Sovereignty | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

August 1, 2019 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Honorary Member of the Mission

In 1840, a land dispute between Mr. Richard Charlton, the first British ambassador to Hawaiʻi, and the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi would spark the infamous “Paulet episode” which led to the forced cession of the Hawaiian Islands to Britain in 1843. (KSBE)

“Admiral Thomas, immediately on hearing of the usurpation by his inferior officer, without waiting for instructions from his government, hastened to the Islands, resolved to atone for the indignity done to the king and his people as effectually and speedily as possible.”

“The king was at once, in the most formal and honorable manner, reinstated in his authority. This was on the 31st of July, 1843. The king and chiefs then repaired to the great Stone Church to offer thanks for the gracious interposition of Providence.”

“The deportment of Admiral Thomas toward all parties, while at the Islands, was honorable to his character, and he has ever since been gratefully remembered.” (Anderson)

“The restoration of the Hawaiian Monarchy in July 1843 – ending the five-months-long illegal seizure and occupation by the Englishman, Lord George Paulet – created the chief, and indeed the only, notable site in Kulaokahu‘a.” (Greer)

It was later (1850) named Thomas Square.

“The king made a short address, stating that according to the hope expressed by him when he ceded the Islands, ‘the life of the land’ had been restored to him…”

“… that now they – the people of his Islands – should look to him, and his rule over them should be exercised according to the constitution and laws.”

“This address was followed by the interpretation of Admiral Thomas’s declaration; after which John Ii delivered an animated address suited to the joyful occasion.”

“He referred to the gloom which had shrouded the nation, and the despondency which had brooded over many minds; these were now dispelled; joyful hope had sprung up, making every thing around bright and smiling.”

“He referred to the auspicious event of the restoration as of the Lord, who had been mindful of the nation in its low estate, and as demanding from all grateful thanks and praise.”

“The whole deportment of Admiral Thomas while at the Isl. ands, towards the king and his people, and the mission, was of the most courteous and honorable character …”

“…and his example, counsels, and influence will long be gratefully remembered. Law and order were restored, the nation has been inspired with new courage, and all measures for its improvement have received a fresh impulse.” (ABCFM, Report 1844)

“Hawaii’s sovereignty had been restored.” (Greer)

“‘Her Majesty’s Government, we learn in a letter from the Earl of Aberdeen, ‘viewed with the highest approbation, the whole of his proceedings at the Sandwich Islands, as marked by a great propriety and an admirable judgment throughout …’”

“‘… and as calculated to raise the character of British authorities for justice, moderation, and courtesy of demeanor, in the estimation of the natives of those remote countries, and of the world.’” (Polynesian, August 3, 1850)

“Richard (Darton) Thomas was born at Saltash, county of Cornwall. … This officer entered the navy the 26th of May, 1790, on board the Cumberland 74, Captain John M. Brule, and sailed in the course of the same year with a squadron under Rear Admiral Cornish, for the West Indies”. (Polynesian, August 3, 1850)

“The King too, Kamehameha III, moved by gratitude, intimated a wish that the Rear Admiral would sit for his portrait in full uniform, that His Majesty ‘might have and preserve in his palace the likeness of a British officer who …’”

“‘… in restoring to him his kingdom, dared to act on his own sense of right, counting upon the approval of his magnanimous, Queen, in which he was not disappointed.’” (Polynesian, August 3, 1850)

“No nobler men ever touched those Islands, than some of the officers of the American and English navies.” (Richard Armstrong)

“(Armstrong’s) home ‘Stone House’ was named after the English residence of Admiral Thomas, of the British Navy, who restored the national flag which his subordinate, Lord George Paulet, had, in his absence, hauled down, taking possession of the Islands in the name of the Queen.”

