Sanford B. Dole, the Congregationalists, and Annexation, 1902.


On Monday evening, April 28 last, Governor Dole was the guest of the Congregational Club of Boston. Elsewhere in this issue will be found a sketch made by Dole of the Hawaiian situation. It is characteristic of the man. Having the full support of the Administration behind him he is not afraid to say in public what he has been thinking in private for many long years. Let us see and take up his points one by one.

Point No. 1.—”The monarchy was overthrown and annexation was accomplished for the sake of good government for the islands; that is, for their benefit.”—It is true! Annexation was accomplished, by a handful of Congregationalists because the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Hawaii was in imminent danger of being abrogated. The monarchy was overthrown, so as to save the $40 per ton duty on sugar. It was then as it is now for the Congregationalists:—Money before principle.

Point No. 2:—”We have given you everything we have by being annexed.”—That is, Sanford B. Dole, and his Congregationalist friends have given to the United States that which did not belong to them. With the help of an American cruiser, American marines and an American Minister, they have robbed the native Hawaiians of their country so as to enable a few Congregationalist planters to keep up receiving big dividends from their sugar stocks which would have been materially cut down had a $40 duty been imposed upon each ton of sugar. The Springfield Republican adds the following comment to Point No. 2: “But the second point that they have given us all they have is not at all consistent with his first point that they sought Annexation for the benefit of the Islands, and it shows that they are still trying to work the United States for the benefit of the Hawaiians.”

Point No. 3 was the statement that there are 8000 Hawaiians and Portuguese voters to only 2,000 white voters, and concluded with the following urgent sentence: “We demand more than any other thing recognition of the American civilization which has made Hawaii what it is.” And the Republican adds: “He used the word ‘demand,’ and used it with all his force. He protested against the present political system and took impliedly the position that the whites must be supported and the native Hawaiians must be put down. Nobody asked whether the Hawaiian Islands belonged to the Hawaiians or whites and his attitude seemed to have the cordial approval of the club.”

The comment of the Springfield Republican on point no. 3 is well taken and nothing we may say would add to its strength and logic. Why certainly! The whites, that is, the missionaries must be supported and the Hawaiians must be put down. That is typical of Dole. Our Governor is a very saintly man when around Central Union church, but he shows up his colors when at a safe distance. A rank coward, and an infamous imposter, that is Dole. We are not surprised to hear that his attitude had the approval of the club. It is also typical of the Congregationalists. How could they help it? We all know their record in these islands, and their history does not need to be repeated here. We all know the record they have made in China. Looting palaces, robbing churches, and in a general way carrying civilization into the Celestial Empire with a Bible in one hand and a Krag-Jorgensen in the other. We all have heard the history of Dr. Anent and his Congregationalist friends, so what is the use of being surprised at the Boston Congregationalists endorsing Gov. Dole?

Of one thing we are surprised though. It is that the “water cure” has not yet been advocated for Hawaiian Islands. Central Union Church ought to take the lead and see to it that during the next electoral campaign the “water cure,” incidental to the “benevolent assimilation” policy, be administered to the natives who refuse to vote the white-missionary ticket.

The statements of Gov. Dole are edifying and The Independent will see to it that they reach the ear of every Hawaiian and Portuguese voter in the Islands.

(Independent, 5/20/1902, p. 2)


The Independent, Volume XIV, Number 2212, Page 2. May 20, 1902.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s