Talk:USS Boston (1884)

Comment

The change to mention the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom is good - one more of the many DANFS whitewashes fixed - but I think the word "illegal" is ill-advised here. Almost by definition, overthrowing a government is illegal in the ex-government's eyes, and in 1893 there was no system of international law available to express an opinion on the legality of this sort of intervention, so it looks like we're applying a 21st-century POV to a 19th-century action. White governments of the time were generally opposed to nonwhite rule anywhere in the world, and I suspect the US action was met with more approval than disapproval internationally. Stan 00:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The use of the word illegal is perfectly justified as not only international bodies but even the Government of the US have recognized the illegality of the overthrown.

On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii. Quoting from the Congress resolution:

The Congress -

(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;

(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;

(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;

Furthermore in 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding.

Recognition by U.S. Authorities of the illegality of the overthrown date back to soon after the fact. On Dec. 18, 1893, President Cleveland stated before congress:

"And, finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the queen and her government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States."

He further stated:

"if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."

He then concluded by placing the matter in the hands of Congress. Unfortunately Congress failed to redress the wrongs committed.

A political gesture made 100 years after the event doesn't invalidate anything I said - our goal is to be neutral observers, not pro-Hawaii, pro-US, pro-international law, pro-manifest destiny, whatever. We have whole articles on the whole subject of legality of the Hawaii overthrow, adding the unqualified and unneeded adjective here looks a lot like an attempt to influence the opinions of readers, in other words pushing a POV. Stan 01:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's up with the masts and rigging on this ship? Isn't it coal-fired? The article really doesn't say. Fuzzform 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)