My apologies for the delay on this post. Sometimes, life gets in the way of online commitments, and there just wasn't enough hours in the day to type
out the remainder of my draft.
To start, a clarification. It was never my intention to imply that Cook, the European, and American settlers were responsible for establishing a
native population. It was an error of ommission on my part, and I apologize for any confusion in this regard. I am not contesting the indiginous
population being present before it was "discovered", as it is a culture rich with traditions and culinary delights to this day. I will also like to
clarify that some of the historical information I gave was slightly inaccurate, due to my (failed) attempt to condense way too much into too little of
a space. I will expand upon my position in this post greatly.
To address the history of Hawaii past this point will require additional details. The site
opponent supplied details each of the monarchs who ruled over the years. However, several details, some covered by both that site and other numerous
details from other references, need to be brought to light.
In 1839 and 1840, Kamehameha III created the Hawaiian Declaration of Right
and Constitution for the Hawaiian Islands
. This is important,
as it changed the government from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Government was no longer the sole domain of the king, but rather
split between the executive, legislative, and judicial offices of government. In effect, he gave a significant portion of his power to the people.
In addition, in 1848, he signed the Great Mahele into law. This allowed for land to be privately owned. Originally it was split between the king, the
chiefs, and commoners, but since land is owned, it can be sold. Most of the land was sold to foreigners.
*Did the Native Hawaiians Have Aboriginal Title to the Crown and Government Lands?
In 1887, Lorrin Thurston, a Hawaiian born citizen, drafted the Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is important to note that even though the
constitution was imposed by militia force upon King Kalakaua, this was formed by a Hawaiian citizen. Hawaiian - not
the United States.
This change to the constitution, enacted by their legislative branch, removed most of the remaining power from the king and granted voting rights
based on land ownership. In addition, it gave the United States the right to build a naval base at Pearl Harbor.
As my opponet stated, Lili'uokalani was effectively running the country before taking the throne in 1891 as Queen. However, how well she did at her
job is a subject of debate. She claimed
she received petitions from 2/3s of her subjects requesting her to change the constitution.
She attempted to do just that in 1893. The Committee of Safety was formed by voters
dedicated to her removal from office. That's
right, the voters, under their own constitution, dethroned the the monarchy. In effect, a civil war was started.
As my opponent stated earlier, "Enter the United States Marines". What exactly was the purpose of our marines being present? They took up positions
at the United States Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall. All United States interests, per the Hawaii Constitution and treaties signed with the United
States. The Consulate is considered United States soil as far as international law is concerned, so let's take a look at the rest of my opponent's
In 1893, the Blount Report indicated that the overthrow of the Queen was unlawful, and that United States Minister John Stevens had carried out
unauthorized activites under false pretenses regarding the marines. This was an individual
acting out of line. Not the United States
Government. Even my opponent's own source shows this.
* The Blount Report
Also, it is important to note that just because someone makes an accusation, it does not make it true. Queen Lili'uokalani has several contradictions
within her biography, Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen
compared to other historical records. Why the conflict? I believe it is self apparent. Queen Lili'uokalani wanted to show herself, and her anscestors
in a positive light, despite the evidence showing the contrary.
On with our history lesson. President Cleveland was against annexation of Hawaii. He stopped a treaty suggesting this right after coming into office.
In December of 1983, the United States demanded the reinstatement of Queen Lili'ukalani to the throne. The provisional government refused. This
caused another investigation which resulted in the Morgan Report.
* The Morgan Report
The most important part of this report was analyzing the placement and activities of the United States Marines. It was determined that their activites
were neutral, another source showing the United States was not at fault.
In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was formed, with a newly elected president. In 1895, multiple rebellions took place in an attempt to place the monarch
back on the throne. Guns were smuggled from the United States to support the monarchy. It failed. Miserably.
In 1897, when President McKinley took office, the Republic of Hawaii immediately petitioned the United States to resume negotiations for annexation.
In 1898, it was approved, and the United States accepted Hawaii as a territory.
In 1859, the Hawaii Territory became the 50th state of the United States of America. It was supported by 94% of the voters in Hawaii.
There is still no evidence to suggest that the United States Government was behind the annexing of Hawaii by force. The United States was approached
numerous times before considering it seriously. Force was not a factor. The Hawaiian government saw it as a need to increase their economy.
Texas v. White
My opponent claims that 5 to 3 vote of the United States Supreme Court makes it a questionable interpretation of the Constitution. However, that is
interpretation until another case changing this. Despite the controversy then and now, it doesn't change the
that it is constitutional law.
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There
was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
* STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
My opponent quotes Thomas Jefferson, who I will agree was one of the primary authors of the Constitution, but are those quotes from the Constitution?
No. They are from his inaugural address. They do not form constitutional law. As such, they have no bearing on the case, as they are his
interpretation, not the valid, legal
interpretation, as stated by our Constitution.
The book, "The Real Lincoln"
, states that every political leader before this case believed states had the right to sucession. However,
Texas v. White
changed that previous interpretation, and that is the interpretation of constitutional law we are currently held to. At the time
the Constitution was written, the United States had no knowledge of Hawaii. As such, any laws or interpretation of laws from that time period are
as the law changes over time.
President Clinton's "Apology Resolution" was a political maneuver because people create their own preconceptions on the past, and demanded an
apology. It was politics, plain and simple. Using this logic, there would be no United States at all, as every bit of land was taken from someone else
at one time or another.
In a land where all men are created equal, why would we give special treatment to a former nation that repeatedly pretitioned to become a territory
and later became a state? The law clearly shows it is forbidden, and until that law is changed, no state should have the rights suggested by my