{"id":11782,"date":"2025-02-18T05:53:14","date_gmt":"2025-02-18T05:53:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/did-hawaii-get-legally-or-illegally-annexed-into-the-united-states-of-america\/"},"modified":"2025-02-18T05:53:14","modified_gmt":"2025-02-18T05:53:14","slug":"did-hawaii-get-legally-or-illegally-annexed-into-the-united-states-of-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/did-hawaii-get-legally-or-illegally-annexed-into-the-united-states-of-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Hawaii get legally or illegally annexed into the United States of America"},"content":{"rendered":"

Did the USA illegally overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom, and illegally annex a sovereign nation in 1894?\u00a0 Or was there a legal and valid cession<\/a> of power via a legitimate treaty that was signed by\u00a0Queen Liliuokalani?<\/span><\/p>\n

This is a question that has been analyzed many times by top scholars over the years, especially since the 1993 Apology Resolution<\/a> given by the then US president Bill Clinton,\u00a0that “acknowledges that the\u00a0overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii<\/a>\u00a0occurred with the active participation of agents and\u00a0citizens of the United States<\/a>\u00a0and further acknowledges that the\u00a0Native Hawaiian people<\/a>\u00a0never directly relinquished to the\u00a0United States<\/a>\u00a0their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the\u00a0Kingdom of Hawaii<\/a>\u00a0or through a plebiscite or referendum” (U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510)).<\/p>\n

Although the Blount Report of July 17,\u00a01893, upon which the Apology Resolution was based, was an official report of the U.S. government, it was followed by the\u00a0<\/span>Morgan Report<\/a>\u00a0on February 26, 1894, which after public hearings and testimony under oath found the Blount Report to be mistaken on many of the facts reported. Some of the criticisms of the Blount Report included the fact that it was done in secrecy, with no opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses and no witnesses placed under oath. Opponents of the Apology Resolution point to this official repudiation of the Blount Report as sufficient reason to dismiss any conclusions based on it. Despite being staunchly in favor of reinstating the monarchy, President\u00a0Grover Cleveland<\/a>\u00a0also reversed himself upon receipt of the\u00a0Morgan Report<\/a>, refusing requests from the queen for further aid in her restoration, and acknowledging both the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii as the legitimate successors to the Kingdom.<\/p>\n

Washington-based constitutional lawyer and\u00a0Grassroot Institute of Hawaii<\/a>\u00a0consultant\u00a0Bruce Fein<\/a>\u00a0has outlined a number of counterarguments challenging the historical accuracy and completeness of the assertions made in the Apology Resolution.<\/p>\n

\n

This is the disputed annexation:<\/p>\n

Hamilton Library at the University of Hawaii (Manoa) has several versions of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii. For example, they have two different draft versions, three different formattings of the final version, and a final version which incorporates also an account of the proceedings of the constitutional convention. The Constitution was published in\u00a01894\u00a0in both Hawaiian and English languages. Click here to download a pdf of a scan of the 53 pages of the final version in English.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii 1894<\/a>
\nThis is a secondary source of the same document:\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/disruptarian.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/ROHConst.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

1<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

At the end of the Constitution, there were also pages\u00a054-56\u00a0comprising the certification of the Constitution — especially interesting because of the names of at least five ethnic Hawaiians who were members of the Constitutional Convention. Below the copied text of the 3-page certification are some historical\/political comments by website editor Ken Conklin.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

[start page 54]<\/p>\n

The Constitutional Convention, convened in Honolulu, Island of Oahu, Hawaiian Islands, on 30th day of May, A.D.\u00a01894, pursuant to the provisions of Act 69 of the Acts of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, entitled “An Act to Provide for a Constitutional Convention,” approved the 15th day of March, A.D.\u00a01895\u00a0and pursuant to the Proclamation of the President summoning said Convention to assemble, having framed and adopted the Constitution herein before set forth; now it is hereby declared, enacted and proclaimed by the Executive and Advisory Councils of the Provisional Government and by the elected Delegates, constituting said Constitutional Convention, that on and after the Fourth day of July, A.D.\u00a01894, the said Constitution shall be the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii and the Supreme Law of the Hawaiian Islands.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Done in Convention by unanimous consent this third day of July, A.D. One thousand eight hundred and ninety-four. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.<\/p>\n

