Anti-annexation petitions – Page 820

Interesting analysis of the oft-referenced anti-annexation Kue petition.

Apparently, it was rife with fraud.

For those who don’t want to download each page individually, here’s a 16mb PDF:

Anti-Annexation Petition Fraud.pdf

And here’s a slightly less detailed, but still readable 2.9mb PDF (Acrobat 7.0 compatible):

Anti-Annexation Petition Fraud – optimized.pdf

Here’s a 2.9mb PDF optimized for Acrobat 6.0:


12 Thoughts on “Anti-annexation petitions – Page 820

  1. Lana on 12/4/2005 at 7:15 pm said:

    Prove that it was fraud. I didn’t think so. Oh wait. I remember that you value the data at Wikipedia:

  2. Read the proof, I’ve given you the PDF file, and you can compare the allegations of fraud to the pages of the petition that were scanned in. If you can find fault with any of the allegations, perhaps you can assert that the proof of fraud isn’t compelling, but you’d have to read the document first :).


  3. mana on 12/5/2005 at 11:47 am said:

    Find fault???

    hmmmm, this could be a tough one…..

    maybe the fact that it was WRITTEN BY LORRIN THURSTON!!?!!

    You may recognize Thurston as one of the main proponents of annexation/overthrow/oppression.

  4. Ad hominem again, eh Mana?

    Look, if Hitler and Gandhi were in the same room, and Gandhi said 2+2=5, and Hitler said, nope, 2+2=4, would it matter who they were?

    Thurston’s authorship does not immediately repudiate his conclusions. Read the critique, and respond on the points – merely claiming a character flaw of the messenger does not invalidate the message.

  5. mana on 12/5/2005 at 3:24 pm said:

    Thurston’s authorship does not prove Ghandi’s mathematical genius either. What it does prove is his inherent bias and motivation. Claiming unbiased reporting on the part of Thurston is in itself a flawed thesis. Every man has a flawed bias…even Ghandi, however Ghandi’s motivation was alot more admirable.

    Thurston began with a conclusion and filled a bunch of papers with numbers and words to support his conclusion. Much the same way Morgan did.

  6. Thurston makes specific assertions and backs them up with references. Regardless of what you think his bias is, his assertions are of a nature which can be objectively determined as factual or unfactual.

    You can argue whether or not the fraud Thurston points out renders the petitions illegitimate or not, but you cannot deny the fraud exists without specifically refuting his assertions rather than his character.

    And remember, Morgan wasn’t the sole author of the Morgan Committee Report – a bi-partisan group of 9 senators cross examined witnesses under oath in public. A much more transparent process than one man doing a secret investigation with a predetermined conclusion like Blount, don’t you agree?

  7. mana on 12/5/2005 at 6:24 pm said:

    I don’t know if your point is valid…”Regardless of what you think his bias is, his assertions are of a nature which can be objectively determined as factual or unfactual.” That is the equivalent to allowing Saddam Hussein to be the sole witness at his own trial. Of course his testimony is valid but isnt his motivation to stay alive and thus skew the facts? Applying that to Thurston’s essay we get his motivation for 1) political gain 2) increased plantation revenues. In effect, Thurston’s ultimate objective is greed. As the old saying goes “avarice is the root of all evil.”

    Our disagreement stems from your inability to accept his behavior as an opportunistic capitalist. The fact that he controlled the newspapers in Hawaii for a period of time before(?) and after the overthrow just proves his ability to interpret information to his own suiting. I bet if we were to look up the papers during that era, we would find annexationist propaganda riddled throughout his paper.

    You want to characterize Thurston as an “unbiased reporter?” Honestly, how can you interpret Thurston as anything but a pro-annexationist? His report should come with a disclaimer on the bottom…”Information provided was conducted on behalf of ‘fake Hawaiians for annexation’.”

    Your point is that character should be thrown out when factual and potentially fabricated information is presented. My point is that the bias(charcter) should be considered, ESPECIALLY when interpreting history. This is where our disagreement exists and where i bid you a fair adieu.

    Justify the trail of tears. I know you can.

  8. That is the equivalent to allowing Saddam Hussein to be the sole witness at his own trial.

    No, it is the equivalent of allowing Saddam Hussein to present evidence at his own trial. References my dear man, references are fact-checkable. If Hussein said that he made a phone call on the night of August 5, 1985, we can check his phone records. Similarly, Thurston has clearly given specific references of fraud in the Kue Petitions – fact checkable, not just opinion.

