Talk:Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen

Untitled
I've been reviewing several pages to which JereKrischel has contributed to. On this page, I find particularly troubling several edits, specifically the one on Feb 1st. First, I'm uncertain as to what critics are challenging Queen Liliuokalani's 'recollections', if challenges to her memory is being implied. If this is about whether her views were correct, then that is an editorial disagreement as oppose to memory. Under either scenario, I think the implication shouldn't be in the article.

Second, the editorializing of Blount and Morgan report appear to violate Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. While I am still reviewing the Morgan report, which is run by JereKrischel as well, the description of the Blount report as 'secret' and Morgan report as 'undercutting the Queen's argument' strike me as peculiar editorializing. -Qad, 2/19/06 3:37 PM HST


 * My apologies if my phrasing seemed like editorializing. Blount was in fact commissioned in secret to investigate matters in Hawaii, and testified to that fact during the Morgan hearings.  I will try to put it in a more neutral way.  Similarly, following the Morgan report of 2/26/1894, the Queen was rebuffed by President Cleveland, and it was the official position of the U.S. government that there was no responsibility on the part of the U.S. for the Hawaiian Revolution.  I'll try and change the phrasing to be more neutral, please let me know if it is sufficient. --JereKrischel 03:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the Morgan Report, the Blount report, as well as the political and pro-annexationist history during the time period in question, I excised the sentence which I believe to be an entirely incorrect representation of the nature of Morgan's Report as applied to an article describing the book by Queen Liliuokalani. The Queen was not 'rebuffed' by President Cleveland; the stalemate between pro and anti-annexationist fractions led to Hawai'i not joining the US, and the subsequent rise of the Republic of Hawai`i. The official position of the U.S. Government may have been to rationalize the participation of their U.S. consult in the overthrow, although this has been since reversed by the subsequent apology resolution by President Clinton. This appears to be a dispute that is taking place across all Wikipedia articles involving sovereignty; whatever the correct NPOV is to be, I find editoralizing the nature of the Morgan report in an article about the Queen's story to be outside the article's subject matter. -Qad, 5/28/06 9:15 PM HST


 * I've tried to make clearer in the article exactly what was meant by "rebuffed", and how the Queen lost support for her reinstatement. The pro/anti-annexation issue is distinctly separate, and you are correct in asserting that Cleveland remained anti-annexation (as well as other politicians), even though they accepted the conclusions of the Morgan Report which exonerated the U.S. peacekeepers who landed from any wrong doing.


 * It is difficult not to mention such important political issues in the context of the Queen's story, which was in essence a passioned defense for her political position. Hopefully we can find a proper way to include the relevant information and presenting a balanced picture.  Thank you for your assistance in this effort! --JereKrischel 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree entirely with the contention that Cleveland 'accepted' the conclusions of the Morgan Report, as discussed in reasons below under loss of support for the queen. If the purpose is to present a balanced picture, including Liliuokalani's expected vigorous defense of her point of view, then this article becomes a discussion as to whether or not her views were 'right', and must thus include a detailed discussion of the Blount report, the issue of annexation, and other matters which ought to be under other articles in Wikipedia. --Qad, 5/28/06 9:52 p.m. HST


 * Well, it sounds as if you are trying to assert that he reluctantly accepted due to the political climate - but still, he did accept the conclusions of the Morgan Report, and ordered his administration to act accordingly (recognizing the Provisional Government, the Republic of Hawaii, rebuffing the Queen's attempts at further diplomatic communication). I'm not trying to assert whether or not one side was right or wrong, merely state the facts - Cleveland tried to reinstate her after one investigation, and stopped trying to reinstate her after another investigation.  I'm sure there is a way we can clearly state the facts in a neutral manner, and I appreciate your help in that direction. --JereKrischel 07:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand there is an ongoing dispute between what the Morgan and Blount report means, and the subsequent interpretation of those documents with what President Cleveland accepted or rejected. The facts also illustrate Cleveland was not sympathetic to the actions of Minister Stevens, the overthrow, and that the subsequent recognition of the provisional government was the political result. In addition to the historical material I cited above and below, Sylvester K. Stevens' American Expansion in Hawaii 1842-1898 discusses this period in detail. Subsequently, the appropriate move is to excise the editorializing portion on the Blount report after the mention of its date and presence. --Qad 10:44 p.m. HST 5/28/06


 * I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. The historical record clearly shows that Cleveland accepted the legitimacy of the Provisional Government and subsequent Republic of Hawaii, although it may be argued whether or not that acceptance was difficult or not based on his personal viewpoints.  Regardless of whether or not Cleveland was sympathetic (and certainly he was, demanding the resinstatement of the queen directly), after referring the matter to Congress, and the Morgan Report, he chose not to aid the queen any further, making clear to her through his minister that the Senate decision was final.  If there is some specific editorializing you'd like to modify, please feel free to help, but I think that the plain statement of events, explaining on how her appeals were at first acted upon, and then subsequently rebuffed, is important.  I'll try to put it back in such a way that addresses any NPOV concerns. --JereKrischel 10:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The loss of support for the queen
On July 24, 1894, the Cleveland administration supported the recognition of the Provisional Government. On page 1342 of the Blount Report, Minister Willis clearly stated that despite the Queen's protests, the Provisional Government had been recognized by the United States, and "this was the final decision of the Senate" (this is clearly a rebuffal). On page 1343 of the Blount Report, the Republic of Hawaii, that was created by the Provisional Government, was recognized by the Cleveland administration. On January 9, 1895, on page 1375 of the Blount Report, the Cleveland administration made it clear that the Republic of Hawaii was the legitimate successor to the treaties formerly held by the Kingdom of Hawaii, and that plans for a British undersea cable must be negotiated as per the reciprocity treaty with the U.S.

