Talk:Republic of Hawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Republic of Hawaii, or visit the project page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page.
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks:


Shortcut:
WP:PJHI
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
WP Former Countries - Things to do:

Contents

[edit] Suffrage and Elections

User:Kaolelo put in a POV pushing snippet about the Republic not being elected, and suffrage being limited during that time - but that was also true of all governments prior to the Republic. Does it really belong in this article? I think if we're going to chastise the Republic for not being duly elected by a population that enjoyed universal suffrage, to be fair we'd have to put the same type of language on the pages for the kingdom. --JereKrischel 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiian Language Dispute

Most discussion over the use of the 'okina and kahako are at the main talk page for the article about Hawaii. See Talk:Hawaii.

[edit] Point of View in Dispute

Obviously, the writer of this page is under the delusion that the American form of Democracy is what every one wanted or wants. History has shown that the Hawaiian people neither understood nor wanted an American style government. After seeing different parts of the world I have found that our style of Democracy might accually prolong "wars" in areas where the people feel they have nothing left to lose. We go in to rid them of a tyrant, only to see him replaced with several small tyrants.

Most of also beleive and hope that if the Queen had called for a full on war our ancestors would have been there to die, not only for our Queen, but our country.

While the time has pasted for a ruling Hawaiian Monarchy, the decision to overthrow the Queen was not made by the people of Hawaii, but by guests who did not know how to act at someone elses home.

Indeed. The page is not NPOV. Node 02:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I also vote that this article is not NPOV and needs vast amounts of editing and/or rewriting from scratch. When you read the articles I wrote for Kingdom of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii, and then come to this article, the point of view is so blatantly anti-Hawaiian in comparison. Gerald Farinas 21:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Was anything done about this?? Huangdi 09:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite to Negate Bias

Before I begin rewriting this for a more unbiased approach to the subject, I thought I should copy and paste the original body text here for a moment. Gerald Farinas 19:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reign of Queen Lili‘uokalani (1891 - 1893) displayed a trend to autocracy. The legislative session of 1892, during which four changes of ministry took place, stretcheded to eight months long, chiefly due to the queen's determination to carry through the opium and lottery bills and to have a pliable cabinet. She had a new constitution drafted, practically providing for an absolute monarchy, and disfranchising a large class of citizens who had voted since 1887; this constitution (drawn up, so the royal party declared, in reply to a petition signed by thousands of natives) she undertook to force on the country after proroguing the legislature on 14 January 1893, but her ministers shrank from so revolutionary an act, and with difficulty prevailed upon her to postpone the plan.
An uprising similar to that of 1887 declared the monarchy forfeited by its own act. A third party proposed a regency during the minority of the heir-apparent, Princess Ka‘iulani, but in her absence this scheme found few supporters. A public meeting appointed a "Committee of Safety", formed a provisional government and reorganized the volunteer military companies, which had disbanded in 1890. The "Sons of Missionaries" (as E. L. Godkin styled them) emerged as the leading spirits of the Committee. They stood accused of using their knowledge of local affairs and their inherited prestige among the natives for private ends and of founding a "Gospel Republic" (actually a business enterprise). The provisional government called a mass meeting of citizens, which met on the afternoon of the 16 January 1893 and ratified its action.
The United States steamer Boston, which had unexpectedly arrived from Hilo on 14 January 1893, landed a small force on the evening of 16 January, at the request of the United States minister, Mr J. L. Stevens, and of a committee of residents, to protect the lives and property of American citizens in case of riot or incendiarism. On 17 January 1893 the Committee of Safety took possession of the government building and issued a proclamation declaring the monarchy abrogated and establishing a provisional government, to exist "until terms of union with the United States of America shall have been negotiated and agreed upon".
Meanwhile two companies of volunteer troops arrived and occupied the grounds. By the advice of her ministers, and to avoid bloodshed, the queen surrendered under protest. She did so in view of the landing of United States troops, appealing to the government of the United States to reinstate her in authority.
Toward the end of the 1894 a plot formed to overthrow the republic and to restore the monarchy. Plotters secretly landed a cargo of arms and ammunition from San Francisco at a point near Honolulu. There they collected a company of native royalists on January 6, 1895, intending to capture the government buildings by surprise that night, with the aid of their allies in the city. A premature encounter with a squad of police alarmed the town and broke up their plans. Several other skirmishes occurred during the following week, resulting in the capture of the leading conspirators, along with most of their followers.
The republicans found arms and ammunition and a number of incriminating documents on the premises of the ex-queen; they arrested her and imprisoned her for nine months in the former palace. On 24 January 1895 she formally renounced all claim to the throne and took the oath of allegiance to the republic. The ex-queen and forty-eight others received conditional pardons on September 7, 1895, and on the following New Year's Day the authorities released the remaining prisoners.
The new government of Hawai‘i negotiated a treaty of annexation with the United States during the next month, just before the close of President Benjamin Harrison's administration, but President Harrison's successor, President Cleveland, withdrew the proposed treaty on 9 March 1893, and then despatched James H. Blount (1837 -1903) of Macon, Georgia, as commissioner paramount, to investigate the situation in the Hawaiian Islands. On receiving Blount's report to the effect that the revolution had utilised the aid of the United States minister and the landing of troops from the Boston, President Cleveland sent Albert Sydney Willis (1843 - 1897) of Kentucky to Honolulu as United States minister with secret instructions. Willis with much difficulty and delay obtained the queen's promise to grant an amnesty, and made a formal demand on the provisional government for her reinstatement on 19 December 1893. On 23 December President Dole sent a reply to Willis, declining to surrender the authority of the provisional government to the deposed queen. The United States Congress declared against any further intervention by adopting on May 31, 1894 the Turpie Resolution.
On the inauguration of President McKinley in March 1897, negotiations with the United States resumed, and on June 16, 1897 Hawai‘i and the United States signed a new treaty of annexation at Washington. As the United States Senate appeared uncertain to ratify the treaty, its supporters took extreme measures: the Senate passed the Newlands joint resolution, by which the cession was "accepted, ratified and confirmed", by a vote of 42 to 21; the House of Representatives accepted it by a vote of 209 to 91, and the president signed on July 7, 1898. The formal transfer of sovereignty took place on August 12, 1898, with the hoisting of the flag of the United States (the same flag hauled down by order of Commissioner Blount) over the Executive Building with impressive ceremonies.