SANFORD B. DOLE,
\nPresident of the Provisional Government<\/p>\n

WILLIAM CHAUNCEY WILDER,
\nVice-President<\/p>\n

FRANCIS MARCH HATCH,
\nMinister of the Interior<\/p>\n

WILLIAM OWEN SMITH,
\nAttorney General<\/p>\n

[start page 55]<\/p>\n

WILLIAM FESSENDEN ALLEN,<\/p>\n

CRISTAL BOLTE,<\/p>\n

CECIL BROWN,<\/p>\n

JOHN EMMELUTH,<\/p>\n

JOHN ENA,<\/p>\n

JOHN A. McCANDLESS,<\/p>\n

JOSEPH P. MENDONCA,<\/p>\n

JAMES FRANCIS MORGAN,<\/p>\n

JOHN NOTT,<\/p>\n

DAVID BOWERS SMITH,<\/p>\n

EDWARD DAVIES TENNEY,<\/p>\n

HENRY WATERHOUSE,<\/p>\n

ALEXANDER YOUNG,<\/p>\n

LEMUEL CLARK ABLES,<\/p>\n

HENRY PERRIM BALDWIN,<\/p>\n

CHARLES LUNT CARTER,<\/p>\n

ANTONIO FERNANDES,<\/p>\n

WILLIAM HORNER,<\/p>\n

JOSE KEKAHUNA IOSEPA,<\/p>\n

DAVID HAILI KAHAULELIO,<\/p>\n

JOHN WILLIAM KALUA,<\/p>\n

JOHN KAUHANE,<\/p>\n

ALBERT KUKAILIMOKU KUNUIAKEA,<\/p>\n

FREDERICK S. LYMAN,<\/p>\n

WILLIAM FAWCETT POGUE,<\/p>\n

WILLIAM HYDE RICE,<\/p>\n

[start page 56]<\/p>\n

ALEXANDER GEORGE MORISON ROBERTSON,<\/p>\n

JOHN MARK VIVAS,<\/p>\n

ALBERT SPENCER WILCOX,<\/p>\n

GEORGE NORTON WILCOX.<\/p>\n

Attest:<\/p>\n

CHARLES T. RODGERS,
\nSecretary of Convention.<\/p>\n

============<\/p>\n

** Comment by website editor Ken Conklin:<\/p>\n

Some of today's Hawaiian sovereignty diehard deadenders like to say that the Republic of Hawaii was created and sustained entirely by Caucasians, and that ethnic Hawaiians refused to participate except under duress. However, there are several names listed above as authors of the Constitution who are clearly ethnic Hawaiian.<\/p>\n

JOSE KEKAHUNA IOSEPA,<\/p>\n

DAVID HAILI KAHAULELIO,<\/p>\n

JOHN WILLIAM KALUA,<\/p>\n

JOHN KAUHANE,<\/p>\n

ALBERT KUKAILIMOKU KUNUIAKEA,<\/p>\n

Also, in\u00a01894\u00a0just as today, some Caucasian-looking names might also belong to ethnic Hawaiians (for example, the leader of the attempted counter-revolution of\u00a01895\u00a0was an ethnic Hawaiian with the name Robert Wilcox).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

After the Constitution was ratified and the Legislature was seated, the speaker of the House of Representatives at the time of annexation\u00a0(1898) was John Kaulukou. During the reigns of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani he had been a Royalist, serving as marshal, legislator, and judge.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It should be noted that the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii sets requirements for President, Senator, Representative, and voter eligibility which are the same for all people regardless of race, and that the literacy requirements specify the ability to speak, read and write in either Hawaiian or English with the two languages being on an equal footing. See for example Articles 56, 58, 74. The continuity of sovereignty of Hawaii as an independent nation flowed smoothly from the Kingdom through the Provisional Government to the Republic. Government laws, private property, treaties with foreign nations, etc. were all confirmed by the Constitution; see for example Articles 92, 93, 95, 95. Article 95 is of special interest today, since it identifies the former Crown lands to have been formerly, and continuing now in\u00a01894, the property of the government and able to be sold without any restriction.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

==================<\/p>\n

Send comments or questions to:
\nKen_Conklin@yahoo.com\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

