At no time have I mentioned that nor have I done so.
The history stands.
That’s hardly the same thing, is it? She backed down, and even promised to abide by the amendment process laid down in the 1887 Constitution.
You said in post 34 that she “unilaterally abrogated the democratic Constitution”, and that’s simply not correct. The coup was by the Committee of Safety, not the Queen.
Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have paid his taxes, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters for Nobles for his District, shall be an elector of Nobles, and shall be entitled to vote at any election of Nobles, provided:
It wasn’t “naturalized citizens”, it was “residents”, and only those of specific descent. Asians need not apply.
So, referring to the 1887 Constitution as “democratic” without that context is misleading, especially given the takeover by wealthy foreign residents that was occurring - men with a vested interest in limiting the vote to rich men from American and Europe.
Fair, I overlooked the “native” qualifier.
Again, the royalists had boycotted the republic, and 99% of people didn’t vote in the preceding election. The legislature was not a representative body at that time.
Instrumental how? What did they do to directly support the coup? My understanding was that the Senate thoroughly investigated the entire incident and found that the US government was aware of, but not directly involved in, the coup.
While Chile wasn’t exactly a wonderful place to live in the '70’s and '80’s, my impression is that it was fairly mild and small potatos compared to plenty of other 20th-century world events.
I don’t know that the Pinochet dictatorship really ranks up there with the “biggest mistakes the US has ever made”. I’d imagine things like Hiroshima, the Japanese internment, something about how we treated the Indians, maybe Vietnam, or Iraq II are a good order of magnitude ahead of it.
What Coup? The Queen was loony, everyone thought so, she had zero support except among the Royal family. Her “constitution” was simply bonkers. She was attempting the coup, not them, they just removed a figurehead that was acting in rebellion.
Those “wealthy foreign residents” were men who were born on the islands, of parents who were born on the islands. Who served with distinction for years in the government. What make them “foreign”? True, the Queen would have disenfranchised them, as they were the wrong race.
That was their choice.
The one where the armed men of the Honolulu Rifles occupied government buildings, disarmed the Royal Guard, and oh yeah, proclaimed a provisional government.
It’s funny you would say that…
ARTICLE 25.
No person shall ever sit upon the Throne, who has been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane, or an idiot.
And yet, instead of invoking this provision through the legislator, the coup’s backers simply brought out the gunman and declared themselves to be the new government.
Have you actually read it? Here it is. Please point out the “bonkers” parts. It describes a typical constitutional monarchy.
Except for the part where she didn’t actually do anything; and the part where they overthrew the government along with this “figurehead”.
In less than thirty hours the petitioners have overturned the throne, established a new government, and obtained the recognition of foreign powers.
Let us see whether any of these petitioners are American citizens^ and if so whether they were entitled to protection, and if entitled to protection at this point whether or not subsequently thereto their conduct was such as could be sanctioned as proper on the part of American citizens in a foreign country.
Mr. Henry B. Cooper is an American citizen; was a member of the committee of safety; was a participant from the beginning in their schemes to overthrow the Queen, establish a Provisional Government, and visited Capt. Wiltse’s vessel, with a view of securing the aid of American troops, and made an encouraging report thereon. He. an American citizen, read the proclamation dethroning the Queen and tablishing the
Provisional Government. Mr. F. W. McChesney is an American citizen; was cooperating in the revolutionary movement, and had been a member of the advisory council from its inception.
Mr. W. 0. Wilder is a naturalized citizen of the Hawaiian Islands, owing no allegiance to any other country.
He was one of the original members of the advisory council, and one of the orators in the mass meeting on the
morning of January 16.Mr. C. Bolte is of German origin, but a regularly naturalized citizen of the Hawaiian Islands.
Mr. A. Brown is a Scotchman and has never been naturalized. Mr. W. O. Smith is a native of foreign origin
and a subject of the Islands.
Mr. Henry Waterhouse, originally from Tasmania, is a naturalized citizen of the islands.
Mr. Theo. F. Lansing is a citizen of the United States, owing and claiming allegiance thereto. He has
never been naturalized in this country.
Mr. Ed. Suhr is a German subject.
Mr. L. A. Thurston is a native-born subject of the Hawaiian Islands, of foreign origin.
Mr. John Emmeluth is an American citizen. Mr. W. E. Castle is a Hawaiian of foreign parentage. Mr. J. A.
McCandless is a citizen of the United States - never having been naturalized here.
