And we do live in a world full of historical inaccuracies.  This is nothing new, of course.  The temptation to reframe history for one’s own purposes (or because of one’s own biases or learned biases) is an eternal one.  What’s important is that we recognize that tendency and work to prevent it from becoming the basis of bad policy.  No, I’m not just legitimizing your friend’s tendency to go on about the problems in the movie Titanic.  (A noble calling in itself.) To some extent, history can be a matter of interpretation, but we can’t just give bad facts and specious interpretations a pass.

And when it comes to Hawaiian history, boy do we have a minefield of inaccuracy.  Whether based on the desire to romanticize the past or a political agenda, very few things have become as distorted as Hawaii’s path to US statehood.  It can even rear its head in a simple corporate publication, as Ken Conklin’s recent article in the Hawaii Reporter demonstrates.  Conklin identifies and corrects a series of inaccuracies in a recent HMSA magazine. The article is worth reading in its entirety, but here is a small sample:

Jokiel writes “In the years following the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i, the new government worked tirelessly to eradicate the Hawaiian language.” That’s totally false. Here’s what’s true.

Immediately after the revolution of January 17, 1893 royalist newspapers (both Hawaiian and English language ones) were suspended by the Provisional Government. That’s normal after any revolution. But after a few weeks all the newspapers resumed publication, with zero censorship.

Noenoe Silva published a book in 2004 entitled “Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism.” On page 181 Silva says there were both Hawaiian-language and English-language newspapers supporting Lili’uokalani after the overthrow and throughout the Republic period; and also newspapers in each language that were pro-Republic.

When the Republic of Hawaii was created in July of 1894, its Constitution was published in both English and Hawaiian. The continued publication of Hawaiian language newspapers, and publication of the Republic’s Constitution in Hawaiian, clearly disprove Jokiel’s assertion that “the new government worked tirelessly to eradicate the Hawaiian language.”

In an article titled “What are the ‘Ceded Lands’ of Hawaii?” written for Honolulu Civil Beat on 11/08/2010, Professor Van Dyke makes some critical errors in his assessment of both the history and the law.  While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s rejection of the “Apology Resolution,” he still relies on it for his “legal” justification.  While quoting from the Admissions Act of 1959, he omits a key clause that differentiates between “should” and “can.”  But most problematically, Van Dyke intimates that “Native Hawaiians” were somehow legally separate during the Kingdom period in Hawaii, and that the public lands that were returned to the State of Hawaii have some sort of racial lien on them.

The first red flag we should recognize in Van Dyke’s writing is the use of quotes around the term “illegal.”  In order for something to be illegal, we must have several things – a concrete body of law which was violated, a judiciary to arbitrate the dispute, and finally, a finding after a trial presenting both sides of the issue.  Without these necessary requirements, we are substituting personal opinion for legal fact.  Although PL103-150 (aka “The Apology Resolution”) uses the term “illegal” several times in describing the Hawaiian Revolution, it does not identify any specific law which was violated, any judiciary with jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, nor any trial which was conducted to determine guilt or innocence.

So can the “Apology Resolution” unilaterally declare the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 illegal?  Absolutely not.  Ex post facto laws are explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution -  one cannot simply pass a law which declares someone’s prior actions illegal.  Neither does the legislature have the authority to declare someone guilty as a matter of legal fact.  In recognition of this and the basic principles of statutory construction, the Supreme Court on March 31, 2009 firmly established that the “Apology Resolution” had no legally binding effect, stating that the “‘whereas’ clauses cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them.”

The second major mistake Van Dyke makes is a subtle, but important distinction between something that is necessary, and something that is allowable.  Van Dyke states that the 1959 Admissions Act demanded that “revenues from these lands should be used” for native Hawaiians.  This is a misread of the Admissions Act, which provided limits on what the revenues could be used for, not mandates.  The specific text of the Admissions Act reads, “such lands, proceeds, and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes…their use for any other object shall constitute a breach of trust…”

This means that the State of Hawaii could spend every penny on public education, and not a dime on the development of farm and home ownership.  Or, it could decide to spend everything on public improvements and provisions for public use of the lands, while not funding anything else.  Any combination of “one or more” would be legal according to the Admissions Act.  The only two things that would be a breach of trust would be to spend none of the revenue at all, or spend any of the revenue on a non-permissible use, such as supporting private schools, or the development of automobile ownership.

With his words Van Dyke echoes a misinterpretation of the Admissions Act that OHA has been intentionally cultivating for many years, using it to justify a 20% share of revenue from the public lands of the State of Hawaii to native Hawaiians (although OHA specifically ignores the blood quantum definition used in the Admissions Act).  By their rationale, exactly 20% should be allocated to farm and home ownership, exactly 20% should be allocated to public schools, exactly 20% should be allocated for public improvements, and the last 20% should be allocated to make public lands available for public use.  But the Admissions Act, as plainly read, has no such mandate whatsoever.

