Ken Conklin at 02:03, 26 December 2005

2005-12-26T02:03:15Z

Jere Krischel at 19:23, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T19:23:28Z

Jere Krischel at 19:16, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T19:16:41Z

Show changes

Jere Krischel at 04:41, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T04:41:02Z

New page

Colburn's remark that the natives accepted the proclamation, althoi gh
it was directly contrary to what they wanted, is delicious.
There is no reason against annexation in the dissimilarity of laws,
as an official document issued by our War Department in February of
this year contains the following statement:
"The laws are modeled on those of the United States. There is a
supreme court of justice, and, in addition, circuit judges and justices
of the peace."
On the authority of this book I also state that 91 per cent of the
trade of these islands is with the United States.
The former policy of our Government toward Hawaii and the anticipation
of their eventual annexation is detailed in the report of Secretary
Foster, of February 15, 1893, from which I will read briefly.
[Senate Ex. Doc. No. 77, Fifty-second Congress, second session.]
"The policy of the United States has been consistently and con-
Btantly declared against any foreign aggression in the Kingdom of
Hawaii inimical to the necessarily paramount rights and interests of the
American people there and the uniform contemplation of their annexation
as a contingent necessity. But beyond that it is shown that
annexation has been on more than one occasion avowed as a policy and
attempted as a fact. Such a solution was admitted as early as 1850
by so farsighted a statesman as Lord Palmerston when he recommended
to a visiting Hawaiian commission the contingency of a protectorate
under the United States, or of becoming an integral part of
this nation in fulfillment of a destiny due to close neighborhood and
commercial dependence upon the Pacific States.
"Early in 1851 a contingent deed of cession of the Kingdom was
drawn and signed by the King and placed sealed in the hands of the
commissioner of the United States, who was to open it and act upon
its provisions at the first hostile shot fired by France in subversion ot
Hawaiian independence.
" I n 1854 Mr. Marcy advocated annexation, and a draft of a treaty
was actually agreed upon with the Hawaiian ministry, but its completion
was delayed by the successful exercise of foreign influence
upon the heir to the throne, and finally defeated by the death of the King,
Kamehameha III.
" I n 1867 Mr. Seward, having become advised of a strong annexation
sentiment in the islands, instructed our minister at Honolulu
favorably to receive any native overtures for annexation. And on the
12th of September, 1867, he wrote to Mr. McOook that 'if the policy
of annexation should conflict with the policy of reciprocity, annexation
is in every case to be preferred.'
" President Johnson in his annual message of December 9, 1868,
regarded reciprocity with Hawaii as desirable 'until the people of the
island shall of themselves, at no distant day, voluntarily apply for
admission into the Union.'
" In 1871, on the 5th of April, President Grant, in a special message,
significantly solicited some expression of the views of the Senate
respecting the advisability of annexation.
" I n an instruction of March 25,1873, Mr. Fish considered the necessity
of annexing the islands in accordance with the wise foresight of
those ; who see a future that must extend the jurisdictioc and the limits
of this nation, and that will require a resting spot in midocean

between the Pacific coast and the vast domains of Asia, which are now
opening to commerce and Christian civilization.' And he directed oar
minister not to discourage the feeling which may exist in favor of
annexation to the United States, but to seek and even invite information
touching the terms and conditions upon which that object might
be effected.
"Since the conclusion of the reciprocity treaty of 1875 it has been
the obvious policy of the succeeding administrations to assert and
defend against other powers the exclusive commercial rights of
the United States and to fortify the maintenance of the existing
Hawaiian Government through the direct support of the United States
so long as that Government shall prove able to protect our paramount
rights and interests.
"On December 1.1881, Mr. Blame, in an instruction to the American
minister at Honolulu, wrote:
" ' I t (this Government) firmly believes that the position of the
Hawaiian Islands, as the key to the dominion of the American Pacific,
demands their benevolent neutrality, to which end it will earnestly
cooperate with the native Government. And if through any cause the
maintenance of such a position of benevolent neutrality should be
found by Hawaii to be impracticable, this Government would then
unhesitatingly meet the altered situation by seeking an avowedly
American solution of the grave issues presented.'"
Now, a word as to the objections to annexation and I will close. I
know that a new line of thought has been developed among us, which
I can not better characterize than by calling it a system of national
self-abnegation.
If any policy can be shown to be for the special advantage of the
United States gentlemen holding these views oppose it.
If Hawaii is valuable to us there will be so much the more generosity
in presenting it to England.
If our business has been more prosperous, and our labor better paid
than elsewhere, they think this is not fair to the rest of the world, and
advocate a reduction of the tariff to equalize conditions.
I do not address myself to gentlemen holding such views, as I can
not understand their position nor they mine.
From my own standpoint I have heard only one objection to the
policy of annexation that seemed to me to have substantial weight. It
is that the population of the Sandwich Islands are in great part unfit
for American citizenship. This may be true, but in that case we can
annex it as a part of one of our present States, or maintain a territorial
government until they are fitted, as we are doing in the case of
Alaska, and as we have done heretofore with other annexations.
The fear of annexing these small islands, which we so much need,
on grounds of opposition to territorial expansion, seems peculiar, almost
absurd, in a country more than three-quarters of whose territory comes
from annexations by purchase or otherwise.
Square miles.
In 1783 our territory amounted to 827,844
The Louisiana purchase added 1,179,931
Florida added 59,268
Texas added •- 376,133
The Mexican cession, California, etc 545, 783
The Gadsden purchase 45, 535
The Alaska purchase 577,390
Making a total of, 3, 603,884

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 rights and interests.
-"On December 1, 1881, Mr. Blame, in an instruction to the American
+"On December 1, 1881, Mr. Blaine, in an instruction to the American
 minister at Honolulu, wrote:

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 from annexations by purchase or otherwise.
-{|
+{|width="100%"
+!
-!Square miles.
+!align="right"|Square miles.
 |-
 |In 1783 our territory amounted to
-|827,844
+|align="right"|827,844
 |-
 |The Louisiana purchase added
-|1,179,931
+|align="right"|1,179,931
 |-
 |Florida added
-|59,268
+|align="right"|59,268
 |-
 |Texas added
-|376,133
+|align="right"|376,133
 |-
 |The Mexican cession, California, etc
-|545,783
+|align="right"|545,783
 |-
 |The Gadsden purchase
-|45,535
+|align="right"|45,535
 |-
 |The Alaska purchase
-|577,390
+|align="right"|577,390
 |-
 |-
 |Making a total of
-|3,603,884
+|align="right"|3,603,884
 |}

Template:498-499 - Revision history

Ken Conklin at 02:03, 26 December 2005

Jere Krischel at 19:23, 9 December 2005

Jere Krischel at 19:16, 9 December 2005

Jere Krischel at 04:41, 9 December 2005