Background
The Blount Report had concluded that the U.S. Minister to Hawaii John L. Stevens carried out unauthorized partisan activities, including the landing of U.S. Marines under a false or exaggerated pretext, to support the anti-royalist conspirators and that these actions were instrumental to the success of the overthrow of the queen. The Morgan Report contradicted the Blount Report, finding all individuals involved in the overthrow – with the notable exception of Queen Liliuokalani – "not guilty". The Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report of 1993, commenting on the two competing reports, states: "The truth lies somewhere between the two reports." The Morgan Report's submission in 1894 roughly coincided with the Turpie Resolution, which terminated Cleveland's efforts to restore the Queen. Cleveland accepted the conclusions of the Morgan Report, continued to engage in diplomatic relations with the Provisional Government, recognized theOrigin
The Morgan Report was the final result of Cleveland's referral of the matter of the overthrow to Congress. Cleveland from the Blount Report:Though I am not able now to report a definite change in the actual situation, I am convinced that the difficulties lately created both here and in Hawaii and now standing in the way of a solution through Executive action of the problem presented, render it proper, and expedient, that the matter should be referred to the broader authority and discretion of Congress, with a full explanation of the endeavor thus far made to deal with the emergency and a statement of the considerations which have governed my action......I therefore submit this communication with its accompanying exhibits, embracing Mr. Blount's report, the evidence and statements taken by him at Honolulu, the instructions given to both Mr. Blount and Minister Willis, and correspondence connected with the affair in hand. In commending this subject to the extended powers and wide discretion of the Congress, I desire to add the assurance that I shall be much gratified to cooperate in any legislative plan which may be devised for the solution of the problem before us which is consistent with American honor, integrity and morality. :GROVER CLEVELAND :Executive Mansion, :Washington, December 18, 1893
Historical background
At the time the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown, PresidentSubsequent action by Congress
The Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894, which was protested by Queen Liliuokalani, was a direct result of the Morgan Report. The Turpie Resolution ended all hope of the Queen for further intervention on her behalf.Cleveland's final position
Cleveland accepted the verdict of the Congressional committee, abandoned efforts to reinstate the Queen, and treated the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii as the internationally recognized lawful successors of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Despite his strong words of December 18, 1893, after the investigation conducted by the Morgan Committee, and the Senate's Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894, he never again questioned the legitimacy of the overthrow. In his last bit of resistance to accepting the overthrow, Cleveland managed to get the wording for the Turpie Resolution changed to refer to the "people" rather than the "Provisional Government", although the net effect was still a complete renunciation of his hopes to restore Queen Liliuokalani to power.Specific conclusions of the committee
The majority report submitted contained the following conclusions: *A condition of affairs existed in Honolulu which led naturally to the apprehension that violence or civil commotion would ensue, in which the peace and security of American citizens would be put in peril, as had been done on three or more separate occasions previously when changes occurred or were about to occur in the government of Hawaii; *The action of the Queen in an effort to overturn the constitution of 1887, to which she had sworn obedience and support, had been accepted and treated by a large and powerful body of the people as a violation of her constitutional obligations, revolutionary in its character and purposes and that it amounted to an act of abdication on her part, so far as her powers and the rights of the people under the constitution of 1887 were concerned. This state of opinion and this condition of the executive head of the Hawaiian Government neutralized its power to protect American citizens and other foreigners in their treaty rights, and also their rights under the laws of Hawaii; *In landing the troops from the ''Boston'' there was no demonstration of actual hostilities, and their conduct was as quiet and as respectful as it had been on many previous occasions when they were landed for the purpose of drill and practice. In passing the palace on their way to the point at which they were halted, the Queen appeared upon the balcony and the troops respectfully saluted her by presenting arms and dipping the flag, and made no demonstration of any hostile intent; *The committee agree that such was the condition of the Hawaiian Government at the time that the troops were landed in Honolulu from the steam warship ''Boston''; that there was then an interregnum in Hawaii as respects the executive office; that there was no executive power to enforce the laws of Hawaii, and that it was the right of the United States to land troops upon those islands at any place where it was necessary in the opinion of our minister to protect our citizens; *Afterward, on February 1, 1893, the American minister caused the flag of the United States to be raised on the Government building in Honolulu, and assumed and declared a protectorate over that nation in the name of the United States. This act on the part of our minister was without authority, and was void for want of power. It was disavowed by Secretary Foster and rebuked by Secretary Gresham, and the order to abandon the protectorate and haul down the flag was in accordance with the duty and honor of the United States. To haul down the flag of the United States was only an order to preserve its honor. A minority report by the four Republicans criticized Blount's appointment and activities. A minority report by four of the Democrats criticized Minister Stevens for his actions. All the Senators exonerated the actions of the U.S. military. Broken down by topic, the votes were as follows: *9–0: U.S. military acted in neutrality *5–4: Blount's appointment was constitutional (Morgan and his fellow Democrats) *5–4: Steven's actions were justified (Morgan and four Republicans)Members of the Committee
