The following are evidence found showing Pirates, et. als. conspiring against the Royal Families, Kanaka Maoli, Subjects in a neutral, friendly, non violent nation:
1893 - January 8. U.S. Congress and the U.S. President Benjamin Harrison gave a standing order to take over the Hawaii Islands........see the headlines below.....read the last paragraph where it says "not to mention troops".....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/ abstract.html?res= F00617FD345B1A738D...
*PEARL HARBOR COALING STATION.; IMPERATIVE NECESSITY THAT THE UNITED STATES TAKE POSSESSION.[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]
WASHINGTON, Jan. 8. -- The United States, through the inactivity of the Navy Department and the indifference of the State Department, is likely to lose the only coaling station of which it stands in real need. Nothing has been done since 1884, when the Pearl Harbor site in the Hawaiian Islands became available, beyond a number of surveys which have abundantly demonstrated the excellence of this harbor as a site for a naval station.
Note: This article will open in PDF format. Get Adobe Acrobat Reader or Learn More - ***************************
PREMEDITATION IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS:
****************************** *********
1893 - January 15. American Minister Stevens and men left the steamship -of-war BOSTON "to protect American lives and property," with their "three companies of bluejackets, one of artillery, one of marines, 154 mean and 10 officers; with 14,000 cartridges for rifles and the Gatling gun, 1,300 revolver cartridges, and 174 explosive shells for the revolving cannon.
An 1876 Gatling gun preserved at Fort Laramie National Historic SiteADMISSION OF CRIMES
The USS Boston 's landing force on duty at the Arlington Hotel, Honolulu, at the time of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, January 1893. Lieutenant Lucien Young, USN, commanded the detachment, and is presumably the officer at right. [ 1 ] picture from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii These forces were landed, on foreign soil, not at the request of the lawful Government - the Governor of Oahu promptly sent a formal note of protest to Minister Stevens - representing 88,000 of the population, but at the request of a committee of rebels representing 2,000 American residents."
"One company was left at the legation where the "American life and property" were to be found, while the rest of the force was marched to
Arlon Hall, a structure close to the palace and just across the street from the Government Building, where, of course, the rebels would necessarily make their attack."
1893. January 16. The Rear Admiral reported that "Arlon Hall was ill=chosen for the professed purpose for which the troops were landed. "Naturally," he adds, "if they were landed with a view to supporting the Provisional Government troops than occupying the Government Building, it was a wise choice."
1893 - January 17. The American "conspirators signed their proclamation announcing that the Hawaiian monarchy had been "abrogated" and a Provisional Government established, with Sanford B. Dole as Chairman of the Executive Council."
"They took this to the Government Building and there read it, within seventy-five yards of the point where the United States forces were stationed with their Gatling gun and small cannon."
"With only the Government Building in their hands, the Queen being at the palace and her troops in possession of the police station, and but for the overawing force of United States troops in possession also of the city, the rebels posted off to the American Legation with a request for recognition. They got it with extraordinary promptness. The Provisional Government was proclaimed between 2 and 3 o'clock. Two hours later the new Government had received the following document, which, to our shame, will live in history:
United States Legation.
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, Jan. 17, 1893.
A Provisional Government having been duly constituted in place of the recent Government of Queen Liliuokalani, and said Provisional Government being in full possession of the Government buildings, the archives, and the Treasury, and in control of the capital of the Hawaiian Islands. I hereby recognize said Provisional Government as the de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands.
JOHN L. STEVENS
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States.
Noted by author of the NEW YORK TIMES article, "The Story of a Crime":
"The Dole conspirators were not "in full possession of the Government buildings." but of only one of them, which was occupied only by clerks and porters at the time of their raid..............it was still too early to apply the word "recent" to the Government of the Queen, for the rebels did not wait on the Queen with their treasonable proclamation until after Minister Stevens had recognized their Government."
