Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On Dec. 18, 1893, President Cleveland made an eloquent speech to Congress on the Hawaiian situation. He had harsh words for the landing of American troops at the revolutionaries' request:
"This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war; unless made either with the consent of the government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperiled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the government of the queen ... the existing government, instead of requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government Building and palace. ... When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. ... "
The president continues:
"But for the notorious predilections of the United States minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should have been called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed.
"But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property, the committee would never have exposed themselves to the plans and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the queen's government.
"But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to accord all needed protection and support, the committee would not have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government Building.
"And, finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the queen and her government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States. ... "
He further stated,
"... if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."
President Cleveland concluded by placing the matter in the hands of Congress
Not one in a thousand agrees with you, and not 1 in 10,000 wants to reverse statehood. A few kooks and agenda-pursuers. And if we did cast you adrift, it wouldn't be a year before somebody with a name like "Peoples Republic of...." gobbles you up. Out of the refrigerator, into the blast-furnace. Some people don't know when they are well off!!!
There are, of course, other messy and significant details to the Hawaiian history of the 1800s that conveniently get left out of the telling by some of those who wish to generate sympathy for their goal to "reestablish the Hawaiian monarchy," without being too specific about what that actually means. That's probably because if they are too explicit it could raise a huge pushback among the 80% of the residents of Hawai'i today who would probably be disenfranchised by such a move, not to mention who would suffer financially due to the economic implosion it would cause.
First, in the simplest terms, the Kamehameha-style monarchy actually came to an end in 1840 when a constitutional monarchy was established that seriously diminished the monarch's power, and placed the power to legislate in the hands of a two-house parliament. In 1887 a new constitution was enacted to replace the one from 1840, under controversial circumstances, but in 1891, after King Kalakaua died without leaving an heir, his sister Liliuokalani took the throne, and she basically ignored the constitution of 1887 and unilaterally replaced it with her own, which gave her more power to appoint key legislators and cabinet members. There was also an armed insurrection earlier in 1889 to try to overthrow the 1887 constitution, and later in 1895 there was an attempted counterrevolution to try to restore Queen L to the throne. And that simplifies the story. It was actually quite a complex and dodgy situation for a number of years.
And let's also correct a common misunderstanding... there was no bloodshed associated with Queen L's abdication during the one-day revolution in 1893. Yes, there was a detachment of 300 American marines bivouacked in Honolulu, ordered there as a safety measure to control violence if it broke out. A group of these men marched past the palace in dress uniforms, and saluted Queen L as they paraded by. That was about it in terms of military action on the day.
There are legal experts today who say due to the various constitutional issues, Queen L was not actually a legitimate monarch of Hawai'i when she abdicated the throne in 1893, and that in effect there was no functioning government of Hawai'i at the time and nobody in control, which is precisely what triggered the overthrow action.
There's more, but the point is the whole matter is far, far more complex than the PR releases from the sovereignty movement are willing to acknowledge.
And there are several different organizations pursuing this quixotic quest, each with a different set of claims and expectations, and each with a different slate of candidates for who should be in the new monarchy. In a similar manner, native Hawaiian Kamana'opono Crabbe, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs sent US Secretary of State a letter last week asking for a legal opinion about whether the Hawaiian Monarchy still exists, and then he promptly had to recall the letter because his own Board of Directors did not approve, and rescinded it. THIS is the real state of native Hawaiian "self-governance" today... the key players can't even agree on what to do. It's confused and chaotic.
And President Cleveland's personal opinions, based on the particular version of the story he believed at that time, are just that... personal opinions, not legally binding on the US Congress.
It is easy to find the courage necessary to support a moral position if that position benefits oneself. True moral courage, however, is proven when one chooses to support that which is morally and ethically right even when such a position is to one's one detriment.
Lets correct something ok.
