It seems quite curious that after reading
the incredibly detailed account by President Cleveland that the American theft
of the Hawaiian Islands was not overturned by either Congress, the “Hon. James
H. Blount”, or due to outrage from the American public (Reader 28). Of course, there was no Internet, or Twitter,
or any instant information dissemination system, so the truth about the
unfortunate state of affairs that Queen Liliuokalani and Hawaiian nation faced
could not be relayed to the American public, or the rest of the world. However, the following quotes, from
correspondences by Minister Stevens, raise some major flags regarding the
blatantly unjust “annexation” of the Hawaiian Islands, via the establishment of
the “Provisional Government,” the seem to be sufficient evidence for either
Congress or James H. Blount to reinstate the Hawaiian Monarchy:
·
Steven’s candidly details “one of two courses
seems to me absolutely necessary to be followed, either by bold and vigorous
measures for annexation or a ‘custom union’” (29). It is quite curious that the actual takeover
is a hybrid of these two “courses,” where “upwards of 160” Navy soldiers and
“two pieces of artillery” were used to establish a “custom union” (29, 30)
·
While this previous statement might be described
as a mere opinion regarding the two ways in which a successful takeover of the
Hawaiian could take place, Stevens goes on to reveal that he “can not refrain
from expressing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand”
and that “the Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe, and this is the golden hour for
the United States to pluck it” (29). These
two quotes deliberately point towards an intentional overthrow of the Hawaiian
Monarchy by the American presence on the Islands.
·
As to the ways that American government and
military officials deploy a “custom union,” Minister Stevens asks his
correspondent “how far the present Minister [i.e. himself] and naval commanders
may deviate from established international rules and precedents” in order to
ensure the American annexation of the Hawaiian Islands (29). Again, this statement clearly declares intent
towards an intentional overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy.
All of these statements point
directly towards a “vigorous…[establishment of a] ‘custom union’” on the
Hawaiian Islands (29). And in President
Cleveland’s opinion all the evidence in his address, including the quotes from
Minister Steven’s correspondences, “require that the [Provisional Government]
should be buried, and that the [Hawaiian Monarchy] should reassume its
authority as if its continuity had not been interrupted” (33). It is an absolute shame that either James H.
Blount or Congress did not come to the same conclusion.
-Michael Kell
Michael -
ReplyDeleteGood insights. Blount's depiction of Hawaii as a heavy-hanging pear waiting to be plucked is an eerily Edenic allusion to the forbidden fruit; and unfortunately, just as in Genesis, there can really be no going back to the way things were . . .
Trey