“Lord George was compelled by the Admiral to restore the flag and salute it with his own guns. The day was thereafter kept as a national holiday, and the name of Admiral Thomas is held in grateful remembrance.” (Richard Armstrong)

“(T)he Rear Admiral (Richard Thomas) received the thanks of the Government of the United States for his conduct relative to the American residents in the Sandwich Islands; and that he was elected an ‘honorary member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.’” (Polynesian, August 3, 1850)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Admiral-Richard-Darton-Thomas

July 30, 2019 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Thomas Square

On January 22, 1850, the King’s Privy Council addressed “Another suggestion to set apart a day for marking out the boundaries of the square on the Plains of Waikiki to be called by the name of Admiral Thomas was also approved of by vote.” (Privy Council Minutes, January 22, 1850)

Then, on the anniversary of sovereignty restoration that year, “At sunrise a gun was fired, His Majesty’s large standard was hoisted at the Palace, the Hawaiian ensign on the Fort, on the Hill, and on all Hawaiian vessels.”

“At eight o’clock all the Foreign Consuls displayed their flags. The foreign vessels in port hoisted their ensigns, and some of them were beautifully decorated with flags, private signal, pendants, &c.”

“Amongst them all, was conspicuous HBM’s schooner Cockatrice, being dressed out with great taste, and having the Hawaiian ensign flying from the fore, during the day.”

“The merchant’s offices, warehouses, stores, and shops were more generally closed, than during any preceding anniversary.”

“It being generally known that it had been the King’s intention, had health permitted, to have ridden out in state, to the plain, and there given the name of Thomas Square, to the exact spot on which the gallant admiral of that name, restored his Flag, numerous parties on horseback, during the day, visited the spot.” (Polynesian, August 3, 1850)

“The exact locale – the future Thomas Square – leaped into history with, literally, a bang. On the morning of July 31, two pavilions decorated with greens and a flagstaff stood on the plain east of town.”

“On the street line to the west, tents from warships in port punctuated their arid surroundings. A thick mat of rushes paved the line of march. Thousands waited for the ceremonies of the day.”

“At 9:30, Rear Admiral Richard Thomas of the British navy called on the King to sign official documents. A half hour later, several companies of English sailors and marines were drawn up on a line facing the sea, with an artillery corps on their right.”

“Admiral Thomas and his staff arrived in the King’s state carriage, while the Monarch himself came on horseback, accompanied by the household troops. The artillery honored His Majesty with a 21-gun salute.”

“At a given signal, the British flag officer bowed his colors; the British flag was then lowered and the Hawaiian flag raised amid salvos, first from Thomas’s HMS Carysfort, then from English and American warships, merchantmen and whalers, and finally from the Honolulu fort and the Punchbowl battery.”

“A great cheer arose as the wind caught the folds of the Hawaiian flag. Admiral Thomas read a long declaration, after which marines, sailors, and artillery passed in a review witnessed by Commodore Lawrence Kearney and officers of the USS Constellation. Hawaii’s sovereignty had been restored.” (Greer)

Later, the Kingdom was looking for ways to replenish a budget shortfall. “In its search for additional funds, the official eye rested on Kulaokahu‘a, also called the Waikiki Plain or just The Plain.”

“This unpalatable stretch of real estate sprawled between the American mission and Makiki Stream. An area which an overheated promoter might have referred to as one of sweeping vistas, Kulaokahu‘a was best known for dust storms and impressive nothingness.”

“It was so empty that after Punahou School opened in July 1842, mothers upstairs in the mission house could see children leave that institution and begin their trek across the barren waste. Trees shunned the place; only straggling livestock inhabited it.” (Greer)

The government proposed to raise funds by selling lots in Kualokahu‘a and placed an advertisement in the Polynesian, “Building Lots – The Minister of the Interior is prepared to sell or lease Building Lots between Honolulu and Waikiki, on application being made according to law. [Nov. 14,1846]”

“In advance of this announcement, the government had built three roads with arched stone bridges. The former were extensions of King, Young, and Beretania Streets; the bridges spanned Makiki Stream. At about the same time certain lots were surveyed and numbered”.

“These preliminary sales hardly constituted a stampede. At this rate, great civilizations might have waxed and withered away ere the Waikiki Plain became a blooming, peopled suburb.” (Greer)

“Hoping to project a more urban image of The Plain, government decreed that after May 4, 1850 no horses, cattle, or other animals could run at large there. The creatures thus addressed could not decipher this message, and more than 30 years later agents were being appointed to take up strays.”

“As 1853 ended, the lots were ‘not in demand,’ a phrase repeated by Bishop in April 1855. Apparently Kulaokahu‘a’s desert environment transmitted dry rot to land values there.”