"The Queen yielded, of course,. She could do nothing else against a rebellion that was so manifestly backed up by the superior armed forces and by the Minister of the United States. She signed, under protest, a paper renouncing her rights."
Queen Liliuokalani in 1895 was forced to sign an abdication by conspirators, treasonous persons, pirates, Sanford B. Dole, et. als.
Note:
Queen Liliuokalani returned the government to a Monarchy government when she destroyed the Constitution affecting King Kalakaua's Bayonnet Constitution which was signed at gun point, and a Constitution that she had put together which did not appeal to the Americans in the Hawaiian Islands.
Queen Liliuokalani utilized her Sovereign authority based on the following:
1. Hanai/adopted relationship to the Kamehameha line, a leader who formed the monarchy government.
2. Attending the Royal School - a School for Hawaiian leaders - based on genealogies for a monarchy government.
3. Hanai/adopted daughter of a Kamehameha descendant, part of a monarchy government.
and another reason taken as an excerpt from above:
he American "conspirators signed their proclamation announcing that the Hawaiian monarchy had been "abrogated" and a Provisional Government established, with Sanford B. Dole as Chairman of the Executive Council."
4. The American's at the time of the wrongful dethronement did proclaim and announce that the Hawaiian monarchy was "abrogated".
In other words, the recognition of a monarchy form of government, not a Constitutional monarchy government was documented in 1893, and the fact that our Hawaiian Monarchy did go "underground", which means that our Hawaiian monarchy did not cease to exist!
Queen Liliuokalani was under duress, stress, coercion, usurpation, and it was a documented fact found that the U.S. aided, planned the criminal assumption of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation, and did cause the duress, stress, coercion, usurpation, planned the criminal assumption of private properties with their helpers, the Americans, the treasonous persons known as the PIRATES OF THE PACIFIC: CHARLES REED BISHOP AND FRIENDS and did breach the Laws of Nations, killed, caused genocide and PLUNDERED UPON INNOCENTS since their presence from the time of the arrival of their mercenaries, the missionaries in 1820.
reference: NEW YORK TIMES articles (1) The Story of a Crime; and (2) Pearl Harbor Coaling Station - Imperative Necessity that the United States Take Possession; AFFAIRS IN ASIA, 1st Qtr 1897 - The Republic of Hawaii, an aged article purchased off the internet which came from GREECE! THE LIBERAL newspaper, January 28, 1893, genealogy, history researches, etc.
PUBLIC LAW 103-150 [S.J.Res. 19]; November 23, 1993 OVERTHROW OF HAWAII Joint Resolution 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.
Whereas prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion;
Whereas a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first King of Hawaii;
Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;
Whereas the Congregational Church (now known as the United Church of Christ), through its American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, sponsored and sent more than 100 missionaries to the Kingdom of Hawaii between 1820 and 1850;
Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "United States Minister"), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;
Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;
Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17, 1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government;
Whereas the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law;
107 Stat. 1510 Whereas, soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government;
"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 any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.".Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.;
Whereas, without the active support and intervention by the United States diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms;Whereas, on February 1, 1893, the United States Minister raised the American flag and proclaimed Hawaii to be a protectorate of the United States;
Whereas the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted by former Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the insurrection and overthrow of January 17, 1893, concluded that the United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government;
Whereas, as a result of this investigation, the United States Minister to Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission;
Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government' of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown;
Whereas President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy;
Whereas the Provisional Government protested President Cleveland's call for the restoration of the monarchy and continued to hold state power and pursue annexation t6 the United States; Whereas the Provisional Government successfully lobbied the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "Committee") to conduct a new inves-
107 Stat. 1511
tigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the monarchy;Whereas the Committee and its chairman, Senator John Morgan, conducted hearings in Washington, D.C., from December 27, 1893, through February 26, 1894, in which members of the Provisional Government justified and condoned the actions of the United States Minister and recommended annexation of Hawaii;
Whereas, although the Provisional Government was able to obscure the role of the United States in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, it was unable to rally the support front two-thirds of the Senate needed to ratify a treaty of annexation;
Whereas, on July 4, 1894, the Provisional Government declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii;
Whereas, on January 24, 1895, while imprisoned in lolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani was forced by representatives of the Republic of Hawaii to officially abdicate her throne;
Whereas, in the 1896 United States Presidential election, William McKinley replaced Grover Cleveland;
Whereas, on July 7, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for the annexation of Hawaii;
Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States;
Whereas the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their sovereign government;
Whereas the Congress, through the Newlands Resolution, ratified the cession, annexed Hawaii as part of the United States, and vested title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States;
Whereas the Newlands Resolution also specified that treaties existing between Hawaii and- foreign nations were to immediately cease and be replaced by United States treaties with such nations;
Whereas the Newlands Resolution effected the transaction between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States Government;
Whereas the indigenous Hawaiian people- never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;
Whereas, on April 30, 1900, President McKinley signed the Organic Act that provided a government for the territory of Hawaii and defined the political structure and powers of the newly established Territorial Government and its relationship to the United States;
Whereas, on August 21, 1959, Hawaii became the 50th State of the United States;
Whereas the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land;
Whereas the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people;
Whereas the Native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own
107 stat. 1512
spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions;Whereas, in order to promote racial harmony and cultural understanding, the legislature of the State of Hawaii has determined that the year 1993 should serve Hawaii as a year of special reflection on the rights and dignities of the Native Hawaiians in the Hawaiian and the American societies;
Whereas the Eighteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in recognition of the denomination's historical complicity in the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 directed the Office of the President of the United Church of Christ to offer a public apology to the Native Hawaiian people and to initiate the process of reconciliation between the United Church of Christ and the Native Hawaiians; and
Whereas it is proper and timely for the Congress on the occasion of the impending one hundredth anniversary of the event, to acknowledge the historic- significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION I. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY, The Congress-- (1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Joint -Resolution, the term "Native Hawaiian" means any individual who is a descendent of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.
107 stat. 1513
SEC. 3. DISCLAIMER. Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.Approved November 23, 1993.
107 stat. 1514 Apology ResolutionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaUnited States Public Law 103-150, informally known as the Apology Resolution, is a Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress adopted in 1993 that "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum" (U.S. Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510)). The resolution has been cited as a major impetus for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and has been the subject of intense debate.[1][2][3][4][5]
The legal effect of the Apology Resolution was addressed in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of March 31, 2009, which held that the 37 "whereas" clauses of the Apology Resolution have no binding legal effect, nor does it convey any rights or make any legal findings for native Hawaiian claims.[6] The Court concluded that the Resolution does not change or modify the "absolute" title to the public lands of the State of Hawai'i. The decision also affirmed that federal legislation cannot retroactively cloud title given as a part of statehood in general.
The Resolution was adopted by both houses of the United States Congress on November 23, 1993. A joint resolution, it was signed by President of the United States Bill Clinton on the same day.
The resolution was passed in the Senate by a vote of 65-34. Senator Sam Nunn did not vote. In the House, it was passed by a two-thirds voice vote. It was sponsored on January 21, 1993, as S.J.Res.19 by Daniel Akaka and co-sponsored by Daniel Inouye, both Democratic senators from Hawaii.
