World History
Hawaiian Independence? How many states are there in the American Union? It is 50 of course. But some will try to claim there are only 49!
How? They misread history by claiming Hawaii is not really an American state. The root of this confusion has to do with how Hawaii was legally acquired by the USA. In 1898, the Republic of Hawaii gave sovereignty of the islands to the United States. As the internationally recognized government of the islands, it was entitled to do this. At that moment, Hawaii became an American possession under international law.
Was this legal? The Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 overthrew the monarchy of Hawaii. Was this legal under prior Hawaiian Law? Of course not. All revolts are illegal under the laws of the nations who have to deal with them. The Cuban Revolution was illegal according to Fulgencio Batista. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was illegal according to the Czar of Russia as well. However, do we recognize the legal rights of the current Cuban government? Do we acknowledge that the Russian revolutionaries had the right to vote away the sovereignty of the Russian state and give it to the Soviet Union? We all do. This is the same as the legal status of Hawaii. The rebels of 1893 in Hawaii won and their actions as a government are just as legal under international law as the actions of those of the current Cuban regime.
Deny this fact and your denying any current legal internationally recognized state that has it origins in any revolution or coup! This includes the USA, France, the United Kingdom, etc. The fact that a single American gunboat assisted in the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 does not change this. The Soviets aided Castro and the French helped the Americans at Yorktown in the American Revolution as well. The resulting governments are still internationally recognized.
Further, Hawaiian citizens voted to join the USA as a state. And the United Nations recognized the vote! The vote was overwhelming as it was 8-1 in favor of statehood.
Hawaiian separatists deny this vote based on two points. One, the vote allowed American military personnel stationed in Hawaii to vote. If the vote had been close, this would be a valid point. However, if you take away the votes of the military, the result would have been the same. Hawaiians voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood. The military vote does not change the final result.
The second point is that the vote is illegal under UN rules as there was no choice for independence on the ballot. However, the UN certified this vote by removing Hawaii from the list of non self-governing territories. As this was a requirement of the UN, the UN had the legal right to interpret the vote. Hawaii was deemed to be a part of the USA by the international community by this action of the UN.
You might think a referee is wrong in a football game, but despite a bad call, the results of the game are still upheld later. This is the case of Hawaii and the UN. Maybe it was the wrong decision (and the size of the Hawaiian vote indicates it was not), but the results are still binding. Hawaii = USA and the world agreed.
All the rest of the stuff that comes from these Hawaiian Independence sites is based on the flawed logic that Hawaii is currently undergoing occupation by the USA and that the Kingdom of Hawaii still legally exists! This logic then leads these sites to argue that Hawaii should be allowed to secede from the USA (or in their words restored) without a vote of the people of Hawaii. Further, if there ever was a vote, any one without the correct magic DNA (the majority of Hawaiians!) would be denied a vote as only Hawaiians with ancestors who were citizens under the Hawaiian Kingdom would be allowed to vote in the new government. That is a cause that is assured to go nowhere. Can you really see world opinion swinging in favor of the disenfranchisement of the majority of Hawaiian citizens? Grandfather clauses are so post-Civil War American South...
The US Congress apologized for any past injustice in Hawaii in 1993. This was a political move to shore up support amongst Democratic voters. It may have helped in Hawaii but the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election anyway. This resolution has no legal force of law and is merely a PR act equivalent to the state of New Jersey declaring April 4th State Cherry Pie Day. Yet, the separatists always point to it as some great proof that Hawaii is not American...
The final argument is this. If the USA does not legally own Hawaii, why haven't the majority of people heard of this before? If the Hawaiian vote of 1959 was interpreted illegally by the UN, why didn't the Soviet Union veto it? They were pretty good at doing their best at making the USA look bad. Why haven't current American antagonists made an issue of this? China hasn't even when they are critiqued about Tibet. Cuba, Iran, and North Korea are silent on this point. If Hawaii is not American and there was any legal case internationally to be made of this, don't you think the UN, the World Court, and the international media would be all over this? The deafening silence you hear tells you exactly what the world community believes about Hawaii and the USA.