The most insidious misrepresentation Van Dyke makes, however, is regarding the citizenry of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and the chain of ownership of the ‘ceded’ lands.

From its inception, the Kingdom of Hawaii was a multi-racial nation.  High Chief Olohana, otherwise known as John Young, fought beside Kamehameha the Great to establish the unified Kingdom, and was the grandfather of Queen Emma herself.  The first constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1840 stated boldly that all people were “of one blood,” and established equality between all races over 100 years before the modern civil rights movement in the United States.  Characterizing the Crown Lands or Government Lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii as being dedicated to only one race is a desecration of both the spirit and the laws of the Kingdom from which they came.

With his synopsis, Van Dyke perpetuates the fiction that the ‘Ceded Lands’ are still ‘ceded.’  But the truth is, they are now more properly called  the ‘Returned Lands.’  The Crown Lands and Government Lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii were consolidated into the Public Lands of the Republic of Hawaii in 1894.  These public lands (about 1.8 million acres) became the ‘Ceded Lands’ in 1898, when the Republic ceded them to the United States on the condition that the revenues and proceeds, except for the parts used for the civil, military or naval purposes of the U.S., “shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands.”  Van Dyke acknowledges that this created a “special trust”, but he carefully omits that the ‘Ceded Lands’ Trust was established for all the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands, not just for those of a specific ancestry.

When the Territory of Hawaii was established in 1900 by the Organic Act, it reiterated that the public lands were acquired by the United States in “absolute fee” under the Annexation Act, free from “all claim of any nature whatsoever.”  These ‘Ceded Lands’ finally became the ‘Returned Lands’, when the lands were returned to the public of the State of Hawaii as per the Admissions Act of 1959.  The circle was finally complete – what had originally been the public lands of all the people of the Kingdom of Hawaii, became the public lands of all the people of the State of Hawaii.

Placing exclusive racial claims upon the ‘Returned Lands’ is an abuse of the trust placed in the State of Hawaii, and a violation of our Constitutional guarantees of equal protection.  No matter how many times these false claims are repeated, and no matter how many myths are invented to justify such race-based distinctions, they will never become true, and will never be justified.  All of the inhabitants of Hawaii, regardless of ancestry, have a powerful claim to the ‘Returned Lands,’ as clearly demanded by the Organic Act and the legacy of the multi-racial Kingdom of Hawaii.

http://tinyurl.com/ctbopx

Sullivan’s book review in the context of other materials about the ceded lands and the recent Supreme Court decision:

http://tinyurl.com/chbkpx

The power point presentation in PDF format of Jere Krischel’s presentation is available here.

Mr. Suburo Fujii, Agent and Consul General of Japan, sent a letter of de facto recognition, in English language, to Hawaii President Dole, dated January 19, 1893. Apparently the Japanese consulate continued the same level of relations with the Provisional Government, and later the Republic, as it had maintained with the Kingdom. It is unclear whether the subsequent establishment of the Republic resulted in a formal letter of recognition de jure like the ones given by at least nineteen other nations. No such letter can be found in the archives of the State of Hawaii. But it would be surprising if Japan had failed to recognize the Republic, because there were tens of thousands of Japanese nationals working as contract laborers on Hawaii’s sugar plantations at the time of the revolution, and there was no break in further arrivals.

Ken Conklin contacted Ms. Harumi Katsumata, Consul, Consulate-General of Japan in Hawaii, inquiring whether there might be a record of diplomatic recognition of the Republic either in the files of the Japanese Consulate in Honolulu or in the foreign affairs archives in Tokyo. Following a period of several weeks for research, Consul Katsumata sent an e-mail stating that there is no information about Japan’s recognition of the Republic of Hawaii, either in Honolulu or in Tokyo. However, she did attach a photograph (shown below) of a notice published by the Republic of Hawaii Foreign Office on April 24, 1897. The notice announced that the Consulate of Japan was being upgraded to the status of Legation and that the Consul currently serving at that time would continue to represent Japan. The published notice included the full text of an “autograph letter of His Majesty the Emperor” to President Dole, announcing the upgrade of status, bearing the manual seal of the Empire and countersigned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Thus it is clear that until April 24, 1897 the Republic enjoyed the same level of diplomatic relations with Japan that the Kingdom had previously enjoyed; and after that date Japan granted even higher status to the Republic by upgrading its Consulate to a Legation. The wording of the Emperor’s letter to President Dole is very similar to the wording of the letters of recognition de jure that had been sent by other Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents.

