Morgan's Gems - Revision history

Ken Conklin: /* Nationalities of the 13 members of the Committee of Safety */

2006-02-11T08:44:38Z

Nationalities of the 13 members of the Committee of Safety

Ken Conklin at 08:34, 11 February 2006

2006-02-11T08:34:12Z

Ken Conklin: /* Ex-Queen Liliuokalani negotiates with President Dole for an annuity of $25,000 in return for her abdication -- Mr. Charles L. MacArthur, a former New York state senator and current editor of th

2006-02-05T06:45:40Z

/* Ex-Queen Liliuokalani negotiates with President Dole for an annuity of $25,000 in return for her abdication -- Mr. Charles L. MacArthur, a former New York state senator and current editor of th

Ken Conklin at 06:27, 4 February 2006

2006-02-04T06:27:34Z

Jere Krischel: /* Military-diplomatic interaction and chain of command -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their inte

2006-02-02T06:17:52Z

/* Military-diplomatic interaction and chain of command -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their inte

Jere Krischel: /* [[MILITARY-DIPLOMATIC INTERACTION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their intera

2006-02-02T06:17:25Z

/* [[MILITARY-DIPLOMATIC INTERACTION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their intera

Ken Conklin at 20:55, 1 February 2006

2006-02-01T20:55:34Z

Ken Conklin: /* p. 1092 */

2006-02-01T06:29:54Z

p. 1092

Ken Conklin at 08:03, 31 January 2006

2006-01-31T08:03:41Z

Ken Conklin: /* Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots */

2006-01-21T22:36:04Z

Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 {{break}}
-===[[Nationalities of the 13 members of the Committee of Safety]]===
+===Nationalities of the 13 members of the Committee of Safety===
 On pp. [[1101-1102]], responding to cross-examination by Senator Gray, Dr. Francis R. Day identified the nationalities of the 13 members of the  Committee of Safety.  All 13 were long-time residents of Hawaii who were registered as Hawaii voters -- 5 Americans, 3 Hawaiians, 3 Germans, 1 English, 1 Scottish.  All favored annexation to the United States.
 {{break}}
 ===[[Interviews with 3 prominent native Hawaiians who favor annexation]]===
 Taken from pp. [[1117-1120]].

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ===[[The Rest of The Rest of The Story]]===
 When President Grover Cleveland first took office, he immediately withdrew the treaty of annexation from the Senate and sent his special emmisary (Blount) on a secret mission to gather evidence to support his desire to restore the Queen to the throne.  Based on the Blount Report, Cleveland sent a strongly worded emotionally charged message to Congress blaming the U.S. for overthrowing the monarchy.  Cleveland then referred the matter to Congress for further investigation and possible action. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings and produced the Morgan Report. This new report discredited the conclusions in the Blount report and the way Blount had gathered his "evidence."  Because of the Morgan Report President Cleveland changed his mind.  From that time forward he acknowledged the legitimacy of the Hawaiian revolution and of the Republic of Hawai'i, ordered there should be no interference by any nation in the internal affairs of Hawai'i, and negotiated with President Dole's government regarding further implementation of treaties reached with the previous (Queen's) government of the continuing independent nation of Hawai'i.  This stylishly written essay provides links to both the Blount Report and Morgan Report to prove the dates and facts it contains.
 {{break}}
@@ Line 32: / Line 50: @@
 Some details of both coup plots, and details about the activities of Wilcox, obtained from court testimony and other sources, were included in the Morgan Report testimony of W.D. Alexander on pages 643-646, and in the statement of Supreme Court Chief Justice A.F. Judd on page 800.  That material has been assembled here:  [[Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots]]
 {{break}}
@@ Line 57: / Line 88: @@
 For details click here: [[Military-diplomatic interaction and chain of command]]
 {{break}}
@@ Line 129: / Line 151: @@
 Sworn affidavits from 15 individuals or groups, including William R. Castle, the Committee of Safety, J.B. Atherton; and a lengthy, detailed published article by Lorrin A. Thurston.  Among other important points in the Thurston statement:  The same armed militia men who had led the revolution of 1887 (Bayonet Constitition), and who had also put down the Wilcox Rebellion of 1889, were leaders of the final revolution of 1893.  Their previous successes made them courageous, experienced, and effective; ensuring the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 would be successful even if the ''Boston'' had not been present in Honolulu Harbor.
-===p. [[1092-1093|1092]]===
+===pp. [[1092-1093|1092]]===
 Testimony of Nicholas B. Delamater says that the royalist party is not made up of or led by natives, but largely by English residents expecting large social and financial gains if Kaiulani becomes Queen.

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 {{break}}
-===[[Ex-Queen Liliuokalani negotiates with President Dole for an annuity of $25,000 in return for her abdication]] -- Mr. Charles L. MacArthur, a former New York state senator and current editor of the local newspaper in Troy N.Y., reports that while visiting Honolulu he personally served as go-between for negotiations between Liliuokalani and President Dole.  Paul Neuman, holding power of attorney for Liliuokalani, was offering the ex-queen's formal abdication in return for a $25,000 per year annuity for her.===
+===[[Ex-Queen Liliuokalani negotiates with President Dole for an annuity of $25,000 in return for her abdication]]===
 {{break}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 4 February 2006
Line 57:		Line 57:

	For details click here: [[Military-diplomatic interaction and chain of command]]		For details click here: [[Military-diplomatic interaction and chain of command]]
		+
		+	{{break}}
		+
		+	===[[Ex-Queen Liliuokalani negotiates with President Dole for an annuity of $25,000 in return for her abdication]] -- Mr. Charles L. MacArthur, a former New York state senator and current editor of the local newspaper in Troy N.Y., reports that while visiting Honolulu he personally served as go-between for negotiations between Liliuokalani and President Dole. Paul Neuman, holding power of attorney for Liliuokalani, was offering the ex-queen's formal abdication in return for a $25,000 per year annuity for her.===
		+
	{{break}}		{{break}}

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 The Morgan Report has considerable testimony delving into the degree of latitude a military officer has in following orders, and his corresponding degree of responsibility for the consequences (and whether diplomats or civilians have the authority to give military commands).  Everyone today is familiar with the Nuremberg trials after World War 2 when Nazi generals and concentration camp commanders were found guilty of war crimes despite their claims that they were merely "following orders."  Likewise, we remember the same issues regarding the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, and the more recent atrocities committed by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq.  Nothing remotely like that ever happened in Honolulu 1893.  But the same issues were raised concerning military chain of command, and the interaction between civilian authorities and military commanders.  Documents containing the official regulations of 1893 (both military and diplomatic) were included in the Morgan Report.
-For details click here: [[MILITARY-DIPLOMATIC INTERACTION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their interaction]]
+For details click here: [[Military-diplomatic interaction and chain of command]]
 {{break}}

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 {{break}}
-===[[MILITARY-DIPLOMATIC INTERACTION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their interaction]]===
+===[[Military-diplomatic interaction and chain of command]] -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their interaction===
 There is a considerable amount of material in the Morgan Report that is of interest to military historians.  Most of the live testimony by people appearing before the Morgan committee, and the testimony by affidavit from Honolulu, included detailed information about the deployment of the U.S. peacekeepers in Honolulu 1893: who, where, when, why, how.  Much of that information also described interactions among the diplomats and military personnel of three parties:  the U.S., the revolutionists (committee of safety, Honolulu Rifles, and Hawaii provisional government), and the royalists.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 1 February 2006
Line 43:		Line 43:

	:''God has made of one blood all the nations of men, that they might alike dwell upon the earth in peace and prosperity.''		:''God has made of one blood all the nations of men, that they might alike dwell upon the earth in peace and prosperity.''
		+
		+	{{break}}
		+
		+	===[[MILITARY-DIPLOMATIC INTERACTION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their interaction]]===
		+
		+	There is a considerable amount of material in the Morgan Report that is of interest to military historians. Most of the live testimony by people appearing before the Morgan committee, and the testimony by affidavit from Honolulu, included detailed information about the deployment of the U.S. peacekeepers in Honolulu 1893: who, where, when, why, how. Much of that information also described interactions among the diplomats and military personnel of three parties: the U.S., the revolutionists (committee of safety, Honolulu Rifles, and Hawaii provisional government), and the royalists.
		+
		+	One topic that might be of special interest to today's military officers and students of international diplomacy is the detailed testimony about regulations governing the U.S. chain of command in 1893; especially regarding interaction between diplomats and military officers. Who has authority to give orders to whom, what are the rules of engagement in foreign ports, and what is the proper relationship between U.S. diplomats and U.S. military personnel in assessing whether, when, and how to deploy U.S. forces as peacekeepers in foreign nations during times of political unrest.
		+
		+	The issue for peacekeepers and diplomats is whether, when, and how it is appropriate for U.S. forces to deploy onto the streets where there are serious threats to American life and property including riot, arson, and mayhem. Also, as in Honolulu 1893, the local police/military may be totally insufficient to handle civil chaos, and the U.S. is the only nation with forces immedtately available in sufficient strength to protect lives and property of all foreigners and of local residents as well.
		+
		+	The Morgan Report has considerable testimony delving into the degree of latitude a military officer has in following orders, and his corresponding degree of responsibility for the consequences (and whether diplomats or civilians have the authority to give military commands). Everyone today is familiar with the Nuremberg trials after World War 2 when Nazi generals and concentration camp commanders were found guilty of war crimes despite their claims that they were merely "following orders." Likewise, we remember the same issues regarding the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, and the more recent atrocities committed by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib detention center in Iraq. Nothing remotely like that ever happened in Honolulu 1893. But the same issues were raised concerning military chain of command, and the interaction between civilian authorities and military commanders. Documents containing the official regulations of 1893 (both military and diplomatic) were included in the Morgan Report.
		+
		+	For details click here: [[MILITARY-DIPLOMATIC INTERACTION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND -- Of special interest to military officers and to scholars studying the history of military and diplomatic chains of command and their interaction]]