OpenDs Quote: In 1887 a new constitution was enacted to replace the one from 1840, under controversial circumstances, but in 1891, after King Kalakaua died without leaving an heir, his sister Liliuokalani took the throne, and she basically ignored the constitution of 1887. End quote:
The original constitution of hawaii was the 1840s one. In 1887 led by a band of businessmen, seeking to control the kingdom politically as well as economically formed a group called the Hawaiian League which in time put enough pressure on King Kalakaua to sign the new constitution, the which became known as the Bayonet Constitution, as in "signed at the point of" this constitution limited the monarchy powers,
Its important to note that the last two kings were voted in democraticly by the people of Hawai'i unlike the british or european monarchy.
OpenDs Quote: but in 1891, after King Kalakaua died without leaving an heir, his sister Liliuokalani took the throne, and she basically ignored the constitution of 1887 and unilaterally replaced it with her own, which gave her more power to appoint key legislators and cabinet members end quote:
Queen Liliuokalani was trying to restore the original consitution that gave the power back to the monarchy and the people, not rich foreigners.
The reality is this, the introduction of western foreigners to foreign governments just spells trouble. We see this before the overthrow, we see this with special interests during the overthrow and we see this in the annexation of hawaii and later in making Hawai'i a state. Every action has something illegal or questionable happining. I just ask ppl like OpenD. How much do you need to have reasonable
You miss my point completely, most likely due to the "can't see the forest for all these damn trees, syndrome". Some memorize the details of history, I learn the lessons from them.
Other than the "goodness" of "American hegemony," what other "point" were you trying to make?
Sadly, it's pretty obvious that you haven't the lessons of empires that overextend themselves. I suggest that you peruse the "Blowback series" of books by the late Chalmers Johnson.
Other than the "goodness" of "American hegemony," what other "point" were you trying to make?
Sadly, it's pretty obvious that you haven't the lessons of empires that overextend themselves. I suggest that you peruse the "Blowback series" of books by the late Chalmers Johnson.
Since you were unable to discern, much less comprehend the lesson, I will lay it out in simpler terms just for you.
There are times in history when there are massive changes, some "defeats". Instead of being bitter about it, accept the change, embrace the new future, which if we are the ones that defeated you, will be brighter than the past, go forward and build that future for yourself and your descendants.
An example, other than the ones already being disused, is a Doctor, a Black Doctor, and not "just" a doctor but a brain surgeon, but not "just" a brain surgeon, but one of the worlds best. He ran that Department in a great hospital. He just wrote a great book.
Did he spend his life pissing and moaning about slavery and how disadvantaged that made him?
No, he did NOT. He embraced HIS current situation, made the best of it and is now one of the greatest Americans alive - a true testament of what can happen in this country.
To help you connect the dots, I will further add:
Whether or not you think, that the "overthrow" of the Queen was fully in comportment with some nebulous law, or "morality", accept that it is done, has been for several years now, and is NOT going to be undone. I will further speculate, but I am certain of this, that if the US dropped Hawaii and let some fraction or faction of the population, based on race or whatever, decide the course to follow, disaster would ensue, and the end result that you would be speaking Korean, Chinese or Russian before too long, and be begging for a time machine to bring you back to the time when you were still a state.
Huh? So the end result justifies the means? For every one success story you have a thousand others battling to be as successful but not reaching it.
For the sake of argument and not getting into a great big discussion over it. I have defended our country and would defend it again if need be not because of who she is now(OMG NO!) but what the vision of our founding fathers had for us and hope that one day we will be that( that vision is what makes america great).
Further your argument of the military is absurd, that Hawaiian independence would mean the total removal of the American military. This is nonsense. Those bases are not here for the benefit of Hawaii, but for the benefit of the US mainland. The American military maintains bases around the world in foreign nations including Okinawa, Germany, and Cuba. America would not hesitate to enter into a treaty with the government of an independent Hawaii to continue to lease its facilities here. Just another example of fear based politic
Last edited by hawaiian by heart; 06-01-2014 at 12:54 PM..
Huh? So the end result justifies the means? For every one success story you have a thousand others battling to be as successful but not reaching it.
