Hawaii - US State or Independent Kingdom?

[PatrickHenry]

Hawaii was an independent kingdom, originally feudal in it's government, but consolidated by a powerful cheif, King Kamehameha I, in 1810.

In the Age of Discovery, contact with the US and Europe brought many changes to the beautiful island nation.

The Hawaiian monarchy was a correspondent and trading partner of the powerful nations with a developing economy, literate population and a largely christian outlook by 1893.

In that year, the constitutional monarchy was overthrown by a handful of white land owners, with the collusion of the US minister, who ordered a landing of 160 Marines in support of the coup.

After a five-year interlude as a republic, the Territory of Hawaii was annexed by a joint resolution of Congress.

In 1959, a contested plebiscite was held and Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state.

Presently, there is a movement for sovereignty, to return the islands to independent nation status.

What are the issues relating to Hawaii's place in society? The history is complex and nuanced, with polynesian people living in Hawaii since about CE 700 by some reckonings. The US wishes to be perceived internationally as a bulwark of freedom, not a hegemon. Is Hawaiian sovereignty a possibility?

Here is an encyclopedia article on Hawaii:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hawaii

Here is an organization calling for a return to national sovereignty:
http://hawaii-nation.org/index.html

It is a state. Not an independent kingdom, at least not any more. And it will never get independence, either.

[Suburbanite]

Interesting. I think that you showed me a unique perspective; I didn't realize anyone was fighting for independence. I know there is a California Secessionist Party though, which I support. I think that if Hawaii were to leave the Union we would treat it like any other small country and guts it economy, exploit it for cheap sugar, and allow it to crumble.

California is not going independent either. No reason for it.

[Suburbanite]

Oh okay.

[Mozart1220]

Texas wanted to leave the Union a few years back too, and I would have supported it. I wish it would have happened because Bush was the govornor then and he'd have been ineligable to be president, not that he's qualified now but....

[argonak]

Don't know that you can say Texas wanted to leave, i think you'd have to say a small number of very loony texan citizens said they wanted it to leave. . .

And there's also some groups that want the entire southwestern portion of the continental US to return to mexico.

[RightThinker]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
Interesting. I think that you showed me a unique perspective; I didn't realize anyone was fighting for independence. I know there is a California Secessionist Party though, which I support. I think that if Hawaii were to leave the Union we would treat it like any other small country and guts it economy, exploit it for cheap sugar, and allow it to crumble.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Now even I would support California becoming independent. Their policies are detrimental to the safety of the rest of our nation.

As for Hawaii. We will never let them go. If we did we would have to spend all of our time worrying about them allying with our enemies. They are too close to our shore to become unstable. Plus they could not sustain themselves. We do not need another expense that never earns us any money. (ie Virgin Islands)

[5010]

Each animal accepted in the herd benefits from the protection and support of the herd. But acceptance happens only if the animal has enough in common to be considered part of the family.

[PatrickHenry]

I would like to have members input as to the validity of the legal arguments, and the legitimacy of a small nation seeking independence from a larger one that has incorporated her.

The former soviet "Baltic republics" became viable nations again after fifty years of being held by Russia. Of course, that was the "evil empire".

[Suburbanite]

I have to say, every Republican in America would support California leaving the Union, and most California liberals would as well. They are pretty sick of being shitted on by everyone. Plus we could just clear debt and that would be oh so sweet.

[PatrickHenry]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
California leaving the Union

just clear debt and that would be oh so sweet.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Too bad so much property belongs to the Feds. If their property goes, maybe the debt goes with it, heh, heh, heh.

[RightThinker]

Hope I do not just sound stupid but what do you mean by this?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Too bad so much property belongs to the Feds. If their property goes, maybe the debt goes with it, heh, heh, heh. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[PatrickHenry]

Sorry, RT. I should have elaborated.

When entities "spinoff," the property that goes with the spinoff has to be accounted for.

Federal lands, parks, forests, buildings, highways, military installations, oil leases, dams and reservoirs and many other items would have to be in the ledger. The Republic of New California doesn't get all this stuff for free, leaving the bill to the original taxpayers in the old USA.

There is a debt. Apportioning it would be a part of any spinoff into sovereignty.That's part of the issue with Hawaii also(this thread). If there is a legitimate claim for hawaiian sovereignty, how to account for the property is probably the issue.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by 5010, Each animal accepted in the herd benefits from the protection and support of the herd. But acceptance happens only if the animal has enough in common to be considered part of the family.

This was insightful 5010. The situation in Hawaii is not unlike many of the republics of the former Soviet Union. The land has become filled with the citizens of the larger entity, and the original indigenous population has been rendered into such a minority as to be of no consequence in electoral politics.


