User:M.ana/testpage

The "Morgan Report" is today's name for a report to the U.S. Senate by its Committee on Foreign Relations, whose chairman was Senator John T. Morgan, Democrat of Alabama. Senate Report 227 of the 53rd Congress, second session, was dated February 26, 1894. It was an investigation into the events surrounding the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, and the alleged role of U.S. peacekeepers in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani.

The Morgan report was printed as part of a large volume containing other government documents: "Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations 1789-1901 Volume 6." In that volume the "Hawaiian Islands" section begins with its own title page being page 360. The actual content of the Morgan report doesn't begin until page 363 of the larger volume 6.

=Origin= The Morgan Report was the final result of Cleveland's referral of the matter of the overthrow to Congress.

Cleveland from the Blount Report:


 * ...Though I am not able now to report a definite change in the actual situation, I am convinced that the difficulties lately created both here and in Hawaii and now standing in the way of a solution through Executive action of the problem presented, render it proper, and expedient, that the matter should be referred to the broader authority and discretion of Congress, with a full explanation of the endeavor thus far made to deal with the emergency and a statement of the considerations which have governed my action...


 * ...I therefore submit this communication with its accompanying exhibits, embracing Mr. Blount's report, the evidence and statements taken by him at Honolulu, the instructions given to both Mr. Blount and Minister Willis, and correspondence connected with the affair in hand. In commending this subject to the extended powers and wide discretion of the Congress, I desire to add the assurance that I shall be much gratified to cooperate in any legislative plan which may be devised for the solution of the problem before us which is consistent with American honor, integrity and morality.


 * GROVER CLEVELAND
 * Excecutive Mansion,
 * Washington, December 18, 1893

The Morgan Report repudiated the conclusions of Blount, and with the Morgan Report's conclusion, further efforts by Cleveland's administration to restore the Queen were ended. Cleveland accepted the conclusions of the Morgan Report, continued to engage in diplomatic relations with the Provisional Government, recognized the Republic of Hawaii upon its declaration on July 4, 1894, and even negotiated treaties originally ratified under the Kingdom government with the Republic.

=History surrounding the Morgan Report= At the time the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown, President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican expansionist, was only a few weeks from the end of his term. The Provisional Government of Hawai'i immediately delivered a treaty of annexation to President Harrison, who referred it favorably to the Senate for ratification on February 15, 1893.

Grover Cleveland, a Democrat anti-expansionist who was friendly with Queen Liliuokalani, became President on March 4, 1893 and withdrew the treaty from the Senate on March 9, 1893.

James Blount, a Democrat, had been chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee during Harrison's term. On March 11, 1893, without seeking confirmation from the Senate (which was in session at the time), President Cleveland appointed Blount to be a special envoy to Hawai'i with "paramount" powers and secret instructions to investigate the circumstances of the revolution and the stability of the Provisional Government.

Blount held secret, informal conversations with royalists and annexationists in Honolulu. He invited primarily royalists to sit with him to give formal statements in the presence of a stenographer, to be published later in the Blount Report. These statements were not under oath, and several of them were recanted when made public. He delivered a report to President Cleveland on July 17, 1893 claiming improper U.S. backing for the revolution had been responsible for its success, and that the Provisional Government lacked popular support.

On the basis of Blount's report, President Cleveland then ordered Hawai'i President Sanford Dole to dissolve the Provisional Government and restore the Queen through Minister Willis, but Dole refused. On December 18, 1893, Cleveland sent a message to Congress declaring the revolution improper and decrying the U.S. involvement in it, and referred the matter to their authority.

In response the Senate passed a resolution empowering its Foreign Relations Committee to hold public hearings under oath, and cross-examine witnesses, to investigate U.S. involvement in the revolution and also to investigate whether it had been proper for President Cleveland to appoint Blount and give him extraordinary powers to represent the U.S. and intervene in Hawai'i without Senate confirmation.

The final result of this investigation is the Morgan Report, submitted on February 26, 1894.