In March of 1881 King Kalakaua had visited the Meiji Emperor of Japan (Mutsuhito) on his trip around the world, and awarded to the Emperor the highest Royal Order of the Hawaiian Kingdom — the Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Kamehameha with collar.  Thus it is especially poignant when that same Emperor personally signs a letter to Hawaii President Sanford Dole raising the status of Japan’s diplomatic representation from consulate to legation.  The Emperor was giving high status to the Republic — a revolutionary government which had overthrown a fellow monarchy which had previously awarded the Emperor its highest honor.

Click once or twice on the photo to zoom in for more detail.

By Authority

Foreign Office Notice

This day had audience of the President, Mr. R.
Shimamura, His Imperial Japanese Majesty’s
Diplomatic Agent and Consul General, who
presented his credentials from His Majesty the
Emperor, accrediting him in the capacity of
Minister Resident, in the Republic of Hawaii.

In presenting the autograph letter of His Majesty
the Emperor, Mr. Shimamura said:

Mr. President: The Consulate General of Japan in
Hawaii has been raised to the rank of Legation;
and it has pleased His Imperial Majesty, My
August Master, to designate me as His Minister
Resident, to reside in the Republic of Hawaii.

Permit me, Mr. President, in presenting my
credentials, to express my sincere appreciation
of the personal and official courtesies, hitherto
extended to me, both by yourself and by the
officials of your Government in my capacity of
Consul General and Diplomatic Agent; and I
express the hope and belief that these pleasant
personal and official amenities may be continued
in my new and more extended relations with your
government.

I avail myself of this occasion to assure you of
my sincere desire for your future health and
welfare.

To which the President replied:

“It is gratifying to me, Mr. Minister, that your
Government, in view of the large number of your
countrymen who are resident here, has seen fit to
raise the Consulate General of Japan in Hawaii to
the rank of Legation. And it is very acceptable
to me and this government that His Imperial
Majesty has designated yourself, whom we have so
long and so favorably known both officially and
socially, as the one to receive this high
appointment.

“I thank you for your expressions of good will to
myself personally, and I ask you to convey to
your Government our satisfaction over its action
in increasing the importance of the office
representing it in this country, and to His
Imperial Majesty my good wishes for his continued
health and for the prosperity of the nation over
which he so ably presides.

“I congratulate you, Mr. Minister, upon your
promotion.”

The autograph letter of His Majesty is as
follows:

MUTSUHITO

By the grace of Heaven, emperor of Japan and
seated on the throne occupied by the same Dynasty
from time immemorial,

TO MR. SANFORD B. DOLE, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF HAWAII, and Our Great and Good Friend,
Greeting!

Being animated by the desire to maintain and
promote the relations of friendship and good
understanding so happily existing between our
respective countries, We do hereby appoint
Shimamura, Hisashi, Jugoi, Fourth Class of the
Imperial Order of the Rising Sun, who is at
present residing in your country, in the capacity
of our Consul General and Diplomatic Agent, to be
our Minister Resident, to reside in the Republic
of Hawaii.

From a knowledge of his fidelity, assiduity and
intelligence, We have entire confidence that he
will render himself acceptable to You and We
request that You will give full credence to
whatever he shall say in Our name.

We take this opportunity to assure You of Our
most sincere friendship and of Our ardent wishes
for Your health and welfare.

Given at Our Palace in Tokio, this 6th day of the
4th month of the 30th year of Meiji,
corresponding to the two thousand five hundred
and fifty-seventh year from the Coronation of the
Emperor Jimmu.

(Sign — Manual)
(Seal of the Empire).
(Countersigned) Count Okuma Shigenobu,
Minister for Foreign Affairs.
—-
S.M. Damon,
Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim.
Foreign Office April 24, 1897.

U.S. President Grover Cleveland personally signed an official letter giving full diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Hawaii.

Unfortunately the original signed and sealed copy of that letter cannot be found in the Archives of the State of Hawaii. However, there are several other letters in the archives signed by officials of the U.S. and Hawaii proving that Grover Cleveland’s original signed and sealed letter was in fact delivered to President Dole by appointment at a meeting of the Executive Council of the Republic of Hawaii.

Click on the photos to zoom in for more detail.

Tentative U.S. recognition of Republic of Hawaii: Four-page letter dated July 5, 1894 from Albert S. Willis, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary for the United States, to Sanford B. Dole, President of the Republic of Hawaii, received by him July 6. The letter acknowledges the receipt of notification that the Constitution has been established and the President and Cabinet have been installed. This letter gives the same (de facto) recognition to the Republic which had previously been given to the Provisional Government, and says that the matter will be referred to President Grover Cleveland for further action.

Letter dated July 6, 1894 from U.S. Consul General Ellis Mills to Hawaii Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis M. Hatch acknowledging the receipt of a letter from the Hawaii Minister informing the U.S. of the creation of the Republic of Hawaii.