Let me propose a metaphor: I have a small airline, that is a family business. It is profitable, but its security arrangements are somewhat naive. One day some of the passengers hijack the only airliner we own. They are of a different ethnicity. They use force. There are some of the hijacker's ethnic brethren aboard, who don't overtly threaten, merely flash their weapons. It turns out that the "brethren" own another competing, much larger and more lucrative airline.

The hijackers, run the airline under another name for a few years, then merge with the larger airline. My original family business is ruined; my property stolen. The hijackers and their successors don't compensate my family. Rather they deride them and label them "primitives" who deserved to lose their airline. My family ends up sweeping floors at the airport. Some are even ragged beggars competing for what is in the trash cans.

Many years later, the larger airline has become extremely wealthy, but also a bit conscience stricken. Some of the execs come to my family and say,"We are sorry for what our airline did to your family so many years ago. Would you please forgive us and let bygones be bygones?"

My family is poverty stricken but proud and says, "Fine, we would be happy to forgive all the years of heartache, if you would be willing to give us back our airline." The larger company decides that this is not acceptable, but offers to support my family with food stamps and welfare housing. Should I complain or thank them?

[SVMc]

As it pertains to Hawaii, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut I don't think the legal claim to a right to independence is the issue. As you mentioned earlier the problem is how? How not to be crushed economically? How not to be excluded from trade agreements or how to successfully detach from them and pursue sustainable independent development? How to avoid economic retaliation? How to avoid neo-colonialism?

[commonsense]

I had been suffering from a disease the natives call "lakkanookie" but once I got around the island a bit, they gave me the honorary title Chief Hunnaiwannaleia.

[argonak]

Should I complain or thank them?

throughout history different groups have been conquered, assimilited, enslaved, wiped out and pushed out. if we were to attempt to account for everyone of them, most of us would (according to modern science) have to be stacked up in a very small piece of africa.

if one wants to give back one piece of land to the person it was most recently taken from, maybe we should check and see who they snagged it from before that, and so on until we come down to the folks that snagged it from the wildlife. . . and then maybe go and find some deer descendents to settle on it. :rolleyes:

[PatrickHenry]

We're not referring to ancient history here. In 1893 there was constitutional government, telephones, ocean liners, printing presses and a literate population in Hawaii.

As far as I know, the Hawaiians were the original inhabitants, unless you consider the accounts of "menehunes" credible.

The US Government was an ally, with treaties of friendship to the constitutional monarchy in Hawaii.( http://hawaii-nation.org/treaty1826.html ) There was no pressing wartime military need for the Kingdom of Hawaii to be occupied. It looks like simple greed and disregard for the right of another nation to chart an independent course.

I don't know if anyone has encountered this information yet, but it is likely Queen Liliuokalani did not order her troops to counterattack the coup d'etat for two principal reasons. One, her Christian faith led her to desire to avoid the shedding of blood. And two, she had confidence in the United States as a trustworthy nation of laws. She believed that the US would see justice done and her kingdom restored. Here is part of her statement at the time:

"I, Liliuokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government. Now, to avoid and collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me and the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands."

President Cleveland said in part,

"Thus it appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United States forces without the consent or wish of the government of the islands, or of anybody else so far as shown, except the United States Minister. Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are neither obscure nor far to seek."

Source: http://hawaii-nation.org/cleveland.html

There was an investigation and the US minister, John L Stevens, was found to have conspired with the plotters. A statement from the US State department to President Cleveland reads in part:

"The Government of Hawaii surrendered its authority under a threat of war, until such time only as the Government of the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should reinstate the constitutional sovereign, and the Provisional Government was created "to exist until terms of union with the United States of America have been agreed upon." A careful consideration of the facts will, I think, convince you that the treaty which was withdrawn from the Senate for further consideration should not be resubmitted for its action thereon. Should not the great wrong done to a feeble but independent State by an abuse of authority of the United States be undone by restoring the legitimate government? Anything short of that will not, I respectfully submit, satisfy the demands of justice. Can the United States consistently insist that other nations shall respect the independence of Hawaii while not respecting it ourselves? Our Government was the first to recognize the independence of the Islands, and it should be the last to acquire sovereignty over them by force and fraud. Respectfully submitted. W.Q. GRESHAM "

Furthermore, the Congress of the US has offered an apology for these events:
UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150

103d Congress Joint Resolution 19
Nov. 23, 1993

To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Source: http://hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html


My question to you debaters: What is the required length of time during which stolen property becomes the legitimate, rightfully owned property of the theif?

[Milton Bradley]

Pat Henry says "My question to you debaters: What is the required length of time during which stolen property becomes the legitimate, rightfully owned property of the theif? "


I say never. Possesion is 9/10ths of the law now, but whenever official documents prove otherwise, how they not be respected.


Our unconstitutional government is making enemies in our name all over the globe. How long until are made to pay up?