Annexation Debate
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1998-08-09
Guests: Tom Coffman (author, Nation Within); Jim Mee (attorney); Thurston Twigg-Smith (author, Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?); David Forman ((role not given)); Chuck Freedman ((role not given)); John Topolinski ((role not given)); Samuel P. King (Senior U.S. District Court Judge); Ed Crepeau (historian, William and Mary College — introduced by host)
Duration: 1:05:02

[00:00:02] Randall Roth: Aloha. This is Randy Roth, host of The Price of Paradise show. We're broadcast live each Sunday morning on KHPR and KKUA and then rebroadcast Sunday evenings beginning at 8 o'clock on KIFO. This morning, we have a special installment of the Price of Paradise and rather than our usual stations, you're hearing us if at all on KIFO or KIPO. We're going to be on for the next hour and we're going to be talking about the annexation of Hawaii to the United States. Anyone who isn't familiar with our show should know that everybody who works to bring it to you is a volunteer. Uh we do it because we enjoy doing it and also because we believe in the importance of lively and informed public dialogue.
[00:00:47] Randall Roth: We believe the brightness of any community's future is directly related to the level of activity in its marketplace of ideas. Our sponsor is the Hawaii Community Foundation, an organization that encourages grassroot efforts to improve the quality of life in Hawaii and that administers charitable funds with efficiency and compassion. As I indicated, our topic this morning is annexation. We are nearing the centennial of the commemoration of the annexation of the of Hawaii to the United States. And also, just in the last few days, a new book has been published. It's called Nation Within. Its author, Tom Coffman, is a very well-known local figure, uh journalist/historian, filmmaker. Tom's done a number of things. Uh I especially like that he's originally from Kansas, which is uh from where I hail.
[00:01:42] Randall Roth: Tom has written a book called Nation Within that takes a close look at the events at the time of the annexation. It's received a lot of of favorable comments and in this morning's advertiser, a few not so favorable comments. But many people are saying a lot of things about this book, Nation Within, and you're going to be hearing in just a minute from its author, Tom Coffman. Also, you're going to hear from Ed Crepeau, who is a historian who teaches at William and Mary. Ed is uh an expert in the period of time when this annexation occurred in the late 1800s. Some might call it the expansionist or uh imperialistic era. We'll hear more from Ed about just what that period was marked by.
[00:02:31] Randall Roth: Also in the studio with me is David Forman. David's a former student of mine and a real good lawyer who currently is the executive director of the Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, which is headquartered at the University of Hawaii School of Law. With us by phone, we have Thurston Twigg-Smith, who is the author of his own book that focuses on events surrounding the overthrow and annexation. It uh talks about sovereignty in particular and asks the questions the question, 'Do the facts matter?' Uh Thurston is with us by phone. He's on the mainland, but he's graciously agreed to to participate by phone. Also by phone, we have Jim Mee. Jim is an attorney here in Hawaii, also is the um or works with the Pacific Legal Foundation. Jim has written an article in this morning's advertiser on the first page of the focus section which is somewhat critical of Tom's new book, Nation Within. So, those are the voices that you're going to be hearing.
[00:03:32] Randall Roth: And then of course, soon in the hour, we're going to invite calls and we really would like to hear from you. If you have a question that you would like to ask any of our guests, or if you have a comment about annexation or this book that we're going to be talking about, Nation Within, we'd really like to hear from you and we'll be giving you the phone numbers in just a little bit. But first, Tom Coffman, real quickly, tell us a little bit about this book. What what's the main theme? Why did you do it? Tell us in a minute or so something that gives us a sense for what it's all about.
[00:04:07] Tom Coffman: Well, I um was very impressed with the learning process that occurred in 1993, uh and during the observance of the overthrow. At the same time it occurred to me that um basically our community impression was that after the overthrow, five years passed and we were annexed. And I uh uh having been out in the Pacific and having been to the Philippines and Samoa and Guam and different places, I saw that there were many things that had happened in those places in 1898 and it pressed the question on me, um what really happened between 1893 and 1898? Um I felt we had a very narrow definition of our history and that there was a broader history there, and I began a process of research to try to unearth this history.
[00:05:13] Randall Roth: Do you feel as the author of this book, and there is a companion video, do you feel as though you're an advocate for any particular interpretation or implication of the annexation? Uh how do you view your role in the writing of this book and the making of the video?
[00:05:29] Tom Coffman: Uh I think my role is to get a broader, deeper uh understanding before the public and a a real context of what happened.
[00:05:45] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, we'll be hearing a lot more from Tom as the hour progresses. But let's talk now to Jim Mee. Jim, as I indicated, just a few minutes ago, as an attorney here in town and if you haven't seen this morning's advertiser on page B1, the focus section, Jim has written a a fairly critical article critical about Tom's book. Jim, can you hear me okay?
[00:06:05] Jim Mee: Yes, I can, Randy.
[00:06:07] Randall Roth: Jim, could you just real briefly, and you'll have more opportunities to to talk about annexation and about this uh book Nation Within, but real briefly could you summarize for our listeners your thoughts about uh Tom's new work?
[00:06:22] Jim Mee: Yeah, Randy. Well, first of all, I'd like to say that I actually I really actually enjoyed both Tom's book and the documentary that was on the public TV station on Wednesday. I think my comments go to two areas. And the first one was that uh as in my article this morning, I thought the situation was more complicated right in the period uh before the overthrow. And in my article I I concentrated on Robert Wilcox, who is another very prominent figure of the time. Uh Wilcox actually had been also calling for either a an American style Republic or annexation to the United States. And I thought that maybe talking about that a little would kind of uh indicate the sort of turmoil that was going on in the late kingdom.
[00:07:10] Jim Mee: The other thing I touched on briefly is that I think we also need to look more at the history of the early territory of Hawaii, because at that point, we had essentially universal manhood suffrage. Uh Hawaiians were the majority of the voters and elected the majority of uh of the territorial legislature, for example. So, I think people need to understand it's not that the Hawaiian involvement and the Hawaiian people just sort of came to the end once territory uh the territory started.
