Republic of Hawaii
In the brief 4 year history of the Republic of Hawaii, over a century of controversy has surrounded this brief moment of history.
The Republic of Hawaii was formed in 1894 after the Committee of Safety overthrew the Hawaiian Monarchy due to a tyrannous new constitution being proposed by the monarchy at the time. Despite some popular Hawaiian scholars’ misinformation on this topic, the overthrow took place and was carried out by Native Born Hawaiians (lest a few), and the Republic of Hawaii was immediately recognized by ALL of the former Hawaiian Kingdom’s treaty partners (thus fulfilling international law).
A few points of history that should be referenced to learn more about this event and this entity, are as listed below.
You can see these also at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160403184024/http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/
Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
LETTERS OF FORMAL DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION (DE JURE) OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, RECEIVED FROM AUGUST 1894THROUGH JANUARY 1895. These letters were signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, Princes, and Presidents, addressed to His Excellency Sanford B. Dole, President of the Republic of Hawaii.
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 1893 as having been “legal” 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’s public lands in return for paying off Hawaii’s national debt. A secessionist claim is analyzed and refuted by these documents — 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 the historic significance and current political implications of these newly rediscovered letters of international recognition.
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 1778 to 1893, 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 1893, but stopped interfering due to Congressional pressure after the Morgan Report (Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, February 1894) concluded the U.S. had neither conspired in nor assisted the revolution. Liliuokalani’s 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.
[table id=2 /]
For more information on the historical dispute regarding the Republic of Hawaii, there are two reports that were made shortly after the overthrow occurred.
- The Blount Report (reference also from the University of Hawaii)
- The Morgan Report (reference Honolulu Advertiser)
The veracity of the Morgan Report compared to the Blount Report is pronounced and is obvious.
- James Blount took his testimonies in secret, and without an oath
- The witnesses that James Blount interviewed were not cross-examined in his report
- There were many contradictions in his report
- In contrast, John Morgan had his witness swear an oath in regards to their testimony
- In contrast, many of John Morgan’s witnesses were cross-examined in congress by both major parties.
- In contrast, many of the same witnesses that James Blount interviewed, swore in testimony to John Morgan that James Blount lied or misrepresented their testimony.
