KALAELOA
STRODE
THOUGHTS
ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN
KINGDOM AND ITS
OVERTHROW
I ran for the position of United States Congressman in the special election of 2010. I, and Charles Amsterdam, were the only two Native Hawaiians running for Congress. Yet, when OHA sponsored a debate between the candidates for the office of United States Representative, they did not invite the two native Hawaiian candidates: Kalaeloa Strode and Charles Amsterdam.It was at that moment that I had an epiphany - "OHA doesn't care about Native Hawaiians and will make no effort to have our views heard in the debate."
My name is Kalaeloa Strode and these are my thoughts about the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
I first heard about the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom when I was a
student at the East West Center, University of Hawaii at
Manoa.
It seemed incredulous to me at that time that such a massive change in
Hawaiian culture and history could be so little well known.
Even today, few people realize that there is, in fact, no Treaty of
Annexation required by International Law for the transfer of
sovereignty from one nation to another, short of
warfare.
There was never a war declared between the United States and the
Kingdom of Hawaii, yet somehow today the Kingdom is no more, and in its
place is a state.
The purpose of this website is to look into this subject and figure out
just what happened. Is Hawaii a state of the United States, or is it
still a nation kingdom?
Tea
Party People
A
Taoist History of Hawaii
Sarah
Palin Teaches Hawaiian History
The
Blessings of Civilization
The
Akaka Bill
The best argument against Hawaiian sovereignty and the continuation of
the Kingdom of Hawaii has been posted by Kenneth R.
Conklin,
Ph.D. on
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/StatehoodHistUntwistedShort.html
I’ll address his arguments one by one.
)
Conklin states: “Outright
racism has become socially acceptable, as
shown by the fact that a racist blog is highly featured on the Honolulu
Advertiser website.”
He says further: “The
"silent majority" is too timid -- too
"politically correct" -- to make any protest to the constant attacks on
the legitimacy of the State of
Hawaii.”
The first question here is whether any attempt towards furthering the
Native Hawaiian is racist. I say it is not racist, although it involves
race and culture. German Americans have Germany as their country of
origin. Italian Americans have Italy, Irish Americans have Ireland. So
where is the home country of Native Hawaiians? It isn’t somewhere in
Europe, or even in Asia. The home country of Native Hawaiians are the
Hawaiian islands. Not Tahiti, not Samoa – but the Hawaiian Islands.
It isn’t race, but motherland that is being considered. So as we
look at Conklin’s arguments, keep in mind that he is trying to turn the
love of Native Hawaiians for their motherland into a racist issue. It
is not. It is a patriotism, and a nationalism, and a culturalism that
transcends the transient overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom by the
Committee of Safety in 1893 and the present military necessity of the
United States to hold on to Pearl Harbor in order to control the
Pacific region. So let’s begin.
ARE NATIVE HAWAIIANS A
TRIBE?
Conklin starts in with an assessment of the Akaka
Bill.
He says, “The Office of
Hawaiian Affairs has long demanded all the
ceded lands for the future Akaka tribe. Combined with Bishop estate
(Kamehameha Schools) lands, the result would be to remove half of all
the lands (and waters) of Hawaii from state control and from the state
tax base.”
Note his use of the word “tribe.” Native Hawaiians have never formed
tribes, as in the case of the Maoris of New Zealand. We formed
“ohanas.” This has been translated lately as meaning “family,” but the
origin is quite different. An “ohana” was the basic unit for
cultivating the taro patches, about fifty people. They did not have to
be related. Over this unit of fifty was a chief, who supervised the
cultivation. In the course of time, more chiefs were placed in charge
of these “ohana” chiefs, and eventually there emerged one chief of
chiefs who ruled the entire island. Such was the case just before
Kamehameha conquered the islands and placed those chiefs under his
power. Thus in 1810, a kingdom was formed with one king over all the
chiefs of the islands. Thus, King Kamehameha became the first of his
dynasty. There were, and are still, no Hawaiian tribes. All references
to us as tribes is a superimposition of an American culture attempting
to define the Native Hawaiian people.
Conklin’s second point is that lands would be removed from
“state control and from the state tax base.” So this is the question
we’ll have to answer ultimately: does the state of Hawaii have any
legitimate “control” of the Hawaiian islands and can, and should, the
state have the power to tax Native Hawaiians or any land belonging to
Native Hawaiians or to the Hawaiian Kingdom?
)
WHAT IS
PATRIOTISM?
Conklin calls his writings against the Native Hawaiian a “ho’okupu:”
He says, "This essay is
a ho'okupu -- an offering -- an act of patriotism to the
State of Hawaii and the United States of America, to debunk some
widespread falsehoods and to straighten out the twisted history that
has become so prevalent in the media, our colleges, and our
schools."
He calls it an act of patriotism to the “State of Hawaii and the United
States of America.” This shows that his intent is to give credence to
the title claims of the United States to the lands of the Hawaiian
Islands and to the State of Hawaii, of which it is a part. Knowing this
bias, I will try to counterpoint his arguments towards the goal of
showing you that: 1) the title to the Hawaiian Islands was never held
by the United States via any legitimate international treaty, 2) the
title was never transferred from the Kingdom of Hawaii to the Republic
of Hawaii via any legitimate treaty, and 3) that the United States has
no clear title now, nor ever did, according to international rules of
behavior.
IS SENATOR DANIEL INOUYE
A LIAR?
Conklin begins with his first assertion that Senator Daniel Inouye lied
about the facts of Hawaii’s overthrow in the hallowed chambers of the
Senate. I quote: “Inouye
said (and Dorgan echoed):
‘I think it is about
time that we reach out and correct the wrong that
was committed in 1893. Yes, at that time the representative of the
people of the United States directed a marine company on an American
ship to land and take over the government. They imprisoned our queen.
No crime had been committed. When the new government took over and
turned itself over to the government of the United States and said,
Please take us in, the President of the United States was President
Cleveland at that time. He sent his envoy to Hawaii to look over the
case. When he learned that the takeover had been illegal, he said this
was an un-American act and we will not take over. The queen is
free.’”
Conklin states that Senator Inouye is a liar again when he states:
“Very recently Senator
Inouye repeated the same lies, along with
others, during his prepared testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs regarding the Akaka bill on August 6,
2009.”
WHICH LIES ARE
ATTRIBUTED
TO SENATOR INOUYE?
Conklin lists the inaccuracies.
1) The Hawaiian flag atop the Iolani Palace was not taken down and
replaced by the U.S. flag after the 1893 overthrow. It was taken down
and replaced for the 1898 annexation ceremony.
2) The Hawaiian flag was not cut up into pieces and passed out as
souvenirs.
So, based on these two facts, he calls Senators Inouye and Akaka liars.
I quote: “Senator Akaka
told that lie on the Senate floor on July 31,
1990 to commemorate 'Hawaiian flag day' (actually, to commemorate
restoration of sovereignty on July 31, 1843 following a takeover by a
rogue British naval captain).
Senator
Inouye
told the same lie on October 27, 1993 when
trying to persuade his colleagues to support the apology resolution,
and Inouye repeated the lie in July 2000 while seeking support for the
newly introduced Akaka bill.”
Strong language for two rather unimportant historical facts. He states
that there are several more inaccurate and history-twisting
facts:
1) Hawaiian language was made illegal by the Republic of Hawaii after
the revolution of 1893.
2) The Royal Mausoleum in Nuuanu Oahu remains under the sovereignty of
the Kingdom of Hawaii and U.S. law does not apply
there.
3) Anyone with a drop of Hawaiian native blood has genetically and
culturally encoded unique ways of knowing and learning; and therefore
ethnic Hawaiian children have special needs for uniquely tailored
curriculum and instructional methods.
