Wasn't the Morgan Report an orchestrated white-wash?

From TheMorganReport
Revision as of 13:17, 16 January 2006 by Jere Krischel (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contrary to the sovereignty activists who wish to white-wash history and ignore the Morgan Report, the committee hearings were not an orchestrated white-wash to obscure U.S. involvement in the overthrow.

The committee consisted of both Democrats (generally anti-annexation) and Republicans (generally pro-annexation). The committee cross-examined the witnesses, finding testimony both favorable and unfavorable to the U.S., Minister Stevens, Blount, and President Cleveland. And although there was a minority opinion, and it was a 5-4 decision, it was clearly done by the book, and cannot be faulted as a predetermined conclusion.

The Morgan Report was the product of clear deliberation, a mass of testimony and evidence, including the Blount Report and the words of Blount himself, and represented the best, objective judgement of the only offical bi-partisan investigation into the matter. After it's submission, it was not contested by the most virulent opponent of the Provisional Government, President Cleveland. Cleveland completely reversed himself based on its findings, and rebuffed the queen, conducted normal diplomatic relations with the Provisional Government, and recognized the Republic of Hawaii as the lawful successor to the Kingdom.

Had it been a white-wash, it would certainly have been challenged by Cleveland, who was no stranger to bucking public opinion. Instead, the person most completely convinced of the righteousness of the queen's position re-examined their opinions on the matter, and changed their actions accordingly.