Cleveland's final position
Cleveland accepted the verdict of the Congressional committee, abandoned efforts to reinstate the Queen, and treated the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii as the internationally recognized lawful successors of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Despite his strong words of December 18, 1893, after the investigation conducted by the Morgan Committee, and the Senate resolution of May 31, 1894, he never again questioned the legitimacy of the overthrow, or the respectful conduct of the U.S. troops during that time.

In his last bit of resistance to accepting the overthrow, Cleveland managed to get the wording for the Turpie Resolution changed to refer to the "people" rather than the "Provisional Government", although the net effect was still a complete renunciation of his hopes to restore the Kingdom.

=Specific conclusions of the committee= The majority report submitted contained the following conclusions :


 * A condition of affairs existed in Honolulu which led naturally to the apprehension that violence or civil commotion would ensue, in which the peace and security of American citizens would be put in peril, as had been done on three or more separate occasions previously when changes occurred or were about to occur in the government of Hawaii;


 * The action of the Queen in an effort to overturn the constitution of 1887, to which she had sworn obedience and support, had been accepted and treated by a large and powerful body of the people as a violation of her constitutional obligations, revolutionary in its character and purposes and that it amounted to an act of abdication on her part, so far as her powers and the rights of the people under the constitution of 1887 were concerned. This state of opinion and this condition of the executive head of the Hawaiian Government neutralized its power to protect American citizens and other foreigners in their treaty rights, and also their rights under the laws of Hawaii;


 * In landing the troops from the Boston there was no demonstration of actual hostilities, and their conduct was as quiet and as respectful as it had been on many previous occasions when they were landed for the purpose of drill and practice. In passing the palace on their way to the point at which they were halted, the Queen appeared upon the balcony and the troops respectfully saluted her by presenting arms and dipping the flag, and made no demonstration of any hostile intent.;


 * The committee agree that such was the condition of the Hawaiian Government at the time that the troops were landed in Honolulu from the steam warship Boston; that there was then an interregnum in Hawaii as respects the executive office; that there was no executive power to enforce the laws of Hawaii, and that it was the right of the United States to land troops upon those islands at any place where it was necessary in the opinion of our minister to protect our citizens;


 * Afterward, on the 1st day of February, 1893, the American minister caused the flag of the United States to be raised on the Government building in Honolulu, and assumed and declared a protectorate over that nation in the name of the United States. This act on the part of our minister was without authority, and was void for want of power. It was disavowed by Secretary Foster and rebuked by Secretary Gresham, and the order to abandon the protectorate and haul down the flag was in accordance with the duty and honor of the United States. To haul down the flag of the United States was only an order to preserve its honor.;

The voting results were as follows:


 * 9-0: U.S. peacekeepers were completely neutral
 * 5-4: Blount's appointment was constitutional (Morgan + his fellow Democrats)
 * 5-4: Steven's actions were justified (Morgan + 4 Republicans)

=Members of the Committee=

Republicans

 * John Sherman
 * J.N. Dolph
 * William P. Frye
 * Cushman K. Davis

Democrats

 * John Tyler Morgan
 * M.C. Butler
 * David Turpie
 * John W. Daniel
 * George Gray

=Controversies regarding the Morgan Report=

Morgan's racism
The Morgan Committee was chaired by Senator John Tyler Morgan of Jim Crow political fame. Certain sovereignty activists see this as reason to dismiss the Morgan Report without further diligence or examination of the evidence gathered. An Alabama Review article written by Thomas Upchurch illustrates that Morgan was intent on finding Black southerners a new homeland. Political sentiments like this on the part of Morgan is seen as tainting the entire investigation.

Others note that racist bigotry of Chariman Morgan, although unfortunately common at the time, does not invalidate the evidence gathered during the hearings, especially considering that Morgan was just one of nine senators conducting the investigation.

