Sovereignty | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

June 20, 2026 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

The Apology & the Supreme Court

On March 31, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and rendered a decision on a case between the State of Hawaiʻi and OHA relating to the transfer of ceded lands.

In that decision, the US Supreme Court discusses the 1993 ‘Apology’ Resolution, as well as makes references to Hawaiian Sovereignty. The following are quotes from the US Supreme Court decision:

“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).”

“Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawai‘i ‘cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind’ and further ‘cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining’ (hereinafter ceded lands).”

“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.’”

“Hawai‘i state law also authorizes the State to use or sell the ceded lands, provided the proceeds are held in trust for Hawaiian citizens. In 1993, Congress’ joint Apology Resolution “apologize[d]” for this country’s role in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy, and declared that nothing in the resolution was ‘intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’”

“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).”

“Turning to the merits, we must decide whether the Apology Resolution ‘strips Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer’ the lands that the United States held in “absolute fee” and “grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union”. We conclude that the Apology Resolution has no such effect.”

“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.”

“The resolution’s first substantive provision uses six verbs, all of which are conciliatory or precatory. Specifically, Congress ‘acknowledge[d] the historical significance’ of the monarchy’s over-throw, ‘recognize[d] and commend[ed] efforts of reconciliation’ with native Hawaiians, ‘apologize[d] to [n]ative Hawaiians’ for the overthrow, ‘expresse[d] [Congress’s] commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow,’ and ‘urge[d] the President … to also acknowledge [those]ramifications’.”

“Such terms are not the kind that Congress uses to create substantive rights – especially those that are enforceable against the cosovereign States.”

“The Apology Resolution’s second and final substantive provision is a disclaimer, which provides: ‘Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’ By its terms, speaks only to those who may or may not have ‘claims against the United States.’”

“The State Supreme Court, however, read [this] as a congressional recognition – and preservation – of claims against Hawai‘i. There is no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another.”

The US Supreme Court concluded, “First, ‘whereas’ clauses like those in the Apology Resolution cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. As we recently explained in a different context, ‘where the text of a clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as ‘whereas’ clauses in federal legislation …, a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do.’”

“Second, even if the ‘whereas’ clauses had some legal effect, they did not ‘chang[e] the legal landscape and restructur[e] the rights and obligations of the State.’”

“The Apology Resolution reveals no indication – much less a ‘clear and manifest’ one – that Congress intended to amend or repeal the State’s rights and obligations under Admission Act (or any other federal law); nor does the Apology Resolution reveal any evidence that Congress intended sub silentio to ‘cloud’ the title that the United States held in ‘absolute fee’” and transferred to the State in 1959.”

“Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to ‘cloud’ Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union. We have emphasized that ‘Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.’”

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.

November 13, 2025 by Peter T Young 9 Comments

How Did The Aliʻi Feel About non-Hawaiians?

The historical record is clear – from Kamehameha I to Liliʻuokalani, the aliʻi befriended, sought counsel, and even married Caucasians and other foreigners. As examples:

Foreigners supported Kamehameha I, including John Young, Isaac Davis, Don Francisco de Paula Marin, George Beckley and Alexander Adams (and others.)

One can only speculate what might have happened had these foreigners not aligned with Kamehameha. However, it is clear, with their help, he became Kamehameha the Great. Without these and other foreigners, Hawaiʻi’s history may have been significantly different.

Kamehameha III chose American missionaries Amos Starr Cooke and Gerrit Parmele Judd to serve as teacher and physician for the children of the seven families who were eligible under succession laws stated in the 1840 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i.

In a letter requesting Cooke to teach and Judd to care for the children, King Kamehameha III wrote, “Greetings to you all, Teachers – Where are you, all you teachers? We ask Mr. Cooke to be teacher for our royal children. He is the teacher of our royal children and Dr. Judd is the one to take care of the royal children because we two hold Dr Judd as necessary for the children and also in certain difficulties between us and you all.”

Kamehameha III called on seven boys and seven girls to board in the Chief’s Children’s School. No school in Hawai‘i has ever produced so many Hawaiian leaders in one generation.

In this school were educated the Hawai‘i sovereigns who reigned over the Hawaiian people from 1855, namely, Alexander Liholiho (King Kamehameha IV,) Queen Emma, Lot Kamehameha (King Kamehameha V,) King William Lunalilo, King David Kalākaua and Queen Lydia Lili‘uokalani.