“Bishop wrote in 1856 that he had sold his two lots at auction for $25 each. Kulaokahu‘a plots were in mid-1858 almost worthless, only two or three of all sold having been improved.”

“In the early 1850s, some ceremonies celebrated the Restoration, but the practice faded away. As a recreational mecca, the dusty waste of the Square had the pull of a sauna in the Sahara. The Pacific Commercial Advertiser in 1864 called for a public park.”

“The unfenced and unimproved Thomas Square could have been made into an ornament of the city and a lever to raise property values around it. But this decorative hoist did not materialize. Nine years later, some small prospect of a park appeared.” (Greer)

“Honolulu now had a paper park in a paper subdivision.”

“But events move slowly in this Kingdom, except in the way of contracting debt, and for a long time Thomas Square was only a name.”

“In 1882 the Legislature appropriated a small sum of money for the improvement of Thomas Square, and every session since then money, in scant supply, has been voted for the same object.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, April 7, 1887)

“Very fortunately the control of Thomas Square was given to the Hon. A. S. Cleghorn, whose knowledge of landscape gardening is only equalled by his desire to beautify all public parks and grounds about Honolulu.”

“In the sixties little or no attention was paid to it, and it was soon overgrown with weeds. About 1875 I took charge and had the Square laid out and piped for water, and also had a band stand erected.” (Cleghorn; Thrum 1909)

“The Banyans now growing there are from ‘Ainahau,’ while most of the other trees are from the Government Nursery. There were crotans planted round the band stand and also in clusters about the grounds.” (Cleghorn; Thrum 1909)

“The square of seven acres had been laid out to scale in circles and half circles by the Hon. Robt. Stirling, and Mr. Cleghorn worked upon these plans.”

“Walks were laid out; valuable trees, flowering shrubs and flowers were planted, and an untiring supervision was given to the work, until today Thomas Square, at a trifling expenditure of money, is one of the most agreeable places of public resort to be found anywhere in the world compressed into the same limited space on a dead level.”

“But this did not suffice. Mr. Cleghorn, when the grounds had been sufficiently improved, went around among his friends in the city and raised sufficient money to build a grand stand for the band and provide seats for several hundred people in the grounds.”

“The grand stand was erected by Mr. F. Wilhelm, and is in every respect an improvement upon that in Emma Square. It is about double the size of the latter, and has a ceiling and sounding board.”

“There are thirty-four seats on the ground, ten of which are iron, recently imported from England. The remainder are of wood and were made to order here. They are fixtures.”

“The seats were placed in position yesterday. Hon. Mr. Cleghorn personally superintended the distribution of the seats, which afford shade during the day and an opportunity of enjoying the music by night. As a convenient and agreeable resort for all classes of citizens Thomas Square will be found unrivalled.”

“A wide path, close to the outer fence on its four sides is being opened, so that pedestrians may enjoy the luxury of an agree able promenade instead of walking along the dusty road.”

“The Royal Hawaiian Band, as already stated, plays at Thomas Square for the first time this evening. We bespeak a large and enthusiastic attendance.”

“Only one word of warning: do not touch plant or flower. These are grown for public gratification and should be held sacred. Let persons in charge of children remember this.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, April 7, 1887)

In 1925, a Joint Resolution of the legislative session set aside Thomas Square as a public park and placed it under the management of the Park Board of the City and County of Honolulu. It remains this today. It was recently refurbished by the City and a statue of Kamehameha III erected.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kulaokahua_Lots-Lawa-Reg1100-1885

Kulaokahua_GoogleEarth

No._2._View_of_Honolulu._From_the_Catholic_church._(c._1854)-Honolulu_to_Waikiki

West of Thomas Square-Reg1998-1901

No._2._View_of_Honolulu._From_the_Catholic_church._(c._1854)-Honolulu_to_Waikiki-Detail

Kulaokahua-early-1840s-Reg0814-Metcalf

Kawaiahao Church in 1885-Look towards Diamond Head

Kulaokahua-early-1840s-Reg0284-Metcalf

Thomas Square-StarAdv

Thomas Square-Historic Hawaii Foundation

king-kamehameha-iii-statue

1843 (July) – May 1845 Early version of the present flag

January 20, 2018 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Apology to Nā Kanaka Maoli

“We are gathered in this place at the request of the 18th General Synod of the United Church of Christ, to recall with sorrow the unprovoked invasion of the Hawaiian nation on January 17, 1893, by forces of the United States.”