Selective witness list
Sovereignty activists assert that there were no royalist witnesses at the hearings, and therefore critique the Morgan Report as being one-sided and irrelevant. Supporters of the findings of the Morgan Report assert that the royalist position was well represented by the evidence gathered by James Henderson Blount in his Blount Report (which was nearly exclusively royalist), and by Blount's own testimony in front of the committee. Of the panel of nine senators, Senator George Gray was the only one that remotely resembled an anti-annexation sentiment. The other eight senators either abstained from comment or professed their commital to annexation.

According to Ralph Kuykendall, noted Hawaii historian, witnesses were picked to make out the best possible case for annexation. Under the guidance of Lorrin Thurston and W.D. Alexander, the case was made against the queen and for annexation. The earlier Blount report failed to interview members of the Committee of Safety, and their testimony during the Morgan Commitee hearings was particularly damaging to the assertions Blount had put forward. Kuykendall goes on to characterize the report as thus--


 * "In the end, the majority of the Senate committee on foreign relations found everyone 'not guilty' save the queen, although only Morgan, who wrote the final report, agreed with all parts of it. The Democrats on the committee supported Blount and Willis, imputed the blame to Stevens for his 'inopportune zeal,' and found him deserving of public censure. The Republicans on the committee also filed a report. They refused to censure Blount and Willis; they placed the blame higher up. And at the end, not a single item for future action was recommended in the report."

Unclear majority opinion
A common critique of the Morgan Report is that there was no majority opinion, and that three separate minority opinions existed - Morgan's, the Republicans' and the Democrats'. It is often argued that only Morgan signed the report in its entirety.

Surprisingly enough, a record of Morgan's signature on any of the opinions is missing from the text, although this probably was a typographical oversight.

Towards the end of the main findings section, there is a break after the primary report, followed by a minor disagreement over the constitutionality of Blount's appoitnment and actions, and then the signatures of the Republicans who joined Morgan, a Democrat, in the rest of the majority opinion. The four Republicans stated their assent to the initial section of the report with the following statement:


 * "We are in entire accord with the essential findings in the exceedingly able report submitted by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations."

The four Democrats who disagreed with the four Republicans, and with Morgan (again, a Democrat), clearly indicate their minority dissent, signing their four names as "Members of Minority". Even though they dissented in regards to whether Minister Stevens should have been censured, they still held the U.S. peacekeepers blameless:


 * "On the other hand, we are not inclined to censure Capt. Wiltse, commanding the United States war-ship Boston, or the officers of that vessel. Their position was one of extreme delicacy and difficulty, and we appreciate their anxiety to afford protection to the lives and property of American citizens. The force of United States marines of the Boston with their ordinary arms stationed at the American legation, and at the consulate in Honolulu, would have effectually represented the authority and power of the United States Government, and would have afforded whatever protection American interests might have required; and at the same time would have avoided the appearance of coercion or duress, either upon the people of Honolulu or the Queen in the controversy between them."

Contradicted by the "Apology Resolution"
The Apology Resolution (US Public Law 103-150) of 1993 was drawn primarily from James H. Blount's report, and is seen by some as a direct repudiation on the part of the United States of the findings of the Morgan Report. A specific clause addresses the Morgan Report and its findings—


 * Whereas, the Committee and its chairman, Senator John Morgan, conducted hearings in Washington, D.C., from December 27, 1893, through February 26, 1894, in which members of the Provisional Government justified and condoned the actions of the United States Minister and recommended annexation of Hawaii.

According to critics of the Apology Resolution, the one-sided and symbolic nature of the legislation, written by sovereignty activists, does not materially effect the legitimacy of the Morgan Report. The Apology Resolution had little debate in the Senate, no debate in the House of Representatives, was constructed with whereas clauses that were not legal findings of fact, and according to its sponsors had no legal effect. These issues are seen as reason to question the effective impact of the Apology Resolution in regards to the conclusions of the Morgan Report.

The Morgan Report on the other hand was never more than a special Committee finding. The report never made it past the special committee, and as Kuykendall astutely mentions, "not a single item for future action was recommended in the report."

=References=

=External links=


 * The Morgan Report (full-text, scanned images and additional commentary)