Correcting Kinzer - Revision history

Jere Krischel: /* Kalakaua the puppet */

2007-06-27T08:56:49Z

‎Kalakaua the puppet

Jere Krischel: /* The Great Mahele Conspiracy? */

2007-06-27T08:50:52Z

‎The Great Mahele Conspiracy?

Ken Conklin: /* Sugar planters? */

2007-06-27T08:06:30Z

‎Sugar planters?

Jere Krischel: /* A shocking announcement? */

2007-06-27T08:05:13Z

‎A shocking announcement?

Jere Krischel: /* A shocking announcement? */

2007-06-27T07:47:27Z

‎A shocking announcement?

Jere Krischel: /* A shocking announcement? */

2007-06-27T07:46:59Z

‎A shocking announcement?

Jere Krischel: /* Sugar planters? */

2007-06-27T07:46:45Z

‎Sugar planters?

Jere Krischel: /* Sugar planters? */

2007-06-27T07:30:05Z

‎Sugar planters?

Jere Krischel: /* Sugar planters? */

2007-06-27T07:25:09Z

‎Sugar planters?

Jere Krischel: New page: Stephen Kinzer's book, ''Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq'', attempts to trace a line from the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 to the Iraq War of 2003. Withou...

2007-06-27T07:17:14Z

New page: Stephen Kinzer's book, ''Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq'', attempts to trace a line from the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 to the Iraq War of 2003. Withou...

New page

Stephen Kinzer's book, ''Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq'', attempts to trace a line from the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 to the Iraq War of 2003. Without passing judgment on the material in his book regarding places other than Hawaii, it seems Kinzer has drawn upon a mistaken view of the history of the Hawaiian Islands, and has unfortunately muddied the already brackish waters of the past. This page will help sort out factual errors presented by Kinzer, and hopefully be a reference for clarifying the historical record.

==Sugar planters?==
On page 4, Kinzer states, ''The influence that economic power exercises over American foreign policy has grown tremendously since the days when ambitious planters in Hawaii realized that by bringing their islands into the United States, they would be able to send their sugar to markets on the mainland without paying import duties.''. Although catchy, and certainly reasonable on its face, his statement suffers from several problems.

1) The sugar issue in the late 1890s due to the passage of the MiKinley Tarriff did not add any import duties to Hawaiian sugar - in fact, it eliminated all duties on all foreign sugar. This did have a deleterious effect in Hawaii, but only because it undermined a previous advantage held by Hawaiian sugar producers granted by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874. Annexation to the United States was a double-edged sword for Hawaiian sugar, because on the one hand, they would enjoy a 2 cent per pound bounty as "domestic" producers - but then they would also be subject to U.S. labor laws and regulations, whereas under the kingdom they were unfettered by such concerns. A very prominent sugar baron, Claus Spreckels aka "King Spreckels", was a staunch royalist, and to assert that all Hawaiian sugar planters were of one mind on the matter is deceptive.

Richard D. Weigle wrote a piece, [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28194702%2916%3A1%3C41%3ASATHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution] in 1947, stating, ''In actual fact the planters comprised a vigorous bloc of opinion opposing annexation to the United States, and the key to their attitude lies in their dependence upon contract labor. Annexation to the United States would mean conformity to American immigration legislation and the cessation of the influx of laborers from Asiatic countries so necessary to the life of the plantations.'' Weigle further states, ''we may at the at the outset discard the thesis that the revolution was an attempt by the Hawaiian planters to secure the domestic bounty...the elusive bounty would not have gone to the Hawaiian planters it its entirety...The planters probably realized that its continuance was extremely uncertain.''

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 <blockquote>''As late as the middle of 1886 the working alliance between Spreckels, Kalakaua and Gibson seemed to be intact.  But some serious tensions were developing.  People were referring openly to Spreckels as King Claus, and in the legislature some members of the opposition kept asking pointedly who was in charge of the kingdom, His Majesty Spreckels or His Majesty Kalakaua.''<ref>Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time p231-232</ref></blockquote>
-Kinzer also switches the order of events on page 15, putting first the renewed Reciprocity Treaty, and then the 1887 constitution.  In fact, the 1887 constitution was proclaimed on July 6th, and the ratification of the new terms of the Reciprocity Treaty (leasing Pearl Harbor to the United States) was on November 29th of 1887.
+Kinzer also switches the order of events on page 15, putting first the renewed Reciprocity Treaty, and then the 1887 constitution.  In fact, the 1887 constitution was proclaimed on July 6th, and the ratification of the new terms of the Reciprocity Treaty (leasing Pearl Harbor to the United States) was on November 29th of 1887.  Seen in the proper order, it is clear that Kalakaua's corruption, under the influence of advisors and creditors such as Gibson and Spreckels, sparked the concern of the Reform Party of the Kingdom of Hawaii and inspired them to take action.  Following that move towards good government, leasing Pearl Harbor in return for continued reciprocity wasn't undue "influence" over Kalakaua, it was the expression of the reformed government of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
 ==References==
 <references/>

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 <blockquote>''For the foreigners, certainly, it was the beginning of a new era; but for the Hawaiian commoners it was the beginning of the end.  '''In their first exercise of free choice they chose to uproot themselves.'''  They were liberated at last from the burdensome tax payments to the chiefs that had kept them tied to the land, and most of them found more interesting things to do than grow taro, which required a long time and a lot of hard work...The Great Mahele, the great division, cut the connection, '''because once the commoner was free to buy land he was also free to sell it, and that was a freedom he understood.'''''<ref>Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time, p128</ref></blockquote>
 ==References==
 <references/>