[00:07:41] Randall Roth: Okay. Um anything else, again just in terms of of primary themes from your article this morning?
[00:07:48] Jim Mee: Uh I think that pretty much sums it up. I I think my feeling on this whole thing is that really everybody needs to read as much as they can and to get as many perspectives as they can on the situation. And I think uh Tom's book does a good job of presenting one perspective. Um but I think people should uh realize that there're also other perspectives out there.
[00:08:09] Randall Roth: And when you say perspective, um just real quickly, tell me what you mean by perspective.
[00:08:16] Jim Mee: Well, I think um well, essentially what I'm saying is I don't view it as a black and white situation. There was a lot of movement between one viewpoint and the other. For example, there were groups that moved at various times from being for annexation, then becoming disenchanted with it, then being against annexation. And there were also a very sort of fluid sort of situation throughout the Republic. And I think people need to understand that there was a lot of discussion going on about what should the future of Hawaii be.
[00:08:48] Randall Roth: Okay. Jim, we'll hear more from you later in the hour. Now we have Thurston Twigg-Smith, who also is joining us by phone. Thurston was the uh owner of the Honolulu Advertiser for for many years. He's the author of a book on sovereignty that came out within the last year and we did a radio show shortly after it came out. Uh I would encourage listeners to get that book and read it as well as getting Nation Within and reading it. I happen to agree with Jim. I think the more people read about this, the better, but Thurston and and I guess I I should tell the audience that most people refer to uh Thurston Twigg-Smith as as Twig. Twig, um tell us real quickly your thoughts about Tom's book Nathan Within, Nation Within, and I know that there's an article by you on page B3 of today's advertiser. But real quickly, could you sum up your thoughts about Nation Within?
[00:09:44] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I kind of thought uh Randy that at a time that we ought to be marking the annexation as an important milestone in Hawaii's history that uh Tom was kind of denigrating it. And maybe that's good because it's certainly going to stimulate our conversation today, at least. Uh there is an ongoing need for criticism, which I thought was present to a great extent in the book, uh constant references to white this and white that. The biases, the distortions, uh particularly that of the the ones that would lead some native Hawaiians to think that maybe something could be done about annexation, the implication that it's illegal. I thought those things are a kind of a disservice and I don't think they tie in with Tom's role there, which I appreciate, is describing as an effort to get a broader, deeper understanding in the community. It doesn't quite make that.
[00:10:37] Randall Roth: Twig, I know this is simplistic, but is it generally accurate to say that you feel so far as the people of Hawaii then and now were and are concerned, that annexation was basically a good thing compared to the alternatives and that your perception is that the Tom would say it was basically a bad thing. Is is is that something that I have gotten from your article, or is that not correct?
[00:11:02] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think uh I think that's true. I think that the one thing that Tom doesn't do and I did like a lot of the book, a lot of the new things that came out uh from his research, but I did feel that he was implying that no Hawaiians were in favor of it and that the uh somehow or other the people who put it over were tricked into losing the vote there. I think the fact is that many Hawaiians, and their comments remain on the record, were very much in favor of annexation and after annexation, they demonstrated their power by electing Hawaiians for several decades to all the key offices in the state.
[00:11:40] Randall Roth: So along the lines of what Jim Mee was saying, you feel that the situation was more complicated than than your perception of what Tom's saying in the book?
[00:11:49] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Much more so.
[00:11:50] Randall Roth: And also in your article, it seems as though you feel that he's overemphasized the US government's involvement in the overthrow and events leading up to annexation. Is that a correct statement?
[00:12:04] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Yeah. See, he makes the uh surprise to see a rather flat statement there that America overthrew Hawaii's government because not even the evidence he had in his own book supported that uh assumption or that conclusion that the US was opposed to conquest at that time, and he notes that nobody, no, not that Blain, a good friend of Stevens, never directed him to do anything about acquiring Hawaii, but there really wasn't any evidence to support that kind of a flat statement. It was not America that overthrew Hawaii's government.
[00:12:40] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh Twig, if you could stay on the line, we'll come back to you later in the hour. But next, we're going to hear from Ed Crepeau. Ed, as I mentioned at the top of the hour, is a professor at William and Mary. He's a historian. Ed is especially knowledgeable of that particular time period in US history that we're talking about right now around 1898 and Twig just mentioned Blaine, who's one of the players in this thing and I noticed Ed that you got a book coming out about this same gentleman, Mr. Blaine, but if you could take a step back and just tell us a little bit about your thoughts whether directed at the book itself or annexation or the context for annexation, real quickly Ed, what's what you're thinking as to what's at the core of of what we should be talking about?
[00:13:22] Ed Crepeau: Well, uh in in terms of the the things you've mentioned, I guess I'd choose uh putting it into context uh in terms of uh American foreign policy in the uh late 19th century. I think that uh Hawaii uh was one of the goals of uh a number of American leaders, I mean, the annexation of Hawaii or some sort of control of Hawaii as the crossroads of the Pacific. Uh I think that goal uh emerged as early as the 1850s, and certainly in the post Civil War period, uh many American leaders uh sought uh to bring uh Hawaii and Samoa and other areas of the Pacific as stepping stones to the markets of Asia. I think there's a very conscious effort. And uh my involvement in this is um that Tom approached me uh because he heard I was doing this biography of James G Blaine and and I find uh Blaine to be a key figure in uh American foreign policy in the late 19th century. I subtitled my book Architect of Empire. I think he's the person that uh formulated uh uh an interest and uh the importance of expansion in the Pacific particularly.
[00:14:46] Randall Roth: What does this mean as as our listeners are trying to get their arms around all of this? Um was annexation good, bad, or simply inevitable? And if if we talk about inevitable, is it part of this manifest destiny or or help me better understand this context that that you're describing.