“We are gathered here so that, as President of the United Church of Christ, I can apologize for the support given that act by ancestors of ours in the church now known as the United Church of Christ. We do so in order to begin a process of repentance, redress and reconciliation for wrongs done.”

“We are here to commit ourselves to work alongside our na Kanaka Maoli sisters and brothers-both those in the United Church of Christ and those beyond-in the hope that a society of justice and mercy for them and for all people everywhere, may yet emerge.”

“We remember that in 1820 the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, now known as the United Church Board for World Ministries, sent missionaries to Hawaii to preach the good news of Jesus Christ.”

“These women and men, often at great personal sacrifice, witnessed to the Gospel in compelling ways. Their lives of Christian commitment and generosity are an inspiration, and their contributions endure. We thank God for them.”

“Some of these men and women, however, sometimes confused the ways of the West with the ways of the Christ. Assumptions of cultural and racial superiority and alien economic understanding led some of them and those who followed them to discounts or undervalue the strengths of the mature society they encountered.”

“Therefore, the rich indigenous values of na Kanaka Maoli, their language, their spirituality, and their regard for the land, were denigrated. The resulting social, political, and economic implications of these harmful attitudes contributed to the suffering of na Kanaka Maoli in that time and into the present.”

“Justice will be pursued and reconciliation achieved as, together, we recognized both the strengths and the weakness of those who preceded us, as we celebrate that which is good, and as we make right that which is wrong.”

“Through the years na Kanaka Maoli have experience virtually the total loss of their pae’aina (land base). Their mechanism for sovereignty, their government, has been taken from them.”

“Many suffer from severe poverty, lack of education opportunity and decent health care, and their cultural heritage is under severe threat. Justice and mercy demand rectification of these wrongs, so that we may be reconciled with each other and walk, together, toward a common future.”

“We recognize that, in collaboration with others from the United States and elsewhere, a number of descendants of the missionaries helped form the so-called “Provisional Government,” which conspired with armed forces of the United States in the invasion of 1893.”

“With the involvement and public support of members of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association (the predecessor body for the Hawaii Conference United Church of Christ, the Provisional Government appropriated all Crown and government lands for eventual forfeiture to the United States.”

“On January 17, 1893, Queen Lili‘uokalani, temporarily and under “solemn protest,” yielded to the superior force of the United States “until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon face being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me…”

“Queen Lili‘uokalani rejected not only the legality of the overthrow but also its morality. She appealed direct to the American people. “

“Oh, honest Americans, as Christians hear me for my downtrodden people! Their form of government is as dear to them as yours is precious to you. Quite as warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs…”

“With all your goodly possessions, covering a territory so immense that there yet remain past unexplored, possessing island that, although near at hand, had to be neutral ground in time of war, do not covet the little vineyard of Naboth’s, so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you.”

“If not in your day, in that of your children, for “be not deceived God is not mocked.” The children to whom our fathers told of the living God, and taught to call ‘Father,’ and whom the sons now seek to despoil and destroy, are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise, and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiians children, lamenting for their homes.”

“Sadly, the Queens’ appeal was ignored.”

“A long century later, the 18th General Synod of the United Church of Christ, while celebrating the good fruit of the mission enterprise, recognizes also, far too late, the wrongs perpetrated upon na Kanaka Maoli.”

“Therefore, the General Synod has instructed me, its President, to begin a process of reconciliation, beginning with a formal apology to you, na Kanaka Maoli.”

“We acknowledge and confess our sins against you and your forebears, na Kanaka Maoli,. We formally apologize to you for ‘our denomination’s historical complicities in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893,’ …”

“… by unduly identifying the ways of the West with the ways of the Christ, and thereby, undervaluing the strengths of the mature society that was native Hawaii. We commit ourselves to help right the wrongs inflicted upon you. “

“We promise respect for the religious traditions and practices, the spirituality and culture that are distinctly yours. We promise solidarity with you in common concern, action and support. We will seek to be present and vulnerable with you and the Hawaii Conference of the United Church of Christ in the struggle for justice, peace and reconciliation.”

