DOCSLIB.ORG

THE AMERICAN ANNEXATION of HAWAII and TEXAS COMPARED: 1845 (Texas) and 1898 (Hawaii)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE AMERICAN ANNEXATION of HAWAII and TEXAS COMPARED: 1845 (Texas) and 1898 (Hawaii) THE AMERICAN ANNEXATION OF HAWAII AND TEXAS COMPARED: 1845 (Texas) and 1898 (Hawaii) [Prepared by Title Guaranty Company, Honolulu, Hawaii] October, 1998 The steps taken to annex Hawaii in 1893 and 1898 are briefly outlined in the condensed Bicentennial Edition of the Encyclopedia of American History [1976, edited by Richard B. Morris, Henry Steele Commager, and Jeffrey B. Morris, hereinafter cited as Morris et. al.]. There is a larger story, as we well know, but the above-mentioned condensation is used herein as summary of principal facts and events: [1893] “Hawaiian Question. The most vital links between the U.S. and Hawaii were the Hawaiian sugar planters, mostly Americans. The planters, ranged against native dynastic interests, brought off a revolution (1887) that succeeded in securing a liberal constitution and a government under their influence. However they lost power in 1891. Meanwhile, the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which put imported sugar on the free list and authorized a bounty of 2 cts. a lb. for home-grown sugar cane, wiped out the reciprocity advantages hitherto enjoyed by Hawaiian sugar planters and broke sugar prices, with an estimated loss of $12 million. “Queen Liliuokalani, exponent of a firm pro-native policy, came to the Hawaiian throne in 1891. She revoked the liberal constitution of 1887 and by royal edict (14 Jan.) promulgated a new constitution giving her autocratic powers. The Americans under the leadership of Sanford B. Dole (p. 1014), had already established a revolutionary committee of safety to overthrow the native government, with the apparent support of the U.S. minister to Hawaii, the proannexationist John L. Stevens (1820-95). He ordered U.S. marines to be landed from the cruiser Boston (16 Jan.), ostensibly to protect American life and property. Aided by marines, the committee of safety occupied the government buildings; and Stevens, without permission from the State Department, recognized the revolutionary regime (17 Jan.). On 1 Feb. Stevens raised the U.S. flag over the government buildings and proclaimed Hawaii a U.S. protectorate. Dole became president of the new government. [1893] “On 15 Feb. a treaty of annexation (signed 14 Feb.) drawn up by diplomatic commissioners of the Hawaiian provisional government was submitted to the U.S. Senate. Chiefly because of Democratic opposition, the Senate failed to act on the treaty by the time Harrison [Benjamin] left office.President Cleveland [Grover] withdrew the treaty (9 Mar.) and appointed ex-Cong. James H. Blount (Ga.) as special commissioner to Hawaii to conduct a thorough investigation. Blount ordered the withdrawal of the marines and the lowering of the American flag. After an inquiry lasting 4 months, he reported that Stevens’ conduct had been improper; that the majority of Hawaiians were opposed to annexation; and that the Hawaiian sugar planters and their U.S. associates had been the chief force behind the revolution, hoping to secure the sugar bounty through annexation... “...Independence of the provisional government was recognized when President Cleveland sent Albert S. Willis as the new minister to Hawaii. Willis was instructed to take steps to restore Q ueen Liliuokalani to power, with the 1 proviso that she assume the obligations of the provisional government, grant amnesty to its leaders, and sustain the constitution of 1887. In return, the provisional government regime was to abdicate. Queen Liliuokalani acceded to Cleveland’s request on 18 Dec. President Dole, however, refused to surrender power, pointing out that the provisional government had received U.S. recognition and that the U.S. had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Hawaii. Cleveland was unwilling to employ force to carry through his policy. In a special message to Congress (18 Dec.) he condemned the means by which the provisional government had been brought into power and stated he would not again submit the annexation treaty to the Senate. On 4 July 1894 the Republic of Hawaii was proclaimed, and on 7 Aug. 1894 Cleveland formally recognized the new government...” [pp. 339-340]. [1898, 7 July] “ Annexation of Hawaii. While Cleveland remained in the presidency, he checked all attempts to annex Hawaii. His successor, McKinley,favorably disposed to annexation, negotiated a new treaty of annexation (signed 16 June 1897), but Democratic