Queen kaahumanu widening project cost increases to $128.1m – west hawaii today n game

#

Aloha whoever you are hiding behind the “Big ideas” title. I’m sure you can agree that facts matter. Assumptions on the other hand leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Your comment about the “sovereignty movement” is clearly an assumption as it is an inaccurate reflection of fact.

The movement does not seek sovereignty, it is intended to end the unlawful United States prolonged belligerent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Sovereignty of a nation is not dissolved by the simple act of displacement of a state’s government or an unlawful prolonged belligerent occupation.

Annexation requires a Treaty of Annexation. During 1893 and 1897, patriotic citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, regardless of race, successfully opposed two Treaties submitted to the United States by insurgents in Hawaii requesting the United States annex the Hawaiian Islands. Failing to garner the required two-thirds support of Congress for annexation in 1893 and 1897, Congress approved Joint Resolution No. 55 by simple majority on July 7, 1898, thereby PURPORTING to annex the Hawaiian Islands. But did the United States actually annex Hawaii? The short answer is no.

Acquisition of the territory, sovereignty, and citizenship of a foreign nation, such as the Hawaiian Kingdom, through United States domestic legislation is contrary to the United States Constitution and customary international law. A Treaty of Annexation is required. This is fact.

” . . . the Government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be respected; that no power ought either to take possession of the islands as a conquest, or for the purpose of colonization, and that no power ought to seek for any undue control over the existing Government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences in matters of commerce” — in a letter from Daniel Webster, secretary of state, to the governments of France & Great Britain

Hawaii ceded to Britain (Feb. 25, 1843): “Hear ye! I make known to you that I am in perplexity by reason of difficulties into which I have been brought without cause; therefore, I have given away the life of the land, hear ye! But my rule over you, my people, and your privileges, will continue, for I have hope that the life of the land will be restored when my conduct is justified.” — Kauikeaouli’s speech at Honolulu fort

British policy statement (April 1843) essentially it said: native governments should be treated with “great forbearance and courtesy” and their laws and customs should be respected the objective was to “strengthen those authorities and to give them a sense of their own independence, by leaving the administration of justice in their own hands”

Dual Agreement (Nov.1843) between Britain & France: “…taking into consideration the existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations, have thought it right to engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent state, and never to take possession, either directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed”