Images of Old Hawaiʻi

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

DOJ Opinion of October 4, 1988

“There is no provision in the Constitution by which the national government is specifically authorized to acquire territory; and only by a great effort of the imagination can the substantive power to do so be found in the terms of any or all of the enumerated powers.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“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)

“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)

Some suggest that Hawai‘i was never annexed to the United States and, as proof, refer to the October 4, 1988 Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice Opinion and a subsequent (March 12, 2000) Op-Ed by Steven Newcomb in the Advertiser to support their conclusion.

Some even go as far as adding a quote – “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion notes same. (That was the heading on Newcomb’s Op-Ed and apparently his opinion, not the Department of Justice’s.)

In fact, the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion makes the definitive statement, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898. Joint Res. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (1898). Again, the Senate had already rejected an annexation treaty, this one negotiated by President McKinley with Hawaii.”

“And again, Congress then considered a measure to annex the land by joint resolution. Indeed, Congress acted in explicit reliance on the procedure followed for the acquisition of Texas.”

Before we get far ahead of ourselves, we should first look at the noted Office of Legal Counsel Opinion and its purpose. While some would have you believe it was an opinion addressing Hawai‘i annexation, in fact, that Opinion was prepared to address “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea”.

The Opinion clearly notes on its first page, under Introduction and Summary, that “This responds to the requests, made by your Office (State Department) and an inter-agency working group, for analysis of the constitutional and statutory questions raised by a proposed presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea of the United States from its present breadth of three miles to twelve miles.”

The Opinion was not about Hawai‘i, nor its annexation – in fact, of the 26-pages of the Opinion (not counting appendices,) only 2-pages referenced the process of annexation of Hawai‘i. And Hawai‘i and its annexation to the US are not even mentioned in the Opinion’s Conclusion.

It does note, however, “(t)he constitutionality of the annexation of Hawai‘i, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act.”

“Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable.”

“The stated justification for the joint resolution – the previous acquisition of Texas – simply ignores the reliance the 1845 Congress placed on its power to admit new states. It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”

“Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawai‘i can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

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)

“Whether the Republic is a government de facto or dejure it is entitled to American sympathy, and when it has been recognized, successively, by the United States and all other powers, first, as a government de facto and then as a rightful government, republican in form, and is in a successful career of constitutional authority, our national obligations and all our better sentiments compel us to admit its full power and authority to dispose of any question that concerns its sovereign will and the welfare of its people.”

“If it is true, as some rashly venture to assert, that the United States minister at Hawai‘i and the commander of the warship Boston, in violation of our international duty, assisted a band of revolutionists to depose the queen and to usurp the government of the islands …”

“… it is also true that President Harrison recognized that de facto and provisional government as having the rightful sovereignty in Hawaii, in so far that it could conclude a treaty of annexation with the United States, and such a treaty was duly signed and sent to the Senate.”

“Then President Cleveland, when he came into power, sent Mr Blount as his special commissioner and accredited him to President Dole as the representative of the sovereignty of Hawaii. If he, or those in the Senate who still suffer from the pangs and compunctions of conscience which he is supposed to have felt when he recognized President Dole had then renounced the actions of Minister Stevens and Captain Wiltse …”

“… and if Mr Cleveland had sent a minister to Lili‘uokalani as the rightful sovereign, they would have fully established the sincerity of their objections and would have shown ‘the courage of their convictions.’”

“But, instead of observing that logical course, they sent Mr Willis as minister to Hawai‘i and accredited him to President Dole as the chief executive of Hawai‘i.”

“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)

“Now, after the lapse of five years, it is urged that the Republic is a usurping government; that it is a fraud contrived for the personal advantage of its promoters, and that Lili‘uokalani is still the rightful queen of Hawai‘i….”

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

“This act also establishes the fact that a treaty with a foreign State which declares the consent of such State to be annexed to the United States, although it is rejected by the Senate of the United States, is a sufficient expression and authentication of the consent of such foreign State to authorize Congress to enact a law providing for annexation …”

“… which, when complied with, is effectual without further legislation to merge the sovereignty of such independent State into a new and different relation to the United States and toward its own people.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“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.” (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.) (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

And, as noted in the purported document that is inferred to suggest “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Opinion notes same – it does not; that document states, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Click Here to read the DOJ Opinion for yourself.