[00:15:06] Ed Crepeau: Well, I I don't want to get into the question of whether it's good or bad. I just want to try and understand how it came about. And I think in terms of American leaders, uh again, as an historian, nothing's inevitable. I think that uh we have to understand the process. There was resistance in the United States, in fact, to annexation between 1893 and 98. The proponents of annexation had a difficult time uh getting uh the treaty or getting support for annexation and certainly when McKinley came in and the treaty was signed in in 1897, there was a period where there was great resistance in the Senate, and American expansionists had to pursue uh had to take a precedent of a previous president, President Tyler in annexing uh Texas back in 1845, of of using a joint resolution rather than a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
[00:15:56] Ed Crepeau: So I'm I'm interested in trying to understand how the United States created this empire in the Pacific. Uh from Blaine's viewpoint, it's it's a good thing. He thinks it's part of a national destiny, national greatness. He thinks American expansion in the Pacific uh is the destiny of the nation, that the next century will be an American century in which the United States will dominate that part of the world. He doesn't have a great interest in Europe, he has an interest in the Caribbean and Cuba, Isme and Canal, and uh looking upon the Pacific Rim, he sees Hawaii, defines Hawaii as part of an American system as early as 1881. Uh I'm not sure he he uh sought annexation from the beginning. I think he would have been satisfied with some form of protectorate or uh economic connection with Hawaii, but there there is a a push on his part uh to gain control of Hawaii.
[00:16:49] Randall Roth: You mentioned the joint resolution as opposed to the two-thirds approval and and the treaty. There are people who argue that both the overthrow because of the US's involvement and annexation because it was done by joint resolution, that all of this was illegal and that somehow or another everything that followed was illegal. So you've got the legal question and then there's an awful lot of people, I think a much larger number of people that say, well, you know, that's nice for the lawyers to argue about. But there's a moral issue here as well. As a historian, do you get into the moral side of this or you're simply describing what happened and trying to give people a feel for the context in which it happened?
[00:17:35] Ed Crepeau: The latter. I try to give people a feeling for the context in which it happened and if there are moral judgments I uh try to convey them in the context of the people at the time, okay? Who felt that perhaps this was immoral or illegal. Although well, I'm not the lawyer, you're the lawyer, but I think extralegal might be a better definition of this that it sort of just slightly outside of the bounds but that because of precedent, it was accepted. And thank you. I like your term much better than mine.
[00:18:04] Randall Roth: Our other guest that we haven't heard from yet is David Forman. As I mentioned, David is the executive director of the Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, headquartered at the University of Hawaii Law School. David, I know you've written a piece that's going to appear in the advertiser later this week, where you've described a seminar that you participated in. Could you tell us a little bit about that and how it relates to our topic today?
[00:18:29] David Forman: Sure Randy. It was it was a uh conference that was held in uh Iowa at the end of June. It was an interdisciplinary group of scholars and professionals, um who got together for about three weeks. They were sociologists, anthropologists, um historians, lawyers, uh performance studies folks, uh film folks, that that were really looking at the question of 1898. The conference was entitled Legacies of 1898, Sovereignty and Colonialism in Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Philippines. And this is it this it was aimed to provide
[00:19:00] Randall Roth: at least get people starting to think about the international context. And it was really interesting. I some of Tom's comments have were the kinds of things that people were saying, we need to be looking at a little bit more. Um, folks didn't really know about what was going on or what had happened in the different jurisdictions. And and that's something that I think it's actually a little bit ironic that everybody here, uh, even Jim, who was was critical of of Tom's book for not being complicated enough. I found it ironic that the, uh, newspaper editors were saying that, you know, these discussions don't get us any closer to the path for the future, when everybody here is saying, you know, we need to talk about this more.
[00:19:36] Randall Roth: We want more, and this discussion is good. And that's what the the conference is about, getting us to go that in that direction. Okay. Well, I want to hear a lot more from you, David, as the hour progresses. Um, what what we're going to do right now is I want to encourage people to call, but while we're waiting for the the lines to fill up, I'm going to get Tom Coffman to comment on what he's been hearing from other people and what he read in this morning's paper that was critical about his book. But first, for those of you turned in tuned in a little bit late, this is the Price of Paradise radio show. It's a special airing, special times, special stations.
[00:20:10] Randall Roth: If you'd like to ask a question of any of our guests or if you'd like to make a comment, you can call us at 955-8821, or from a neighbor island, it's 1-800-955-8821. We're talking real generally about annexation and we're doing it in the context of a book that just came out, Nation Within. The author is Tom Coffman, talks all about the events leading up to the annexation. Tom, you heard from Twig Smith and from Jim Mee and you read their pieces in this morning's paper. You do have some critics out there. Even they say the book was written very well and they think that everybody ought to read it. Um, but they are saying some critical things. Very quickly, your reaction.
[00:20:54] Tom Coffman: Well, I'd like to, you know, thank them for the their kind comments and generally for their comments because we can't obviously all agree on all of this. Uh, I'd also like to thank the advertiser for providing uh a balance in their reviews. Um, I thought Judge King's review was [unintelligible — audio glitch] very kind, uh and uh, Chuck Friedman's, and so on. As for, you know, Jim's comments, uh, I would agree that um that uh these were very, this is a very complicated period leading up to the overthrow. and it was very complicated set of events that went on between the overthrow and annexation. Um, and uh as for Robert Wilcox, uh he he himself was an extremely complicated person.
[00:21:58] Tom Coffman: Uh, he took various contradictory views. I tried to, I didn't set out to to deal with uh Robert Wilcox or or John Bush for example, but I it's really they they're really hard to ignore. Um, I think that the um uh his positions were very contradictory and I think they were confusing to different people. Um, the one consistent point was that he was desperately searching for a way uh that Hawaiians could maintain control of Hawaii in as sovereign a situation as possible. And the consistency of Robert Wilcox lies in that thread. Um, and there are a lot of complexities, I would agree with Jim, in that regard that are not dealt with. Um, there is a there is a very broad context and I just could only do so much.
[00:23:00] Randall Roth: Yeah. Um, can can I ask a question, something that Jim specifically said and and Twig implied was that the book was is racially divisive. What's your reaction to that?
[00:23:14] Tom Coffman: Well, I don't think it's racially divisive. Uh and certainly I would abhor that end result. Um, from my point of view, it uh is a broader history and a broader understanding of history, and Americans uh gaining a broader understanding of this history uh lays a potential groundwork for a realistic discussion of these issues. Okay. Well it's it's some it's sort of painful. Mhm. And uh I I would agree with that. There's there is a certain amount of pain involved, but this is not a happy subject, you know.