For the sake of argument and not getting into a great big discussion over it. I have defended our country and would defend it again if need be not because of who she is now(OMG NO!) but what the vision of our founding fathers had for us and hope that one day we will be that( that vision is what makes america great).
Further your argument of the military is absurd, that Hawaiian independence would mean the total removal of the American military. This is nonsense. Those bases are not here for the benefit of Hawaii, but for the benefit of the US mainland. The American military maintains bases around the world in foreign nations including Okinawa, Germany, and Cuba. America would not hesitate to enter into a treaty with the government of an independent Hawaii to continue to lease its facilities here. Just another example of fear based politics etc.
Well, if that U.S. did maintain a presence, of course. But I doubt if your side would want that. Well on second thought, they would probably want to charge usurious rates for the base, so, Okay, you're have a point.
I have news for you, the end always justifies the means - ALWAYS. The ends are the only reason for employing the means. Do you think your precious quasi-Queen was displaced for the entertainment value? No, there were real reason for more important that a "monarchy".
I'll offer you a chance to lay your cards out..
If you could go back, and undo the events that lead up to, as well as, statehood, would you? And please don't give me "I'd do it differently" answer, because that is not the issue.
I suspect not 1 in 10,000 Americans would.
For the record, I certainly would NOT. It turned out just fine, for virtually everyone.
And let's also correct a common misunderstanding... there was no bloodshed associated with Queen L's abdication during the one-day revolution in 1893. Yes, there was a detachment of 300 American marines bivouacked in Honolulu, ordered there as a safety measure to control violence if it broke out. A group of these men marched past the palace in dress uniforms, and saluted Queen L as they paraded by. That was about it in terms of military action on the day.
According the the Blount Report, John Good (a member of the "Committee of Safety") shot an unarmed, royal police officer named Leialoha. Considering that Officer Leialoha had to be taken to the hospital to be treated for the gunshot injury, he undoubtedly shed some blood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
There are legal experts today who say due to the various constitutional issues, Queen L was not actually a legitimate monarch of Hawai'i when she abdicated the throne in 1893, and that in effect there was no functioning government of Hawai'i at the time and nobody in control, which is precisely what triggered the overthrow action.
Although I don't consider him to be a "legal expert" just yet, David Keanu Sai's doctoral dissertation and a sequent textbook he wrote entitled "Ua Mau Ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures," contain an interesting discussion of de jure and de facto governments. In brief, the government of Liliʻuokalani was just as "legitimate" as the "Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi", the "Republic of Hawai'i", and the current government of the "State of Hawaiʻi." Here's a link to Sai's dissertation... http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/pdf/Dissertation(Sai).pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
There's more, but the point is the whole matter is far, far more complex than the PR releases from the sovereignty movement are willing to acknowledge.
It's okay to refer to the "PR releases" of some Hawaiian sovereignty groups as "propaganda."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
And there are several different organizations pursuing this quixotic quest, each with a different set of claims and expectations, and each with a different slate of candidates for who should be in the new monarchy.
In a similar manner, native Hawaiian Kamana'opono Crabbe, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs sent US Secretary of State a letter last week asking for a legal opinion about whether the Hawaiian Monarchy still exists, and then he promptly had to recall the letter because his own Board of Directors did not approve, and rescinded it. THIS is the real state of native Hawaiian "self-governance" today... the key players can't even agree on what to do. It's confused and chaotic.
Although Iʻm not the U.S. Secretary of State, I have a pretty good idea what his "legal opinion" on the existence of the Hawaiian monarchy would say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
And President Cleveland's personal opinions, based on the particular version of the story he believed at that time, are just that... personal opinions, not legally binding on the US Congress.
Grover Cleveland probably could have solved the "Hawaiʻi problem" in 1893 with a simple "executive order," his foreign policy was one of "non-intervention." Moreover, he had more pressing issues at the time to be concerned about, such as his cancer surgery and a major economic crisis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For every one success story you have a thousand others battling to be as successful but not reaching it. 