In addition, the following royal family members were taught there: Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Princess Elizabeth Kekaaniau Pratt, Prince Moses Kekuaiwa, Princess Jane Loeau Jasper, Princess Victoria Kamāmalu, Prince Peter Young Kaeo, Prince William Pitt Kīnaʻu, Princess Abigail Maheha, Prince James Kaliokalani and Princess Mary Polly Paʻaʻāina.

The last of the Kamehameha’s, Kamehameha V, had a Caucasian (John Owen Dominis) as a secretary and advisor. “On the accession to the throne of Prince Lot as Kamehameha V., the last of the Hawaiian monarchs to bear that name, my husband (John Owen Dominis) was at once appointed his private secretary and confidential adviser, which position he occupied during the entire reign.” (Liliʻuokalani)

“The king was surrounded by his own people, with whom he was in perfect accord, but showed this mark of royal favor to my husband simply because he preferred to advise with him on matters of public importance.” (Liliʻuokalani)

Hawaiʻi’s last queen, Queen Liliʻuokalani, was married to a Caucasian, John Owen Dominis. This shows her acceptance of being a lifelong partner with a non-kanaka maoli – of the marriage she noted, “My husband was extremely kind and considerate to me”.

Dominis died before the overthrow – related to that, Queen Liliʻuokalani noted, “His death occurred at a time when his long experience in public life, his amiable qualities, and his universal popularity, would have made him an adviser to me for whom no substitute could possibly be found.”

“I have often said that it pleased the Almighty Ruler of nations to take him away from me at precisely the time when I felt that I most needed his counsel and companionship.” (Liliʻuokalani)

Kalākaua and Liliʻuokalani’s sister, Miriam Likelike, was also married to a Caucasian, Archibald Scott Cleghorn. The Cleghorns had one child Kaʻiulani – “the only member of the Royal Family having issue.”

Princess Kaʻiulani was not the only royal who was part-Caucasian – Emma, a future queen, was born to Fanny Kekelaokalani Young, daughter of John Young, King Kamehameha I’s Caucasian counselor, and Kaʻoanaʻeha, Kamehameha’s niece. Her father was high chief George Naea.

As was the custom, Emma was offered to her mother’s sister, Grace Kamaikui Rooke (the second daughter of John Young) and her husband, Dr Thomas Charles Byde Rooke (a Caucasian) as hānai daughter. Unable to have children of their own, the Rookes adopted Emma. Queen Emma was part Caucasian and she was raised by Caucasians.

We can’t forget that Princess Bernice Pauahi was also married to a Caucasian (Charles Reed Bishop.)

Following contact, Caucasians were actively involved with all of the aliʻi – they were befriended and served as personal and significant advisors to the aliʻi. Aliʻi sought their advice and put them in places of importance – many of these were missionaries.

Back then, there was an obvious tolerance by the Hawaiian leadership in engaging and including Caucasians (and other foreigners) in various matters.

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.

(The image shows the letter Kamehameha III sent to the American (Caucasian) missionaries, asking Cooke and Judd to teach and serve the children of the aliʻi (including all of the subsequent Kings and Queens of the Hawaiian kingdom.))

March 5, 2025 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Paul Neumann

“Mrs. Dominis in a few words stated that she desired to surrender all her claims to the throne, and offered her formal abdication to President Dole in the shape of a document drawn up by Judge AS Hartwell, who was consulted by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Parker and Mr. Neumann about the matter and acted as advising counsel for them”.

“Attorney Neumann then read aloud the formal abdication. Her ex-Majesty also read the document aloud from beginning to end and then signed both the document and the oath of allegiance to the republic, while Notary Stanley affixed his jurat. Mr. Neumann returned the document to the ex-Queen”. (The Morning Call, February 7, 1895)

Paul Rudolph Neumann, lawyer, diplomat, and bon vivant (a person having cultivated, refined and sociable tastes especially with respect to food and drink,) was born in Prussia in December 1839.

He came to the United States when he was fifteen, locating in California, where he became a naturalized citizen. He was admitted to the practice of law in 1864 and served in the California legislature as a senator three terms.

Interactions with Neumann were typically enlivened by his bubbling wit; while a competent lawyer, he was known far more widely for his love of fun and his wit and bon vivant. Wherever he went, he left behind a trail of his kindly humor and was as full of frolic as a schoolboy.