This issue will probably go away in another century or so. Nature being what it is most Hawaiians will eventually have DNA from both the original Hawaiians and the "occupiers" by then. (You don't hear claims now from Saxons complaining about the injustice inflected on them by the Normans in 1066 do you?) It would be pretty dead now if it were not for the Internet and the ability of every fringe group to have their message heard on the Web. As it is, it will probably provide another generation or two of radicals the opportunity to confuse the public and be paid speakers on the university anti-American circuit.
- Were Hawaii And Texas Legally Annexed To The United States?
Free Hawaii has an interesting but I think pointless post up about the American annexation of Hawaii in 1898. It reads, "The United States Congress twice rejected treaties proposing the annexation of Hawai`i. They opted to 'annex' Hawai`i by joint...
- Democracy In Hawaii
Scott Crawford has an interesting post about democracy in Hawaii in Response to Twigg-Smith - Thurston and "Republic" = anti-democratic. In it, he deplores how the Hawaiian Kingdom ended without a democratic vote. Crawford writes, "The truth is that the...
- James Henderson Blount - American Rebel Separatist
James Henderson Blount was an American Congressman from Georgia. He served in the House of Representatives from 1873 to 1893 and also served as the American Minister to Hawaii. However, he is probably best known for his role in issuing one of gospels...
- Wacky American Separatists
The world is full of regions and ethnic groups clamoring for independence. Some have valid causes, most do not. Just because you have your own administrative region or history as a people going back thousands of years does not mean you get your own nation...
- Sanford B. Dole's 160th Birthday April 23, 2004
Dole's 160th Birthday April 23, 2004. This is an essay which examines the Hawaiian media coverage of Sanford B. Dole's 160th birthday. Dole was the first and only President of the Republic of Hawaii and under his leadership the Hawaiian people...
World History
Hawaiian Independence?
Hawaiian Independence? How many states are there in the American Union? It is 50 of course. But some will try to claim there are only 49!
How? They misread history by claiming Hawaii is not really an American state. The root of this confusion has to do with how Hawaii was legally acquired by the USA. In 1898, the Republic of Hawaii gave sovereignty of the islands to the United States. As the internationally recognized government of the islands, it was entitled to do this. At that moment, Hawaii became an American possession under international law.
Was this legal? The Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 overthrew the monarchy of Hawaii. Was this legal under prior Hawaiian Law? Of course not. All revolts are illegal under the laws of the nations who have to deal with them. The Cuban Revolution was illegal according to Fulgencio Batista. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was illegal according to the Czar of Russia as well. However, do we recognize the legal rights of the current Cuban government? Do we acknowledge that the Russian revolutionaries had the right to vote away the sovereignty of the Russian state and give it to the Soviet Union? We all do. This is the same as the legal status of Hawaii. The rebels of 1893 in Hawaii won and their actions as a government are just as legal under international law as the actions of those of the current Cuban regime.
Deny this fact and your denying any current legal internationally recognized state that has it origins in any revolution or coup! This includes the USA, France, the United Kingdom, etc. The fact that a single American gunboat assisted in the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 does not change this. The Soviets aided Castro and the French helped the Americans at Yorktown in the American Revolution as well. The resulting governments are still internationally recognized.
Further, Hawaiian citizens voted to join the USA as a state. And the United Nations recognized the vote! The vote was overwhelming as it was 8-1 in favor of statehood.
Hawaiian separatists deny this vote based on two points. One, the vote allowed American military personnel stationed in Hawaii to vote. If the vote had been close, this would be a valid point. However, if you take away the votes of the military, the result would have been the same. Hawaiians voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood. The military vote does not change the final result.
