Can the State of Hawaii Secede From the Union?

A segment of the Native Hawaiian population has been discontent ever since 1959 when their homeland was inducted into the United States as the 50th State.

Hawaiian annexation to the United States was opposed by most Hawaiians in 1893, but their will was overruled by a minority of foreigners residing on Oahu. Things changed in Hawaii and 66 years later, most citizens voted in favor of becoming a U.S. State.

Hawaiian Kingdom and the Haole

Along Farrington Highway in Waianae, Oahu, a big sign in the front yard of a Native Hawaiian's house screams, "Fifty years of lies!" And at the Iolani Palace in Honolulu, a tour guide of Hawaiian and Samoan descent informs visitors that many Hawaiian youth, upon learning how the kingdom of Hawaii was annexed to the United States, "are very angry." On the island of Kauai, "Haole, Go Home!" is scrawled on a giant rock for all to see. 'Haole' is the Hawaiian term for the white man.

"The struggle for Hawaiian sovereignty has not been dismissed as impractical or impossible, and many native Hawaiians demand a truthful and rigorous reassessment," says Glen Grant in the introduction to Hawaii's Story by Queen Liliuokalani. "The Hawaiian language and culture, suppressed after American annexation, are being revived." However, according to the U.S. census, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders now compose just 9.1% of the Hawaiian people.

Can these stirrings of nationalist pride ever be satisfied?

Originally each of the Hawaiian islands had their own sovereign king, but King Kamehameha the Great wanted to unify and rule over them all, and his expansionist efforts were finally rewarded in a bloody battle on Oahu. He is now celebrated in school textbooks as a giant in Hawaiian history. On a more global level, this is similar to what happened again to Hawaii, only the islands were joined as one to the larger country of the United States.

Free Hawaii From the U.S. Military?

Small and isolated in the midst of the Pacific Ocean, the Hawaiian islands are strategic yet vulnerable to powerfully backed invaders. In the early 1800's, Russia held Kauai as a protectorate, and in 1843, Lord Paulet of Britain forced the acquiescence of King Kamehameha III, until Admiral Thomas restored his sovereignty. The islands were at the mercy of the British. After that, officers in the United States navy were interested in controlling Hawaii, and the USS Boston invaded Honolulu in 1893. In 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to control the Pacific Ocean theater, but lost their bid to the United States.

To remain sovereign, Hawaii would need a strong military to thwart conquerors, yet the islands have no natural metal. The ground is composed of volcanic rock and sand, so metal for weapons and ships would have to be imported from distant lands. It almost seems destiny would preclude Hawaii from being self-governing.

Hawaiian People Benefit from U.S. Citizenship

In 1959, Hawaiians voted 17 to 1 in favor of U.S. statehood. As a State in the United States, Hawaiian citizens could share in the basic rights and privileges of all U.S. citizens, have a voice in Washington, D.C. and be protected by the U.S. armed forces. They would be exempt from import and export taxes on trade with other States on the mainland, and could share equally in the U. S. economy. They are entitled to the federal funds for government services every other State receives.

Because the government and economy of Hawaii have by 2010 have become so enmeshed with that of the mainland United States, it is unlikely full Hawaiian national sovereignty can be restored. Some Native Hawaiians still feel historical outrage and, in acknowledgment, Bill Clinton signed a formal apology to them in 1993. However, they have also gained benefits from joining the federation of the United States, with the most recent producing the 44th President, a gentleman named Barack Obama.

Read more about Hawaii:

Dianne Smith, photo by Colleen Goncalves

Dianne Smith - Copywriter and Freelance Editor

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 9+4?
13 Comments

Comments

Jun 13, 2010 7:02 PM
Guest :
If the overthrow of the hawaiian government was illegal and the annexation of hawaii was illegal than how could the statehood balloting have been valid? We kanaka's (can't call ourselves hawaiians anymore because the white man is claiming the 'hawaiians' voted 17-1 for statehood when in fact that ballot contained only 'statehood or territory' when we kanaka maoli's demanded that that ballot include INDEPENDENCE!! too but the thieves who stole our land refused to include that obvious option in the ballot. As for 'the hawaiians' voting for statehood remember that the white man used every treacherous. deceitful and cowardly trick to wrest control of hawaii from kanaka maoli starting with that phony Bayonet Constitution, than the Overthrow, than that Annexation, than that phony statehood fraud, and now the Akaka Bill which I, a pure kanaka maoli, strenuously oppose.
Jun 14, 2010 11:35 AM
Guest :
One of several points to made regarding the issue of Hawaii independence is that the Hawaii statehood process was very different from the rest of the Union. Hawaii's removal from its status as 50th state, would not technically be secession, because we have not formally met the criteria for statehood on two points: 1) the 1898 annexation was not legal in that there is no annexation treaty and that as a result of the illegal overthrow in 1893, for which the US has apologized for in the 1993 Apology Resolution, the status of the US claim for Hawaii as territory in 1898 has been disqualified.
the second point, more of which can be found here: http://statehoodhawaii.org/wp/index.php/2009/05/12/the-statehood-plebiscite /, the claim that 94.6% of the population voted for statehood-- let alone residents-- needs clarification. Much of the population who voted were military-- or had become recent residents as a result of their military status. Really only 36 % of Hawaii's eligible voting population participated in the election, and out of that 36%, 94% voted in favor of statehood.

The other problem, is that the US having already ratified the UN charter, had recognized Hawaii as an non-self-governing territory that was on the table for decolonization. As a result of the cold war, Hawaii was quickly adopted as a state without concern for the process of what was then, the accepted and legitimate route for self-determination.

Another error I'd like to point out, is the issue of race. Although the kingdom was ruled by kanaka maoli, the subjects of the kingdom were of many different races which included not only whites, but a majority of non-kanaka Asians, of whom the Hawaiian Kingdom accepted as citizens.

Currently, there is much belief that the Hawaii independence movement is driven solely by Kanaka Maoli, but there are many non-kanakas who actively support the movement and believe, as history has shown, that US constitutional law is incompatible with Hawaii sustainability. It is like fitting a square peg into a round hole, and again, if US law continues to assert dominance in Hawaii, the islands of Hawaii and the Kanaka Maoli will continue to suffer.
Oct 29, 2010 1:39 AM
Guest :
Oh I see, so as soon as the cold war is over(thus ridding the great nuclear threat of the Soviet Union), Hawaii wants their sovereignty.

Or imagine WW2. What if the Japanese took Hawaii? You think you'd be anywhere close to where you are now in the world? No, because chances are the United States wouldn't be a country.

You need the United States. If not, I think it should be up to the "native hawaiians" to mass produce the American flag with 49 stars.

And finally, while you're at it, why not fight to get U.S. Samoa back too! I mean, after-all, you're descendants of it.
Nov 8, 2010 10:49 AM
Guest :
The cold war has been going on since the 1890's with our fight for freedom from AmeriKKKan hegemony and empire......What a bunch of lawless genocidal Racist Thieves.....
Mar 21, 2011 6:40 AM
Guest :
This article has many flaws and disinformation which is disingenuous in nature. Let me add to the comments made which are more akin to Hawaiian actual history. For one thing, haole means foreigner; so let's put it in the correct context so the message is clearer. The acknowledged conspiracy which the U.S. admits goes deeper and more involved by the U.S. government and the powers controlled by influential people in Washington, D.C. After the collusion with the Secy. of State, James Blaine, U.S. Minister, Stevens and the landing of the U.S. troops, Lorrin Thurston with U.S. President Harrison's blessing, the destabilization of the Kingdom's government, Invasion, and takeover, the setting up of the U.S. puppet Provisional government was done.