[edit] Motivations

The current version seems good on NPOV and fills in some gaps in my knowledge, but I was left a little mystified about motivations - both the publicly announced reasons for actions and historians' current theories as to underlying drivers. For instance, business types usually don't want to run governments, they want other people to do the work and give them a free hand to run the business. Were they afraid of the monarchy's actions, sinfulness, what? A few references would be good too, where does all this material come from? Stan 14:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More POV problems?

Does it seem to anyone else that this article has regained some anti-Hawaiian POV over the last few months, especially with the edits from 64.75.x.x? Some of the text about the Blount commission, as well as talk of Cleveland "continuing to interfere in the internal affairs of Hawaii" sounds like it could have been written by Thurston Twigg-Smith, as does this seemingly non-neutral sentence: "President Cleveland ordered a group of investigators friendly to the queen to go to Honolulu to produce a report that would support restoring the queen to power."

I hestitate to make changes myself since I'd most likely swing the article the other way. I think this article needs more rewriting, though. --Salor 13:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Would the sentence be better put, "President Cleveland ordered James Blount to go to Honolulu and produce a report sympathetic to the queen's interests."? I'm not sure if anyone has ever claimed that Blount was neutral, and characterizing his report as having a certain end in mind is fairly accurate.
Insofar as "anti-Hawaiian" POV, I'm not sure if I agree with that characterization...definitely anti-Royalist perhaps, and even anti-Cleveland, but I'm not sure if characterizing it as "anti-Hawaiian" is really fair. I think one of the problems we have here is that there is a sense of racial identity recently with kanaka maoli (native hawaiians) and the overthrow, even though at that moment in history the Kingdom of Hawaii was a multi-racial and multi-cultural one. Anything vaguely critical of the monarchy and the royalists is seen as an attack on the kanaka maoli, when I'm quite sure it isn't intended that way. There is actually quite a bit of pro-royalist stuff around the 1893 revolution that needs to be more NPOV all over wikipedia. Hopefully we can consolidate some of the information and organize it better - I'm noticing that depending on the page, the POV is slanted pro-royalist or pro-overthrow, even though they contain pretty much the same information --JereKrischel 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
As regards Blount's investigation, Cleveland certainly claimed that the investigation was supposed to be impartial. From his message to the U.S. Legislature: "I conceived it to be my duty therefore to withdraw the treaty from the Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an accurate, full, and impartial investigation to be made of the facts attending the subversion of the constitutional Government of Hawaii and the installment in its place of the provisional government. I selected for the work of investigation the Hon. James H. Blount, of Georgia, whose service of eighteen years as a member of the House of Georgia, and whose experience as chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in that body, and his consequent familiarity with international topics, joined with his high character and honorable reputation, seemed to render him peculiarly fitted for the duties entrusted to him. His report detailing his action under the instructions given to him and the conclusions derived from his investigation accompany this message." Those instructions were secret at the time, but his investigation was not, at least according the Pitzer article I linked in the External Links section.
I still think that the section entitled "Appeal To The United States" can be removed, since it is a rehash of the information in the section immediately following, which is much more NPOV than "Appeal." --Salor 21:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, Cleveland wouldn't be the most neutral party involved, having such a close relationship with the queen! I think that the Morgan Report, which was bi-partisan, open and offered the chance at cross-examination thoroughly chastized Blount for being one-sided. I've heard there are actually grant proposals to scan in both the Blount Report and the Morgan Report - I can't wait to be able to actually refer directly to the full text of them. I agree the information was mostly duplicate, but have also worked on some minor wording to show that the request for amnesty was delayed by the queen herself, and that the demand for her restoration happened after the matter had been referred to congress, and that the PG assumed it was a good faith demand but rejected it anyway, implying that the U.S. Government did everything in it's power to reinstate the monarchy, but was rebuffed by revolutionists who had successfully gained and held onto power. --JereKrischel 00:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Report