[00:24:18] Randall Roth: You've heard from each of our guests, Tom Coffman, Ed Crapel, David Foreman, Thurston Twig Smith and Jim Mee, and you're going to hear more from them, but I want to take some calls now. All of our lines are full but as we go through each caller, a line is going to open up and I want to encourage people to get in line 955-8821 or 1-800-955-8821. What I ask and I always do this when we have a topic that is as as emotional as this one, a topic about which people feel very very strongly. They don't just think about it, they feel strongly about it. I asked that you attempt to keep your comments as concise as possible so we can hear from a lot of voices.
[00:25:03] Randall Roth: And and I and I asked that you not in any way attack any of of our guests that if you want to disagree and and make clear what your point of view is, that's wonderful. That's part of lively and informed dialogue, but uh, but personal attacks simply won't be tolerated. Let's go first to Jim from. Good morning, Jim.
[00:25:22] Jim Mee: Yes, good morning. Uh first of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Twig Smith for writing his book and defending my right to vote in all state elections. Secondly, I'd like to point out this coming Wednesday at the Palace, this is not going to be a reenactment. It's going uh, they are not going to be raising the uh, the 45 star American flag. It seems to me once again, one of our state holidays has been hijacked.
[00:25:51] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, I think you've made your point well. Uh appreciate your calling in.
[00:25:55] Jim Mee: Thank you.
[00:25:56] Randall Roth: Let's uh and rather than get responses to everything, I want to try and hear a lot of voices. I'm asking my guests to take some notes, and if you want to say something specific about any one comment that you hear, we'll we'll give you an opportunity to do that in in due time. We go next to Chuck from Kaimuki, who I know is Chuck Friedman. And it was mentioned a few minutes ago that Chuck also wrote a piece that appeared in this morning's advertiser. Good morning, Chuck.
[00:26:21] Chuck Freedman: Good morning, Randy.
[00:26:22] Randall Roth: What do you have for us today?
[00:26:23] Chuck Freedman: Just a couple of observations. One is that I think it's real important for us to understand that for sure there were there were Hawaiians a hundred years ago, who had varying opinions on this whole issue, as there are Hawaiians who have varying opinions on issues today, just like every group in America does. So that that notion is I think easily understood and managed. The the the issue regarding Tom's book is to whether or not it's racial or not, I think is a is a silly question. And the the real answer to it is that the racial thing for would be to to ignore the what happened a hundred years ago and for us as a community to to get involved with uh with marking this particular time.
[00:27:04] Chuck Freedman: I think it's real, real important uh, to understand the context for which things occurred, to realize that there there were national and international implications to this, not just in Hawaii but all over the Pacific. And that by getting involved and reading and understanding, we're defining who we are as a people, and I really think [unintelligible — audio glitch] binds us together. It it shows um native Hawaiians, uh that there is indeed a desire for us to understand all of us as a community to understand what happened a hundred years ago and and to direct to direct ourselves more effectively in the future. Uh hopefully not to repeat uh some of the mistakes we made before. So I think it's just real important to understand what what the book is trying to do is provide context. Uh we can argue about some of the specific differences between people, but I think what Tom has pointed out in the book in terms of what happened during that time, how it happened, what happened, is pretty irrefutable.
[00:27:58] Randall Roth: Chuck, let me see if I've got this straight. Your main point is that my question was a dumb one?
[00:28:03] Chuck Freedman: Yeah, you got that right, Randy.
[00:28:05] Randall Roth: Whether whether whether what happened is good or bad is a dumb question, Randy. Um, you know Chuck, I I got to tell you, I really like the way you put something in your article this morning where you when you said and correct me if I'm I'm mischaracterizing your point. Something to the effect that that a real Hawaiian isn't necessarily someone who was born here. It's someone who's going to die here.
[00:28:25] Chuck Freedman: That's right, and there's a legacy that we've inherited and one that we're going to pass on, and understanding what happened a hundred years ago and how we reflect upon it today is a continuing part of the legacy.
[00:28:35] Randall Roth: Okay. Chuck, I know you could talk for a lot longer and it would all be just as eloquent as what you've said, but I'm going to have to move on. Thanks a lot, Chuck.
[00:28:42] Chuck Freedman: Okay.
[00:28:43] Randall Roth: We go to Robert from someplace and I can't even read it. Robert, where are you from?
[00:28:47] Speaker Robert: Kaneohe.
[00:28:48] Randall Roth: Kaneohe. You're on the air.
[00:28:50] Speaker Robert: Um, I this is a little unfair to Tom because I haven't had an opportunity to read his book. I I'm speaking to the show that was on KGTV the other night. And I felt that that show, uh, was very biased and and I felt that it was racially divisive. I I can't say one way or the other about Tom's book as I said, because I can't read it. But I think that one thing that's been kind of ignored here in this whole issue is is the international context and what the situation would be in Hawaii now if there had been no annexation or statehood. Um, I think it's most people would probably agree that somebody was going to end up in control of Hawaii.
[00:29:32] Speaker Robert: I think given that fact, the choice that was made to have the United States annex Hawaii is probably the best of maybe some painful choices. And uh, things could have been a lot worse. And we also have to remember that in 1959, there was overwhelming support for statehood, which really makes the annexation question kind of moot.
[00:29:53] Randall Roth: Okay. Robert, I really appreciate your comments this morning. I'm going to invite our our guests to comment in just a few minutes, but we're going to take a couple more calls before we do that. Next is Keola from Kapaa Hulu. Good morning, Keola.
[00:30:05] Speaker Keola: Yeah, good morning, Aloha.
[00:30:06] Randall Roth: Aloha.
[00:30:07] Speaker Keola: Uh, it's been said that in the hands of uh William McKinley, the statue in front of uh McKinley High School, he holds the treaty of annexation. My question is, if I were to search for the treaty of annexation, where would I find it?
[00:30:39] Randall Roth: Well, I think there's no treaty, there was a joint resolution, but I'm going to just leave that one for people who know what they're talking about.