4) Forced assimilation of ethnic Hawaiians is responsible for their
poor health statistics today.
WHAT ABOUT THE LANDING
OF
MARINES IN HAWAII?
These six statements are supposed to counter-act the historical fact
that the Committee of Safety, a group of a dozen or so
men,
overthrew the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii with the help
of the United States Navy. He justifies this as
follows:
“History-twisters often
say that the landing of U.S. troops in 1893 was
unexpected and unprecedented. But in fact the Kingdom had come to rely
on U.S. troops to stop riots and restore order on previous occasions of
bloodshed when the Honolulu police force and the Royal Guard were too
weak to get the job done.”
So Conklin implies from this that the landing of the Marines on the
sovereign nation of the Kingdom of Hawaii was due to the desire of the
U.S. troops “to stop riots and restore order?” There were no riots.
There was no order to restore. What is he talking about? The streets of
Honolulu were calm and peaceful when the Marines landed on that dark
day in 1893.
WHAT IS THE BAYONET
CONSTITUTION?
Conklin shifts focus to the signing of the Bayonet Constitution in 1887
when the Hawaiian Rifles, all under the control
of non-native
Hawaiians, threatened to injure or kill King Kalakaua if he didn’t sign
the constitution which they had created. This Bayonet Constitution
allowed a person to vote only if he had a certain high level of wealth.
This excluded practically all Native Hawaiians. Such laws which existed
in the deep South of the United States were made illegal in the 1960s.
Taxes, wealth, and property ownership should never be a pre-requisite
to the democratic right of every person to vote. The Bayonet
Constitution took those rights away from the average Native Hawaiian
and shifted power to the wealthy elite minority of businessmen and
non-native Hawaiians.
So here is Conklin’s spin on this. “In
1887 a group of 1500 armed men,
sick and tired of the corruption and instability of King Kalakaua's
government, surrounded Iolani Palace and forced Kalakaua to sign a new
Constitution severely restricting his powers. The choice he was given
was to either sign the new Constitution or else the monarchial form of
government would be replaced by a republic. That revolution took place
with zero U.S. military involvement. The largest national origin of men
who participated in that revolution was Portuguese, not
American.”
)
“Was Portuguese, not American.” Huh? That, in itself, betrays a subtle
racism between the Germanic, north Europeans and the olive-colored
Latin Mediterraneans, doesn’t it? Also the words, “sick and tired of
the corruption.” Oh, they were sick and tired, so they rallied 1500
people to threaten the king with death?
Yet Conklin is proud to say that, in this case, the Marines had nothing
to do with it. The excuse used, however, by the Committee of Safety for
overthrowing the queen was her attempt to change this 1887 Bayonet
Constitution and give rights back to Native Hawaiians to vote. If
Native Hawaiians voted, they would have changed the corruption that
these petty businessmen and sugar growers were involved in, but they
couldn’t vote! They didn’t have the property or money. So as soon as
the power of these bankers, businessmen, and sugar barons was
challenged, in comes the Marines!
In 1889, Robert Wilcox, a Native Hawaiian, attempted to overthrow the
Bayonet Constitution. This is Conklin’s take on this.
“In 1889 Kalakaua's
sister Liliuokalani, having returned from England,
hated the fact that Kalakaua had signed the new Constitution. With the
help of Robert Wilcox, she plotted against her brother in hopes of
taking over the government and restoring monarchial powers.
As the plot was put
into
action Robert Wilcox and his militia, armed
with rifles and grenades, attacked the Palace, (seized the palace from
the Rifle Guard) resulting in 7 men killed and many injured. The roof
of the Palace Bungalow was blown open by dynamite bombs blindly thrown
over the eight-foot-high wall surrounding the Palace.
U.S. Marines came
ashore
to restore order, and continued patrolling the
streets for a week before returning to their
ship.”
What Conklin doesn’t say is 1) the Rifle Guard was under the control of
the sugar barons and were part of the threat at the signing of the
Bayonet Constitution two years earlier; 2) Queen Liliuokalani did not
hate her brother, she hated the Bayonet Constitution; and 3) Robert
Wilcox wasn’t overthrowing King Kalakaua, he was overthrowing the power
of the Rifle Guard. Why did the Marines come ashore to
“restore order?”
Whose order? Not the Native Hawaiian’s order. This was the sugar
baron’s order. Their power was being restored. The Marines were aiding
the Rifle Guard and the businessmen to continue the Bayonet
Constitution, and continue denying Native Hawaiians the
vote.
DID THE U.S. ASSIST IN
ANY PART OF THE OVERTHROW?
Conklin now makes another outlandish statement: “THE REVOLUTION OF
1893 THAT OVERTHREW THE MONARCHY WAS DONE BY LOCAL RESIDENTS WITHOUT
U.S. ASSISTANCE.”
Is he kidding? Local residents? He should say, sugar barons, bankers,
and businessmen. He should say, those who did not want Native Hawaiians
to vote.
Conklin continues: “History-twisters
like to say that in January 1893
the U.S. staged an armed invasion of Hawaii, took over Iolani Palace,
arrested the Queen, and established a the Provisional Government as a
puppet regime. Note the statements of Senators Inouye, Dorgan, and
Akaka previously cited.
Here's what really
happened.”
)
Now we get the “real truth” as follows according to
Conklin:
“Her (the Queen’s)
attempt to unilaterally proclaim a new constitution
was a naked grab for power, and an act of treason; and it was the
immediate precipitating cause of her overthrow.
The Queen had appointed
her cabinet ministers only a few days before
the overthrow, and only after bribing the Legislature to confirm them.”
So now the Queen is “bribing.” It was a “naked grab for power.”
Remember, we’re talking about changing the Bayonet Constitution which
denied Native Hawaiians the vote because it was based on a
property-wealth threshold which excluded most (if not all) Native
Hawaiians. So we had no control over our own destiny because of this
constitution which was forced upon the king by a few elite
businessmen.
Conklin continues: “Nevertheless,
the cabinet ministers refused to
support her attempt to proclaim her new constitution, despite her
threats of bodily harm to them.”
In fact, her cabinet asked her to wait before proclaiming a new
constitution, which she did. This statement about the Queen making
“threats of bodily harm” to the Cabinet is an attempt to show Queen
Liliuokalani as some kind of savage. This, in itself, is subtle
racism.
Conklin claims that “the
Queen bribed the Legislature to support the
dismissal of her cabinet a few days before the Legislature's term
ended; and the appointment of a new cabinet favorable to the lottery,
distillery, and opium bills; the passage of those bills; the closing of
the Legislature; and then the immediate attempt to proclaim a new
constitution.”
Notice how Conklin places these ideas together: bribes, lottery,
distillery, and opium. All horrors to the
missionary mind.
How savage
the Queen must have been. The lottery! Oh my goodness! Distillery! Oh,
the evils of distilled spirits!
WERE THE NATIVES
RESTLESS?
Conklin states (I’m not kidding): “The
natives were very restless.”
This is out of a Tarzan movie.
So now we have restless natives, a bribing Queen fond of lotteries,
alcohol, and opium. The sweet innocent non-native Hawaiian businessmen
who only want the Bayonet Constitution preserved to maintain power and
restrict the vote. Now that Conklin has set the stage, let’s see how
these innocent events unfold.
“Meanwhile, there was a
mass meeting of most of the 1500 men from the
1887 revolution. The meeting was in the Armory a couple blocks from the
Palace (the Armory no longer exists), and many of the men were carrying
guns. Now that the Queen was trying to overthrow that 1887 Constitution
and proclaim a new Constitution giving herself nearly dictatorial
powers, these men were openly planning a revolution to replace the
monarchy with a republic.
Nearly all of these men
had white skin (although the largest ethnic
group were Portuguese which other Europeans and Americans regarded as
not quite white).