Contents [hide][edit] Arguments for Part of a series on Hawaii Hawaiian sovereignty
movement Main issues- Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom
- Removal from U.N. Decolonization list
- International law
- United States constitutional law
- Legal status
- Opposition to the Overthrow
- Hawaiian Rebellions
- Bloodless Revolution
- Wilcox Rebellion of 1889
- Wilcox Rebellions
- Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom
- Leper War
- Black Week
- 1895 Counter-Revolution
- Blount Report
- Morgan Report
- Bayonet Constitution
- Treaty of Annexation (Hawaii)
- Ku'e Petitions
- Newlands Resolution
- Hawaiian Organic Act
- Apology Resolution
- Akaka Bill
The Apology resolution derives mainly from the Blount Report, which was compiled shortly after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy (spring 1893). Blount found strongly in the favor of the queen and her supporters, and his report was an official criticism of the U.S. role in the overthrow. President Grover Cleveland was also strongly supportive of the Queen, and made official statements supporting the view held in the Blount Report. These official statements by the U.S. Government are seen as historical evidence for the claims made by the Apology Resolution.
[edit] Parallels between Native Hawaiians and Native AmericansAlthough the histories of Native Hawaiians and Native Americans are significantly different, there is still a widely-held perception that Native Hawaiians have received similar kinds of unfair treatment from the U.S. Government as Native Americans. The Apology Bill is thus seen as a means of acknowledging historical grievances that they believe are valid. Some also see it as a step towards identifying Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people to preserve for them specific legal rights based on ancestry; some also see it as the beginning of a process to provide compensation or reparation to native Hawaiians for alleged past injustices.
How this decision on the "nonsubstantive" nature of the Apology Resolution will affect the pursuit of the Akaka Bill, which has based itself on the Apology Resolution, is not yet clear.
In 2009, the U.S. Congress passed a similar resolution, S.J.Res. 14, "To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States."[7]
Wikisource has original text related to this article: [edit] Arguments against [edit] Disputed historical basis Although the Blount Report of July 17, 1893, upon which the Apology Resolution was based, was an official report of the U.S. government, it was followed by the Morgan Report on 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 Grover Cleveland also reversed himself upon receipt of the Morgan Report, refusing requests from the queen for further aid in her restoration, and acknowledging both the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii as the legitimate successors to the Kingdom.
Washington-based constitutional lawyer and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii consultant Bruce Fein has outlined a number of counterarguments challenging the historical accuracy and completeness of the assertions made in the Apology Resolution.[1]
[edit] Allegations that the bill was rushed throughThere has been criticism of the 1993 Apology Bill for its use in buttressing the Akaka Bill. The Apology Bill of '93 was passed with only one hour of debate on the Senate floor with only five senators participating, three opposed (Slade Gorton, Hank Brown, John C. Danforth) and two in favor (Akaka and Inouye). It passed the house on November 15 in less time with no debate and no objections. Senator Inouye, wrapping up the debate, said:
" As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleague from Washington knows, from the time of statehood we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that. "The reliance upon the text of the Apology Resolution as justification for the Akaka Bill has been seen by some as contradicting Inouye's statements on the matter in 1993.
In 1993, Senators Slade Gorton and Hank Brown did not take issue with the historical accuracy of the bill, although they voted against it. More recently they have described it as being a piece of historical revisionism. They wrote in the Wall Street Journal an article The Opposite Of Progress very critical of the historical veracity of the Apology Bill.
[edit] Advocates of Hawaiian independenceSome non-ancestry-based nationalist Hawaiian groups have criticized Senators Akaka and Inouye for acting as accomplices of the U.S. in a long-term anti-Hawaiian strategy. These groups see the language of the Apology Resolution as deceptively conflating the strong, universally accepted definition of sovereignty--which the Hawaiian Kingdom possessed as an internationally recognized nation-state--with an immeasurably weaker notion of the "inherent sovereignty" of an "indigenous" or "Native" people within, and subordinate to, the United States. They reason that citizenship in the Kingdom was not defined by ancestry; that an entire country was the victim of the conspirators' misdeeds, not merely certain individuals or groups; and that all loyal Hawaiian nationals were deprived of their right to self-determination, not just "Native" Hawaiians. They also point out that it was the U.S. Congress that introduced blood quota requirements in the first place, in the Hawaiian Homelands Commission Act of 1921, over the opposition of their ancestors. Accordingly, most of these groups also reject the Akaka Bill, saying that the proper arena for redress is at the international level.