When Cleveland succeeded Harrison, the queen's protest caused Cleveland to witthdraw the treaty of annexation and investigated the events in Hawaii. The second time the P.G.s (renamed themselves Republic of Hawaii) and resubmittted a treaty of annexation. It failed to receive the required 2/3rds majority vote especially since 96% of the Hawaiian subjects signed the Ku'e Petitions of 1897 against U.S. annexation. McKinley succeeded Cleveland and was open to a joint resolution to get Hawaii under U.S. control because of the war with Spain and using the same ploy as 9-11, the U.S.S. Maine incident and yellow journalism gained support from U.S. Americans but not enough for 2/3rds majority vote; Congress resorted to a Joint Resolution sponsored by Rep. Newlands. It was an unlawful instrument that only had internal domestic jurisdiction; not in another recognized treatied sovereign, independent foreign country as was the Kingdom of Hawaii.

As far as another country taking possession of Hawaii, it was a fear tactic coined by President John Quincy Adams in 1826 who feared Britain or French interest and influence over Hawaii. It should be noted that Hawaii had over 25 treaties with countries around the world and the U.S. was the only country to breach its treaty with Hawaii and refused to restore it after belligerently occupying it.

Since 1893, the U.S. continues violating the law of occupation and disregarding Hawaii's neutrality which it signed on to since 1854 and reaffirmed in 1865. Thus Hawaii is still a neutral nation and the U.S. is violating the laws of neutrality.

Cleveland and the Queen signed and agreed on the Executive Agreement and Executive Restoration which is still in efffect to reinstate the Kingdom of Hawaii and to de-occupy its territory. Since there was never a lawful cession; the is no secession but de-occupation.
Mar 21, 2011 7:52 PM
Dianne Smith :
I am in complete sympathy with your feelings, and acknowledge the historical realities you describe. With that said, we have to ask ourselves, Where do we go from here? A lot has happened in the past 100 years.

Many innocent people would be hurt if what you are hoping for occurs. Sometimes, painful as it is, we have to move on from gross injustice and pick up the pieces where they lie. Hawaii is beloved by many people from many countries, and they would feel as bereft as the original Polynesians if their lands were wrested away from them and given to a Hawaiian faction numbering 10% of the people.

You are overlooking the benefits of being part of the United States of America. The USA has its problems but it provides military protection, a say in world events and many opportunities for Hawaiian citizens on the mainland. I am not saying it is easy, but please look forward, not backward.
Apr 9, 2011 8:23 PM
Guest :
aloha... can the state of hawaii secede from the union?... theres an easy answer... if you know what the problem really is... and the answer is... Hawaii was never ceded to the union... the Hawaiian Kingdom never transfer their sovereignty or title to their National lands to the republic or to the u s a... theres only two ways for cession ...consent or losing a war ... there was no war... the queen and its people twice protested against annexation and won... 1898 the u s a unilaterly siezed the sovereign independent neutral nation of Hawaiian Kingdom for military purposes... they say its been 113 years of occupation... the longest of any nation that has been occupied
Apr 11, 2011 9:12 AM
Dianne Smith :
Hawaii is a part of the United States, with representatives in both Houses of Congress, not to mention providing the current President, Barack Obama, in the Executive Branch. In order for it to be "given back" to native Hawaiians, the State of Hawaii would have to officially secede from the Union. This is not a moot point to be casually dismissed, despite one's feelings toward Hawaiian history.
May 31, 2011 6:44 PM
Guest :
Well, here we go again...
When I describe to a group of children what the term "often" suggests, I like to describe the frequency at which you can find incompetent people on the internet spewing their views as if it is were fact. When I describe "rare" I point to articles like this, and explain, that it is "rare" for anyone to come across an article that is as false, deceitful, convoluting and misleading as this poor excuse of an article.
I have this argument at least once a month with someone who acts as if they can begin to understand the issue at hand. They generally believe in God and like to be called progressive because they like hearing about the safety of the planets animals and some other empty passion like recycling. Yet, when it comes to the most basic humanitarian freedoms that have taken the human race its entire existence to come even close to comprehension, some degenerate, given the power of the pen gratefully lends us their uninformed knowledge on the subject.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Hawaii was stolen, and Hawaiians feel DESERVEDLY slighted? The United States CONGRESS acknowledges this. Unfortunately, just like the people who were native to North America, this land will never be given back, can never be given back, and wont ever be given back. Thats just how it is. This is because of foreigners. Thats it. When people like you come online to share your opinions on how Hawaiians are wrong for being upset and implying they are ignorant for not seeing the benefits of their relation to the U.S., you just expose how uninformed you are. Seriously, how many Hawaiians do you know? I mean do you personally know even one 1/16th Hawaiians? I wasn't born in Hawaii, but I was raised here, and with my "haole" eyes, even I can see that ALL you are doing is promoting racism with this article by creating deeper social cleavages in the islands. I read somewhere that you own a condo here in Hawaii so you may experience better sunsets. Well thats dandy, you have your condo, and your cute house in California. So for some reason, you feel inspired to come down on your chariot of knowledge and try to correct the people who have lived here for thousands of years because maybe you experinced a glare in grocery store once? You may have been called a haole while you trot around on a families land that was forcibly taken from them, and you get so impassioned that you write this article. Who the hell do you think you are? Honestly think about these people. Think about what they were capable of, and the freedoms they experienced before the foreigners came. Trans pacific navigation, populations as vast as they are today, a complex culture. Ruined.
- Peace
May 31, 2011 10:41 PM
Dianne Smith :
I am honored you took the time to post, conversing with such a degenerate, uninformed and racist person such as myself. Honest debate is always encouraged by name-calling and emotional appeals.