For further review, I have found photographs of the original letters of recognition from 20 countries of 4 continents recognizing the Republic Of Hawaii from the late 1800s.
\nYou can see these also at:\u00a0 https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20160403184024\/http:\/\/historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org\/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii<\/h2>\n
\n

LETTERS OF FORMAL DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION (DE JURE) OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, RECEIVED FROM AUGUST\u00a01894THROUGH JANUARY\u00a01895. These letters were signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, Princes, and Presidents, addressed to His Excellency Sanford B. Dole, President of the Republic of Hawaii.<\/span><\/p>\n

A related webpage explains the historical significance of these letters of recognition and current political implications. By recognizing the Republic as the legitimate government of Hawaii, the worldwide family of nations effectively condoned the revolution of\u00a01893\u00a0as having been \u201clegal\u201d under international law, and acknowledged the right of the Republic to offer a treaty of annexation and to make a deal with the U.S. ceding Hawaii\u2019s public lands in return for paying off Hawaii\u2019s national debt. A secessionist claim is analyzed and refuted by these documents \u2014 a claim that the Republic had no legitimacy under international law and was merely a puppet regime of the United States. For details please see this article on\u00a0<\/span>the historic significance and current political implications of these newly rediscovered letters of international recognition.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The most visually spectacular letters are the ones from China and Russia. The letter from Queen Victoria (Britain) is of great significance because of the special relationship between Britain and the Kingdom of Hawaii from\u00a01778\u00a0to\u00a01893, and the special relationship between Queen Victoria and Queen Liliuokalani. The letter from President Grover Cleveland (U.S.) is important because Cleveland had blamed the Hawaiian revolution on the presence of U.S. peacekeepers. Cleveland had tried to destabilize the Provisional Government and restore Liliuokalani to the throne from March through December\u00a01893, but stopped interfering due to Congressional pressure after the\u00a0<\/span>Morgan Report (Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, February\u00a01894)<\/span><\/a><\/strong>\u00a0concluded the U.S. had neither conspired in nor assisted the revolution. Liliuokalani\u2019s strongly-worded letter of abdication and oath of loyalty constitute, in effect, a letter from the Kingdom of Hawaii recognizing the Republic as the legitimate government. Thus 19 foreign nations, plus the Kingdom of Hawaii, recognized the Republic of Hawaii as the rightful government under international law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

[table id=2 \/]<\/p>\n

\n

Abdication document signed by ex-queen Liliuokalani, January 24,\u00a01895\u00a0formally giving up the throne and swearing her allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii. Also, Oath of Loyalty to the Republic of Hawaii.<\/span><\/a><\/h3>\n

See our knowledge base for extended historical information on this subject as well as photos of the original signed documents by Queen Liliuokalani<\/a>;<\/p>\n

http:\/\/disruptarian.com\/knowledge-base\/abdication-document-signed-by-ex-queen-liliuokalani-january-24-1895-formally-giving-up-the-throne-and-swearing-her-allegiance-to-the-republic-of-hawaii\/<\/p>\n

As a followup,\u00a0Dr. Keanu Sai<\/a> has rebutted the claims and research of Dr. Kenneth Conklin\r\n \r\n <\/g><\/svg><\/span><\/a>\u00a0as inaccurate.<\/p>\n

Reference:\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/www.hawaiireporter.com\/conklins-points-on-hawaii-sovereignty-not-valid\/<\/a><\/p>\n

I was able to get a question about the Hague Convention and the Geneva convention that Dr. Sai has been referencing for years.\u00a0 \u00a0At the town hall meeting on September 24th 2018 that Mr. Jennifer Ruggles hosted to discuss her protest as a member of the county council of Hawaii, I asked Jennifer Ruggles if the alleged war crimes happened in the late 1800's, and the Geneva Convention and the Hague convention rules\/laws that they are citing were enacted\/created many years after the alleged war crimes, then how far back retroactively can these rules\/laws apply?<\/p>\n

Dr. Sai answered, and despite his answer being fairly long-winded, it basically came down to him stating that “since Hawaii was part of the British Kingdom, Hawaii was recognized as a sovereign nation, and therefore these laws had been codified even for war crimes against sovereign nations that came before the conventions and rules were established”<\/p>\n

Here is my question, as well as both Jennifer Ruggles, and Dr. Sai's response<\/a>\u00a0On September 24th 2018;<\/p>\n