[00:30:47] Speaker Keola: Uh, this is to uh Mr. Mee. I was wondering if he uh had seen or had found any of his ancestors signing the super petition against annexation.
[00:31:01] Randall Roth: Ooh, good question because uh I think a lot of people know that Jim is uh part Hawaiian. Keola, I appreciate your call, and when we go to Jim in just a bit, we're going to ask him uh that specific question. Let's take one more call and then we're going to go around uh the the room and by phone and hear from from all of our guests. Let's go to Bill from Central Honolulu. Good morning, Bill.
[00:31:23] Speaker Bill: Good morning, Aloha.
[00:31:24] Randall Roth: Aloha.
[00:31:24] Speaker Bill: Uh my question is for Twig Smith. If the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, the 1890s, why was Doe, why did Doe continue to give away land to his friends and himself if all lands were seeded to United States when annexation happened?
[00:31:43] Randall Roth: Okay. Well when we hear from Twig next, which will be real soon, we'll ask him to answer that specific question.
[00:31:49] Speaker Bill: Thank you, Bill.
[00:31:50] Randall Roth: Well, we've got some people who are waiting patiently, um, but there are a couple open lines, so if you'd like to get behind them, our number is 955-8821 or from a neighbor island it's 1-800-955-8821. Well, guests, uh we've heard quite a few voices. We're going to hear some more a little bit later, but I'm just going to go around in no particular order, and David, we've heard least from you. So I'm going to start with you. Pick out one or two of the comments that you heard from callers, share your thoughts and then we'll move on to another guest. David Foreman.
[00:32:23] David Forman: Sure. Um, uh since I'm young and haven't been taught the lessons of of being brash, I'm I'm going to take the risky step of addressing the question of racial device of this, which I I understand the sentiment, um, you know, which which uh Twig uh expressed, you might might be kind of paraphrased as, you know, can't we all just get along. But but I think um the the question of of race it's part of the context and it's it's important to be considered. You know, some of those elements are for example, a couple of years before annexation was when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Plessy versus Ferguson separate but equal. Um, shortly after that, the insular cases 1901 to 1904. These are the the cases that said uh, you know, the the folks that are in these territories don't have the full rights that everybody else in the United States has.
[00:33:10] David Forman: Um, so and and furthermore, we're still taught to categorize um at at an early age. I mean, we all know the uh one of these things is not like the other and it's based on color representation. These these are things that are part of our culture and uh we need to uh acknowledge that, address it. Um, um but I also agree that, you know, the sentiment we we're not trying to criticize anybody for things that have been passed on for generations, but we shouldn't just ignore it and sweep it under the rug.
[00:33:37] Randall Roth: So it could be painful, but it's not divisive. It's part of a healing process.
[00:33:41] David Forman: I believe that's correct.
[00:33:43] Randall Roth: Okay. Um, Ed Crapel, our historian from William and Mary, pick one or two things you've heard from callers and go for it.
[00:33:50] Chuck Freedman: Uh, well, I guess I'd like to respond to the to the person who uh spoke about uh, well, what would have happened to Hawaii if it were not annexed. And I guess uh as an historian, what I would like to uh suggest there is that American leaders as they were thinking about uh stepping stones to the Pacific, they weren't always necessarily thinking about annexing Hawaii. There were other alternatives, there could have been a protectorate, uh, going back to the Tyler administration, the position of the United States had been one to uh protect Hawaiian independence against uh particularly Great Britain and France, and the United States saw itself in a as a certain protector of Hawaii.
[00:34:28] Chuck Freedman: So, as an alternative, uh it's it's quite possible you could have had a Hawaii that was uh under uh some sort of American uh protection but still had a a level of uh autonomy. I mean that that's that's certainly a possibility.
[00:34:43] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh let's hear from Jim Mee by phone. Jim, can you hear me?
[00:34:47] Jim Mee: Yes, I can.
[00:34:48] Randall Roth: Uh I'm going to give you an opportunity to respond to anything you've been hearing from the guests or the callers, but first, could you answer the one caller's specific question directed at you, have you had an opportunity to see if any of your ancestors signed the petition?
[00:35:03] Jim Mee: No, I haven't. I want to go over to Bishop Museum one of these days because I understand the petitions are on display and and the list of names.
[00:35:11] Randall Roth: Do you think it would affect you one way or the other to see uh a great grandfather's or a great-great grandmother's name on that petition?
[00:35:20] Jim Mee: From from what I know from my family history, I think my family was split right down the middle in terms of the positions they took. I I know one great grandfather who was Hawaiian, uh a lawyer, he was in both the provisional government and the Republic of Hawaii. Uh and I know from reading uh Dave Coffman's book that uh one of the people he mentions there is William Old who was a leader of one of the delegations going back to Washington I believe on behalf of the queen. And I and I know from looking at family genealogies I would be related to him. So um, you know, I I think many families and mine included were very compromised by this whole situation, not knowing really what sides to be on in the sense that I think there was a lot of affection or sympathy for the queen, but I think there was also a lot of concern about what was the future of Hawaii and and where should we go.
[00:36:12] Randall Roth: Okay, now you get to pick. What do you want to talk about in terms of what our callers uh have been saying or or our guests have been commenting?
[00:36:20] Jim Mee: Um, I think a couple of things. First of all, just quickly on this concept of the treaty of annexation. As far as I can figure out, the constitution is really silent in terms of how you admit a new territory in this case to the Union. Uh it does say when you're admitting a state uh that you, it's simply that it's done by the power or authority of Congress. So that would seem to cover a joint resolution in that case, but it really doesn't say anything about what happens as a territory. So, I apologize, as a lawyer, I'm kind of giving a a legal answer to something. The other thing I just wanted to mention quickly, and this sort of follows up on my prior comment, is this whole concept about is this a racial situation.