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Although catchy, and certainly reasonable on its face, his statement suffers from several problems.
-The sugar issue in the late 1890s due to the passage of the MiKinley Tarriff did not add any import duties to Hawaiian sugar - in fact, it eliminated all duties on all foreign sugar.  This did have a deleterious effect in Hawaii, but only because it undermined a previous advantage held by Hawaiian sugar producers granted by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874.  Annexation to the United States was a double-edged sword for Hawaiian sugar, because on the one hand, they would enjoy a 2 cent per pound bounty as "domestic" producers - but then they would also be subject to U.S. labor laws and regulations, whereas under the kingdom they were unfettered by such concerns.  A very prominent sugar baron, Claus Spreckels aka "King Spreckels", was a staunch royalist, and to assert that all Hawaiian sugar planters were of one mind on the matter is deceptive.
+The sugar issue in the late 1890s due to the passage of the McKinley Tarriff did not add any import duties to Hawaiian sugar - in fact, it eliminated all duties on all foreign sugar.  This did have a deleterious effect in Hawaii, but only because it undermined a previous advantage held by Hawaiian sugar producers granted by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874.  Annexation to the United States was a double-edged sword for Hawaiian sugar, because on the one hand, they would enjoy a 2 cent per pound bounty as "domestic" producers - but then they would also be subject to U.S. labor laws and regulations, whereas under the kingdom they were unfettered by such concerns.  A very prominent sugar baron, Claus Spreckels aka "King Spreckels", was a staunch royalist, and to assert that all Hawaiian sugar planters were of one mind on the matter is deceptive.
 Richard D. Weigle wrote a piece, [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28194702%2916%3A1%3C41%3ASATHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution] in the February 1947 Pacific Historical Review, stating:

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 <blockquote>''I was surprised when the cabinet informed me that they did not think it advisable for me to take such a step, that there was danger of an uprising, etc. '''I told them I would not have taken such a step if they had not encouraged me.''' They had led me out to the edge of a precipice, and now were leaving me to take the step alone. It was humiliating. I said, "Why not give the people the constitution, and I will bear the brunt of all the blame afterwards." Mr. Peterson said, "We have not read the constitution." '''I told him he had had it in his possession a whole month.'''''<ref>[http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-7.html#B Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen], Appendix B</ref></blockquote>
 ==References==
 <references/>

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 <blockquote>''on that January day [January 14, 1893] she convened her cabinet to make a shocking announcement.  She would proclaim a new constitution...''.<ref>Kinzer, Overthrow, p9</ref></blockquote>
-On the other hand, Liliuokalani, in her own book, insists that her announcement should not have come as a surprise to her newly picked cabinet:
+On the other hand, Liliuokalani, in her own book, insists that her announcement should not have come as a shock to her newly picked cabinet:
 <blockquote>''I was surprised when the cabinet informed me that they did not think it advisable for me to take such a step, that there was danger of an uprising, etc. '''I told them I would not have taken such a step if they had not encouraged me.''' They had led me out to the edge of a precipice, and now were leaving me to take the step alone. It was humiliating. I said, "Why not give the people the constitution, and I will bear the brunt of all the blame afterwards." Mr. Peterson said, "We have not read the constitution." '''I told him he had had it in his possession a whole month.'''''<ref>[http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-7.html#B Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen], Appendix B</ref></blockquote>

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Sugar planters?==
-On page 4, Kinzer states, ''The influence that economic power exercises over American foreign policy has grown tremendously since the days when ambitious planters in Hawaii realized that by bringing their islands into the United States, they would be able to send their sugar to markets on the mainland without paying import duties.''.  Although catchy, and certainly reasonable on its face, his statement suffers from several problems.
+On page 4, Kinzer states:
-) The sugar issue in the late 1890s due to the passage of the MiKinley Tarriff did not add any import duties to Hawaiian sugar - in fact, it eliminated all duties on all foreign sugar.  This did have a deleterious effect in Hawaii, but only because it undermined a previous advantage held by Hawaiian sugar producers granted by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874.  Annexation to the United States was a double-edged sword for Hawaiian sugar, because on the one hand, they would enjoy a 2 cent per pound bounty as "domestic" producers - but then they would also be subject to U.S. labor laws and regulations, whereas under the kingdom they were unfettered by such concerns.  A very prominent sugar baron, Claus Spreckels aka "King Spreckels", was a staunch royalist, and to assert that all Hawaiian sugar planters were of one mind on the matter is deceptive.
+Although catchy, and certainly reasonable on its face, his statement suffers from several problems.
-Richard D. Weigle wrote a piece, [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28194702%2916%3A1%3C41%3ASATHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution] in 1947, stating, ''In actual fact the planters comprised a vigorous bloc of opinion opposing annexation to the United States, and the key to their attitude lies in their dependence upon contract labor.  Annexation to the United States would mean conformity to American immigration legislation and the cessation of the influx of laborers from Asiatic countries so necessary to the life of the plantations.''  Weigle further states, ''we may at the at the outset discard the thesis that the revolution was an attempt by the Hawaiian planters to secure the domestic bounty...the elusive bounty would not have gone to the Hawaiian planters it its entirety...The planters probably realized that its continuance was extremely uncertain.''
+The sugar issue in the late 1890s due to the passage of the MiKinley Tarriff did not add any import duties to Hawaiian sugar - in fact, it eliminated all duties on all foreign sugar.  This did have a deleterious effect in Hawaii, but only because it undermined a previous advantage held by Hawaiian sugar producers granted by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874.  Annexation to the United States was a double-edged sword for Hawaiian sugar, because on the one hand, they would enjoy a 2 cent per pound bounty as "domestic" producers - but then they would also be subject to U.S. labor laws and regulations, whereas under the kingdom they were unfettered by such concerns.  A very prominent sugar baron, Claus Spreckels aka "King Spreckels", was a staunch royalist, and to assert that all Hawaiian sugar planters were of one mind on the matter is deceptive.