Seven of the thirteen
members of the Committee of Safety, leading the
revolution, were native-born subjects of the Kingdom, and several other
leaders were European or American nationals. All were long-time
residents of Hawaii and had voting
rights.”
So we have the same 1500 who imposed the Bayonet Constitution involved
in another attempt to consolidate power to themselves. “Many of the men
were carrying guns,” Conklin states. True. Five hundred rifles were
smuggled into Hawaii from San Francisco by these businessmen and
distributed to the non-native Hawaiians.
Conklin shows his racism again referring to the Portuguese as people
“which other Europeans and Americans regarded as not quite white.” Not
quite white?
Now Conklin justifies these “white” and “no quite white” long-time
residents of Hawaii as having had “voting rights.” Well, of course they
had voting rights. They had property and wealth, which was a
pre-requisite to being able to vote according to the Bayonet
Constitution! Yes, they had voting rights. It was the Native Hawaiians
who had none.
)
Conklin continues: “Honolulu
residents of European and American
ancestry were afraid for their lives, homes, and businesses, because
some of the more radical natives had threatened to use arson and
rioting as political weapons if there was an attempt to overthrow the
monarchy.”
So the “radical natives” were activists in attempting to subvert the
overthrow of the monarchy. Is that what he just said? And this activism
frightened the descendants of European and American
residents.
So these “radical natives” were the reason to call in the Marines to
land in Hawaii?
Conklin continues: “The
tensions were not only political, but also
racial. Liliuokalani was head of a multiracial government, but she used
her great political power primarily to pursue racial supremacy.
Throughout her reign as Queen, Liliuokalani had often used the phrase
"my people" to refer to her race rather than her multiracial
subjects.”
So this is the proof that Queen Liliuokalani was a racist: she used the
phrase “my people.” Yup, that clinches it. Bring in the Marines! The
Queen said, “my people.”
Now Conklin proves his point by asserting: “There were reports that the
new Constitution she was trying to proclaim would allow voting rights
only for ethnic Hawaiians. We will never be able to prove that, because
immediately after the revolution she destroyed all copies of her
proposed Constitution (it's likely that one reason she did that was to
prevent anyone from seeing the racism of that document).”
Can you see the holes in this argument? “There were reports.” Reports
by whom? There are no such reports. Conklin gives us the reason why
there are no such reports: “immediately after the revolution she
destroyed all copies of her proposed Constitution.” So how
can
you know these reports ever existed? Conklin gives us the motive of the
Queen: “it's likely
that one reason
she did that was to prevent anyone from seeing the racism of that
document.” Who says it’s likely? That shows us
that
Conklin really
doesn’t know, but is merely surmising.
There are and never were any such reports. The one thing that the
abolishment of the 1887 Bayonet Constitution would have done was to
remove the
property-wealth qualifications to vote. But this would empower the
Native Hawaiian, who would vote all these businessmen out of office! It
has nothing to do with giving only Native Hawaiians the vote. It was
about giving them at
least the democratic right to
vote.
)
A LESSON IN THE HAWAIIAN
LANGUAGE
Conklin now gives us direct evidence of Queen Liliuokalani’s desire to
limit the vote only to Native Hawaiians. Here it is: “But there is some
evidence, although it is admittedly ‘hearsay.’ For example, portions of
the alleged new Constitution were published in a royalist newspaper Ka
Makaainana: Vol. 1, No. 21 (21 May 1894): page 4. Article 62 seems to
set forth a racial restriction of voting rights for ethnic Hawaiians
exclusively: "Pauku 62. O na kupa wale no ke hiki ke koho balota, a
hoemiia mai hoi ke ana waiwai e kupono ai o na poe koho." The word
"kupa" could mean simply "citizen" including naturalized Caucasian
citizens; however, "kupa" also carries a stronger connotation of
multiple generations of family residency in a particular place, which
in 1894 would clearly imply native
blood.”
What? Let’s look at this statement. Some evidence, which Conklin
admits
is hearsay, which is a definition of “kupa” meaning a “citizen” and the
stronger connotion – multiple generations of family residency in a
particular place.
Okay, let’s see. The missionaries arrived in Hawaii in 1820 and we are
talking about 1894. That 74 years. Many of these non-Hawaiian
businessmen were missionary descendants and their families had been in
Hawaii for more than three generations! So how does Conklin come away
with “would clearly imply native blood?”
WHERE WILL HELP COME
FROM
TO SAVE THESE FRIGHTENED
RESIDENTS?
Where are we now? Oh yes, the European and American residents are
frightened that “radical natives” will defend the monarchy from being
overthrown, so in order to make sure that they are safe, a Committe of
Safety, does what?
“The only ship in the
harbor which had weapons on board was the U.S.S.
Boston. European and American residents, and some European diplomats,
pleaded with the U.S. diplomat (Minister Stevens) to call sailors
ashore to protect lives and property. And so 162 armed sailors came
ashore as peacekeepers. They were under strict orders to remain
neutral.”
Is Conklin kidding? President Grover Cleveland called this an act of
war.
Conklin shows how peaceable and correct this landing of Marines was by
stating, “They were
never actually used, except for some who were sent
to guard the U.S. consulate. They did not point their weapons at
anyone, did not take over any buildings, stayed off the Palace's and
government building's grounds, did not patrol the streets, and remained
in barracks in a building down a sidestreet a couple blocks from the
Palace. A few days later some began returning to their ship in the
harbor, and a few weeks later the last of them had
left.”
So, if the Mexican Army crossed the U.S. border, did not point their
weapons at anyone, or take over any buildings, and stayed off the White
House grounds, and didn’t patrol our streets, then peaceably returned
back over the border into Mexico again – would that be okay? Would the
United States simply call it a peace keeping mission? Or would that be
an act of war?
Answer: It’s an act of war.
Conklin continues: “The
local revolutionaries sent men and guns to the
government building (Aliiolani Hale, where the Kamehameha statue is).
When they took over the building they discovered and seized guns and
ammunition that the royalists had previously stored there in
anticipation of fighting the revolutionaries.
They read a
proclamation
declaring that the monarchy was finished, and
then took over the police station, royal guard barracks, treasury,
etc.”
The “radical natives” had stored guns and ammunition in anticipation of
the revolutionaries attempt to overthrow the kingdom (am I right so
far?), and these revolutionaries proclaimed the monarchy was finished.
What Conklin doesn’t say is that this proclamation was made while the
Marines were “keeping peace” in Honolulu. If Grover Cleveland is right,
than we can say, the proclamation was made while the U.S. Marines were
committing an act of war. True?
DID THE QUEEN FIGHT
BACK?
Conklin tells us what the Queen did next while this proclaiming was
done and the Marines were peace keeping: “The Queen decided not to
fight. She wrote a letter surrendering temporarily, under protest,
claiming she was surrendering to the U.S. on account of superior U.S.
firepower, and claiming she was surrendering only until such time as
the U.S. government would examine what had happened and restore her to
power.”
Finally Conklin said something that was true and not tinged with his
own
subtle racism. The Queen did not surrender to the Provisional
Government. She surrendered to the President of the United States until
he can restore her to power.
Conklin then says an obvious lie: “she
did not deliver any surrender to U.S. Minister Stevens
because she knew he was neutral and would never attack
her.”
It was Minister Stevens who ordered the Marines to invade Hawaii. He
was not neutral. He was in cahoots with the Committee of Safety and his
goal was the annexation of Hawaii by the United States and the securing
of Pearl Harbor for the U.S. navy.
Conklin continues: “From
January 17 to 19 every consul of all the
nations that had consulates in Honolulu delivered a letter to President
Dole granting diplomatic recognition de facto. That means those consuls
agreed that the Provisional Government had taken power, and those
nations would now do business with the PG rather than with the
ex-queen.
