You are on page 1of 8

Morgan Report

Morgan Report
The Morgan Report was an 1894 report concluding an official U.S. Congressional investigation into the events
surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, including the alleged role of U.S. military troops (both
bluejackets and marines) in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani. Along with the Blount Report submitted in 1893,
it is one of the main source documents compiling the testimony of witnesses and participants in the overthrow of the
Hawaiian Kingdom in January 1893. The Morgan Report was the final result of an official U.S. Congressional
investigation into the overthrow, conducted by the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, whose
chairman was Senator John Tyler Morgan, Democrat of Alabama.
The Report is formally named the Senate Report 227 of the 53rd Congress, second session, and dated February 26,
1894. It was printed as part of a large volume containing other government documents: "Reports of Committee on
Foreign Relations 1789-1901 Volume 6."[1]
Part of a series on Hawaii

Hawaiian sovereignty
movement
Main issues

Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Removal from U.N. Decolonization list

International law

United States constitutional law

Legal status

Opposition to the Overthrow


Governments

Kingdom
Provisional Government
Republic
Historical Conflicts

Hawaiian Rebellions

Bloodless Revolution

Wilcox Rebellion of 1889

Wilcox Rebellions

Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Leper War

Black Week

1895 Counter-Revolution
Modern Events

Hawaiian Renaissance
2008 occupation of Iolani Palace
Parties & Organizations

Aloha Aina Party of Hawaii


Home Rule Party of Hawaii
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Documents & Ideas

Blount Report

Morgan Report

Bayonet Constitution

Morgan Report

Treaty of Annexation (Hawaii)

K Petitions

Newlands Resolution

Hawaiian Organic Act

Apology Resolution

Akaka Bill
Books

Hawaii's Story
Kaua Kuloko 1895

v
t

e [2]

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.[3] The Morgan
Report contradicted the Blount Report, finding all individuals involved in the overthrowwith 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."[4]
The Morgan Report's submission in 1894 roughly coincided with the Turpie Resolution, which terminated
Cleveland's efforts to restore the Queen. Cleveland (under intense pressure due to domestic unrest in the U.S. and
arguably through coercion) accepted the conclusions of the Morgan Report, continued to engage in diplomatic
relations with the Provisional Government, recognized the Republic of Hawaii upon its declaration on July 4, 1894,
and even negotiated treaties originally ratified under the Kingdom government with the Republic.
The nine member Senate Foreign Relations Committee that submitted the report could not agree on a final
conclusion, and the oft-cited executive summary was signed only by Morgan himself. Other Republican members of
the Committee, including Senators Sherman, Frye, Dolph, and Davis, generally agreed with the report, but refused to
endorse the actions of Blount (who was appointed by President Cleveland, a Democrat). Democratic Senators
Turpie, Butler, Daniel, and Gray did not endorse the approval of Minister Stevens' actions; while Butler and Turpie
generally approved annexation, they refused to endorse the Morgan Report's conclusions because of the implications
for internal disorder in Hawaii. Gray and Daniel were apparently outright opposed to annexation.

Origin
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

Morgan Report
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
Main articles: Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Provisional Government of Hawaii
At the time the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown, President Benjamin Harrison, a Republican expansionist, was
only a few weeks from the end of his term. The new Provisional Government of Hawai'i immediately delivered a
treaty of annexation to President Harrison, who referred it favorably to the Senate for ratification on February 15,
1893.
Grover Cleveland, a Democrat opposed to expansionism and colonialism, became President on March 4, 1893 and
withdrew the treaty from the Senate on March 9, 1893.
James Blount, a Democrat, had been chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs during Harrison's
term. On March 11, without seeking confirmation from the Senate (though it was in session at the time), President
Cleveland appointed Blount to be a special envoy to Hawaii with "paramount" powers and secret instructions to
investigate the circumstances of the revolution and the stability of the Provisional Government.
Blount held secret, informal conversations with royalists and annexationists in Honolulu. He invited certain
witnesses to sit with him to give formal statements in the presence of a stenographer, to be published later in the
Blount Report. These statements were not under oath, and several of them were recanted when made public.
Historian Ernest Andrade wrote, "He interviewed only a few people involved in the instigation and carrying out of
the revolution. He took no testimony from the officers and enlisted men of USS Boston." He delivered a report to
President Cleveland on July 17, 1893 claiming improper U.S. backing for the revolution had been responsible for its
success, and that the Provisional Government lacked popular support.
On the basis of Blount's report, President Cleveland began working towards the restoration of the Queen, conditional
upon amnesty towards those responsible for the overthrow. Minister Willis was unable to convince the Queen to
grant the Committee of Safety amnesty in return for the throne until December 18, 1893, at which point Willis, on
behalf of Cleveland, then ordered Hawai'i President Sanford Dole to dissolve the Provisional Government and
restore the Queen. Dole flatly refused in a blistering letter decrying Cleveland's interference. Unbeknownst to Willis,
on the same day he demanded President Dole to step down, December 18, Cleveland had already given up
convincing the Queen to grant amnesty, and sent a message to Congress declaring the revolution improper and
decrying the U.S. involvement in it, referring the matter to their authority.
In response the Senate passed a resolution empowering its Foreign Relations Committee to hold public hearings
under oath, and cross-examine witnesses, to investigate U.S. involvement in the revolution and also to investigate
whether it had been proper for President Cleveland to appoint Blount and give him extraordinary powers to represent
the U.S. and intervene in Hawaii without Senate confirmation.
The final result of this investigation is the Morgan Report, submitted on February 26, 1894.