[00:37:00] Jim Mee: I think if you look at the history of the time, you're going to find that it it was again more complicated, that you had people who were howles, who were on both sides of the question. They were either supportive of the royalist cause or supportive of annexation or another path. I think you're going to find the same thing with native Hawaiians. Uh and there's a huge percentage of the citizenship or not citizenship, but the uh inhabitants of the island that really are not part of the question which is the people who were the uh immigrants working on the plantation. And, you know, when you bring it up to today, um I think Governor Cayetano made a good comment once which is the vast majority of the people living in Hawaii were not even involved in the situation the overthrow and and the response. And, you know, how we deal with that today? Um you know, I I think we have to get away from it as being a racial question and looking at it is more a general picture of we
[00:38:00] Randall Roth: What is best for the people of Hawaii today?
[00:38:02] Jim Mee: So, I think what I'm hearing is that even if we are convinced that there was a historical injustice, how do we deal with it without creating a new injustice?
[00:38:14] Randall Roth: That's correct. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Um, let's go next to Thurston Twigg-Smith, and Twigg, I know we've got some technical problems this morning. You've not been able to hear what Jim Mee has been saying, but that's okay, because I don't think it's really going to affect your choice as to any of the comments from callers or from the guests that you would like to address.
[00:38:37] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, it's even worse than that, Randy. I can't hear any of the callers calling in either, but I did take a few notes based on what some of the answers were to some of the questions, so without knowing what the questions were, uh let me just say that I think one of one of the uh comments that David made that uh context, how critical context is to the whole thing, I think applies to the use of the petition and Jim to answer to that. I don't I don't know what the question was, but something about whether or not he would change his mind if he saw an ancestor on there. I think the petition itself was just part of an organized argument against annexation, and once annexation passed, like all other arguments leading up to a decision, they fall by the wayside. I don't think they have a historical uh legal basis at this point.
[00:39:31] Randall Roth: Twigg, what what about is there a moral basis? I think there are a lot of people that are concerned about the legal question, but more people who are concerned about what I'll just generally call the moral question. Is that not relevant?
[00:39:44] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I don't think uh really that it is. I think that what's even what is maybe more relevant in terms of again of context is realizing that the annexation applies to all of us. It's not just, reading Tom's book, it sounds as though annexation was just something that affected native Hawaiians and he speaks of it being a painful subject. It wasn't at all painful to all the other people involved. I doubt that any of the descendants of immigrants feel that was a painful subject. They Their parents weren't even there at the time of the revolution or annexation. So I'm sure they're happy with the present situation, the attachment to the United States. So I think that in order to put it in context, you've got to get beyond the divisiveness of characterizing it as something that's bad uh for native Hawaiians and that they continue to object to it. First place, I don't think they were all objecting by any means uh at the time of annexation and certainly not for the succeeding decades.
[00:40:44] Randall Roth: Twigg, how how do you explain? And and I know you're you're out of um uh the state right now, but there's been a great deal written in the last few days and covered on on television and and the radio about this petition that seemed to have been signed by a tremendous number of of native Hawaiians. And and the impression that people here in Hawaii who've who've been following what's going on in the media the last few days, the impression we have is that in overwhelming numbers the native Hawaiians were opposed to annexation. Now, maybe that's not a correct impression, but that's the impression I've formed from following the media coverage. What's your your reaction to that?
[00:41:26] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I can see why that reaction would occur because of the case. The petition is being presented as something that was hidden away and buried and and uh therefore it's being revealed here now for the first time. And, of course, that isn't true at all. At the time it appeared in Congress from what I've read, 21,000 signatures out of only about 37,000 Hawaiians in existence, it raised a lot of questions and the arguments against it were valid, that there were repetitive names, there were children, there were this and that. But regardless, it didn't have any it didn't have an effect on the final result. Uh so I don't I don't think that it uh is something that's valid at this point.
[00:42:08] Randall Roth: It's almost like a a rough draft on the way to a final document. It's the final document that counts.
[00:42:15] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Right. And you said something earlier in that question that I had the the comment on but I forgotten what it was now.
[00:42:21] Randall Roth: Well, I'll tell you what, we'll come back to you one more time. But uh I want to turn now to Tom Coffman. Tom, you've heard a lot of callers and you've heard Twigg and Jim Mee and Ed Crepe, Paul Dave Foreman say a few things. Why don't you share your thoughts on whatever you'd like to, and then we're going to go to all the people who've been waiting patiently um to make a comment or ask a question.
[00:42:42] Tom Coffman: Okay. Um basically in terms of, you know, we keep talking about context and what the book was about, the book was about the events culminating in annexation. So by definition, it doesn't address Hawaiian responses after annexation. Uh Judge King suggested in his review and the advertiser that that would be the subject of uh someone's next book and I think that that uh is a good suggestion.
[00:43:10] Randall Roth: He invited you by the way in case you didn't get that.
[00:43:15] Tom Coffman: Um the the issue then is uh what happened uh in the events that ended in annexation. And, um, in that regard, I think the petitions are extremely important. And I think they're important uh because they were, uh they did reflect um that uh the vast majority of Hawaiians, uh opposed annexation very explicitly. And you can quibble the details but the um the composite uh impression from sitting in the national archives where I first saw those petitions uh overwhelmingly is that the vast majority of Hawaiians uh opposed annexation. Um, and I think that those few people who uh are constantly cited as Hawaiian supporting annexation, I think their behavior has to be evaluated in that light. For example, there is the uh Hawaiian speaker of the house who is cited often, um he couldn't, by by uh Mr. Twigg Smith account, couldn't win election in 1890 or 92. Well, those were years in which Hawaiians were still voting systematically. He won election in the years after Hawaiians were excluded from voting and became a spokesman for um for you know, uh this this wonderful relationship that was emerging. So You're suggesting he was native Hawaiian, but really representing non-native Hawaiian viewpoints?
[00:45:03] Tom Coffman: It's a very common phenomenon when one large nation takes over people in some kind of uh expansionist or imperialist situation that a certain percentage of those who are being taken over begin to take on the uh viewpoint of those who are taking over. Okay. And I I just that that's it's it's a let's just try to back off and be objective about that and not and and not and not be moralistic about uh about those who were involved really. Okay. Um that is uh one. I think the um the fact that uh um the petitions, the the there this was not one petition. I found in the National Archives seven petition by native seven petitions by native Hawaiian societies protesting aspects of every step of annexation along the way. And uh these are these have never been treated as treated seriously by historians.