and anti-imperialist Republican opposition in the Senate delayed its ratification... “In order to preclude defeat under the rule requiring a two- thirds vote for ratification by the Senate, the treaty was accepted by a joint resolution of Congress, which required a simple majority vote (pp. 617, 1014) “ [Ibid: 345]. Overlooking what may appear to be judgments or interpretations based upon oft- repeated historical treatment, we may regard the above summary as a competent viewpoint of one hundred years’ worth of public and intellectual opinion coinciding with information processed until the American Bicentennial year (1976) per a fifth reedition of the Encyclopedia of American History [Harper & Row]. For the moment the encyclopedia’s bicentennial summary of U. S. history will suffice to focus our attention on two essential factors in the annexation of Hawaii as a territory of the United States in 1898: (1) Reference to two treaties to annex Hawaii, one after the January overthrow of 1893 attempted by the revolutionist leadership as commissioners of the Provisional Government [Dole, Thurston, etc.] (February, 1893), and another five years later by the Republic of Hawaii (June, 1897); (2) That the second treaty passed by a “joint resolution of Congress, which required a simple majority vote...in order to preclude defeat under the rule requiring a two-thirds vote for ratification by the Senate” ( 7July, 1898) [Ibid: 345]. Several questions may then be asked, as to: 2 (1) Whether the 1898 annexation was a violation of treaties that were earlier agreements (1875, 1887) between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii, or; (2) Whether joint resolution as such was effected with (or without) prior existing precedent for congressional procedure, as for treaties of annexation that had been formerly concluded; e.g. Texas [1845], as: (a) Between the United States and foreign governments, or; (b) Between existing colonies or states, or; (c) Between colonies (or states) and American Indian tribes, or also; (3) If joint resolutions of Congress as treaties of annexation should be regarded as violations of either or both: (a) U.S. constitutional law, and; (b) International law (A) U.S. Constitutional law and a Brief History of American Annexations. The United States constitution does not itself spell out procedure for treaties of annexation, assuming that the paramount sovereignty of the federal government is one having the power for making treaties with other sovereignties. Black’s Law Dictionary [Centennial edition, 1981-1991] defines “annexation” as: “The act of attaching, adding, joining, or uniting one thing with another; generally spoken of the connection of a smaller or subordinate thing with a larger or principal thing. Term is usually applied with respect to land or fixtures, as: the acquisition of territory or land by a nation, state or municipality; the legal incorporation of a town or city into another town or city.” “... It implies physical connection or physically joined to, yet physical connection may be dispensed with, and things may be annexed without being in actual contact, when reasonably practicable. Elliott Common School Dist. No. 48 v. County Board of School Trustees, Tex. Civ. App..76 3 S.W. 2d 786, 789...” [p. 88] The rule of the two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to confirm annexation, as by treaty, is in the U.S. constitution expressed under the powers of the presidency, viz: [Article 2 Section 2] “He [President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...” The rule applies to treaties in general, that the president may not make treaties without the “advice and consent of the Senate” and that two-thirds of the Senators “present” must also “concur”. The rule of a two-thirds “vote” required of the Senate seems to be qualified in the U.S. Constitution in sections pertaining to bills which become law, some originating in the House, others in the Senate, when returned to the separate houses if rejected (vetoed) by the President: [Article I Section 7] “...Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on the question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; “... and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, “...shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill “ [emphasis added]...” Ratification of treaties appears to be qualified under the section limiting powers of the presidency so that two-thirds of senators “present” and “concurring” are needed to ratify a treaty, if apparently, a treaty originates with the president rather than the congress [Article 2 Section 2]. The U.S. Constitution contains no limitation on treaties for annexation of territory as such, it being self-evident that annexations of territory do not require agreements between nations engaged in border disputes or in war if one side conquers the other. This is annexation of territory by conquest, and treaties aside, whoever wins takes the territory. There is nothing to negotiate except terms of surrender. Treaties of annexation have taken place between nations settling claims in border disputes, or more amicably, as when smaller nations have asked larger ones to annex them as protectorates. 4 The notion that annexation of a territory, foreign or domestic, must under constitutional law be concluded only as a “treaty” originating with the president with two-thirds ratification by the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “A Rope of Sand:” a Documentary History of the Failure of the United States to Annex the Hawaiian Islands Part II
    Williamson Chang, “A Rope of Sand:” A Documentary History of the Failure of the United States to Annex the Hawaiian Islands,” SYS Law 530-006 Working Draft Copyright 2015 Do not Distribute or Quote April 9, 2015 Page 1 “A Rope of Sand:” A Documentary History of the Failure of the United States to Annex the Hawaiian Islands Part II By Williamson Chang, Professor of Law University of Hawaii School of Law at Manoa The William S. Richardson School of Law Part II: The United States Disclaims Acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands A. Overview Justice Walter Frear of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hawaii was a member of the five-person commission created by the Joint Resolution of 1898. That commission was charged with drafting t proposed legislation to assist Congress in enacting a law creating a government for the Territory of Hawaii. In 1898 Frear, while in Honolulu, like other received newspaper reports about the Senate debates on the Joint Resolution. He must have been aware of the many voices in the Senate that opposed the Joint Resolution as absolutely incapable of acquiring the Hawaiian Islands. The Joint Resolution was a mere act of Congress not a treaty. Only a treaty of some kind between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States could provide for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. As a Commission member, Frear had the task of producing a first draft of the Organic Act. He knew that the Joint Resolution could not acquire any of the Hawaiian Islands. In drafting the Organic Act, he was responsible for defining the boundaries of the future Territory of Hawaii.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruling America's Colonies: the Insular Cases Juan R
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Ruling America's Colonies: The Insular Cases Juan R. Torruella* INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 58 I. THE HISTORICAL BACKDROP TO THE INSULAR CASES..................................-59 11. THE INSULAR CASES ARE DECIDED ......................................... 65 III. LIFE AFTER THE INSULAR CASES.......................... .................. 74 A. Colonialism 1o ......................................................... 74 B. The Grinding Stone Keeps Grinding........... ....... ......................... 74 C. The Jones Act of 1917, U.S. Citizenship, and President Taft ................. 75 D. The Jones Act of 1917, U.S. Citizenship, and ChiefJustice Taft ............ 77 E. Local Self-Government v. Colonial Status...........................79 IV. WHY THE UNITED STATES-PUERTO Rico RELATIONSHIP IS COLONIAL...... 81 A. The PoliticalManifestations of Puerto Rico's Colonial Relationship.......82 B. The Economic Manifestationsof Puerto Rico's ColonialRelationship.....82 C. The Cultural Manifestationsof Puerto Rico's Colonial Relationship.......89 V. THE COLONIAL STATUS OF PUERTO Rico Is UNAUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONTRAVENES THE LAW OF THE LAND AS MANIFESTED IN BINDING TREATIES ENTERED INTO BY THE UNITED STATES ............................................................. 92 CONCLUSION .................................................................... 94 * Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The substance of this Article was presented in
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai'i in the Matter Of