While in California, Neumann broke his leg; while it was mending, he broke it again. It had to be amputated; he “stumped around on a cork substitute, of which he was ever ready to make fun.” He and another amputee, C Mitchell Grant, would joke with an impromptu peg-leg waltz. (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 22, 1901)

Neumann married Elise Dinklage of California on June 25, 1870; they had six children: Paul Jr, Edouard, Anita Alejandra, Inez Sophie, Eva and Lillie Leonora. (Neumann was born of Jewish parents and was reared as a Jew. His wife was not a Jewess and his children were not reared in the Jewish faith. (The New Era))

As a lawyer, the partner of Harry Eickhoff, he had a good practice and did not hesitate to match wits with any member of the bar. Often he upset a learned argument with a quick sally, and people followed him into court in the expectation of hearing him turn a point and raise a laugh. But beyond his humor he could be logically forceful and had quite a turn of eloquence.

As an after-dinner speaker he was particularly ready, and was often selected to preside as toastmaster when an evening of lively fun was expected. Even when he went into politics he could not keep down his love of a joke, and he lost some votes among people who feared he never would be serious enough for a lawmaker. (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 22, 1901)

In the fall of 1882 he was the Republican candidate for representative in Congress from the San Francisco district; he was denounced by the San Francisco Chronicle as a ‘sugar-coated candidate’ and a tool of the Claus Spreckels interests. He lost.

In the fall of 1883, Neumann made a short visit to Honolulu. It was reported that he had been offered an appointment as Attorney General but had declined it. A month later, he returned to Honolulu and within a few days was admitted to the Hawaiian bar. On December 14 he was appointed Attorney General. (Kuykendall)

In public service, he was Attorney General under King Kalākaua (1883–1886) and Queen Liliʻuokalani (1892,) became a member of the House of Nobles, and later became Liliʻuokalani’s personal attorney until his death. In 1884 he went to Mexico as special Hawaiian Envoy; later (1896,) he was Envoy Extraordinary of the Republic of Hawaiʻi to Guatemala.

“Paul Neumann … told me stories of the old monarchy and the good old early days. Neumann was a character, one of the early figures in modern Hawaiian history, and a very patriotic man. Crabbed and crusty to the stranger, he unbent most charmingly to any one he liked. Story followed story …” (Beringer; Overland Monthly, 1909)

When the Hawaiʻi Bar Association was formed, Neumann was unanimously elected as its first President. (Independent, June 29, 1899)

He was a close friend and poker-playing companion of the King. As Attorney General and legislator, friendly adviser and personal attorney, Neumann gave faithful service to King Kalākaua and Queen Liliʻuokalani. (Kuykendall)

Neumann was also a great friend and companion of Robert Louis Stevenson; Stevenson was a welcomed and privileged guest at the Neumann’s residence while in Honolulu. (Johnstone)

At the time of the overthrow, Neumann went to Washington as the representative of Queen Liliʻuokalani, to oppose the first treaty of annexation and to secure her restoration.

He successfully kept Hawaiʻi from becoming a Territory of the United States under President Grover Cleveland by carrying a personal letter from the Queen explaining the takeover – Cleveland interceded with Senate Democrats to stop action on the treaty. (Denson) That changed in 1898 when McKinley took office.

Neumann also successfully negotiated a pension for the Queen ($20,000 annually during her life) and Princess Kaʻiulani (a lump sum of $150,000.)

Following the conspiracy of 1895, Neumann was counsel for the ex-Queen and for the more prominent of the royalist defendants in the trials for treason before the military court. (Hawaiian Star, July 2, 1901)

Paul Neumann died July 2, 1901. His widow, several years later, met with a tragic ending. “She was known to her many friends as an unusually self-reliant woman. Of recent years her sorrows have been many.”

“Her husband died, seven year ago. Two years ago one of her sons, an ensign in the United States Navy was killed on board the battleship Missouri in a turret explosion. Her mother died about a year ago.”

“She never ceased to grieve, say her friends, over the death of her son.” … (She reportedly jumped overboard and drowned while travelling via ship from Mazatlán to San Francisco.) (San Francisco Call, September 8, 1908)

July 30, 2023 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

‘From the Countries whence originate the winds’

The first declaration of the creation of a law-making body in Hawai‘i is contained in a proclamation by King Kamehameha III dated October 7, 1829.