[00:46:13] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, we're running toward the the last part of the hour and I've got some people who've been waiting real patiently. I'm going to get to you, but I'm going to have to ask that you keep it real short. First, Ilona from Kauai. Good morning, Ilona.
[00:46:26] Speaker Ilona: Aloha.
[00:46:26] Randall Roth: Aloha.
[00:46:27] Speaker Ilona: It's a comment directed towards a a statement made by Thurston Twigg-Smith about the United States of America did not overthrow the Hawaiian government or the Kingdom of Hawaii. In essence, that is true, we are the people. We are the government, we the Kanaka Maoli, and we are still here. Okay, but yes, they're on the other side, the overthrow did occur. Okay. Now, further about the petition that he also stated uh not having an effect. Okay. As far as I'm concerned and I believe deeply in my heart those of our ancestors, the voice of the people is the voice of God. Okay. And that is what our late loved queen Liliʻuokalani also said. So I say I believe truly in my heart and also with the facts that I have found as presented. And also the statement made too, the investigating US Minister James Blount, that we are the voice, we the people, and we do still carry the voice of God.
[00:48:04] Randall Roth: Okay. Ilona, I'm sorry to rush you. I really appreciate uh your comment this morning. I'm going to have to move on, but thank you very much for sharing that with us. Thank you. We go to You betcha. We go to Yolanda from Kaimuki. Good morning, Yolanda.
[00:48:35] Speaker Yolanda: Hi, Aloha. How are you doing? Fine. Good. I just want to comment. Um this has been really an exciting year with the what's been happening, also with the annexation, signing the petitions. Um I can only say that as part Hawaiian and also American, um we cannot This is really an important human lesson that we must all learn here. And that basically we can't um develop or try to gain happiness from other other people's unhappiness. And what happened with the Native Hawaiians 100 years ago, also relates back to my family. My great grandfather was from Belgium. My great grandmother was from of course from here and he did support her and he supported the queen um during this time, so much so that we have his uh one of his muskets that he used. Um and at that time, this this history was completely hidden from us. As a family, no one talked about it. Within the last 15 years, it's been brought out. Um where it's going to take us. I I hope that we'll all, you know, gain some um I hope that native Hawaiian rights will be respected more. The land issues will be that will be taken care of. The land will be restored to Native Hawaiians. and that there'll be some justice that will be restored um about this I you know, Yolanda. Yes. Um you've made a very eloquent statement already and I apologize, but every time a line goes blank, it beeps up again. I've got a bunch of people. First of all, I'm going to ask people to stop calling because we're just not going to get to you. And secondly, I've got to move on so that the people who have been waiting over a half hour can can Thank you so much. Thank you, Yolanda. Thank you. Um Keoki from uh Makiki, if you could please very briefly give us the heart of what you'd like to share this morning.
[00:50:01] Speaker Keoki: Okay. Let me take the points one by one. Okay, uh the caller from Kanioki made two points uh that just was the last batch. He said that if uh the United States had to take over Hawaii, it was checked against other countries from taking over Hawaii. That caller shows ignorance on the significance of Thomas Square where the British actually handed the islands back to King Kamehameha III. Secondly, his other point, that the uh election, the mandate of 1959 statehood, was a strong mandate, and I just say it's BS because it's a masterful sales ploy. Uh let me make a uh let me give an example Well, it Keoki, it has to be real quick. Okay. Uh, I'm a car salesman. I'm trying to sell you a car. You walk into my lot. I ask you, do you want this car or do you want that car? If you're uh really strong, you would say, I want neither car. I'm going somewhere else. But uh statehood uh election was would you want want to be a state or would you want to stay a territory? It's like a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. You've you've made your point very well, Keoki. Thank you very much for calling.
[00:51:18] Randall Roth: Ron from Kaimuki, you're on the air.
[00:51:21] Speaker Ron: Hi. Thank you. Good morning. I just wanted to focus on the American policy in that period, which is, I I'm convinced is expansion. And I think the uh the Tution Smith's book, his point on the American role was basically to protect, basically passive and to protect American interests. But I think because at that point in Hawaii, there were um an actual vote as to the people, and there were, there were a strong position to go with annexation, a military intervention was not necessary. And if you compare America's role in other territories that they were expanding in the Philippines for example, where they actually had um a war that lasted for about three years because the people there did not want to be part of of America and I think focusing on what American policy at the time and looking at the military action supporting that policy would give us a clearer picture of what uh America's intentions were in that period and how they took over Hawaii at that time was based on the context of what was going on in in the state. But if you compare it overall, a more international perspective on what America's intentions which was expansion, I think they would just have done what they needed to do to to get the additional territories that they wanted.
[00:52:40] Randall Roth: Okay. Ron, I appreciate your call this morning. I'm going to take one more and all of you who've called in, I really apologize that we're just not going to be able to get to you this morning. Thank you, though, for trying. Let's go to Barbara in Makiki. Barbara, you've literally got 30 seconds.
[00:52:55] Speaker Barbara: Uh, I am so thankful that you've had this program and the discussion and also that this petition came forward. I think it's a learning experience for all of us. But what I see is it is racial. It has been and it's a power differential and the statement that, well, what [unintelligible — audio glitch] and you've got to accept it. I think that reflects it and morally I wonder how comfortable we're living with we are to live with that today.
[00:53:24] Randall Roth: Okay. Barbara, thank you very much. And that was 26 seconds, by the way. Well done. We just have less than two minutes. We have a little bit more than one minute each for our five guests. I'm going to start with Twigg-Smith. Twigg, I apologize for our technical difficulties. I know you've not been able to hear any of the callers, but you've got a little bit over a minute to either highlight what needs to be highlighted or add what needs to be added. Go for it.