Six are Hawaiians subjects; five are American citizens; one English, and one German. A majority are foreign subjects. if will be observed that they sign as “Citizens’ committee of safety.” This is the first time American troops were ever landed on these islands at the instance of a committee of safety without notice to the existing government. It is to be observed that they claim to be a citizens’ committee of safety and that they are not simply applicants for the protection of the property and lives of American citizens.
My bolding. Nope, no foreign influence there, nosiree.
That’s as may be. But again, you’re omitting context. One could say that Stalin must have been beloved; look how the Party Congress supported his ideas!
If the legislature isn’t representative, you can’t use their actions as a proxy for popular will.
How do we end American Imperialism? First, we would have to begin it.
The US involvement in other countries is not imperialism. It’s for the most part stupidity on the part of our elected leaders. If another country is having civil unrest, that’s their problem. Let them kill each other till the cows come home; we certainly shouldn’t be involved in it.
Her Constitution gave her Veto power. Her property was to be made inviolable. She was to appoint everyone, not the PM not the legislature. It basically made her a Monarch on the order of George III.
Sure, but of those five listed as “American Citizens” four were also naturalized Hawaiian Citizens. I am unable to find out about the others.
Note how racist it is "Mr. L. A. Thurston is a native-born subject of the Hawaiian Islands, of foreign origin." His parents were born there, too.
I had originally posted, “Strength is itself a transitory vanity.”
Then I thought briefly about strength in nature, and changed it to, “Strength through military dominance is itself a transitory vanity.” That apparently allowed the point to be completely lost.
How about, “Human strength is a transitory vanity”?
Two thousand years by what twisted measure? Anyway, politically, Rome was often divided, and the empire eventually tore itself part. Just because you were Emperor and/or Pontiff one day didn’t mean you wouldn’t be displaced in a month.
The Roman republic lasted far less than that.
Your last sentence in this post of yours says you did try to edit the Wikipedia article.
A lot of those you’d find someone to agree with you, but many will disagree that Hiroshima was a complete mistake no matter what their political persuasion is. It is often considered the least worst of many bad choices.
“Roman civilization” existed for over 2200 years. Granted it went from kingdom to republic to empire to geographically distant empire 
That’s actually my own opinion about Hiroshima: least bad of many bad choices, but that’s really a side note to my main point that, to the extent we supported or condoned the coup in Chile, it probably wasn’t even in the top 10 list of “stupid / bad things done by the USA”.
:rolleyes:
Remind me again, when was Poland previously an American colony?
That the Philippines asked for American troops isn’t an argument against Imperialism - the Britons asked for Roman troops against the Picts, the Gauls asked for Roman troops against the Germans…
Economic dominance. Cultural dominance. Equally valid measures.
Plus he forgot that time our Conquistanauts planted our flag and our claim on the Moon. The natives never had a chance.
Did it, now?
1887 Constitution:
Every Bill which shall have passed the Legislature, shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the King. If he approve he shall sign it and it shall thereby become law, but, if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to the Legislature, which shall enter the objections at large on their journal and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration it shall be approved by a two-third vote of all the elective members of the Legislature it shall become a law.
1893 Constitution:
The Queen shall signify her approval of any bill or resolution which shall have passed the legislative assembly by signing the same. If she approve not, she shall return it with her objections to the legislative assembly, which shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, it shall be approved by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the legislative assembly, it shall be presented again to the Queen, and she shall sign it, and it shall therefore be a law.
Like I said, it was the Constitution of a constitutional monarchy. Is that idea inherently “bonkers”, especially circa 1893?
Note this change, as well:
1887 Constitution:
Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have paid his taxes, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters for Nobles for his District, shall be an elector of Nobles, and shall be entitled to vote at any election of Nobles, provided… That he shall own and be possessed, in his own right, of taxable property in this country of the value of not less than three thousand dollars over and above all encumbrances, or shall have actually received an income of not less than six hundred dollars during the year next preceding his registration for such election;
1893 Constitution:
Every male subject of the Kingdom who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election, and be possessed of real property in the Kingdom, to the value over and above all incumbrances of one hundred and fifty dollars, or a leasehold property on which the rent is twenty-five dollars per year, or of an income of not less than seventy-five dollars per year, derived from any property or some lawful employment
As you see, the “George III” style Constitution actually lowered the bar to voting.
They remain foreign nationals.
Shrug.
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.