De facto recognition is
all a consul is empowered to grant. Also, de
facto is the only level of recognition given to a self-described
temporary provisional government.
The PG immediately
drafted a treaty of annexation and sent it on the
next ship headed to America. Since the PG was hoping to be annexed
promptly, it felt no need to establish a permanent republic, and no
need to seek full-fledged recognition de jure.”
WHAT IS DE FACTO? WHAT
IS
DE JURE?
De Facto means in
fact.
It means “legal” as opposed to “lawful.”
De Jure means “lawful.” So these many consuls recognized that the
Provisional Government was the in fact government, but not
the lawful government. That is exactly the situation still
today. The State
of Hawaii is the de facto government, and not the de jure govenment of
the islands of Hawaii. So how can de facto change to de jure? Simple. A
treaty can change this status according to international law. So we
see, the Provisional Government immediately sent a delegation to
Washington D.C. to get a treaty and become the de jure government. Did
they succeed? No.
HOW IMPORTANT IS A
TREATY?
Conklin tells us why: “In
fact, incoming President Grover Cleveland (a
Democrat isolationist) was a personal friend of the ex-queen. When he
came into office in March he immediately withdrew from the Senate the
treaty of Annexation proposed by the Provisional Government and sent to
the Senate by outgoing President Harrison (a Republican expansionist).
Cleveland began a ten
month aggressive effort to destabilize the
Provisional Government and put Liliuokalani back on the throne.
On day number 6 of his
Presidency he hastily sent a political hack
(James Blount) to Honolulu, without Senate confirmation, illegally
naming him ‘Minister Plenipotentiary With Paramount Powers.’”
So there was no treaty. Conklin calls James Blount a political hack.
What arrogance. Google Blount’s credentials yourself. He was no hack.
Conklin continues: “The
reason for giving him 'paramount powers' was so
that he would outrank President Harrison's Minister Plenipotentiary
[without paramount powers] John L.
Stevens.”
Conklin keeps forgetting that Minister Stevens was not neutral, and had
been the reason the act of war was committed in the first
place.
Conklin says about Blount: “Mr.
Blount probably had no legitimate
authority to represent the U.S. since he had no Senate confirmation;
and certainly no right to give orders to U.S. troops; but the
Democrat-controlled Congress acquiesced because it did not want to
cause trouble for the newly inaugurated Democrat
President.”
Probably had no legitimate authority? Conklin is surmising again as he
did with those reports that Queen Liliuokalani probably destroyed her
new constitution (if
they ever existed).
OFF WITH THEIR
HEADS
Now Conklin turns the Queen into the Queen of Hearts from Alice In
Wonderland: “Cleveland
kept the Blount Report secret for several
months. Meanwhile other U.S. diplomats tried to persuade Liliuokalani
to give up her threat to chop off the heads of the revolutionaries, in
return for the diplomats' help in putting her back on the
throne.”
“Off with their heads,” said the savage queen of the restless natives.
Has Conklin ever thought that either this is a figure of speech, or
that the actual penalty for treason in the Kingdom of Hawaii was the
death penalty?
Conklin continues, “Late
in December, having failed to destabilize the
provisional Government, the top U.S. diplomat in Honolulu, Minister
Willis (who had replaced Blount and was confirmed by the Senate), wrote
a last-ditch letter to Hawaii President Sanford B. Dole ordering Dole
to step down and restore the monarchy; but Dole refused and told Willis
to stop interfering in Hawaii's internal
affairs.”
“Stop interfering in Hawaii’s internal affairs?” That’s exactly what
Minister Stevens did when he ordered the landing of 162 Marines on
Hawaiian soil. Now Dole has the audacity to tell the President to get
lost.
Conklin continues: “Having
failed to overthrow the Provisional
Government and restore the Queen, despite strong efforts to do so from
April 1 through December, 1893, President Cleveland made the Blount
Report public in December and sent a message to Congress based on it,
asking Congress to decide what to do next. He probably hoped to get
Congress to authorize military force to restore his friend Liliuokalani
to the throne.”
Again Conklin conjectures, “He probably hoped...” How does Conklin know
what Grover Cleveland probably hoped? Now the Senate has the matter.
What does Conklin say?
)
THE BLOUNT REPORT VERSUS
THE MORGAN REPORT
Conklin states: “The
history twisters insist the Blount Report was true, and they say
the Morgan report was a pack of lies to cover up the illegal U.S.
overthrow of the monarchy.
But the opposite is
true. The Morgan report repudiates the Blount
report, even to the extent of providing sworn testimony that Blount had
falsely reported what people had told
him.”
So which is true? The Blount report or the Morgan report? Let’s see who
was interviewed for the Morgan report. Conklin tells
us.
“During January and
February, 1894, the U.S. Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs, under the chairmanship of Democrat John T. Morgan,
held hearings on what had happened a year previously. They took
testimony under oath (unlike Blount's informal conversations), with
severe cross-examination (Blount had been the sole interviewer), and
open to the public (Blount's interviews were private and mostly
secret).”
Okay, let’s see who testified.
“The testimony about
what happened and exactly when, was given by
military
officers
and men of several
ranks who had
been on the U.S.S.
Boston in
Honolulu, plus Minister
Stevens and
Minister Blount, plus
some men who had served in high positions in the Kingdom government
(such as William De Witt
Alexander...”
Keep in mind that the United States navy had always coveted Pearl
Harbor. So who testified? “Military officers and men of several ranks,”
“Minister Stevens,” “men who had served in high positions in the
Kingdom government” such as William De Witt
Alexander.
Okay. The military men are all biased towards the overthrow of the
kingdom and the
acquisition of Pearl Harbor for the U.S. Navy. Minister Stevens,
himself, had ordered the
landing of the Marines. Who was William De Witt Alexander?
From
Wikipedia: In
1831, Dwight Baldwin (1798–1886) and Charlotte
Fowler Baldwin were sent by the American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions (ABCFM) as medical missionaries to the Sandwich
Islands, as the Hawaiian Islands were called at the time. Reverend
William
Alexander
and Mary McKinney Alexander arrived the following
year in
1832.
Alexander
& Baldwin was founded by their sons Samuel Thomas
Alexander and Henry Perrine Baldwin (1842–1911) as Samuel T Alexander
& Co., in 1870. The two purchased 561 acres of
land on
the island of Maui between Pāʻia and Makawao, on which they began to
cultivate sugarcane.
Following
incorporation, the company continued to prosper. It came to
be one of Hawaii’s Big Five companies which held a virtual oligarchy
over Hawaii’s economy during the region’s
territorial
years. In this
period, the company entered many new businesses and controlled more
than 100,000 acres (40,000 ha) of land in the
Territory.
So, William Alexander was the patriarch of one of the Big Five
Corporations. Conklin uses him as an example of the people in a
government based upon the Bayonet Constitution which excluded most
Native Hawaiians from voting.
Conklin concludes: “This
Morgan report concluded that the U.S. was not
to blame for the revolution and had not given any help to the
revolutionaries.”
Of course this is the conclusion it would come to given the testimony.
The Morgan Report took the momentum out of Grover Cleveland’s attempt
to restore the kingdom of Hawaii. The Senate passed a resolution that,
based on the Morgan report, the President should cease his
efforts.
Says Conklin: “Sworn
testimony in the Morgan report repudiated unsworn,
politically motivated contents of the Blount report. When the Republic
of Hawaii was created a few months later President Cleveland, knowing
he could no longer work to restore Liliuokalani, gave full diplomatic
recognition to the Republic.”
JOB
SECURITY
Conklin states: “...the
temporary PG decided to create a permanent Republic. There were
several reasons for doing this, including greater stability and job
security for government employees (most of whom had kept the same jobs
they held under the monarchy); and a hope for full-fledged
international recognition.”