“Our General Synod resolution promises advocacy for state and national legislation in support of ‘grass root initiatives toward self-government.’”

“We commit ourselves this day to establish a task force to work in partnership with you and the Hawaii Conference as you seek self-determination and justice. We make these promises in the hope that redress may be achieved.”

“May God’s Spirit guide and God’s Grace empower us in this new day of reconciliation. Amen” (After attending services at Kawaiahao Church, and processing to the grounds of Iolani Palace where thousands of people had gathered, the above Apology to Na Kanaka Maoli was given by Dr. Paul Sherry, President, of the United Church of Christ on January 17, 1993.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

HCUCC-logo

January 14, 2018 by Peter T Young 5 Comments

No Treaty, No Annexation … or, No Need

‘No Treaty, No Annexation’ are common buzz words from some arguing that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Constitutional Monarchy on January 17, 1893 was ineffective and the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists.

However, where, specifically, does it say, then and now, that a ‘Treaty’ is required, or the Senate must vote on ‘Annexation’ in a certain way?

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)

In Hawai‘i, “In 1893, ‘[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.’ ‘That government sought annexation by the United States’ (Newlands Resolution).” (US Supreme Court)

“Then the provisional government grew into the constitutional Republic of Hawai‘i, and we have fully recognized that as the rightful and permanent government of Hawai‘i, and have kept our minister and consul-general at Honolulu and our war ships in that bay to protect them and the Republic….” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“No nation in the world has refused recognition of the Republic of Hawai‘i as the rightful Government, and none of them question its soverign [sic] right to deal with any question that concerns the people of Hawai‘i.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State.”

“… the Republic of Hawai‘i approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 32 of the constitution promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby …”

“The President (of the Republic of Hawai‘i,) with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawai‘i and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

The Hawaiian resolution for ratification of the annexation treaty was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the Republic of Hawai‘i on September 9, 1897.

“There is no provision in the [US] Constitution by which the national government is specifically authorized to acquire territory; and only by a great effort of the imagination can the substantive power to do so be found in the terms of any or all of the enumerated powers.”

“The United States has acquired territory through cession, purchase, conquest, annexation, treaty, and discovery and occupation. These methods are permissible under international law and have been approved by the Supreme Court.”

“The executive and the legislature have performed different roles in the acquisition of territory by each of these means. Unfortunately, the historical practice does not supply a precise explanation of where the Constitution places the power to acquire territory for the United States.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“The power of congress to acquire new territory, either by conquest, purchase, or annexation, was much debated at the time of the acquisition of Louisiana from France, in 1803, and in a less degree in connection with the purchase of Florida and of Alaska.”

“It has now come to be recognized and established, rather by precedent and the general acquiescence of the people, than by any strict constitutional justification. In fact, the power cannot be derived from any narrow or technical interpretation of the constitution.”

“But it is necessary to recognize the fact that there is in this country a national sovereignty. That being conceded, it easily follows that the right to acquire territory is incidental to this sovereignty. It is, in effect, a resulting power, growing necessarily out of the aggregate of powers delegated to the national government by the constitution.” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“Territory is acquired by discovery and occupation where no other recognized nation asserts sovereignty over such territory. In contrast, when territory is acquired by treaty, purchase, cession, or conquest, it is acquired from another nation.” (Footnote, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“We have acquired much territory under treaty provisions and by conquest, and in such case the acquisition may be regarded as incidental to the powers mentioned …”

“… but we have also acquired territory by original discovery and appropriation alone. Such is the fact with reference to a large portion of Oregon; and such is peculiarly the fact with reference to certain small islands of the sea— the so-called Guano Islands.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

Some cite the ‘Apology Resolution’ as evidence of a faulty process; however, as noted below, ”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)

“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.

Commenters, please focus on the question here: Where, specifically, does it say, then and now, that a ‘Treaty’ is required, or the Senate must vote on ‘Annexation’ in a certain way?

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Raising_of_American_flag_at_Iolani_Palace-1898

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