Click Here to read Newcomb’s Op-Ed.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001
annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

He ‘Ōlelo Lokomaikai

For a while the Islands were under the rule of the British commission set up by Lord George Paulet. Queen Victoria, on learning these activities, immediately sent an envoy to the islands to restore sovereignty to its rightful rulers. Finally, Admiral Richard Thomas arrived in the Islands on July 26, 1843 to restore the kingdom to Kamehameha III.

Then, on July 31, 1843, Thomas declared the end of the Provisional Cession and recognized Kamehameha III as King of the Hawaiian Islands and the Islands to be independent and sovereign; the Hawaiian flag was raised.

This event is referred to as Ka La Hoʻihoʻi Ea, Sovereignty Restoration Day, and it is celebrated each year in the approximate site of the 1843 ceremonies, Thomas Square.

“After five months of embarrassment and suffering under the misrule of the new powers the 31st of July opened a brighter scene”. (Bingham)

“On the 31st of July, a treaty of peace, providing for friendly intercourse between the Islanders and the subjects of Great Britain, was signed by the king of the Islands, Kamehameha, and the British admiral Thomas.”

“A parade of several hundred English marines appeared on the plain of Honolulu with their officers, their banners waving proudly, and their arms glittering in the sunbeams.”

“Admiral Thomas and the suspended king proceeded thither in a carriage, attended by the chiefs and a vast multitude of the people, who formed a line parallel with the troops.”

“The English standard bearers advanced towards his majesty, their flags bowed gracefully, and a broad, beautiful Hawaiian banner, exhibiting a crown and olive branch, was unfurled over the head of the king and his attending chieftains …”

“… which was saluted by the English troops with field pieces, then by the guns of the Carysfort, whose yards were manned in homage to the restored sovereign.”

“Then succeeded the roar of the guns of the fort, Punch-bowl Battery, the admiral’s ship, Dublin, the United States’ ship, Boston, and others. The day was a day of rejoicing and congratulations, enhanced by the issuing of the following edict:” (Bingham)

“He Olelo Lokomaikai
Act of Grace”

“Accorded by His Majesty King Kamehameha III, by and with the advice of his Chiefs in Council, to all his Subjects upon the occasion of his resuming the reins of Government.”

“WHEREAS certain difficulties and apparent misunderstandings have recently arisen between Us and the Government of Great Britain, in the course of which some of our Subjects, subsequent to our Provisional Cession of the Sovereignty of the Islands to Great Britain …”

“… and up to the period when we resumed the exercise of our Kingly Power, have accepted office, and otherwise performed acts not so required to do by Us, or our duly constituted Authorities. And, whereas, certain persons have been imprisoned within the time abovementioned not by our Authority,”

“WE, anxious to express our Gratitude to God, and to give the fullest proof of our attachment to the English Nation, and to manifest our joy at the Restoration of our National Flag, hereby Proclaim,”

“First, That none of our Subjects shall be punished by our Authority, for any act committed by them or any of them to the injury of our Government between the 25th of February, 1843, and the date hereof.”

“Second, That all prisoners of every description, from Hawaiʻi to Niʻihau, be immediately discharged.”

“Third, All Government business will be suspended for ten days after this date, that all persons may be free to enjoy themselves in the festivities and rejoicings appropriate to the occasion.”

“Given at Honolulu, Oahu, Island of Oahu, this thirty-first day of July, 1843.”

“(Signed,) Kamehameha III
(Signed,) Kekāuluohi”

“The king and chiefs repaired to the stone meetinghouse (Kawaiahaʻo Church) to offer public thanks for the singular interposition of Providence in favor of the nation. 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 the declaration of Admiral Thomas; after which, John Ii (a counsellor and orator) 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, but which were now dispelled, and succeeded by hope, and joy, and brightening prospects.”

“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, gratitude and praise.”

“The sentiments of the 126th Psalm apparently inspired his heart: “When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream. Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing. Then said they among the heathen, ‘The Lord hath done great things for them.’”

“What a contrast between this scene and that of a human sacrifice in a heathen temple, which the orator of the day once saw offered by his prince, Liholiho, and his father!”

“It affords pleasure to add here, the testimony of the American Board, ‘that the whole deportment of Admiral Thomas, while at the islands, 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.’”

“The king being restored to the free use of his sovereignty under the constitution, and once more regarding himself as the head of the people, took the lead again by example and influence, and by such means as were in his power, to favor the cause of temperance and order.” (Bingham)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2016 Hoʻokuleana LLC

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

by Peter T Young 7 Comments

It’s About Nationality, Not Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook 

Follow Peter T Young on Google+ 

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn  

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

© 2015 Hoʻokuleana LLC

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