That’s almost humorous. Job security for government
employees
(most of whom had kept the same jobs they held under the monarchy).
Duh. It’s the same people in the government who ruled by the Bayonet
Constitution and simply returned to the same jobs after the
overthrow.
Conklin goes on: “In a
political gesture showing its continuing wish
for annexation, the date of July 4, 1894 was chosen to officially
establish the Republic of Hawaii by publication of its
Constitution.”
All the more obvious. Dole just told the President of the United States
to butt out of his internal affairs, and now as a gesture he chooses
July 4th?
RECOGNITION BY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS
Conklin now tries to make his strongest point as
follows:
“During the following
six months President Dole received the letters of
full diplomatic recognition he had requested. The archives of the State
of Hawaii has the original letters addressed to President Dole
personally signed by kings, queens, emperors, and presidents of at
least 20 nations on 4 continents, written in 11 languages, formally
granting full diplomatic recognition de jure to the Republic as the
rightful government of the nation of
Hawaii.”
Before I tackle this statement, I ask the question, “Can a
nation exist without
international recognition?”
Yes. Examples are Taiwan, Kurdistan, Somaliland, and
Kosovo.
Some states such as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC),
enjoy almost no international recognition. Turkey is the only country
to recognize the TRNC. Not a single country recognizes
Somaliland’s independence. In Kosovo, the majority Albanian population
wants to formally separate from Serbia—but Russia has made it clear
that Kosovo will not be allowed to join the United Nations, and Moscow,
Beijing and many other governments will refuse to recognize the new
country. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is recognized by twenty-three
countries.
So the number of countries which recognize a government or state is of
minor importance.
Conklin states: “Among
the signers were Queen Victoria of England, two
Princes of China on behalf of the Emperor, the Tsar of Russia, the King
and Queen of Spain; the President of France, the President of Brazil,
and yes, even President Grover
Cleveland.”
SETTING UP THE
QUEEN
The Queen waited for the United States to review the overthrow and
restore the kingdom. Sanford Dole rejected Minister Willis' last
request for restoration. Conklin tells us what happened next: the
radical
natives
“could see that the only way to restore the
monarchy was through a violent counterrevolution. They made
arrangements to smuggle guns and bombs from San Francisco to
Honolulu.
In January 1895 Wilcox
and his men attempted their counterrevolution,
but were quickly defeated by the strong power of the Republic. No U.S.
troops were involved.
Guns and bombs were
found buried in the
flower bed at Liliuokalani's
private home ("Washington Place") about two blocks
from
Iolani Palace.”
Guns buried in Queen Liliuokalani’s flower garden. Did the Queen
herself bury these weapons? Of course not. Who buried them? Was it the
“radical natives,” or could it have been a plant, an act directed and
pulled off by the Republic government? It gave the Republicans the
pretext to arrest the Queen. Think of the times you’ve heard of cops
planting a gun on suspects in order to arrest
them.
DOLE’S
GRACE
Conklin tells us: “Sanford
Ballard Dole, after a two-week review period, commuted her
sentence from the $5,000 fine and five years ‘imprisonment at hard
labor’ to mere imprisonment.”
Five years of hard labor? Ridiculous. Is this supposed to be a gracious
act of reprieve?
Conklin describes the Queen's situation: “To Liliuokalani, who was
forbidden visitors or news of any kind, and
allowed merely to walk under guard on the balcony and never to leave
the 'spacious quarters' -- this was her prison.”
“By January 1, 1896,
all
were 'freed,' except Liliuokalani. She
remained nearly eight months in her Iolani Palace prison (January 16 to
September 6, 1895); five months more under 'house arrest' at Washington
Place (September 6, 1895 to February 6, 1896 -- a little over a month
after all the others had been released); then island-restricted from
February 6, 1896, to October 6, 1896 -- nearly 21 months
total."
So after this cache of weapons was found in the Queen’s garden, she
spent 21 months under house arrest where she could not rouse up Native
Hawaiians and Royalists to challenge the Republic of Hawaii. This was a
ploy to mute Queen Liliuokalani and give the Republic time to get their
annexation treaty passed through the U.S. Senate.
Conklin states: “Finally,
her friend President Dole granted her a full
pardon.”
Did I miss something? Dole was the one who told the United States to
stop interfering in the internal affairs of Hawaii. Dole was not the
Queen’s friend.
Now Conklin shows his sarcasm: “She
showed her gratitude a few months
later by authorizing a petition drive and then traveling personally to
Washington to lobby against President Dole's most cherished dream, the
treaty of annexation.”
The Queen spent 21 months in prison. As soon as she got out, she headed
to Washington to finally speak in favor of the restoration of the
kingdom. Can anyone blame her? The Native Hawaiians had no voice in
government, they had no voting power due to the wealth and property
restrictions of the Bayonet Constitution. How were they to be
heard?
A FALSE
ASSERTION
Conklin falsely asserts: “Full
recognition by all the major nations was the method
whereby international law acknowledged that the revolution of 1893 had
been legitimate.”
This is the point you should look closely at. It's like a card trick.
The magician misdirects your attention, then makes a switch-off with
his other hand.
“The
Republic of Hawaii offered a treaty of annexation in 1897 in a
document ratified by its legislature in accord with its constitution.
The U.S. accepted that offer in 1898 by means of a joint
resolution.”
Did you get this? The Republic sent a treaty to the United States to be
signed. The United States, instead of signing the treaty, wrote up a
joint resolution called the Newlands Resolution.
What just happened? I’m buying a car and the dealer signs the contract
and gives it to me to sign, but I don’t sign it. Instead I give him a
handwritten promise to pay on some wrinkled faded paper. Is this a
transfer of property, and title? No. The contract must be signed by the
dealer and myself. I cannot substitute some hastily written
promise.
That’s what happened with the Republic of Hawaii and the United States
government. The legal document (treaty) was offered to be signed.
Instead a second document (joint resolution) was returned.
Conklin says: “The
U.S., like any nation, has the right to decide for
itself what method to use for accepting an offer of a
treaty.”
Really. So I can sign a contract with whatever means I wish? How about
my dog's paw print? Can I use that to sign a
contract?
Can you read between the lines? Conklin says "an offer of a treaty."
Not the treaty
itself. In other words, if you offered me that car contract, I can
choose a Christmas card to respond to your offer – “Yes I’d be very
interested in signing that contract.” I can send a telegram, write a
letter, make a phone call, etc. All the various methods to use for
accepting an offer of a contract. But the letter, the card, the
telegram, and the phone call is not a contract. My dog's paw print
isn't a signature. The actual contract
must be signed.
The Congress and the Senate can signal that they are willing to sign a
Treaty with the Republic of Hawaii, and they did signal by passing the
Newlands Resolution. But the Newlands Resolution is not a
treaty.
A photograph of a hot dog is not a hot dog. You can't eat it. Form and
substance, smoke and mirrors.
Conklin says: “It's a
matter of U.S. law, not international law,
whether the U.S. can use a joint resolution as a method of ratifying a
treaty.”
Again, the treaty must be signed by both parties, both countries. The
very same document must be signed. Can you imagine the Declaration of
Independence without the signatures? What if the signatures were all on
another document, another piece of paper which said, “we are signing
this document and transfering its ratifying power to the document
named The Declaration of Independence.” No. You still have two
documents. One with signatures and no power, and the other with
potential power, but no signatures.
This is what the United States tried to do. And this isn’t even a
treaty from the Kingdom of Hawaii to the United States, which would be
de jure and lawful. It’s from the usurper who promulgated the Bayonet
Constitution and denied the Native Hawaiian plebecite. This treaty was
never ratified.
Just because it looks like a duck, doesn't mean it's a duck. It could
be a platypus. Conklin wants us to pretend that a platypus is a duck.