[edit] Practical legal effectIn a response to the State of Hawai'i Appeal of the Arakaki Decision, the plaintiffs argued that the "whereas" clauses should not be given legal effect.
- Legislative statements in a preamble may help a court interpret the operative clauses of a particular statute by clarifying the legislative intent, but they do not legislate facts or confer rights. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction, -20.03 (5th ed. 1993). The Apology Resolution has no legally operative provisions. Indeed, it expressly settles no claims. 107 Stat. 1510 -3. The committee report says that the Resolution has no regulatory impact and does not change any law. S. Rep. 123-126. Its sponsor assured the Senate that it is only "a simple resolution of apology" and that it "has nothing to do" with "the status of Native Hawaiians." 139 Congressional Record S14477, S14482 (October 27, 1993), SER 14. The Supreme Court in Rice demonstrated how to deal with the Apology Resolution: the Court cited it but decided the case based on the facts in the record.
In testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciar..., Professor of Law Mr. Michael Glennon makes clear the fact that whereas clauses in general can have "no binding legal effect":
- Under traditional principles of statutory construction, these provisions have no binding legal effect. Only material that comes after the so-called "resolving clause"--"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled"--can have any operative effect. Material set out in a whereas clause is purely precatory. It may be relevant for the purpose of clarifying ambiguities in a statute's legally operative terms, but in and of itself such a provision can confer no legal right or obligation.
The legal effect of the Apology Resolution was addressed in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of March 31, 2009, which held that the 37 "whereas" clauses of the Apology Resolution have no binding legal effect, nor does it convey any rights or make any legal findings for native Hawaiian claims.[6] The Court concluded that the Resolution does not change or modify the "absolute" title to the public lands of the State of Hawai'i. The decision also affirmed that federal legislation cannot retroactively cloud title given as a part of statehood in general.
Wikisource has original text related to this article: [edit] References - ^ a b Fein, Bruce (June 6, 2005). "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand". Angelfire on Lycos. Waltham, MA, USA: Lycos. Archived from the original on February 5, 2007. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
- ^ The Opposite Of Progress, Slade Gorton and Hank Brown
- ^ No Freedom to Celebrate Statehood, Andrew Walden, FrontPageMagazine.com 8/29/2006
- ^ alohaquest.com, pro-sovereignty website
- ^ "The Rape of Paradise: The Second Century Hawai'ians Grope Toward S...
- ^ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf
- ^ McKinnon, John D. (2009-12-22). "U.S. Offers An Official Apology to Native Americans". Blogs.wsj.com. Retrieved 2011-02-21.
AND
1820's - Arrival of Masons/Freemasons in the Hawaiian Islands according to the article below.
1843 - Masons/Freemasons recorded in the Hawaiian Islands according to the article below:
MASONIC TOURIST: CELEBRATING THE MASONIC LEGACY OF HAWAII'S LAST KING
By Mark Zane Mauikanehoalani Lovell, 32 -
Photo: The Masonic exhibit, including a portrait of the King in full 33 - regalia. The calabash bowls, towards the rear, are jubilee artifacts which were utilized in State celebrations, during Kalakaua's reign. (Photograph by Mark Leo, 32 -)
Amid the fading daylight of a March evening in Honolulu, on the sacred land of an area the Ancient Hawaiians once referred to as Pohukaina, a unique and auspicious procession somberly and reverently made its way across the grounds to the lower galleries of Hawaii's most audacious and recognizable Royal residence--"Iolani Palace. Ceremonially ushered by members of the Royal Order of Kamehameha the Great in accordance with protocols afforded to the high chiefs of old, esteemed representatives of Hawaii's Grand Lodge, and Hawaii's three oldest lodges--Lodge Le Progres de L'Oceanie, Hawaiian Lodge, and Honolulu Lodge--joined Hawaiian cultural practitioners, members of the University of Hawaii, and the Palace's curatorial staff to browse a newly-created public exhibit highlighting the Masonic activity of King David Kalakaua, P.M., 33 -
David LaÊ amea KamanakapuÊ u Mahinulani Nalaiaehuokalani Lumialani KalÄ kaua reigned over the Hawaiian kingdom from 1874 till his death in 1883. He was the last of Hawaii's kings, and was affectionately referred to as the "Merrie Monarch," in light of his magnanimous personality, his good humor, and his love of culture and finery.
