Twiggy defends his ancestor

In defense of his ancestor's hewa, Thurston Twigg-Smith responds to an earlier letter in the Maui News about the events of 1893 and how understanding them help one appreciate the current struggle for sovereignty. But Twiggy makes such ridiculous assertions it is almost sad. He refers to President Cleveland's address to Congress, but that address actually contradicts much of what he says.

Twigg-Smith refers to them a "revolutionists."

Cleveland says, "it did not appear that such provisional government had the sanction of either popular revolution or suffrage."

And he says: "Thus it appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United States forces without the consent or wish of the government of the islands, or of anybody else so far as shown, except the United States Minister. Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property." That is called an intervention and a "fake revolution."

It is intervention, and not revolution if:
1) the revolutionary movement of one state is instigated and supported by another state,
2) the alleged revolution is conducted by citizens or organs of a foreign state,
3) it takes place under foreign pressure, e.g. military occupation.

Read more about the failed revolution of 1893 here (PDF).

Twigg-Smith says the action was "conducted by a group of the queen’s subjects."

Cleveland describes the group thus: "citizens of Honolulu numbering from fifty to one hundred, mostly resident aliens, met in a private office and selected a so-called Committee of Safety, composed of thirteen persons, seven of whom were foreign subjects, and consisted of five Americans, one Englishman, and one German."

Twigg Smith says they "objected to a new constitution the queen was trying to impose on them, giving herself more power. Many Native Hawaiians, including her Cabinet, didn’t like this trend backward toward the old days of absolute monarchy."

Cleveland says that the queen, "who had been contemplating the proclamation of a new constitution, had, in deference to the wishes and remonstrances of her cabinet, renounced the project for the present at least."

Cleveland says, "the Queen and her cabinet made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially served upon the representatives of all foreign governments, that any changes in the constitution would be sought only in the methods provided by that instrument."

Hawaii had been a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy, for 50 years. And one major goal of the queen was to restore the franchise to the majority of Native Hawaiians who had been disenfranchised by the 1887 "bayonet constitution," forced up upon her brother by these same traitors, which had imposed Jim-crow style property laws for voting rights.

Finally, Twigg-Smith says the letter writer should seek the facts to see "whether or not we’re better off as citizens of the U.S. or as subjects of some nonelected monarch."

First, given how quickly Hawaii's political system evolved in the 19th century, and the fact that it was in some ways more progressive and advanced that the U.S. (e.g. no slavery), it is quite reasonable to speculate that Hawaii would today be just as open and democratic today as the United States or any of the other constitutional monarchies of the time which are now modern democracies, while still having monarchs.

Twigg-Smith also neglects to note that Hawaii did elect its monarchs. In an interregnum (which we are in now) the Hawaiian constitution has a process for the legislature to elect its monarchs. It happened twice in Hawaii's history, including the queen's brother and immediate predecessor Kalakaua.

On the other hand, Cleveland had this to say about the traitors: "The provisional government has not assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support and has given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popular government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or despotic power."

Posted: Thu - March 31, 2005 at 02:48 PM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1126750129"); >

Twiggy defends his ancestor

> >