Yes, they both have flattened beaks. Yes, the Senate was involved in
the signing of the Newlands Resolution. But that's the only part that
is similar. All the rest is the difference between feathers and hair,
between birds and mammals.
Conklin’s argument is that the Newlands Joint Resolution had the same
power as a treaty by virtue of the letters of recognition from the 20
countries who sent them. This is his strongest point, but is weak. How
many countries recognized Sadam Hussein? How many recognized Idi Amin?
How many recognized Adolf Hitler? Can such recognition
substitute for international treaties? I think not.
)
THE QUEEN’S PETITIONS
Conklin now speaks about the petition turned in by the Native Hawaiians
to stop the annexation of Hawaii by the United States - criticizes it
this way: “However, all
people were eligible to sign the petition, regardless of ethnicity and
regardless whether they had voting rights (for example, women and
children did not have voting rights but thousands of them signed the
petition.”
The same rules from the Bayonet Constitution applied here. Most of the
petitioners had too little property or money to vote. The fact that
they didn’t have voting rights doesn’t take away from the legitimacy of
the petition. This was their chance to express themselves, to “vote” by
signing the petition. What was the result? 38,000 Native Hawaiians out
of 40,000 signed the petition. That’s over 95%. But Conklin doesn’t see
it this way.
He says: “There's also
doubt about whether the signatures are valid on
the anti-annexation petition. Lorrin A. Thurston, who had served in the
Kingdom legislature, reported that Hawaiian legislators would often
gather pages of signatures on petitions whose subjects had not yet been
written, so the legislator could stockpile a box full of signed
petitions and later fill in the purpose of the petition unbeknownst to
those who had signed it.”
Lorrin A. Thurston was the main ring leader of the Bayonet Constitution
government. He was the leader of the Committee of Safety. He was the
one sent to Washington D.C. to get a treaty of annexation. He was
hardly a neutral, truthful party to make accusations.
The petitions are real and was the only way to express the “votes” of
the
Native Hawaiians who had been locked out of the voting process since
the Bayonet Constitution of 1887.
Conklin tries to diminish the totals of the signatures on the
petitions. Here’s what he says: “There
was allegedly another petition
signed by about 17,000 people. But it has never been found. The real
petition with 21,269 signatures is in the national archives because it
was actually submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1897.
The smaller petition is
not in the archives because it was never
submitted.
History twister Noenoe
Silva "discovered" the petition in the National
Archives just in time for the 1998 centennial of annexation.
How convenient! She and
her fellow history twisters claim that the
existence of the petition was nearly unknown because it had been
suppressed by evil Caucasians. But one of the main reasons its
existence was unknown is that Liliuokalani herself never mentioned it
in any of her diaries, and there was no reference to it in either the
Hawaiian language or English language newspapers of the
time...”
Let’s keep in mind that Thurston owned the English language newspaper
which later became the Honolulu Advertiser. Of course he'd never have
it mentioned in his newspaper. Conklin seems to be angry
that the smaller petition was found by Noenoe Silva, who he then
immediately calls a history twister for finding it.
REVIEW
Let’s review. The sugar barons and business men conspired to force King
Kalakaua to sign a new constitution which, among other things, took
away the Native Hawaiian vote with its property and wealth
qualifications. This was in 1887.
Queen Liliuokalani wanted to change the Bayonet Constitution back to
the constitution in place before the sugar barons and business men
changed it, thus giving the vote
back to the Native Hawaiians again.
This threatened the interests of the businessmen who Conklin himself
says were “white and not-quite white (meaning Portuguese)” and they
decided to overthrow the monarchy.
Word of their intentions caused alarm among the Native Hawaiians who,
in Conklin’s words, became “restless.” The “radical natives” (Conklin’s
words again) were determined to preserve the monarchy from overthrow
even if it meant using force of arms.
The American-descended and European-descended Honolulu residents were
fearful for their safety and thirteen of their leaders formed the
Committee of Safety.
They smuggled rifles, pistols, and ammunition into Hawaii
from San Francisco.
They urged the American Minister John Stevens to protect them should
they attempt to overthrow the monarchy.
John Stevens ordered the landing of the Marines on to Hawaiian
soil. Grover Cleveland called this an act of war. Stevens
had
no orders to land troops in Hawaii.
In the presence of those Marines, the Committee of Safety proclaimed
the monarchy was overthrown and they were now a Provisional Government.
Thurston was immediately sent to Washington D.C. to acquire a treaty of
annexation.
)
The Queen asked her citizens not to rise up and to spare bloodshed. She
appealed in writing to the President of the United States to fix this
situation and restore her monarchy. The written request was given to
the Provisional Government leader, Sanford Dole.
Grover Cleveland withdrew the treaty of annexation and sent James
Blount to investigate. His report was that the overthrow was illegal,
the landing of the troops was an act of war, and recommended
restoration of the monarchy.
Sanford Dole flatly refused to restore the monarchy and told the
President to mind his own business and not to interfere in the internal
affairs of Hawaii.
In the meanwhile, Robert Wilcox tried to lead a royalist overthrow of
the Provisional Government, but it failed.
Arms were reportedly found hidden in the Queen’s garden at her home in
Washington House. It may have been planted there by the Provisional
Government, giving them an excuse to arrest her.
She was sentenced to hard labor, but Dole changed that to house arrest
for 21 months where she could have no visitors. So for 21 months the
Queen was unable to influence the outcome.
As soon as she got out of her prison, she went to Washington D.C. to
try and stop the treaty of annexation.
Native Hawaiians had no way to express their grievances since 1887.
They eventually signed two petitions totaling 38,000 signatures or 95%
of all Native Hawaiians living then. Queen Liliuokalani presented these
petitions to the U.S. government. Was she able to stop the treaty of
annexation?
Yes.
NEUTRALIZING PRESIDENT
CLEVELAND
The Senate decided to neutralize the Blount report with one of their
own, and interviewed the conspirators involved in the American-side of
the overthrow, the military officers, the Bayonet government officials,
the patriarch of the sugar barons and big business men who all agreed
that the overthrow was proper and legal. This was the Morgan
report.
The Morgan report took away Cleveland’s footing, that combined with
Dole’s refusal to obey the President and the Blount report, and the
Queen’s imprisonment for those critical 21 months when she could do
nothing.
As soon as the Queen was released, she went to Washington D.C. and
submitted a petition of 38,000 Native Hawaiian signatures to show the
Senate that they had been bamboozled.
So what happens now?
Let’s hear what Conklin says: “Sovereignty
activists today like to say
there never was a treaty of annexation between Hawaii and the U.S."
Whose Hawaii? The Kingdom's Hawaii or the
Republic's
Hawaii?
Remember, a treaty is like a contract. It has to have the signatures of
both parties on the same document. In order to have the United States
ratify the document, it has to be approved by two-thirds of the
Senators. That’s in the United States Constitution. Two-thirds. Without
that two-thirds approval, a treaty cannot be signed by the United
States of America. That’s the Constitution, not me
talking.
Conklin is merely saying that there was a paper document called the
treaty of annexation, and yes it was signed by the Republic of Hawaii,
but did it have that other crucial signature? Was it ratified? Was it a
legal treaty as defined by the Constitution? The answer is
no.
The treaty of annexation was never signed by the United States. It
never got the two-thirds approval by the Senate. So it is not a signed
contract. It is not a ratified treaty.
Let’s go back to the car buying contract. Here you have a contract
signed by the car dealer on the table, but you never signed it. Can you
still take the car away? No. It isn’t yours until you sign the
document. You cannot substitute another document which you did sign,
like an I.O.U., and pass that document to the car dealer. An I.O.U. is
simply a personal document with no contractual power.