Morgan Report

Subsequent 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 the 1st day of February, 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 4 Republicans criticized Blount's appointment and activities.
A minority report by 4 of the Democrats criticized Minister Stevens for his actions.

Morgan Report
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 + his fellow Democrats)
5-4: Steven's actions were justified (Morgan + 4 Republicans)

Members of the Committee


Republicans

John Sherman
Joseph N. Dolph
William P. Frye
Cushman K. Davis

Democrats
John Tyler Morgan

Matthew Butler
David Turpie
John W. Daniel
George Gray

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 for the past 30 years. 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 caused significant setbacks for their program.[5] 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."[6]
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.[7] Since its online publication, the University of Hawaii has maintained a link
to the http://morganreport.org website alongside their other annexation documents.[8]

Morgan's racism
The Morgan Committee was chaired by Senator John Tyler Morgan of Jim Crow political fame. An Alabama
Review article written by Thomas Upchurch states that Morgan wanted to find Black southerners a new homeland.
Throughout the report, Morgan used the term kanaka, derived from the Hawaiian knaka iwi for a person of
Hawaiian descent. Many native Hawaiians consider this white appropriation of the term to be a racial slur. The use
of the word kanaka in the report allowed Morgan to redefine the term Hawaiian to refer to the geographical, rather
than the historical, inhabitants, thus creating a literary deceit that disassociated native Hawaiians from Hawaii.
Others note that racist bigotry of Chairman Morgan, although unfortunately common at the time, does not
necessarily invalidate the evidence gathered during the hearings, especially considering that Morgan was just one of

Morgan Report
nine senators conducting the investigation.Yet his vote was the deciding factor in the 5-4 decision of whether
Stevens acted lawfully.

Selective 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.:647 Of the
total of nine senators, four Republicans and three Democrats indicated their support for annexation.[9]
According to Hawaii historian Ralph Kuykendall, witnesses in the Morgan Investigation were picked to make out the
best possible case for annexation.:647 Under the guidance of Lorrin Thurston and W.D. Alexander, Morgan made the
case against the queen and for annexation.:648 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.":648
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."

Morgan Report

References
[1] (Senate report 227 of Fifty-third Congress, Second Session)
[2] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement& action=edit
[3] Tate, Merze. (1965). The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. p.
235.
[4] Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report (http:/ / wiki. grassrootinstitute. org/ mediawiki/ index.
php?title=NHSC_Diplomatic_And_Congressional_History:_From_Monarchy_To_Statehood#The_Blount_and_Morgan_Reports) p.297
[5] October 2004 Library Flood (http:/ / www. hawaii. edu/ ala/ flood. php)
[6] Hawaii Council for the Humanities Grant Application 2002 - NARRATIVE (http:/ / libweb. hawaii. edu/ digicoll/ grants/ HCH/
hch02-narrative. htm)
[7] Honolulu Advertiser, January 15, 2006 (http:/ / the. honoluluadvertiser. com/ article/ 2006/ Jan/ 15/ op/ FP601150311. html) Morgan Report
is public at long last
[8] The Annexation Of Hawaii: A Collection Of Documents (http:/ / libweb. hawaii. edu/ digicoll/ annexation/ annexation. html)
[9] Archived in

External links
The Morgan Report (http://morganreport.org/) (full-text, scanned images and additional commentary)
"Blount Report: Affairs in Hawaii" (http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/blount.html). University of
Hawaii at Manoa Library. Retrieved June 17, 2010. (digitized text)
"The Annexation Of Hawaii: A Collection Of Documents" (http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/
annexation.html). Hawaiian Digital Collection. University of Hawaii at Manoa Library. Retrieved June 17,
2010.
Kelso, Alison (May 13, 2008). "Living on the Crust of a Volcano - The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy
and the United State's Involvement" (http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/28727/
KelsoSpring08.doc). MINDS@UW Eau Claire (http://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/8337). Eau Claire,
WI, USA: University of WisconsinEau Claire. Retrieved September 29, 2012. A well-documented senior history
paper.
Conklin, Kenneth R. (August 2009). "Hawaii Statehood -- straightening out the history-twisters. A historical
narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of
1959. FULL VERSION" (http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/StatehoodHistUntwistedFull.html). Hawaiian
Sovereignty: Thinking Carefully About It (http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/). Retrieved
September 29, 2012.

Article Sources and Contributors

Article Sources and Contributors


Morgan Report Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=592586644 Contributors: Arjuna909, BoKu, Briaboru, Coemgenus, Colonies Chris, Cybercobra, Deltag, Ground Zero,
Guppy313, Gurch, Hmains, Hocuspocus Skiggedyskat, Huangdi, InMyHumbleOpinion, JereKrischel, John Nevard, John Vandenberg, Kaihoku, Kbdank71, LarryQ, Laualoha, LilHelpa,
Ling.Nut, Logan, M.ana, OmgItsTheSmartGuy, OpenToppedBus, Pdunnaurello, Peaceray, Petri Krohn, Ricky81682, Rjwilmsi, Tassedethe, Viriditas, W Nowicki, Woohookitty, 10 anonymous
edits

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

You might also like