The second point is that the vote is illegal under UN rules as there was no choice for independence on the ballot. However, the UN certified this vote by removing Hawaii from the list of non self-governing territories. As this was a requirement of the UN, the UN had the legal right to interpret the vote. Hawaii was deemed to be a part of the USA by the international community by this action of the UN.
You might think a referee is wrong in a football game, but despite a bad call, the results of the game are still upheld later. This is the case of Hawaii and the UN. Maybe it was the wrong decision (and the size of the Hawaiian vote indicates it was not), but the results are still binding. Hawaii = USA and the world agreed.
All the rest of the stuff that comes from these Hawaiian Independence sites is based on the flawed logic that Hawaii is currently undergoing occupation by the USA and that the Kingdom of Hawaii still legally exists! This logic then leads these sites to argue that Hawaii should be allowed to secede from the USA (or in their words restored) without a vote of the people of Hawaii. Further, if there ever was a vote, any one without the correct magic DNA (the majority of Hawaiians!) would be denied a vote as only Hawaiians with ancestors who were citizens under the Hawaiian Kingdom would be allowed to vote in the new government. That is a cause that is assured to go nowhere. Can you really see world opinion swinging in favor of the disenfranchisement of the majority of Hawaiian citizens? Grandfather clauses are so post-Civil War American South...
The US Congress apologized for any past injustice in Hawaii in 1993. This was a political move to shore up support amongst Democratic voters. It may have helped in Hawaii but the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election anyway. This resolution has no legal force of law and is merely a PR act equivalent to the state of New Jersey declaring April 4th State Cherry Pie Day. Yet, the separatists always point to it as some great proof that Hawaii is not American...
The final argument is this. If the USA does not legally own Hawaii, why haven't the majority of people heard of this before? If the Hawaiian vote of 1959 was interpreted illegally by the UN, why didn't the Soviet Union veto it? They were pretty good at doing their best at making the USA look bad. Why haven't current American antagonists made an issue of this? China hasn't even when they are critiqued about Tibet. Cuba, Iran, and North Korea are silent on this point. If Hawaii is not American and there was any legal case internationally to be made of this, don't you think the UN, the World Court, and the international media would be all over this? The deafening silence you hear tells you exactly what the world community believes about Hawaii and the USA.
This issue will probably go away in another century or so. Nature being what it is most Hawaiians will eventually have DNA from both the original Hawaiians and the "occupiers" by then. (You don't hear claims now from Saxons complaining about the injustice inflected on them by the Normans in 1066 do you?) It would be pretty dead now if it were not for the Internet and the ability of every fringe group to have their message heard on the Web. As it is, it will probably provide another generation or two of radicals the opportunity to confuse the public and be paid speakers on the university anti-American circuit.
- Were Hawaii And Texas Legally Annexed To The United States?
Free Hawaii has an interesting but I think pointless post up about the American annexation of Hawaii in 1898. It reads, "The United States Congress twice rejected treaties proposing the annexation of Hawai`i. They opted to 'annex' Hawai`i by joint...
- Democracy In Hawaii
Scott Crawford has an interesting post about democracy in Hawaii in Response to Twigg-Smith - Thurston and "Republic" = anti-democratic. In it, he deplores how the Hawaiian Kingdom ended without a democratic vote. Crawford writes, "The truth is that the...
- James Henderson Blount - American Rebel Separatist
James Henderson Blount was an American Congressman from Georgia. He served in the House of Representatives from 1873 to 1893 and also served as the American Minister to Hawaii. However, he is probably best known for his role in issuing one of gospels...
- Wacky American Separatists
The world is full of regions and ethnic groups clamoring for independence. Some have valid causes, most do not. Just because you have your own administrative region or history as a people going back thousands of years does not mean you get your own nation...
- Sanford B. Dole's 160th Birthday April 23, 2004
Dole's 160th Birthday April 23, 2004. This is an essay which examines the Hawaiian media coverage of Sanford B. Dole's 160th birthday. Dole was the first and only President of the Republic of Hawaii and under his leadership the Hawaiian people...