A joint resolution is a domestic document, a municipal document with
power only within the borders of the country that signed it. It has no
power outside of those borders. The Mexican government can make a joint
resolution that Texas is once again a territory of Mexico. They can
pass that resolution. They can declare, and proclaim it all they want,
but it means nothing. Texas would still not be a territory of Mexico.
The power of the resolution stops at the border.
Conklin reasons wrongly: “The
Republic was internationally recognized
as the rightful government of Hawaii, and therefore had the right to
give its public lands to the U.S. as part of its treaty of
annexation.”
Sounds right, but what’s missing here? Oh yes, there was no treaty of
annexation ratified by the Senate. I’d rewrite his sentence like this
to be more accurate: “Although the Republic was internationally
recognized as the rightful government of Hawaii, it never had the right
to give its public lands to the U.S. because there was no treaty of
annexation accepted and ratified by the United States.” Now that would
be accurate.
)
THE PAY OFF
Conklin goes on: “In
return for giving the sovereignty and public lands
of Hawaii to the U.S., the U.S. agreed to assume (i.e., pay off) the
national debt of Hawaii (most of which had been accumulated during the
Kingdom including construction of Iolani Palace and Kalakaua's trip
around the world). The amount of money the U.S. paid was larger than
the actual market value of all the public lands; ...in effect the U.S.
purchased the public lands.”
How much did the U.S. pay? Let’s see.
The Newlands Resolution states: “but the liability of the United States
in this regard shall in no case exceed four million
dollars.”
That would be the equivalent of one nice house in Kahala today. All of
the Hawaiian islands and their dependencies for four million dollars?
It’s a steal – literally. Was money actually paid, was it
transferred?
The U.S. assumed the Republic's debt. Did it assume the Kingdom's debt?
No. Why? The Kingdom never transferred its debt to the Republic. I knew
a family friend who owed money to the county for the birth of his
children in the county hospital. A swindler business man paid off his
debt and put a lien against his house and eventually kicked the man and
his family off their property. Was that legal? Yes. Was it right? No.
In the case of Hawaii, the Kingdom owed no debts to the United States
or to anyone. Its debt was its own. The Kingdom was not a part of any
other nation. There were no debts for any nation to assume. The
Republic declared itself the owner of all the Kingdom's land by
proclamation alone. It was backed by it's body guard, the United States
Marines. It transferred its proclaimed land, titles, and debts to the
United States. The United States assumed four million dollars of debt.
Whose debt?
TRICK
QUESTION
Note also the preamble to the Newlands Resolution:
“President Harrison sent an annexation treaty to the Senate, but
President Cleveland, on his coming into power, withdrew it. President
McKinley, in 1897, sent in a second treaty, which was passed by
Congress in June and July, 1898, and the
sovereignty was
transferred to
the United States on Aug. 12, 1898.”
Congress is the House of Representatives. Senate is the Senate. The
Constitution gives only the Senate the power to ratify treaties and
that by two-thirds. What the preamble doesn’t say is that the McKinley
treaty failed to pass in the Senate with a two-thirds vote. A joint
resolution only needs a majority (51%) to pass, not two-thirds (66%).
Yes, it passed the Senate with a bare majority and it was given to the
House to vote on which is unnecessary for a treaty, but essential for a
joint resolution, otherwise it would not be joint. So yes, it’s true
that the Congress passed McKinley’s treaty – but why? Congress has no
treaty powers. What the Newlands Resolution simply did was try to
substitute one document for another. In place of the signatures on the
American side of the contract, we get a second document with signatures
that try to take the place of the first contract. It
can’t.
Back to our example with the car dealer. I want the car and the dealer
wants to sell it to me. He signs his side of the contract and gives it
to me, but I never sign it. Instead, I get my Uncle Senate and Auntie
Congress to co-sign an I.O.U. which I give to the car dealer for the
car. Should the car dealer take the I.O.U. and give me the car? That’s
what the Republic of Hawaii did. They gave the car (the land of Hawaii)
with all titles of “whatever kind” with only an I.O.U.
There’s no counter signature on the contract. Still isn’t one. Yet, the
car has been delivered and driven now for over a hundred
years.
Now the manufacturer of the car wants the car back. He says that the
car dealer who sold it, did it wrong. The manufacturer can’t take the
I.O.U. to the bank. He needs the signature on the contract and the car
still doesn’t belong to anyone but the manufacturer, even if it’s been
driven into the ground for the last hundred years.
That’s the condition of the Native Hawaiian today. There is no treaty
of annexation. There is only a joint resolution of annexation, an
I.O.U. with the promise to pay $4 million for Hawaii, and the United
States doesn’t want to give Hawaii back to it’s owners, the Native
Hawaiians and the kingdom of Hawaii.
CAN U.S. COURTS
ADJUDICATE KINGDOM MATTERS?
Conklin states: “There
is one and only one court case in which the
ex-queen Lili'uokalani sued the United States for any reason. On
November 20, 1909, nearly 17 years after the overthrow and more than 11
years after the annexation, she filed a lawsuit in which she tried to
get money for the Crown Lands, claiming those lands rightfully belonged
to her but were illegally confiscated by the Provisional Government,
Republic of Hawai'i, and United States. The case was decided May 16,
1910 and has the legal citation: Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct.
Cl. 418 (1910)”
So which court decided this? Was it an international court? Was it the
League of Nations-type or Hague-type court of international neutrality?
Conklin tells us: “The
above
legal citation refers to the case in which ex-queen Lili'uokalani sued
the United States in the U.S. Court of
Claims in
the year 1910. The
case is reported in Court of Claims Volume 45, beginning on page 418.
The report covers pages 418 through
440.”
The U.S. Court of Claims judges the claim of the Queen? That’s like the
fox judging the hen house, isn’t it? Conklin will go on to cite other
decisions made by the fox to secure the hen's house.
Of course, Queen Liliuokalani lost this case. For that matter, all
Native Hawaiians who have appealed or will appeal to the United States
courts will lose their cases. Why should the fox rule in favor of the
hen? It never will. The decision will be couched in some allusion to
racial equality, or “life, liberty, and happiness,” or the founding
fathers, etc. But the end result will always be the same: the fox is
keeping the hen house and the hens have no say
in the matter lest they
be eaten.
Conklin tells us what we already know: “The ceded lands case: The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled on March 31, 2009 that the 1993 apology resolution
does not in any way change the ownership of Hawaii's public lands, and
reaffirms that the Statehood Act returned the public lands to the State
of Hawaii in fee simple absolute without any race-based ownership.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. The
U.S. Court of Claims, is a court in the United States. All of these
matters cannot be adjudicated by any court of the United States without
bias.
A fox is a fox is a fox, whether it’s in the lowest court or the
highest
court. There can be no justice as long as the fox has the last word,
and the fox will enforce itself on the hen. Look at all the Native
Hawaiiians who tangled against the United States. They all came away
battered, bruised, imprisoned, harrassed, marginalized, shunned, and
punished in one way or another. That is the price which the Native
Hawaiian pays for challenging the status quo. (I even jeapardize myself
making these statements, but I'm compelled by conscience to do
so).
THE FOX AND THE HEN
HOUSE
Let’s face it, the United States has made big investments in Hawaii and
needs Pearl Harbor to secure domination over the Pacific Ocean. I get
it.
I don’t expect changes to happen immediately, or even within my life
time – but there is widespread anger and frustration among Native
Hawaiians. Look at the meth epidemic. Look at the Hawaiians imprisoned
here and on the mainland, shipped out like cattle to other prisons.
Look at the tenement apartments and the small little alleys in which
the Hawaian children play. Look at the rise in prices of food, and
land. Look at the homeless families sleeping on the beaches and on bus
stop benches. Look at all of this and tell me that there isn’t
something terribly wrong with the status quo.