It is clear from the historical record that after February 26, 1894 and the release of the Morgan Report, that the Queen lost all support from Cleveland and the Congress of the United States (the Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894 being protested by the queen, to no avail).

Regarding the Apology Resolution, the whereas clauses there are not findings of fact, nor the official position of the United States. --JereKrischel 07:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And as demonstrated by the same recognition of the Provisional government, pro-annexationist were unable to gain sufficient votes to support the outright introduction of Hawai'i as a territory. It was only until 1898 when the annexationists, under the Newland resolution, was there sufficient support to bring Hawai'i into the US as a territory. The political conflict between pro-annexationists and those supporting the Queen led to the effective 1894 stalemate where Hawaii was not outright brought into the US. Cleveland was not a member of the pro-annexationists, and to state the final Senate decision was an outright 'rebuffal' as oppose to political stalemate is erroneous. Cleveland was the president who had withdrawn the proposed annexation treaty immediately after inauguration, and was behind the efforts to restore the monarchy. However, as the Senate decides foreign policy, President Cleveland could not realistically restore the the Hawaiian Kingdom after the limited success by pro-annexationist to absolve themselves on the overthrow. Subsequently, such a characterization of what Morgan Report means, as applied to Liliuokalani's book, is clearly NPOV and editoralizing. This political history is explained and described in several publications, including Volume 3 of Ralph S. Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom - 1874-1893: The Kalakaua Dynesty on page 616. This is also discussed in Charles Callan Tansill, Diplomatic Relations Between the United States and Hawaii: 1885-1889 on page 26.  --Qad 5/28/06, 9:41 P.M. HST


 * I think you're conflating two things that are in fact separate - support for the reinstatement of the Queen was not the same thing as anti-annexation. Pro and anti-annexation camps had existed well before the Hawaiian Revolution.  In fact, Cleveland was such an anti-annexationist, that within 5 days of coming into office, he withdrew the treaty of annexation that had been negotiated by Harrison without any pro-monarchy rationale at all, since no investigation had occurred at that point.


 * Clearly, the Senate deciding foreign policy did not stop Cleveland from demanding the reinstatement of the queen, nor from sending his secret agent Blount to investigate without congressional approval or authority. A case can be made that Cleveland overstepped his authority, and his referral of the matter to Congress was a retreat - but again, associating anti-annexation as being dependent on, or directly correlating to pro-monarchy is an error. --JereKrischel 07:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And for some more detailed historical reference about that time period, I heartily suggest Ernest Andrade's "Unconquerable Rebel", regarding Robert Wilcox, and the years both before the overthrow, and after annexation. --JereKrischel 08:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A point I did not address earlier was regarding the Apology Resolution. Interpreting the law and what the 'official position' of the US and what 'whereas' means on a bill means is something I disagree with you, but that discussion would be more appropriate for an article concerning the apology resolution than this article.


 * The nature of the three branches of government does not preclude Cleveland from demanding the reinstatement of the queen, or sending 'his secret agent Blount' to investigate the overthrow. Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution authorizes the President to handle foreign affairs, with approval upon the Senate's approval. What this means, what is presidential power, what is Constitutional, and the subsequent legal issues with the Newland resolution (due to intervention of the US House) is all very interesting, but it still doesn't address my NPOV and scope concerns when this discussion is being included into this article.


 * Nor do I believe I am confusing pro-monarch for anti-annexation sentiments. Cleveland withdraw the annexation treaty out disagreement over the legality of the overthrow, and the reasons for those concerns can be found in Cleveland's Dec 18, 1893 report to Congress.


 * Much of this is discussed in Tom Coffman's Nation Within: The story of America's Annexation of the Nation of Hawaii (1998). -Qad 5/28/06 10:29 p.m.


 * I think it is clear that although the pro-monarchy sentiments of Cleveland disappeared after the Morgan Report, his anti-annexation stance was still held. Perhaps some see this as political retreat (first being against annexation because of questions regarding the Hawaiian Revolution, then when that justification disappeared, being against annexation for other reasons), but I think in any case, the evidence clearly shows the pro-monarchy sentiment by both Cleveland and the U.S. Congress as being extinguished after the Morgan Report and Turpie Resolution.  Do you have specific quotes from Tom Coffman's book that indicate otherwise? --JereKrischel 10:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708235115/http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Native_Hawaiians_Study_Commission_Report to http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Native_Hawaiians_Study_Commission_Report
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901041110/http://www.hawaiimatters.com/ to http://www.hawaiimatters.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)