Could someone help put a section on the Morgan Report in right after the Blount Investigation? Seems like we're missing a whole chunk of really important history there. I could put something in, but I'd like to work with someone more sympathetic to the pro-royalists so I can manage an NPOV. Please message me if you're interested and have a pro-royalist stance. --JereKrischel 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in article

I've marked this article as of being of dubious neutrality, will someone please correct it? The non-neutral points of view are woven throughout the article:

  1. Opening paragraph is trying to clean up the Marine Corp's action, and is out of place with the text flow. If such was the behavior of the USMC, then the men were personally at odds with the mission they were carrying out: overthrowing the Hawai'ian monarchy while at the same time showing it the utmost respect.
I agree that the text flow is out of place, but your characterization of their mission is incorrect. They were never ordered to overthrow the monarchy, and remained completely neutral much to the chagrin of the Committee of Safety:
Samuel M. Damon reported the American troops were leaning against a picket fence, their arms stacked, not even at ready. This shook him. “I could not imagine why we were there without being supported by American troops . . . . We were not supported in any way. - Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?
The allegation that the USMC were part of the overthrow is spin from the royalist position that is difficult to reconcile with the fact that no shots were fired, no aggressive action was taken, and the U.S. troops stood with their backs to their "enemy" at parade rest. Pictures of the US troops on that day show civilians frolicking around them, which makes the royalist case for their complicity in the overthrow fairly weak, although strongly held nonetheless. The assertion from the republic point of view is that the Queen took advantage of the USMC's presence under the direction of her legal counsel Paul Neumann, and tried to surrender to the U.S. instead of the Provisional Government - they were hoping for a repeat of 1843, where the British task force siezed Hawaii, and later through diplomacy had sovereignty returned by the British. This obviously didn't work out the same way because the USMC troops did not sieze the islands and did not participate in the overthrow, and even when Cleveland sent Willis to demand the queen's reinstatement, the Provisional Government refused. Although one could possibly portray the queen in a less cynical light, and assert that she truly believed that the U.S. troops were arrayed against her and the Committee of Safety preyed upon her confusion about their true intentions, the USMC in no way acted contrary to their mission of protecting american interests - and the Morgan Report (the official congressional investigation) thoroughly exonerated the troops from any wrongdoing. --JereKrischel 17:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Lili‘uokalani's Trial: description plays down the queen's imprisonment and is at odds with what is found under Liliuokalani.
Reconciling the articles with pro-royalist and pro-annexationist spin is going to be difficult, to be sure. I think the Liliuokalani is actually less accurate though - to say she was confined to a "small room" versus her "bedroom" makes it sound like she was kept locked in a closet.
Convicted of having knowledge of a royalist plot, Lili`uokalani was fined $5000 and sentenced to five years in prison at hard labor. The sentenced was commuted to imprisonment in an upstairs bedroom of `Iolani Palace.
During her imprisonment, the queen was denied any visitors other than one lady in waiting. She began each day with her daily devotions followed by reading, quilting, crochet-work, or music composition.- http://www.iolanipalace.org/history/queen.html
I think this article had a more neutral depiction of her - to downplay her imprisonment is hard to do, since she had lady in waiting at her beck and call. --JereKrischel 17:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Picture captions sounded too sympathetic with the independent kingdom by repeating facts which can be found under several other articles: the Bayonet Constitution, threats to the Queen, Wilcox's acquittals - neutrality is best served by cutting such comments short and linking to specific articles, rather than "making a point" here; after all, this article is about the Republic of Hawai‘i. I've made the changes to the captions myself.

If you have any questions to pose me, please use my user talk page. Thanks -- Tintazul 13:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublic_of_Hawaii_0e89.html"