	{{break}}		{{break}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:03, 31 January 2006
Line 105:		Line 105:

	Sworn affidavits from 15 individuals or groups, including William R. Castle, the Committee of Safety, J.B. Atherton; and a lengthy, detailed published article by Lorrin A. Thurston. Among other important points in the Thurston statement: The same armed militia men who had led the revolution of 1887 (Bayonet Constitition), and who had also put down the Wilcox Rebellion of 1889, were leaders of the final revolution of 1893. Their previous successes made them courageous, experienced, and effective; ensuring the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 would be successful even if the ''Boston'' had not been present in Honolulu Harbor.		Sworn affidavits from 15 individuals or groups, including William R. Castle, the Committee of Safety, J.B. Atherton; and a lengthy, detailed published article by Lorrin A. Thurston. Among other important points in the Thurston statement: The same armed militia men who had led the revolution of 1887 (Bayonet Constitition), and who had also put down the Wilcox Rebellion of 1889, were leaders of the final revolution of 1893. Their previous successes made them courageous, experienced, and effective; ensuring the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 would be successful even if the ''Boston'' had not been present in Honolulu Harbor.
		+
		+	===p. [[1092]]===
		+	Testimony of Nicholas B. Delamater says that the royalist party is not made up of or led by natives, but largely by English residents expecting large social and financial gains if Kaiulani becomes Queen.
		+
		+
		+	"As to the sentiment of the nation, Hawaiians of Hawaiian parents, the Queen is certainly not popular. There is, I believe, a much stronger feeling in favor of Princess Kaiulani. I talked with a large number of them who were decidedly in favor of annexation also.
		+
		+	"The royalist party there is not made up of or led by natives, but largely by English residents. The motive seems fairly clear. Mr. Davis has had complete control over Kaiulani and her education. The near approach of her reign would give him large advantages in a financial way. He would probably be in fact, if not in name, prime minister. He would have the placing of Government loans (probably) and the inside track in many contracts, etc. Then, socially, his family and that of Mr. Walker, his partner, who are the leaders of the English society, would be very close to the court social world. Mr. Cleghorn, the father of Kaiulani, is Scotch. A son of Mr. Wodehouse, the English minister, is married to a half-sister of Kaiulani. When the native women undertook to have a large mass meeting and present to Mr. Blount a petition they split on the question whether it should be Lilioukalani or Kaiulani."

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 Crown Princess Liliuokalani held secret meetings in one of her houses to oust her brother King Kalakaua so that she could become Queen.  Meanwhile Kalakaua was plotting a coup to abrogate the Constitution of 1887 which had reduced him to a powerless figurehead, and proclaim the previous Constitution of 1864 (which itself had been a coup by Lot Kamehameha V against the earlier Constitution of 1852).  Court testimony later indicated that Kalakaua had manipulated Liliuokalani's coup plot against him so that he would come out the winner whichever way it turned out.  Indeed, evidence indicates that Kalakaua instigated or encouraged both Liliuokalani's coup plot and the Wilcox rebellion in order to strengthen his own power.
-Some details of both coup plots, and details about the activities of Wilcox, obtained from court testimony and other sources, were included in the Morgan Report testimony of W.D. Alexander on pages 643-646.  That material has been assembled here:  [[Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots]]
+Some details of both coup plots, and details about the activities of Wilcox, obtained from court testimony and other sources, were included in the Morgan Report testimony of W.D. Alexander on pages 643-646, and in the statement of Supreme Court Chief Justice A.F. Judd on page 800.  That material has been assembled here:  [[Wilcox Rebellion 1889 and Dueling Palace Coup Plots]]
 {{break}}