Republicans
*Democrats
* John Tyler Morgan *Controversies
Online accessibility
The Morgan Report has been treated with a significant amount of skepticism by pro-sovereignty academics, and has largely been glossed over since the 1970s. Although the Morgan Report was planned to be digitized by the University of Hawaii as part of a collection of annexation documents in 2001, only the pro-sovereignty Blount Report was completed. The library's project ended in 2002 and no further grants were applied for; it is also understood that a devastating flood in 2004 caused significant setbacks for their program. The project narrative for the 2002 grant application to digitize documents, including the Morgan Report said, "The materials selected however are not one-sided. The Morgan Report challenges the Blount Report, which implicated the United States in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy." It was not until volunteers outside of the University of Hawaii took on the task of digitizing the Morgan Report that it was made available online in 2006. Since its online publication, the University of Hawaii has maintained a link to the http://morganreport.org website alongside their other annexation documents.Morgan's racism
The Morgan Committee was chaired by Senator John Tyler Morgan ofSelective witness list/inherent political bias of senators
Morgan Report critics note that Morgan did not visit Hawai`i before issuing his Morgan Report and instead held hearings in Washington, D.C., which, in effect, eliminated any Hawaiian representation of the royalist position. James Henderson Blount represented the royalist position well in his Blount Report, which was nearly exclusively royalist, and by his own testimony in front of the committee. Senator George Gray was particularly anti-annexationist, and brought forward witnesses with testimony critical of the Provisional Government. Of the total of nine senators, four Republicans and three Democrats indicated their support for annexation. Archived in According to Hawaii historian Ralph Kuykendall, witnesses in the Morgan Investigation were picked to make out the best possible case for annexation. Under the guidance of Lorrin Thurston and W. D. Alexander, Morgan made the case against the queen and for annexation. The earlier Blount report did not interview members of the Committee of Safety, and their testimony as well as other evidence put forth during the Morgan Committee hearings contradicted the assertions Blount had made in hist report. Kuykendall described Blount's report as a "lawyer's brief, making the best possible case for the queen and against Stevens", while the Morgan Report "presented an equally effective case for the Provisional Government and Stevens, and against the Queen."Unclear majority opinion
A common critique of the Morgan Report is that there was no majority opinion, and that three separate minority opinions existed – Morgan's, the Republicans' and the Democrats'. It is often argued that only Morgan signed the report in its entirety. Hawaiian historian Ralph Kuykendall characterized it this way:In the end, the majority of the Senate committee on foreign relations found everyone 'not guilty' save the queen, although only Morgan, who wrote the final report, agreed with all parts of it. The Democrats on the committee supported Blount and Willis, imputed the blame to Stevens for his 'inopportune zeal,' and found him deserving of public censure. The Republicans on the committee also filed a report. They refused to censure Blount and Willis; they placed the blame higher up. And at the end, not a single item for future action was recommended in the report.Towards the end of the main findings section, there is a break after the primary report, followed by a minor disagreement over the constitutionality of Blount's appointment and actions, and then the signatures of the Republicans who joined Morgan, a Democrat, in the rest of the majority opinion. The four Republicans stated their assent to the initial section of the report with the following statement:
We are in entire accord with the essential findings in the exceedingly able report submitted by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.The four Democrats who disagreed with the four Republicans, and with Morgan (again, a Democrat), clearly indicate their minority dissent, signing their four names as "Members of Minority". Even though they dissented in regards to whether Minister Stevens should have been censured, they still held the U.S. troops blameless, noting that they remained scrupulously neutral throughout their time ashore:
On the other hand, we are not inclined to censure Capt. Wiltse, commanding the United States war-ship ''Boston'', or the officers of that vessel. Their position was one of extreme delicacy and difficulty, and we appreciate their anxiety to afford protection to the lives and property of American citizens. The force of United States marines of the ''Boston'' with their ordinary arms stationed at the American legation, and at the consulate in Honolulu, would have effectually represented the authority and power of the United States Government, and would have afforded whatever protection American interests might have required; and at the same time would have avoided the appearance of coercion or duress, either upon the people of Honolulu or the Queen in the controversy between them.
References
External links