    Our disagreement stems from your inability to accept verifiable information when presented by an author you disagree with. The fact that he controlled the newspapers has nothing to do with his assertion that:

    Page 30: #20-24 inclusive are in the same handwriting
    Page 31: #17-23 inclusive are in the same handwriting
    Page 126: #4-35 inclusive are in the same handwriting

    Look at the pages (they’re online). You can independently verify or debunk his assertions. Character has nothing to do with it once there’s a factual reference.

  9. mana on 12/5/2005 at 10:31 pm said:

    Page 30: #20-24 inclusive are in the same handwriting
    Page 31: #17-23 inclusive are in the same handwriting
    Page 126: #4-35 inclusive are in the same handwriting[/i]

    These can be rationally explained away. 1) In those days it wouldn’t be inconceivable that there were Hawaiians that could neither read nor write. They would need assistance to write their names. 2) Elderly, those that were bed ridden who wanted their name to be counted sent family members or neighbors to “bear witness,” a sort of proxy voting if you will. I’m not a bit surprised that Thurston lumped every possibility into one condition. It follows his agenda. Like I stated earlier, he had a conclusion and needed something to support it with.

    I’m sure such explanations are preposterous for you since they don’t agree with your ineffectual chest pounding.

    Again, Thurston’s report should have a big fat disclaimer stating his political intent (much the same way campaigners are required to assert political affiliation when publicizing candidates).

  10. I’m sure such explanations are preposterous for you since they don’t agree with your ineffectual chest pounding.

    No, actually, they’re probably the first rational thing you’ve said :). I may disagree, but at least you offered some argument besides character assassination.

    1) My understanding is that the literacy rate in the Kingdom was ridiculously high;

    2) The petitions were circulated, and could have been brought to the infirm and elderly (and probably were).

    I don’t know if you’ve actually read Thurston’s analysis, but let me share with you a section you may find interesting…it’s certainly anecdotal, and I would take it with a grain of salt, but if even slightly true is damnning:

    In conclusion I desire to make some explanation concerning the getting up and signings of petitions in Hawaii.

    It is common knowledge there, that even to a greater degree than in this country, there is little feeling of responsibility attached to signing a petition;

    Among the native Hawaiians especially the feeling is that it is rather an honor to see ones name attached to a petition and that it would be unfriendly to refuse to sign a petition, an act which costs nothing.

    For example, the petition in question was, I am credibly informed, taken to many prominent supporters of Annexation and they were requested to sign it simply to show that there was no hard feeling in the matter.

    Subscription papers were also passed around to raise money to send the Royalist delegation now in Washington and leading annexationists asked to subscribe thereto.

    As an example of the irresponsible signing of petitions, which have come to my personal knowledge, I was a member of the Hawaiian Legislature in 1886, and noticing a native member sitting at my side, writing at the top of a document which contained a number of signatures, I asked him what he was doing.

    He replied that he was preparing a petition in support of a Bill which he had introduced.

    I said, “Why you don’t mean to say that you get your petition signed first, and write in the heading afterwards, do you?”

    “Why certainly I do”, he replied. “It’s too much bother to send clear to my district to get a petition, so I had a lot of blank sheets signed up in advance, and every time I want a petition to back up one of my measures, I fill in a heading on one of these sheets”. He thereupon pulled open the drawer of his desk and showed me some 20 or 30 sheets all signed in blank with a space at the top in which to insert the object of the petition.

    Another member of the Hawaiian Legislature once made a wager that within a given time he could secure a hundred signatures to a petition praying the Legislature to make an appropriation to move one of the Islands so that it would be nearer to headquarters and easier to get at. He got the signatures within the time named.

  11. mana on 12/5/2005 at 11:42 pm said:

    Well than, by your quote you just disproved article 1 in your above post. If the literacy rate was so high we have to assume that education was at an appropriate level as well. Seeing that people would sign petitions blindly doesn’t coincide with an educated population.

  12. I think it’s hard to claim that just because you had a literate, educated population that they would all be legalistic and only sign petitions if they firmly supported the petition’s position. It is very plausible to have a literate, educated population with cultural mores that included motives for signing petitions (to show good faith, just for fun) that we may see as peculiar.

    Even in the most educated and literate society, there exists corruption, wouldn’t you agree? How else would we have white collar crime? :)

    Nice try though, Mana, nice try!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave the field below empty!

Post Navigation