Hawaiian culture experienced its first resurgence under the Kalakaua Dynasty. Hula, surfing, and lua--the ancient Hawaiian martial art--were revived and rejuvenated after having been outlawed for several decades. Arguably, Hawaii experienced its most politically aggressive move towards international cosmopolitanism under Kalakaua's influence, because the King's ambitions were not relegated exclusively to the islands themselves. In 1881, Kalakaua left Hawaii to tour the world, in an effort to improve Hawaii's foreign relations and to expand its economic influence. He became the first Hawaiian Monarch to successfully travel the globe, visiting heads of state in Japan, China, Siam, Burma, India, Europe, Great Britain, and Ireland along the way. He became the first Hawaiian to gain audience with Pope Leo XIII, he dined with Queen Victoria, and he discussed trade policy with President Chester A. Arthur.
While on his travels, Kalakaua grew fond of the royal residences in Europe and the United Kingdom. He began to envisage a Hawaiian Palace of equal prestige and grandeur. Progressively, the King acquired furniture and art from Europe, and commissioned the construction of "Iolani Palace for a then-unprecedented sum which exceeded $340,000. The result was a unique and distinct architecture known as American Florentine, which incorporated American, European, and Hawaiian design flourishes.
King David Kalakaua was also a Brother Mason who rose among the ranks of his Lodge's administration at the same time he came into political prominence. Master of Lodge Le Progres de l'Oceanie in 1876, Kalakaua retains the extraordinary distinction of being one of the few Monarchs in history, outside of Europe, to preside over a sovereign country and a Masonic Lodge simultaneously. A Mason of unequaled passion, he was among the first 33 - Masons in the Orient of Hawaii, but also actively delved into the mysteries of the York Rite and the Shrine. As well, his Masonic activities were no secret to those who kept company with him. Not only was the newly-completed Palace's first formal dinner a Masonic event, but also portions of the Palace's attic was converted into a Lodge meeting space and an impromptu Masonic Temple.
Creating an exhibit which prominently features the Masonic lifestyle of King Kalakaua was the result of a unique collaboration between Lodge Le Progres de l'Oceanie's Archival & Conservation Committee and the curatorial staff of "Iolani Palace. By inviting members of Hawaii's cultural, academic, and social communities to its opening reception and in virtue of its prominent place among all of the other galleries at the Palace, the display represents an important first step towards publicly sharing the topic of Freemasonry in a way that is culturally relevant to the people of Hawaii. Though Masonic artifacts of Hawaiian Kings and Chiefs have been included in prior temporary public displays (not only at the "Iolani Palace galleries, but as well at Honolulu's Bishop Museum), never before has so much time, resources, or attention been devoted to educating the community at large about Hawaii's colorful Masonic history by any independent research institution.
Included in the installation are the ceremonial trowels, level, plumb, and square, which in 1879 commemorated the laying of the Palace's cornerstone. These delicate instruments rest adjacent to the King's Past Master's Jewel, and the Past Master's Jewel of his trusted advisor John Dominis. The King's Master Mason ring, ornate with precious stones, sits accompanied by his Templar sword, and his York Rite watch fob--all tarnished with age, but rich with significance. A Lodge roster which includes Kalakaua's name, as well as that of Kamehameha IV, hangs near a photocopy of the King's original application for membership. And, most prominently, a photograph of Kalakaua himself, proudly posing in full 33 - regalia, watches over the exhibit in silent dignity.