Conklin tries to make his case stick. He shows us his own subtle
racism. He portrays our Queen as a blood thirsty savage, a
briber, a
lover of alcohol and opium, a head chopper. He portrays the businessmen
as honest, sensible, lovers of democracy. He portrays Minister Stevens
as honest, and neutral. He tells us the Morgan report is truthful and
honest and that the conspirators were all innocent. He qualifies an act
of war as peace keeping. He justifies the sentence of the Queen to
years of hard labor, then calls her reduction of punishment to 21
months as Dole’s grace.
Conklin tries to justify this card-trick of pawing off a resolution for
a treaty by the twenty nations who recognized the
Republic.
He obscures the international legality of treaties, and all to what
end? Conklin states it himself: his patriotism to the United States and
to the State of Hawaii. Does Conklin confuse patriotism with racism? I
think so.
Conklin will go on to cite how the juggernaut of the Territory of
Hawaii mutated into the State of Hawaii and how
happy everyone
is
to belong to the United States. I won’t quote any of those passages
simply because they all happen after the annexation. Believe me, not
everyone is happy.
It’s like a beautiful cake of icing. But if you cut into the icing,
there’s no cake beneath it. Conklin can talk about how wonderful the
icing of Statehood is, how delicious it is, but there’s no cake there.
WHAT NOW FOR THE NATIVE
HAWAIIANS?
Conklin concludes with this question: “WHAT DOES THE U.S. OWE TO
ETHNIC
HAWAIIANS?
The United States owes
to ethnic Hawaiians the same things it owes to
all citizens -- things like protection of life, liberty, property, and
the rule of law; and assistance to individuals who are unable to help
themselves. Nothing less. And nothing
more. Ethnic victimhood
grievances related to the revolution of 1893 have been
explored in
depth by Congress on two occasions. We do not need to reinvent the
wheel in every generation.
In 1894 the U.S. Senate
Committee on Foreign Affairs spent two months
hearing testimony under oath in open session with severe
cross-examination, regarding U.S. actions in the January 1893
revolution that overthrew the monarchy. The 808-page
Morgan report
concluded that the 162 U.S. peacekeepers did not point their weapons at
anyone, did not take over any buildings, did not patrol the streets,
and did not give any assistance to the
revolutionaries.”
So again the Morgan report is cited as clearing the United States of
any wrong doing and neutralizing Grover Cleveland's pronouncement that
the landing of the Marines in Hawaii was an
act of war.
The second commission
(Native Hawaiians Study
Commission)
Conklin cites is one that
did the following: “The
commission reaffirmed the historical findings of the Morgan Report. The
commission also found that Native Hawaiians have higher rates than
other ethnic groups for indicators of dysfunction
in health, education,
income,
etc., but concluded that the U.S. has no obligation
to remedy
those problems in any way other than the usual assistance given by
government to all individuals afflicted with
difficulties.”
Gee, I didn’t see that coming. The commission affirmed the Morgan
report. Oh well, I guess everything’s peachy dory. These are the only
two official reviews of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 117
years. It seems not enough to me. I'd rather re-invent the wheel one
more time.
)
THE PUBLIC APOLOGY VERSUS
THE NEWLANDS RESOLUTION
Conklin goes on to attack the Apology to the Native Hawaiians:
“In 1993
Congress passed the apology resolution, blaming the U.S. for the
revolution of 1893. That resolution has been used to assert demands for
reparations including land, money, and sovereignty. It was used to
claim that ethnic Hawaiians collectively own the ceded lands, and to
force the state to stop selling any ceded lands until ethnic Hawaiian
claims have been settled. However, in March 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the state is the rightful owner of the ceded lands in fee
simple absolute, and the apology resolution carries no legal
weight.
The apology resolution
was passed by the
House of
Representatives with
no committee hearings, on a voice vote, without debate. It was passed
by the Senate with no committee hearings, with only a one-hour floor
debate in which attention focused on the consequences of passing it and
nobody challenged its historical falsehoods. The historical allegations
in the apology resolution were never examined by Congress, and nobody
mentioned the exhaustive historical analyses in either the
Morgan
Report or
the Native
Hawaiians Study Commission. Any judge or jury
weighing the apology resolution against the Morgan Report and the NHSC
would easily conclude that the apology resolution should be
ignored.”
Again Conklin cites a Supreme Court decision, which again has no
standing in regards to justice in this matter. It is a fox-hen
relationship, which would be an unenforceable relationship in
contractual law. You cannot control both sides of
a contract.
Keep in mind that the Apology to the Native Hawaiians was a joint
resolution. The Newlands Resolution was a joint resolution. If one can
be dismissed so easily, then so can the other. Only a treaty ratified
by two-thirds of the Senate has any real standing, and there is
none.
I don’t believe the United States owes us anything as well. And we
don’t owe the United States anything, including the Hawaiian islands
themselves.
The military necessity of occupying the Hawaiian islands in order to
secure Pearl Harbor as a base to launch the Spanish American War has
passed. That war has been over for more than a century. The United
States can go home now, and please take away your military, your
nuclear weapons, your fighter jets which fly over Honolulu every day,
your land barons, your hotel magnates, your corporations, and your
taxes. Take them back to the mainland. You owe us Native Hawaiians
nothing, and we owe you nothing. Simple as that.
CONCLUSION
Conklin ends
his essay by quoting a Supreme
Court justice: “In February
2000 Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court 7-2
decision in Rice v. Cayetano. Here is the final paragraph of that
decision -- another eloquent statement of where we are now and where we
should go from here:
‘When the culture and way of life of a people are all but engulfed by a
history beyond their control, their sense of loss may extend down
through generations; and their dismay may be shared by many members of
the larger community. As the State of Hawaii attempts to address these
realities, it must, as always, seek the political consensus that begins
with a sense of shared purpose. One of the necessary beginning points
is this principle: The Constitution of the United States, too, has
become the heritage of all the citizens of Hawaii.’”
If this is true, then why is it that the Constiutional requirement of
two-thirds of the Senate to ratify an international treaty can be
dismissed so easily? If this is true, then Justice Kennedy must condemn
the Newlands Resolution as a substitute for a treaty of annexation.
It's more pablum. More
yada yada.
It’s a nice way of saying, you Native Hawaiians are cry babies. Live
with it. Like it or not, you’re in the hen house and you’re never
getting out of it.
We’ll see.
The Kingdom of Hawaii
vs the State of
Hawaii
P.O. BOX 8639
Honolulu
HI 96830
(808)
722-4342
kalaistrode@gmail.com
Thank
you,
)
KALAELOA
STRODE
Also take a look at Dr. David Keanu Sai's
arguments
concerning Hawaii now being in a state of military
occupation:
Dr.
David Keanu Sai - part 1
Dr.
David Keanu Sai - part 2
Dr.
David Keanu Sai - part 3
Dr.
David Keanu Sai - part 4
Dr.
David Keanu Sai - part 5
Take a look at Inside USA documentaries: The Other
Hawaii:
Here is the 1850 Treaty between the
United States and the Kingdom of
Hawaii. I've included only the first pages of the treaty and the last
pages of the signatures. Note that the treaty states that the president
of the United States with the advise and consent of three-quarters of
the Senate approved the treaty and each party (the United States and
the Kingdom of Hawaii) signed the document and affixed their seals.
This made the treaty a contract.
Now compare this to the joint
resolution for the annexation of Hawaii.
It is number 55 of the year's resolutions, wedged in
between
number 54 (authorizing funds for the improvements of a river and water
channel) and number 56 (authorizing the Library of Congress to accept a
donation of paintings). There are no signatures on the resolution. It
was not approved by the advise and consent of three-quarters of the
Senate, and it is NOT a binding international contract.
)
)
)
