary preaching the sermon.

On October 30, 1822, Mr. Richards married Clarissa, daughter of Levi Lyman, of Northampton, Massachusetts. On November 19 he, with his wife, joined the Second Company of American Protestant missionaries to Hawai‘i.

After five months at sea they reached Honolulu on Sunday, April 27, 1823. The missionaries were most cordially welcomed, not only by their future associates, but by several chiefs of the island.

Richards describes his first Hawai‘i home, “We are living in houses built by the heathen and presented to us. They are built in native style, and consist of posts driven into the ground …”

“… on which small poles are tied horizontally, and then long grass is fastened to the poles by strings which pass round each bundle. We have no floors, and no windows except holes cut through the thatching, which are closed by shutters without glass.”

In May 1823, Keōpūolani (wife of Kamehameha I and mother of King Kamehameha II & III) and her husband Hoapili expressed a desire to have an instructor connected with them and asked that a Tahitian, Taua, do so.

The mission approved, and Taua resided until the death of Keōpūolani. He proved a faithful teacher, and by the blessing of God, we believe, he did much to establish her in the Christian faith. (Memoir)

Keōpūolani also requested that missionaries accompany her. As Lahaina had been previously selected for a missionary station, the missionaries were happy to commence their labors there under such auspices. Richards and Charles Samuel Stewart therefore accompanied her. (Memoir)

On their passage, she told them she would be their mother; and indeed she acted the part of a mother ever afterwards. Immediately on their arrival, she requested them to commence teaching, and said, also, “It is very proper that my sons (meaning the missionaries) be present with me at morning and evening prayers.”

Soon after landing in Lahaina, Richards wrote: “The field for usefulness here is great; and I have never, for a moment since I arrived, had a single fear that my usefulness on these Islands will be limited by anything but my own imperfections. …”

“It is enough for me, that in looking back I can see clearly that the finger of Providence pointed me to these Islands; and that in looking forward, I see some prospect of success and of lasting usefulness.” (Richards, August 30, 1823; Missionary Herald)

By 1825, there was strong interest in the message of the missionaries. Richards wrote, “As I was walking this evening, I heard the voice of prayer in six different houses, in the course of a few rods. I think there are now not less than fifty houses in Lahaina where the morning and evening sacrifice is regularly offered to the true God.”

“The number is constantly increasing and there is now scarcely an hour in the day that I am not interrupted in my regular employment by calls of persons anxious to know what they must do to be saved.” (Richards; Anderson) In 1831, Richards and Lorrin Andrews helped to build the high school at Lahainaluna on the slopes above Lahaina.

In 1837, after fourteen years of labor, he made a visit to the US, accompanied by his wife and the six oldest children. The health of himself and his wife made such a change desirable, and he wished to provide for the education of his children there.

On his return to his post in the spring of 1838, the king and chiefs, who felt the need of reform in their government, asked Mr. Richards to become their teacher, chaplain and interpreter.

With the consent of the ABCFM, he accepted this position and resigned his appointment as missionary and then spent his time urging the improvement of the political system.

He prepared a book No Ke Kalaiaina, based on Wyland, Elements of Political Economy. This book and Richards interation with the king and chiefs helped shape the initial Hawaiʻi Constitution (1840). (Lots of information here is from Hewitt, Williams College.)\

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

William_Richards
William_Richards

by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Timeline Tuesday … 1840s

Today’s ‘Timeline Tuesday’ takes us through the 1840s – first Hawaiian Constitution, the ‘Paulet Affair,’ Whaling and Great Mānele. We look at what was happening in Hawai‘i during this time period and what else was happening around the rest of the world.

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

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2017 Hoʻokuleana LLC

Timeline-1840s