    1 BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE OF HAWAI’I IN THE MATTER OF ) CASE No. BLNR-CC-16-002 Contested Case Hearing ) Re Conservation District Use ) WRITTEN DIRECT TESTIMONY Application (CDUA) HA -33568 ) OF WILLIAMSON B. C. CHANG for the Thirty Meter Telescope ) AS TO APPLICANT'S LACK OF at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve , ) TITLE TO THE SUMMIT Ka'ohe Mauka, Hamakua, ) OF MAUNA KEA AND THE LACK OF Hawai'i, TMK (3) 4-4-015:009) ) TERRITORIAL SUBJECT MATTER ) JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF ) LAND NATURAL RESOURCES TO ) ISSUE THE PERMIT ) CONTESTED CASE HEARING ) DATE: October 18, 2016 ) TIME: 9:00 a.m. ) HEARING OFFICER: Hon. ) Riki May Amano (Ret.) ) ____________________________________) WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF WILLIAMSON CHANG I. The Critical Preliminary Issue is Whether or not the State, by its Board of Land and Natural Resources has Territorial Subject Matter Jurisdiction1 There are two preliminary issues that must be resolved. Although such issues are not 1 See Chang, Darkness over Hawai’i: Annexation Myth Greatest Obstacle to Progress," 16 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 70 at pages 94 -102. (2016) http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2015/09/APLPJ_16_2_Chang.pdf [Last checked April 8, 2016 750pm] Received Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands 2016 Oct 16 11:07 am Depatement of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii 2 listed in the Amended Notice of Contested Case Hearing, See Order of Hearings Officer Hon. Judge Riki May Amano, (Ret.), October 5, 2016. Such issues are always in issue in any legal proceeding, whether a judicial or administrative proceeding of this nature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dispossession of Native Hawaiians' Identity, and Their Struggle for Sovereignty
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CSUSB ScholarWorks California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 6-2017 Hawaiian History: The Dispossession of Native Hawaiians' Identity, and Their Struggle for Sovereignty Megan Medeiros CSUSB, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Law Commons, Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Medeiros, Megan, "Hawaiian History: The Dispossession of Native Hawaiians' Identity, and Their Struggle for Sovereignty" (2017). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 557. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/557 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HAWAIIAN HISTORY: THE DISPOSSESSION OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS’ IDENTITY, AND THEIR STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY ______________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino _______________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Social Sciences and Globalization ______________________ by Megan Theresa Ualaniha’aha’a Medeiros
    [Show full text]
  • United States History Midterm Study Guide 2014
    United States History Midterm Study Guide 2014-2015 For all notes, assignments, and miscellaneous documents related to this course be sure to visit the Schoolwires page on the school’s website. Once you access a unit via the links to the left of the page, you will find a list of all documents related to the unit. Should you need access to additional documents click the “more >>” button on the bottom right of the page. Topics Covered in Semester 1 I. Unit 1 - U.S. Government A. Declaration of Independence 1. Influences 2. Causes B. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution 1. Bill of Rights 2. Misc. Amendments II. Unit 2 - American Expansion A. Early Exploration and Expansion 1. European Explorers 2. French and Indian War 3. Colonial Expansion 4. The Creation of the United States 5. Louisiana Purchase 6. Louis and Clark Expedition B. Manifest Destiny and the West 1. Expansion before Manifest Destiny (1845) a. Florida b. Texas 2. Manifest Destiny a. Key themes present within manifest destiny 3. U.S. relations with Native Americans a. Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears 4. Mexican American War a. Acquiring the American Southwest 5. Miscellaneous Territory Acquisitions a. Oregon Treaty b. Gadsden Purchase C. The Western Frontier 1. Gold Rushes 2. Homestead Acts 3. Transcontinental Railroad 4. Conflict with Native Americans in the West D. Alaska 1. Klondike Gold Rush E. American Imperialism 1. Origins of Imperialism 2. Hawaii 3. Spanish American War 4. Filipino War 5. Panama Canal Key Terms and Important People, Places and Events Government • Transcontinental Railroad • Declaration of Independence • Indian Nonintercourse Acts • John Locke • Assimilation • Natural Rights • Dawes Act • US Constitution • Battle of Wounded Knee • Bill of Rights • Sand Creek Massacre William H.