Two-page letter dated August 8, 1894 from U.S. Secretary of State Gresham to U.S. Minister Willis approving his action of “carrying out the long approved rule of the United States of entering into relations with the authorities of an unopposed government.”

File cover dated August 25, 1894 whose title is “Announcing receipt of autograph letter from President Cleveland and asking for an appointment to deliver same.”

Requesting an appointment to present to President Dole the sealed original of President Cleveland’s letter recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. This is an original letter containing two paragraphs, on letterhead stationery “Legation of the United States” dated August 25, 1894, from U.S. Minister Willis to Hawaii Minister of Foreign Affairs Hatch saying “In accordance with instructions from Hon. W.L. Gresham, Secretary of State, I inclose office-copy of a letter from the President of the United States to His Excellency Sanford B. Dole President of Hawaii in response to his letter announcing the establishment of that Government and his assumption of the office of President thereof. It will give me pleasure to deliver the sealed original to President Dole, at such time and place as he may indicate.”

File cover entitled: “Address of Albert S. Willis U.S. Minister on presentation of autograph letter of President Cleveland”

One-page document which is the speech given by U.S. Minister Willis to President Dole and the Executive Council of the Republic of Hawaii upon presenting to them the letter of formal recognition from President Grover Cleveland.

Original of cover letter accompanying sealed original of President Cleveland’s letter recognizing the Republic of Hawaii.. The cover letter, dated August 25, 1894, contains only one paragraph on letterhead of “Legation of the United States” from Albert S. Willis, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary for the United States, to Hawaii Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis M. Hatch. The paragraph says: “I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of extract from dispatch from the Hon. W.L. Gresham of the 8th instant in regard to the recognition of Hawaii.”

U.S. President Grover Cleveland’s letter of recognition of the Republic of Hawaii — typewritten “office copy” referred to in earlier documents. Contents follow.

Grover Cleveland
President of the United States of America

To his Excellency
Sanford B. Dole,
President of the Republic of Hawaii.

Great and Good Friend:–

I have received your letter of the 7th ultimo, by which you announce the establishment and proclamation of the Republic of Hawaii on the Fourth day of July, 1894, and your assumption of the office of President with all the formalities prescribed by the Constitution thereof.

I cordially reciprocate the sentiments you express for the continuance of the friendly relations which have existed between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands, and assure you of my best wishes for your personal prosperity.

Written at Washington the 7th day of August, 1894.

Your Good Friend:
GROVER CLEVELAND.

By the President:
W.Q. Gresham,
Secretary of State.

Original of a two-page letter from Switzerland, in French, dated September 11, 1894, to President Sanford B. Dole, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. The letter was signed by the Swiss federal counsel [Attorney General] on behalf of the President of the Swiss Confederation, and also countersigned by the Chancellor of the Swiss Confederation. The Swiss Foreign Minister [Secretary of State] also sent a cover letter to his Hawaiian counterpart (Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis M. Hatch) to accompany the letter to President Dole. No English translations have survived.

Click on the photos to zoom in for more detail.

Swiss letter of recognition:

Foreign Minister letter:

Don Alfonso XIII, King of Spain, and Dona Maria Christina, Regent Queen of Spain, both personally signed a joint one-page letter in Spanish to Sanford B. Dole on November 26, 1894, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. There was a one-page English translation. The Foreign Ministry of Spain sent an accompanying two-page cover letter in Spanish to Hawaiian Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis M. Hatch, for which no English translation survives.

Click on the photos to zoom in for more detail.

King and Queen letter:

English translation:

Foreign Ministry accompanying letter:

Tsar Alexander III of Russia personally signed a letter to President Dole, in Russian, dated August 26, 1894, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. There is a two-page translation into French, but no English translation.

In 1883 Tsar Alexander III had his coronation.  That ceremony was attended by Col. Curtis P. Iaukea, who was sent by King Kalakaua as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.  On orders of the King, Minister Iaukea presented to Tsar Alexander III the highest Royal Order of the Hawaiian Kingdom — the Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Kamehameha with collar.  Thus it is an especially powerful diplomatic statement when that same Tsar personally signs a letter to Hawaii President Sanford Dole granting recognition de jure to the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii — a revolutionary Republic which had overthrown the Tsar’s fellow monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, who was Kalakaua’s sister.

Click on the photos to zoom in for more detail.

Original two-page letter in Russian:

Translation of 2-page letter into French:

File cover:

Dom Carlos I, King of Portugal (and ruler and conqueror of many other places which he lists), personally signed a one-page letter, in Portuguese, to Sanford B. Dole, dated December 17, 1894, recognizing the Republic of Hawaii. The date is written out in words at the end of the letter just above his signature. No English translation survives.

Click on the photo to zoom in for more detail.