Twigg-Smith (ineptly) defends ancestor's crimes

Thurston Twigg-Smith wrote a letter to the editor Wednesday which I am posting, along with some responses. I haven't time at the moment to take apart every distorted statement in his letter, but just for starters, let's look at his first paragraph. He says the assumption is erroneous "that the United States not only invaded Hawai'i and still occupies it, but broke treaties and contracts with the kingdom in the process."

Let us just refer to the United States Congress' own findings of fact in their 1993 resolution apologizing for these actions.

The sixth whereas clause of the apology states that:

"in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation..."

The next clause is relevant to include because it describes Lorrin Thurston, Twigg-Smith's grandfather, whose actions he is so desperate to justify:

"on the afternoon of January 17,1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government."

Then the next whereas clause says:

"the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law."

Hmm, now according to Twigg-Smith, it is an erroneous assumption that the U.S. invaded Hawaii or broke treaties. Congress, on the other hand, was very explicit 100 years later in acknowledging, in those exact terms, that the U.S. did in fact invade Hawaii and violate treaties.

Perhaps Twiggy ought to go reread the Apology and get his facts straight.

Honolulu Avertiser
August 20, 2003

Hawai'i Citizens Overthrew Queen

Many of the letters you are publishing from Akaka bill supporters have one erroneous thing in common: They all start with the assumption that the United States not only invaded Hawai'i and still occupies it, but broke treaties and contracts with the kingdom in the process; therefore, reparations are due.

Completely overlooked is the fact that the kingdom was lost because Queen Lili'uokalani was breaking a contract she had made with her own subjects, the residents of Hawai'i. When she took office, she swore to uphold the constitution of Hawai'i. That constitution contained explicit language providing for amendments. So when Lili'uokalani announced she was promulgating a new constitution on her own, she was breaking her contract with her people. Even her own Cabinet objected.

Her proposed constitution was unacceptable to most everyone. Among other things, it would have disenfranchised every subject, Native Hawaiian or otherwise. She proposed she would appoint the upper house of the Legislature instead of allowing that to continue to be done by public election.

The community immediately supported an uprising along lines familiar to Americans since 1776: " ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (i.e., ... deriving ... just powers from the consent of the governed ...) it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ... " (U.S. Declaration of Independence).

The men who led the revolution in Hawai'i in 1893 were subjects of the queen acting in good conscience. They knew their action would either be supported by the populace as a whole or be rejected by the queen's forces and the rebels dealt with. She said later she would have had them put to death.

The United States, far from supporting the revolution as the activists today would have us believe, demanded the rebels return the kingdom to the queen. They refused.

The United States and every other country in the world that was involved in the Pacific then recognized the new government of Hawai'i, first a provisional government, then a republic.

When the Republic of Hawai'i was finally annexed by the United States, the kingdom was long gone and most of its former subjects had become citizens of the republic.

Unlike the treatment given to conquered Indians, all Hawaiians became voting citizens of the United States and retained title to their lands, and government debts were paid off. Native Hawaiians used their vote to elect other Native Hawaiians to Hawai'i's highest elected office, delegate to Congress, until the late 1920s, and controlled the Legislature and the majority of government offices until World War II.

Any claims they were treated unjustly by the United States are as unwarranted and uncollectible as any claims descendants of the natives of O'ahu or Maui or Moloka'i might have against Kamehameha the Great and his Kingdom of Hawai'i because he invaded those islands, killed off the opposition and seized all of their lands.

T. Twigg-Smith
Honolulu

Sent: August 22, 2003

U.S. Government Complicit in Overthrow

Who is Thurston Twigg-Smith really trying to fool in his latest letter? An apparent reason for his continual denial of the American role in the overthrow is that his grandfather was the principal conspirator of the coup d'etat to begin with.

I too am a fifth generation descendant of Hawai`i. As a kama`aina, I'd say Lorrin Thurston's tactics in aiding and abetting the U.S. government were treasonous, genocidal and morally reprehensible. Twigg-Smith's own rationale and justifications for past deeds are equally repugnant.

In January 1893, the town of Honolulu was at peace. By landing armed marines under the pretext of protecting American lives and property, U.S. Minister John L. Stevens' order was a clear violation of international law. The U.S. abrogation of bi-lateral treaties usurped the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1993, the U.S. Congress and President signed Public Law 103-150 apologizing for the affair. The United States has admitted to the illegality of its role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian nation.

Tony Castanha

Honolulu Advertiser
August 21, 2003

U.S. Admitted Stealing From The Hawaiians

Regarding T. Twigg-Smith's Aug. 20 letter "Hawai'i citizens overthrew queen": If what Twigg-Smith says is historically correct, why did the Congress of the United States confess, in the 1993 Hawaiian Apology Law 103-150, to stealing from the Hawaiians?

It's very interesting also to see the network media ask the question "Why don't people like Americans in the Middle East?" If one would study the historical facts about how the United States government treated the Hawaiian people, the answer to the Middle East question would be very clear.

The United States stole from the Hawaiian people, and it is still stealing today.

Stop the stealing, brandish the banner of Hawaiian independence.

Eric Po'ohina
Kailua

Honolulu Advertiser
Wednesday, August 27, 2003

The truth does indeed matter in overthrow

The Aug. 20 letter on Lili'uokalani was incorrect — even worse, a revision of history — in intimating that her own people overthrew her. The book "Does the Truth Matter?" was written by the same individual who now writes that her own people overthrew the queen.

Yes, the truth does matter. The constitution identified here that she is said not to have upheld was the one forced upon her brother, Kalakaua, and named the Bayonet Constitution of 1887, and was to deprive her people of the right to vote and was protested ever after.

Lili'u correctly disliked the forced constitution and only sought to restore to her people the vote with her proposed constitution of 1893 — a move that offered the opportunity to her detractors awaiting the right moment to have the ripe, golden pear (Hawai'i) fall into the right basket.

The 12 men who planned the 1893 overthrow of Lili'u, some of whom were naturalized citizens, seized the rights of 40,000 other citizens and arguably committed treason. But they adroitly reversed the treason charge to Lili'u to have her convicted and imprisoned, and they threatened to hang her supporters.

Lili'u did not take an oath to support or join the Republic of Hawai'i as a citizen and be subject to the charges against her. Even the 1887 constitution's author admitted it was not legally enacted.

Yes, the truth matters, even as convoluted as it is becoming by revision.

Louis Agard
Honolulu

Saturday, August 30, 2003

Twigg-Smith left out important information

Regarding Thurston Twigg-Smith's comments on Aug. 21: He failed to say that the so-called citizens of Hawai'i who overthrew the monarchy were white men who conspired together and that his grandfather, L.A. Thurston, was one of them.

Mr. Twigg-Smith has spent a large portion of his life twisting the facts and manipulating the truth to rationalize and justify the wrongdoing that his grandfather did to the Hawaiian people. When he passes from this life and stands face to face with the source of all truth, he will then realize that all of his time, effort and energy on this matter should have been wisely used to correct the wrong that his grandfather did.

When the enemies who dwell among us disturb me, I am always comforted by Psalm 37. It reminds me that I must be steadfast and trust in God, because eventually our enemies do die and then they are no more.

We in Hawai'i are so blessed to be racially diversified. We have learned and shared so much with each other. God bless the good people who have the spirit of aloha and do not try to use it for their own personal gain, and who respect the true host culture of these Islands.

J. Kaululaau
'Aiea

Posted: Sat - August 23, 2003 at 02:32 PM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1126750129"); >

Twigg-Smith (ineptly) defends ancestor's crimes

> >