    [Show full text]
  • Imperialism Presentation Part 1
    America Expands Through Imperialism imperialism: ! ________________________________________________________________the policy of establishing colonies and building empires ! ! isolationism ! ________________________________________________________________separation from the political affairs of other countries Monroe Doctrine (1823) ! said______________________________________________ European powers shouldn’t colonize or ! interfere_______________________ w/nations in the________________ Americas ! US would stay neutral in disagreements between European powers and their colonies ! BUT- if wars should happen in the Americas the US would view these actions as hostile Alaska ! called “Seward’s Folly” after William Seward, Secretary of State for Lincoln and Johnson ! ________________________________________________________________Seward arranged the 1867 purchase of Alaska from Russia $7.2 million! (<2/acre) the financial value of the Alaska Purchase turned out to be many times greater than what the United States had paid for it Hawaii Hawaii was ruled by a__________________________monarchy ! in 1887 __________________________Sanford Dole and other local Hawaiian businessmen, sugar planters, and politicians took over ! ! they adopted the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which ! ____________________________________________________limited voting rights to literate men of Hawaiian, European, or American descent ! declared that only the __________________________wealthy could vote ! effectively consolidated power with the wealthy
    [Show full text]
  • Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies 46-255 Kahuhipa St. Suite 1205 Kane'ohe, HI 96744 (808) 247-7942 Kenneth R
    Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies 46-255 Kahuhipa St. Suite 1205 Kane'ohe, HI 96744 (808) 247-7942 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. Executive Director e-mail [email protected] Unity, Equality, Aloha for all To: HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION For hearing Thursday, March 18, 2021 Re: HCR179, HR148 URGING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION TO REQUEST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL BACK TO THE SCHOOL'S PREVIOUS NAME OF HONOLULU HIGH SCHOOL AND TO REMOVE THE STATUE OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY FROM THE SCHOOL PREMISES TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION There is only one reason why some activists want to abolish "McKinley" from the name of the school and remove his statue from the campus. The reason is, they want to rip the 50th star off the American flag and return Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation. And through this resolution they want to enlist you legislators as collaborators in their treasonous propaganda campaign. The strongest evidence that this is their motive is easy to see in the "whereas" clauses of this resolution and in documents provided by the NEA and the HSTA which are filled with historical falsehoods trashing the alleged U.S. "invasion" and "occupation" of Hawaii; alleged HCR179, HR148 Page !1 of !10 Conklin HSE EDN 031821 suppression of Hawaiian language and culture; and civics curriculum in the early Territorial period. Portraying Native Hawaiians as victims of colonial oppression and/or belligerent military occupation is designed to bolster demands to "give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians", thereby producing a race-supremacist government and turning the other 80% of Hawaii's people into second-class citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawaiian History: the Dispossession of Native Hawaiians' Identity, and Their Struggle for Sovereignty
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 6-2017 Hawaiian History: The Dispossession of Native Hawaiians' Identity, and Their Struggle for Sovereignty Megan Medeiros CSUSB Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Law Commons, Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Medeiros, Megan, "Hawaiian History: The Dispossession of Native Hawaiians' Identity, and Their Struggle for Sovereignty" (2017). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 557. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/557 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HAWAIIAN HISTORY: THE DISPOSSESSION OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS’ IDENTITY, AND THEIR STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY ______________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino _______________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Social Sciences and Globalization ______________________ by Megan Theresa Ualaniha’aha’a Medeiros June 2017 HAWAIIAN HISTORY: THE DISPOSSESSION OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS’ IDENTITY, AND THEIR STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY ______________________
    [Show full text]
  • 253537449.Pdf
    CD 105402 HAWAII ISLES OF ENCHANTMENT By CLIFFORD GESSLER Illustrated by E. H. SUYDAM D. APPLETON- CENTURY COMPANY INCORPORATED NEW YORK LONDON 1938 COPYRIGHT, 1937, BY JD. APPLETON-CENTURY COMPANY, INC. rights reserved. This book, or part** thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher. Illustrations copyright, 937, by JE. HL Suydam Printed in the United States of America INTRODUCTION write of it or must RO away from Hawaii to is bewildered by KO away and return. A newcomer dazed the sharp impact of ONEits contradictions, by resident of long standing, on the thronging impressions. A so for that he other hand, tends to take the islands granted them to the stranger. may he handicapped in interpreting to be in a sense both One is fortunate, therefore, perhaps with the zeal kamaaina and malihini, neither exaggerating V Introduction *$: new convert the charm of those bright islands nor al~ dulled lotting it to be obscured with sensitivity by prolonged and not too daily familiarity. Time, not too long, distance, great, help to attain balance. The aim of this book is to write a national biography a character illumi- and to paint, in broad strokes, portrait, nated here and there by anecdote, of a country and a people that I have loved. Nor shall I tell here all I know about any one aspect of the islands. Not now, at any rate; this is not that kind of book. Scandal seldom reveals the true spirit of a community. The exception is not a reliable index, and controversies are like the shattered window which caused the policeman, after inspecting it without and within, to exclaim: "It's worse than I thought; it's broke on both sides!" Here again the long view is the clearest.