It named the King and regent and ten chiefs as entitled to sit in Council. This council was the forerunner of the legislature proper. Previous to its establishment the laws were mostly customary, many having their origin in the edicts of Ali‘i. (Lydecker)

On October 7, 1829, King Kamehameha III issued a Proclamation “respecting the treatment of Foreigners within his Territories.” It was prepared in the name of the King and the Chiefs in Council: Kauikeaouli, the King; Gov. Boki; Kaahumanu; Gov. Adams Kuakini; Manuia; Kekūanāoʻa; Hinau; ʻAikanaka; Paki; Kīnaʻu; John ‘Īʻi and James Kahuhu.

In part, he stated, “If any man shall transgress any of these Laws, he is liable to the penalty, – the same for every Foreigner and for the People of these Islands: whoever shall violate these Laws shall be punished.”

It continues with, “This is our communication to you all, ye parents from the Countries whence originate the winds; have compassion on a Nation of little Children, very small and young, who are yet in mental darkness; and help us to do right and follow with us, that which will be for the best good of this our Country.”

In Hiram Bingham’s book, Twenty-one Years in the Sandwich Islands, Bingham added a footnote addressing the “Countries whence originate the winds,” saying, “This passage … evidently solicits wise and mature counsels from men of countries to the north-east, whence come the trade winds, or figuratively whence come their frequent commotions, after the adoption of the Christian religion.”

“It was the thought of Kaahumanu, and widely different from what might once have issued from her insulted majesty. Her forbearance was very great towards foreigners and especially those employed by high powers.” (Bingham)

We tend to identify the people from the “Countries whence originate the winds” as the foreigners, more commonly referenced as haole. Most Hawaiian dictionaries define haole as foreigners; some also suggest (such as Malo) that haole refers to white people.

But according to the Hawaiian law, the status of haole can change – from haole to kanaka maoli.

In 1846 the native Hawaiian government under Kamehameha III made the intentions clear: “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. (1846 Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, Article I, Chapter V, Section III)

The law allowed to naturalization, “Section X. Any alien foreigner … may, after a residence of one year in this kingdom, apply to his excellency the governor of the island of Oahu, at Honolulu, for permission to become naturalized …” (1846 Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, Article I, Chapter V, Section X)

The Law goes on to state, “Section XIII. Every foreigner so naturalized, shall be deemed to all intents and purposes, a native of the Hawaiian Islands – be amenable only to the laws of this kingdom, and to the authority and control thereof – be entitled to the protection of said laws … .” (1846 Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, Article I, Chapter V, Section XIII)

Words matter … and the words are clear; a closer look at the wording of the 1846 law (the Hawaiian text and subsequent translation of that text) clearly state that a haole (foreigner) can become kanaka maoli (a native of Hawai‘i). Following is the operative line in the law and then its translation,

“E manaoia kela haole keia haole hoohiki pela, ua lilo oia ma ke ano pili i na hana a pau, i kanaka maoli o Hawaii nei”.

“Every foreigner [haole] so naturalized, shall be deemed to all intents and purposes, a native of the Hawaiian Islands [kanaka maoli o Hawaii nei]”.

The above statement in the 1846 Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, Chapter V, Article I, Section XIII was carried into the 1859 Civil Code: “428. The Minister of the Interior, with the approval of the King, shall have the superintendence and direction of the naturalization of foreigners.” (1859 Civil Code, Title 2, Article VIII, Section 428)

“Section 432. Every foreigner so naturalized, shall be deemed to all intents and purposes a native of the Hawaiian Islands … and to the authority and control thereof, be entitled to the protection of said laws, and be no longer amenable to his native sovereign while residing in this Kingdom, nor entitled to resort to his native country for protection or intervention.”

“He shall be amenable, for every such resort, to the pains and penalties annexed to rebellion by the Criminal Code. And every foreigner so naturalized, shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of an Hawaiian subject.” (1859 Civil Code, Title 2, Article VIII, Section 432)

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, 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 haole (foreigners) 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.”

April 25, 2023 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

“Let them take the Islands”

“I wish to inform you that your King has surrendered recently the Kingdom due to the incessant demand to the Commander of the British battleship. We have tried all means of settling the controversy, but in vain.”

“And therefore, we were given the time to consider as to the matter of surrendering from the hours of the morning to four in the afternoon; that, if we fail to recognize and adhere to the demand, we would likely be killed.” (Kekāuluohi to Kuakini, February 27, 1843)

Let’s see how we got there.

April 25, 1825, Richard Charlton arrived in the Islands to serve as the first British consul. A former sea captain and trader, he was already familiar with the islands of the Pacific and had promoted them in England for their commercial potential (he worked for the East India Company in the Pacific as early as 1821.)

