| 24/7 Customer Service | Place Ad

Saturday, May 18, 2013

www.staradvertiser.comNewsBreaking

Comment | View Comments

Names from anti-annexation petition to be displayed in Washington

By Associated Press

POSTED: 07:14 a.m. HST, Oct 10, 2012
LAST UPDATED: 07:24 a.m. HST, Oct 10, 2012

The names of more than two thousand people who more than a century ago signed petitions opposing the U.S. annexation of Hawaii will be displayed this month in the heart of Washington, D.C.

The names will be displayed on the center panel of the National Mall next Monday and Tuesday.

Honolulu-based Ka Lei Maile Alii Hawaiian Civic Club is sponsoring the exhibit.

Nearly 40,000 people signed Kue petitions opposing annexation in 1897. The U.S. went ahead and annexed the islands in 1898, five years after businessmen backed by U.S.-Marines overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy.

The civic club is also sponsoring a historical reenactment of a meeting of Hawaiian patriots that will be performed at the National Museum of the American Indian on Sunday and at a Washington hotel on Tuesday.

More From The Star-Advertiser

Liliuokalani's day noted with solemnity

Comment | View Comments

SEE ALSO: http://kuewall.org/index.html

on October 10,2012 | 08:08AM

Anonymous wrote:

lol Captain cook was still swinging on the nut tree when Polynesians was roaming the land.

on October 10,2012 | 09:29AM

Ken_Conklin wrote:

There are two major errors of fact in the AP report. 1. The revolution of 1893 was NOT "backed by U.S. Marines." The U.S. peacekeepers were called ashore just like has happened in many other places like Haiti, Liberia, etc, because local events (competing mass meetings at the Armory and at the Palace) indicated there would be civil war, rioting and arson. U.S. troops did not take over any buildings, did not enter the grounds of the Palace or the government building (Ali'iolani Hale), did not arrest the Queen, and did not give any guns or ammunition to either side. They stayed in barracks, ready if needed but never actually used. 2. There were NOT 40,000 signatures on any petition. There were 21,000 signatures on a petition opposing annexation. There was allegedly another petition with 17,000 signatures demanding that Lili'uokalani be put back on the throne. Those are very different topics, and it's absurd to add the number of signatures on the two petitions on different topics.

on October 10,2012 | 12:07PM

holokanaka wrote:

"Those were two different topics..." That may be true but the goal was the same, to reinstate the rightful and legal government. The "revolution" was a conspiracy. Read the Blount Report.

on October 10,2012 | 02:01PM

haukea wrote:

some quotes from eyewitnesses in 1893: We landed at Brewer’s Wharf and marched up to the corner of Fort and Merchant streets and there left a marine company to protect the American Legation and Consulate. The rest of the battalion turned and marched down King Street in front of the Palace. Lt. Lucien Young, U.S.S. Boston There were three companies of blue jackets with Springfield rifles, one company of blue jackets with Gatling guns and artillery, and a company of marines in full arms, having a total strength of 152 men and 11 officers… Afterwards they were marched back to town and took up quarters for the night at the Arion Hall, a building separated from the Government building by a lane known as Mililani Street, about twenty feet wide and not more than 200 yards directly in front of the Queen’s palace. Charles Wilson, Marshal of the Hawaiian Kingdom At the time the men landed, the town was perfectly quiet. Business hours were about over and men, women and children were in the streets…When the troops found quarters, the populace dispersed, the most of them going to the band concert at the hotel which was fully attended as it was a beautiful moonlight evening. F. Wundenberg, clerk, Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom The pretext that the troops were landed to protect American lives and property was spurious and false. Both lives and property were as safe here as in Kennebec, Maine. Paul Neumann, attorney

on October 16,2012 | 10:19AM

Ken_Conklin wrote:

A rich poohindend (distorted real name), your dream has come true. See below.

on October 10,2012 | 12:27PM

false wrote:

These are our aumakua and we are still here. They are not your aumakua so you can go home.

on October 10,2012 | 03:59PM

Lanikaula wrote:

mahalo!

on October 17,2012 | 08:34PM

Classic_59Chevy wrote:

This comment has been deleted.

on October 10,2012 | 01:45PM

holokanaka wrote:

Japan did look to annex Hawaii. Japan unlike the united states honored their treaty.

on October 10,2012 | 02:04PM

holokanaka wrote:

Correction: Japan did not look to annex Hawaii. Sorry

on October 10,2012 | 02:20PM

false wrote:

Kalakaua wanted the alliance. We are not too far apart as people in culture. Kalakaua wanted to be the central seat of Polynesia. There was a different colonization afloat. It just didn't have enough fire power or economic control.

on October 10,2012 | 03:58PM

holokanaka wrote:

Was it colonization or just seeking a unification of the peoples of the Pacific?

on October 10,2012 | 05:31PM

false wrote:

You are correct but you know Kalakaua. He was thinking grand. As it turned out the Pacific people colonized Hawaii for economics that are still in play.

on October 10,2012 | 06:01PM