    [Show full text]
  • Annexation of Hawaii 1898
    Activities: Guided Readings/Secondary Annexation of Hawaii 1898 Hawaii was first visited by Europeans in 1778. Its strategic location in the Pacific and its abundant resources attracted Europeans, Americans and Japanese as visitors and immigrants from then on, many of whom became Hawaiian citizens. Hawaii’s native population and royal government were influenced by the newcomers. The United States became more and more interested in Hawaii as its trade and foreign policy became involved with Asia and the Pacific. Plans for the annexation of Hawaii by the United States started in 1893. This happened in the wake of Queen Liliuokalani being overthrown from power by a revolt of American and some European residents and supported by a show of force by the U.S. Marines. Queen Lilioukalani had wanted to establish a new constitution on the island. It would have given almost all of the power to the monarchy. Americans and Europeans living on the islands formed a group they called “The Committee of Safety.” It was established to ensure that the new constitution would not pass. After the regime changed, ousting the queen from power, Lorrin A. Thurston, an American lawyer who had been born and raised in Hawaii, and the Committee of Safety set up a provisional government in Hawaii. The main sentiment among the American community in Hawaii was that it was only a matter of time before the area was annexed by the United States. Thurston also was very vocal in his dealings with the United States. He was pushing the United States to add Hawaii as one of its territories.
    [Show full text]
  • Newlands Resolution
    NEWLANDS RESOLUTION To Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining; Therefore Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular the property and rights hereinbefore mentioned are vested in the United States of America. The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition: Provided, That all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military, or naval purposes of the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Voyages to Hawaii Before 1860
    Voyages to Hawaii before 1860 Voyages to Hawaii before 1860 A Record, Based on Historical Narratives in the Libraries of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society and The Hawaiian Historical Society, Extended to March 1860 BERNICE JUDD enlarged and edited by HELEN YONGE LIND THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF HAWAII for HAWAIIAN MISSION CHILDREN’S SOCIETY Honolulu Open Access edition funded by the National En- dowment for the Humanities / Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program. Licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 In- ternational (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits readers to freely download and share the work in print or electronic format for non-commercial purposes, so long as credit is given to the au- thor. Derivative works and commercial uses require permission from the publisher. For details, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. The Cre- ative Commons license described above does not apply to any material that is separately copyrighted. Open Access ISBNs: 9780824883928 (PDF) 9780824883935 (EPUB) This version created: 5 September, 2019 Please visit www.hawaiiopen.org for more Open Access works from University of Hawai‘i Press. This edition is a revision of that originally published in 1929 by the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society. Copyright © 1974 by The University Press of Hawaii All rights reserved IN MEMORY OF BERNICE JUDD The earlier edition of this book, published in 1929, was written by Bernice Judd. She kept two interleaved copies in which she noted further entries during her thirty-three years’ work in the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society library.
    [Show full text]