If you are having this same argument "at least once a month," there is obviously a point of view others share that differs from your own.

For the record, I have conceded the historical reality of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, and I do know several native Hawaiians, and have sympathized with their feelings. My focus is on 'Where do we go from here?' which is the same direction you think:
"This land will never be given back, can never be given back, and won't ever be given back. Thats just how it is. This is because of foreigners. Thats it."

-Peace
Aug 30, 2011 3:45 PM
Guest :
Hawaii is the closest of any state to be even remotely close to sucession and thus regaining it's own sovereignity. Nevermind of what is gained by being "part of the United States." That is incidental. Hawaii is the principal location for all shipping and leisure tourism along the sea lanes in the Pacific Ocean. They will be just fine economically without control or support from the American mainland. And don't you think for a one single second that these wonderful people can't defend their nation because an independent Hawaii would have about fifty countries lined up on the beach with blank checks and open treaties.
Sep 1, 2011 9:55 AM
Dianne Smith :
Do you really think other countries would offer Hawaii blank checks for their defense, without getting anything in return? Hawaii is completely vulnerable to a takeover by any strong country who traverses the Pacific.

Upon reflection, I have a question for you: Was it legitimate for King Kamehameha the Great to conquer the kings of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and Kauai so he could rule a unified chain of Hawaiian islands? He used violent methods to obtain his goals, yet Hawaii still calls him "The Great." Please compare that to the annexation of Hawaii into the United States, which didn't involve all the bloody battles.

To me, it was the same thing only on a broader plane, though the U.S. was more humane. Cooler heads prevailed over those who wanted to assassinate Queen Liliuokalani. The United States has its problems, but it did create the most decent government organization for common people the world has ever seen.
Nov 4, 2011 4:50 PM
Dianne Smith :
I found something interesting to add to this discussion written by Phyllis Schlafly from the web page: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/sept05/05-09-28.html

She says, "Follow the money to search for motives behind this odd-ball legislation (The Akaka Bill). The clue to the mystery is Section 8(b) of S. 147, which ensures that the new Native Hawaiian government can negotiate gambling rights with the state of Hawaii and the federal government.

"It appears that some politically well-connected Hawaiians want to cash in on the profitable casino privileges that have been given to American Indian tribes. Another possible motive is that a small group of Native Hawaiians is trying to grab some of the high-priced real estate in the beautiful islands and claim it as their tribal heritage.

"To find these pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, the Native Hawaiians want to pretend they are a "tribe." This is fantasyland: the sponsors must have been reading too much Harry Potter. Creating a race-based society would take us in the wrong direction, a step backwards, offensive to our Constitution and to our national commitment to equal justice for all."

I would like to ask Hawaiians if they truly want to have casino gambling in the islands. If this really what is driving all the fuss?
13 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement