I recently found myself at a far-rightwing website, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/HAWAII/hawaii.html
In addition to all of the standard conspiracy stuff, there were a few very convincing articles (you might want to read the current feature on Martin Luther King’s assassination; it throws serious doubt on Jame’s Earl Ray’s involvement). Anyways, one very thought-provoking article is one claiming that Hawaii was never legally annexed by the US. Not that the act was wrong (although it asserts this, too), but that the annexation was never legally carried out. The story, briefly, is this: American expatriots owned alot of sugar and coconut plantaions in Hawaii. They wanted to become a part of the US to avoid paying import tariffs on their products, so they formed a group called “The Annexationists.” The Annexationists got some troops from a US warship on their side (without any proper authorization) and overthrew the Hawaiian monarch, declaring themselves the head of the “Republic of Hawaii.” Now here is where things start to get dicey. According to the article, the American ambassador to Hawaii, who was in bed with the Annexationists, declared the Republic of Hawaii to be the legitimite government of Hawaii. This is something he did not have the authority to do. Nevertheless, he took a treaty of Annexation from the group to President Grover Cleaveland. Pres. Cleaveland, to his credit, was horrified by what had happened and promised to restore the Hawaiian queen to her throne. However, Cleaveland’s term expired before he could do anything, and the next president, Benjamin Harris, sent the treaty to the Senate. The Senate, to their credit, refused to ratify the treaty. Not once, not twice, but three times the treaty was brought before them and they didn’t ratify it. Eventually, the treaty was ratified by a joint session of Congress. But, says the article, a joint session of Congress doesn’t have the power to ratify treaties. Only the Senate itself can do this. So, Hawaii was never legally ratified and shouldn’t be a state today. It this true? Was the annexation of Hawaii invalid?
Considering the Senate must appear for a joint session, I doubt the annexation is illegal. Immoral, sure, but not illegal.
Since Hawaii legally became a state, according to the laws regarding the creation of states, the legality of its annexation is moot isn’t it?
Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and McKinley was president at that time. It was annexed by a joint congressional resolution.
However, I don’t think Texas was annexed by means of a treaty either. I suppose we can kick that state out of the union and … congratulations Al Gore, you are the next president of the United States!
What’s the legal principle (hostile something-or-other) that allows another party to sieze part of your property if they’ve been using it without your permission (and without your protests) for a cetain period of time? I think we tramped over the islands for enough years prior to 1958 to have siezed the land.
I’m pretty sure that a rigorous examination of any number of treaties in which natives “ceded” land to the U.S. would not stand too close examination.
This sort of inquiry provides an informative counterpoint to the idea that we’re the guys in the white hats, but no court is going to accept a suit to overturn possession or statehood based on irregularities that have been long overwhelmed by migrations of people and years of legislation.
In 1993, Congress came up with the “Hawaiian Apology Bill,” which was basically an admission of wrongdoing committed during the military occupation and subsequent annexation of the Royal Kingdom of Hawai’i. If somebody could find the text of that bill, it would be interesting. I think they admitted it was an immoral act; not sure if they admitted it was outright illegal.
I’m confused. Every other time i hear the word “annex” in history, we are taking territory from another sovereign nation (in American history, usually somebody we’ve bombed the shit out of). But Hawai’i was a nation, recognized as such around the world. Wouldn’t “military conquest” be a more accurate description of what took place?
Somebody mentioned that there wasn’t protest. The last monarch of Hawai’i, Queen Liliuokulani, did not fight the American forces when they landed in order to avoid bloodshed. But she was most definitely planning a counter-revolution and was arrested and jailed for years afterward.
Today, a radical group, Nation of Hawai’i, refuses to acknowledge the illegal American government. they don’t register their cars (replaced by much cooler Nation of Hawai’i placards) and they refuse to pay taxes. they have been prosecuted pretty harshly, but it’s a joke. Our own government has admitted that it’s wrong. but we’re not about to give that land back anytime soon.
i can see that people on this board are intelligent, informed people, but generally, i think most people’s knowledge of the reality of Hawai’i is pretty limited. it’s thought of as paradise but most people who live there have a tough time. jobs are scarce, the school system is shameful, and the cost of living is outrageous. Native Hawaiians live in poverty that is pretty similar to Native Americans on the mainland. read Huanani Kay Trask if you’re interested.
this has already gone on way to long, but as a radical/revolutionary, i get worked up, okay?
this reminds me of another story i read in a Ward Churchill book. The US government wanted to prove that they had the legal right to all the territory they govern. They did a careful study of all the treaties they signed with Native Americans. Much to their chagrin, they discovered that even if you pretend that all the broken and bogus treaties are legitimate, still nearly one-third of the country has never been legally granted to the USA. the problem is especially prevalent out here in the West, where we didn’t have strong Native societies to deal with–we just put bounties on scalps and let the settlers slaughter Natives.
so if the USA doesn’t even have nominal treaty rights to the state where i live (California), how can i be forced to pay federal income tax? sorry again for the annoying length of this.
Not exactly. The point of law to which I facetiously referred requires that the owner neither protest nor permit the use of the land (for, I think, ten years–maybe 20).
Between 1900 and 1958, I think that it would be pretty easy to show some ten-year period in which no native Hawaiian with legal standing in the community formally protested the annexation. (That they were silent due to fear of reprisal or a sense of hopelessness for their cause does not change the technical aspect of their silence.)
Currently there are 270,000,000+ people occupying the land claimed by the United States. The vast majority of them are not descended from native peoples. The countries from which they immigrated have no place to put them if they “went home” (and, probably, no desire to be invaded by 'mer’cans in any event). We can look around for specific treaties that have been abrogated and attempt to live up to their terms (or make restitution), but there is no way that any native peoples are going to reclaim land that they had 100, 200, or 400 years ago.
The only thing that makes sense is to take the lessons of the abuses of power from what has occurred and try to be sure that we do not repeat them. Nearly every person on earth is living on land that his or her ancestors stole from someone else. (I think the aboriginal Australians might escape that charge, but darned few other people can.) The best response to that fact is to declare that we will stop doing it. Attempting restoration and restitution would go nowhere.
Examples: The Pueblo, The Navaho, and the Zuñi are still squabbling (in U.S. courts, no less) over land that each claims the other stole.
The Iroquois confederation (empire) was displacing other peoples at a good rate before any Puritan’s or Dutchman’s kids wandered out into the New York forests.
The Natchez and Cherokee each spent a significant portion of their year battling each other and terrorizing everyone near by.
The Aztecs were not simple farmers with quaint religious customs–they were a horrible barbarian tribe from the north who swooped down on the foundering Toltec culture and overwhelmed it.
Most folks know about the treachery involed in conquering the Inca. Few folks have learned that the Inca empire was not a collection of people who gathered on the mountaintops to build a culture, but a formidable empire that kept a large number of neighboring people in subservience.
Europe, of course, is filled with the descendants of the Huns, Goths, Vandals, and others who overran the Celts and Germans.
India’s entire society (when the Europeans intervened) was based on the remnants of the society established by the Moguls (or Mughals) to keep the locals in line after their conquest.
When China was not forcing its presence on the Viet and Siamese people, it was being overrun by Mongols.
The Pacific Islanders spent an enormous amount of energy sailing off to conquer other islands.
The “pure” Japanese race appears to have been the alien invaders who pushed an earlier people into the remote corners of those islands (and branded them “inferior”)–not unlike the Celtic migration over the Picts at the north end of the Isle of Britain.
Yes. We should now stand up and proclaim that enough of the world has reached a level of civilization that we should stop letting bullies push other people around. (We won’t, but we should.) However, attempting to redress grievances that have been swept away by time and circumstance will do nothing but stir up resentment and lead to future hostility.
For you to explore:
http://honolulu.miningco.com/citiestowns/alaskahawaii/honolulu/library/issues/blannex.htm
Suppose that we grant that the Polynesian peoples who landed on the Hawaiian Islands are indeed the rightful possessors of the islands. This isn’t unreasonable, since it appears that no one lived there before the first Polynesians reached them sometime between 500 and 700 A.D. However, the Royal Family that ruled the islands when they were taken over by the U.S. wasn’t the original rulers of all the islands. They had only ruled them for about a century. Before 1791, they had only ruled Hawai’i (the big island). This was 12 years after the first Europeans reached the islands. They conducted a series of wars which ended with them controlling all the islands by 1819. The clear majority of the present population of the islands now live on Oahu, so it can be argued that no land belonging to the majority of Hawaiians was rightfully the property of the Royal Family of Hawai’i.
Furthermore, it’s possible to argue that the Royal Family of Hawai’i only control the big island because of a relatively recent overthrow of the government. King Kamehameha, who conquered the other islands, had only just become the king of Hawai’i by defeating the previous king in battle. Before that he had been just an ordinary warrior with no claim on the kingship.
Furthermore, that previous Royal Family doesn’t have an unbroken claim to control of the island. The first landing on the island between 500 and 700 A.D. was by a group of Polynesians from the Marquesas Islands. They were later conquered by a group from Tahiti who landed about 1000 A.D. Presumably all later rulers are descendants of the Tahitians.
Good reponses to my qurstion, guys. Just one point I’m still unclear on. What exactly does a “joint session of Congress” entail? Is it just the House and Senate meeting together, or is it a vote by a combined 535-person body? I think that the Annexationists had to wait until there was a shift in power to get Hawaii annexed, but why was joint session of Congress necessary? Were they trying to overwhelm the senators with the (presumably pro-annexation) representatives?
The House and Senate never vote together on anything. There are joint sessions of Congress, but they are usually held for times when the president wants to address Congress.
I think the screwball idea about Hawaii may be referring to a joint resolution of Congress. That is a resolution passed in the same form by both the House and the Senate.
But they each vote in their own chamber. If the House passes a resolution and the Senate doesn’t pass it, it’s not a joint resolution.