Charlton had been in London during Kamehameha II’s visit in 1824 and secured an introduction to the king and his entourage. By the time he arrived in Hawai‘i in 1825, instructions had already arrived from Kamehameha II that Charlton was to be allowed to build a house, or houses, any place he wished and should be made comfortable. This apparently was due to favors Charlton had done for the royal party. (Hawaiʻi State Archives)

In 1840, Charlton made a claim for several parcels of land in Honolulu. To substantiate his claim, Charlton produced a 299-year lease for the land in question, granted by Kalanimōku. There was no disagreement over the parcel, Wailele, on which Charlton lived, but the adjoining parcel he claimed, Pūlaholaho, had been occupied since 1826 by retainers and heirs of Kaʻahumanu.

In rejecting Charlton’s claim, Kamehameha III cited the fact that Kalanimōku did not have the authority to grant the lease. At the time the lease was made, Kaʻahumanu was Kuhina Nui, and only she and the king could make such grants. The land was Kaʻahumanu’s in the first place, and Kalanimōku certainly could not give it away. (Hawaiʻi State Archives) The dispute dragged on for years.

This, and other grievances purported by Charlton and the British community in Hawai‘i, led to the landing of George Paulet on February 11, 1843 “for the purpose of affording protection to British subjects, as likewise to support the position of Her Britannic Majesty’s representative here”.

That day, Paulet sent King Kamehameha III six demands, threatening war if they were not acceded to by 4 pm of the next day.

Restoration of Charlton’s land and reparation for losses
Acknowledgment of the right of Mr Simpson to serve as acting Consul
Guarantee that no British subject shall be subjected to imprisonment, unless it is a felony under English laws
Written promise given by Kamehameha III for a new trial for Captain Jones
Adoption of steps to resolve disputes between British subjects and Hawaiians
Immediate settlement of grievances and complaints of British subjects against the Hawaiian government

Pressed by demands which became more and more impossible, the King said, “Let them take the islands.” (Smith) Before the deadline, the King acceded to the demands under protest, and appealed to the British Government for damages.

But a fresh series of demands having been made, and claims for, the king decided, by Dr Gerrit Judd’s advice, to forestall the intended seizure of the Islands by a provisional cession, pending an appeal to the justice of the home government.

On February 25, the King acceded to his demands and noted, “In consequence of the difficulties in which we find ourselves involved, and our opinion of the impossibility of complying with the demands in the manner in which they are made … “

“… we do hereby cede the group of islands known as the Hawaiian (or Sandwich) Islands, unto the Right Honorable Lord George Paulet … the said cession being made with the reservation that it is subject to any arrangement that may have been entered into by the Representatives appointed by us to treat with the Government of Her Britannic Majesty…”

Under the terms of the new government the King and his advisers continued to administer the affairs of the Hawaiian population. For business dealing with foreigners, a commission was created, consisting of the King (or his representative,) Paulet and two officers from Paulet’s ship. Judd served as the representative of the King. (Daws)

Interesting, at the same time this was going on, three representative of the Hawaiian government were already on the continent and Europe to seek recognition of Hawaiʻi’s sovereignty by other countries. The King and others were concerned that there may be takeovers by others.

Great Britain claimed Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand,) the French Marquesas and Society Islands … the Hawaiian Islands’ strategic mid-Pacific position made it a likely next target. Invasion, overthrow and occupation seemed imminent.

In the face of this threat, Kamehameha III commissioned and dispatched three Ministers – an American, Briton and a trusted childhood friend; William Richards, Sir George Simpson and Timoteo Haʻalilio – to secure the recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s independence and protection of public international law that accompanied recognition. (Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics)

In April 1842, Simpson left for England; in July, Haʻalilio and Richards departed for the US. By December 1842, the US had recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom; shortly thereafter they secured formal recognition from Great Britain and France.

On April 1, 1843, Lord Aberdeen, on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty Queen Victoria, assured the Hawaiian delegation that: “Her Majesty’s Government was willing and had determined to recognize the independence of the Sandwich Islands under their present sovereign.”

On November 28, 1843, the British and French Governments united in a joint declaration and entered into a formal agreement recognizing Hawaiian 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)

Back in the Islands … after five months of British rule, Queen Victoria, on learning the injustice done, immediately sent Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas to the islands to restore sovereignty to its rightful rulers. On July 31, 1843 the Hawaiian flag was raised. The ceremony was held in area known as Kulaokahuʻa; the site of the ceremony was turned into a park Thomas Square.