[00:54:05] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Okay. I think it's convenient to want to stop as Tom indicated he did at annexation when you want to measure what uh Hawaiians feel about the attachment to the United States. But you can't overlook what happened in the in the immediate years following that. And I think he knows full well that the legislature for the deck two decades after annexation was very heavily uh uh dominated by Native Hawaiians and in fact in 1903 it was 73% Native Hawaiians and and assuming that legislators reflect the views of their constituents, which I'm sure Tom would agree with, they voted 100% for statehood. So within the just a couple of years after the organic or the admission of organic act, here we have the legislature representing the viewpoint of all the people of Hawaii, not dominated by Hawaiians and voting 100% for statehood. So, I think it's what's divisive in my mind is to keep fighting against facts like that. I mean, why stop at annexation? Why not take a look at what moves ahead, what moves us all ahead and get us all together so that we can put this period behind us. It is painful for Hawaiians, particularly those who see a potential power structure involved in in sovereignty, but I think it's divisive to keep pounding on it.
[00:55:21] Randall Roth: Okay. Twigg, thank you very much. I really appreciate your participation this morning and again, that's Thurston Twigg-Smith. And he has his own book about uh Hawaii, Hawaiian sovereignty, do the facts matter. Uh would encourage you to get that book along with Tom Coffman's Nation Within. We go next to Jim Mee. Jim, you've got just a minute or so for any concluding thoughts.
[00:55:43] Jim Mee: Thanks, Randy. Um, I found a quote that uh something written by Albertine Lumis who wrote uh a book about the queen and the early period after the overthrow which I thought is real good and it's this really is not a comment about Coffman's book so much as the way we need to look at this. And what Albertine writes is quote, "History can harm us if it is read with anger and bitterness, if it is viewed with as a suit for damages with the historian as either a prosecuting attorney or a counsel for the defense. History, rather, must be read and written with compassion and with awe and with an understanding of man's weaknesses and blundering as well as of his idealism and intense loyalties." And that comment or that passage just sort of struck me as really that when we're looking at this whole complicated situation, I think we need to be um looking at it in a way, I think again looking towards the future and what can we do now, and this helps us understand our past, but I think I really do think that in a way we have to move on and come up with positive uh solutions to what's going on today.
[00:56:54] Randall Roth: Okay. Jim, I really appreciate your participation this morning. That's Jim Mee, uh an attorney here in Honolulu. Well, he mentioned uh history and historians, so I'll go next to Ed Crepo, who is a historian, teaches at William and Mary. Ed, you've got just over a minute. Okay. Thank you, good morning. I just wanted to focus on the American policy in that period, which is I am convinced is expansion. And I think the reason Thurston Twig-Smith's book is pointing on the American role was basically to protect and basically passive and to protect American interests. But I think because at that point in Hawaii there were an actual vote of the people, and there were, there were a strong position to go with annexation, a military intervention was not necessary. And if you compare America's role in other territories that they were expanding, in the Philippines for example, where they actually had a war that lasted for about three years because the people there did not want to be part of America. And I think focusing on what American policy at the time and looking at the military action supporting that policy would give us a clearer picture of what America's intentions were in that period and how they took over Hawaii at that time was based on the context of what was going on in the state. But if you compare it overall from an international perspective on what America's intentions, which was expansion, I think they would have just done what they needed to do to get the additional territories that they wanted.
[00:57:00] Randall Roth: Minute to share your concluding thoughts.
[00:57:02] Jim Mee: Okay, Randy, thank you. And thank you for having me on this morning. I've enjoyed it a great deal. Uh actually, I agree with uh the quote that uh Jimmy presented. That's the way I approach history and that's uh one of my objectives is to foster understanding and not to make judgment, not to be a hanging judge or a prosecutor. Um but I think in his earlier comments, I'd like to uh speak to something he said. He said, well, the Constitution doesn't really deal with how you confront expansion or how you allow for expansion in the United States and I think uh that's a good insight. I think that Americans throughout the 19th century were troubled about this. There there's a there's a tension between wanting to expand and essentially wanting to have an empire and still being true to your principle of self-determination.
[00:57:50] Jim Mee: And when uh push came to shove, in many cases, Americans chose expansion over self-determination uh because they wanted to absorb people. They wanted I mean, this this objection came up uh from Jefferson's Louisiana purchase, came up in the context of Texas, and and so, um I I think that this is a tension in American history about self-determination and territorial acquisition, and I think that's a tension of empire, and I think what Tom's book has shown is that that tension existed in the 1890s and apparently uh most Hawaiians did not feel this was an action of self-determination.
[00:58:31] Randall Roth: Okay. David Foreman, you've got 45 seconds.
[00:58:35] David Forman: The joy of being last. Not quite last, but almost. Um no, I some of the things Jim was was saying earlier about uh his ancestors remind me some of one of the themes that came out of the conference I attended is this theme of collaboration and resistance, the complicated nature of this whether it's viewed as uh cultural preservation or just [unintelligible — audio glitch] tension of the times, making difficult decisions. For example, uh one of the analogies somebody drew was uh a human scholar likening the Hawaiian Monarchy's expression of faith in American ideals, self-determination that Ed was talking about, to uh General Maximo Gomez's order demobilizing Cuban troops, which he intended as a as a demonstration of of Cuban capacity for civilized governments, but was interpreted as, you know, Cuban weakness.
[00:59:21] David Forman: Um and and that's what we need to talk about. Uh another theme is disruption and recovery, um that we've gone through this process of dismembering forgotten ideas and we're now going through the process of remembering, um whereas uh one of our well, I I hear the music, so.
[00:59:36] Randall Roth: Tom Coffman, would you forgive me if I would tell people to go buy your book that that's your voice, and instead of 30 seconds of closing comments, is that okay? That's fine. Thank you. Buying nation within. It's extremely well-written. Anyone who calls Hawaii home needs to have read it. Our producer is Susie Roth, helping this morning was Jenny Tonji and Sherry Gannaway, our production chief is Jeff Olardi. Uh watch tonight Channel 8 on Channel 8 news, you'll see a report of this show. Look to see how well they can capture in two or three minutes what we discussed over the course of an hour. Tonight, 8:00, 1380 AM, listen to our show on Bishop Estate. Next week we've got Chief Justice Ronald Moon. It's going to be a great show. You've been listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. I'm Randy Roth, Aloha.