Masons in Hawaii are the beneficiaries of a remarkable inheritance. They are stewards of a long and rich heritage--a heritage that does not merely extend to Masonic ritual and ceremony, but also to a unique cultural, ethnic, and historical pedigree. Though it may not be widely known, it is a fact that Freemasonry and Freemasons are interwoven into Hawaii's identity as a State, and as a once-great sovereign nation. The earliest lodge in the islands was formed in 1843. However, brother Masons made frequent arrival to Hawaii as merchants, tradesmen, sailors, and missionaries, perhaps as early as the 1820s. From the mid-nineteenth century and onward, the appeal of the Craft soon caught the attention of the Royal House of Kamehameha. And, from the time of Kamehameha III, Freemasonry became a tradition among the Hawaiian Aristocracy. From the early-1800s until the abolishment of the monarchy in 1893, practically every Hawaiian monarch and statesman, as well as their closest advisors, was either a Freemason, or had a direct Masonic association. Shortly after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the establishment of a Hawaiian Republic was, as well, ushered in with the help of brother Masons.
Hawaii is steeped in Masonry. Whether they were native Hawaiians, or the sons of missionaries, settlers, and immigrants, Masons in Hawaii were men of principle, men of prominence, and men of passion. Like all brothers before them or since, they accumulated moral strength and purpose by obligating themselves to the mysteries of the Craft.
More than any mere historical exposition, the "Iolani Palace's Masonic exhibit reaffirms the substantial link between Hawaiian culture, Hawaiian history, and Freemasonry. This link, until recently, had languished into relative obscurity. The opportunity to not merely reveal but revitalize the strong connection between Hawaiian history and Freemasonry has encouraged a new appreciation among the brethren across the state of Hawaii.
King David Kalakaua was a patriot, an icon, a brother, and an exemplar worthy of emulation. In large part, it was not his status as a monarch, but the quality of his intentions and his sincere love of his people and his country that elevated his reputation to the status and esteem with which he is regarded today. Such reflects the caliber of not just a good Mason, but a good man. King David Kalakaua was a man who lived his life in accordance to the guidance of his conscience and the precepts of the Craft and in so doing helped to define and to solidify the heritage of Hawaii and its people.
The Scottish Rite Journal (ISSN 1076-8572) is published bimonthly by the Supreme Council, 33 -, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction, United States of America, 1733 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20009-3103.
Reference: http://scottishrite.org/journal/july-august-2012/tourist-hawaiis-la...
1893 - The Scottish Rite Masons/Freemasons were given access to the Washington Memorial area for camping shortly after the Criminal dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani.
This information may be found in the Presidential Executive Orders of the period.
Reference: Federal Documents, Main Library, Honolulu, Oahu (note: the information on the web does not show the entries)
2013 - CURRENT INTEREST: THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY ANNOUNCED
The International Conference on the History of Freemasonry (ICHF) will return to its origins May 24--26, 2013, at the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The sessions will be held at the historic Freemasons' Hall, 96 George Street, Edinburgh, Scotland. This biennial gathering brings together the world's leading scholars on Freemasonry, attracting academic and Masonic researchers. Some of the finest, original research on Freemasonry will be presented at this three-day meeting. The deadline for submitting proposals for papers is July 31, 2012. Full details can be found at the conference web site,www.ichfonline.org.
The Scottish Rite Journal (ISSN 1076-8572) is published bimonthly by the Supreme Council, 33 -, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction, United States of America, 1733 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20009-3103.
reference: Article on PARASITES OF THE PACIFIC click here
Rate It | View Ratings Amelia Gora Social Media Pages:
Researcher (history, genealogy(ies), and legal), Writer, Editor, Publisher of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web from Hawaii.The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
OpEdNews
depends uponcan't survive without your help.If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.
STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.To View Comments or Join the Conversation:
