T H E IMPACT OF SUGAR CANE CULTIVATION ON T H E ECONOMY AND SOCIETY OF HAWAII, 1835-1900 RICHARD A. HAWKINS University of Woluerhampton

SIDNEY W. MINTZ ARGUESTHAT "Sugar-or rather the great commodity market which arose demanding it-has been one of the massive demographic forces in world history."l Hawaii provides a good example. Haunani-Kay Trask, a native Hawaiian activist and scholar, suggests that the growing use of Asian contract labour in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, to counter the demographic collapse of the indigenous population, as shown in Figure 1, contributed to the oppression of her people.2 This paper explores the impact of sugar cane cultivation on the economy and society of Hawaii with a particular focus on the impact on the native Hawaiian population. T h e Hawaiian Islands were rediscovered by Captain James Cook in 1778. At that time there was a thriving subsistence economy supporting at least 200,000 people. (One estimate suggests the population may have been around 795,000.) Contact with the outside world exposed the native Hawaiians to various diseases to which they had no immunity and the result was a catastrophic population decline: as can be seen in Figure 1. T h e Islands were quickly integrated into the international economy. There was a boom in the export of sandalwood between 1790 and 1820.4 After the sandalwood forests were exhausted the Islands became an important provider of provisions for the whaling industry from the 1820s until the 1860s. However, from the mid-1850s the American whaling industry began a secular decline as a result of over-exploitation of whale stocks.5 As a result, from the 1860s sugar cane began to replace the whaling trade as the main form of economic activity in Hawaii.6

Powei.. . ., p.7 1. H.-K. TRASK,"Settlers of Color 2nd 'Imiiiigrant' Hegeinoiiy.. .". 3 S.]. LA C I ~ O Iand X J. ROUMASSET, "Tlie Evolution of Privnte Property in Ninetceiith-Century Hawaii", 11.834-5; D.E. S T A N N A I ~l3efor.e D , the Hor.inr ..., p.56. 11, MACCAUGHEY, "The Ecoiiomic Woods of Hawaii", p.705. Haruaii: A Ceiztuly of Economic Chaizge.. ., p.51, 154-8. T. MORGAN, R.S. K U Y K E N I ~ AThe I ~ I Hrrwairan ., Kiizgdom ..., p.136-7. I S.W. MINTZ,Sweetizesj and

Source: Schmitt (1977)

Land reform was a necessary condition for the success of sugar cane cultivation in Hawaii. T h e devastation caused by European diseases in Hawaii undermined the Hawaiian chiefs' faith in traditional beliefs and thus made them receptive to the teaching of American missionaries who began to arrive in Hawaii in 1820.7 T h e missionaries and their trader kinsmen persuaded the rulers of Hawaii to embark upon a process of Westernisation which culminated in the Land Act of 1844 (popularly known as the "Great Mahele"). Before the Great Mahele private land ownership was not permitted. T h e Great Mahele privatised a substantial proportion of the public domain mainly at the expense of the Hawaiian commoners. As a result large amounts of so-called "surplus land" became available for direct purchase or lease.Wowever, Robert H. Stauffer argues that it was actually a law passed in 1874 rather than the Great Mahele that led to the loss of land on a large scale by native Hawaiian commoners. This law took mortgage transactions out of the courts and into private hands. Between 1846 and 1893,90% of al1 the land in the Islands passed into the control or ownership of non-native Hawaiians, in particular sugar planters. Where sugar planters were unable to purchase land because it was owned by the government or the crown, they were usually able to lease it on a long-term basis.9 Sugar cane was probably introduced to the Islands by the native Hawaiians. T h e first venture in sugar cultivation of commercial importance was the establishment of a plantation by Ladd, Hooper and Brinsdale, al1 from New England, at Kolori, Kauai, in 1835. T h e local chiefs showed much foresight by refusing to cooperate with the planters, and after the planters had invested a total of $80,000, they helped to force the plantation into bankruptcy in 1845. T h e plantation con-

'H.W. BRADLEY,The Amevicon F>ontievin Huwuii.. ., p. 12 1-213.

1.1. C H I N E NThe , Gveut Mahele.. ., p. 1-3 1; L. KAMI:'EI.EIHIW>\, Nutiue Iund undforeigi~desives, p.201-3 18. R.H. SI-AUFI'I:Ikaiztation,p.1-41; Dr. WOCI~I, "Our Islaiicl Ncighbors", 11.294-6;C.C. I ~ ~ N N E T L fTe, on the Sandwich lslarzds, p.20-3; C. N o i u ~ ~ o i : ~"Hawaii :, Nei-11", p.554-5. J . SUI.I.IVAN, A History of C. Brewei uizd Cornpany Limited.. ., p.6-7. l 2 Plui,tei.s' Mo~zthly,27 (1908), 12.496;H.P. R,\I.IIWIN,"Tlie Suglir Inclustry in Hnwaii", p.665. l 3 K. SAUNIIEI~S, Wovkels- in 13oi1duge..., p.149; M. MOYNAGI-1, Riawiz oi. White? ..., p.27-34, 64-8. l4 1 : MOKGAN, Husuuii: A Cei7tury of Ecoizomic Change...,p.180-1; W.H. T A Y L O I"The ~ , Hawaiiaii Sugar Iiiclustry", p.10.

''

traders were members of the missionary families and others were transoceanic traders who had come to the Islands from N e w England to participate in the sandalwood and later the whaling trade. T h e Europeans were mostly British and German traders involved in their nations' trade with the Pacific. T h e Honolulu traders were happy to assist the sugar industry, because they were looking for a new role with the decline in the fortunes of the whaling trade. T h e "Big Five" agents, which were to dominate the economy of Hawaii from the late nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, arose out of these small mercantile concerns. These trading houses became agents for the plantations in obtaining tools and supplies, floating loans, and selling sugar. T h e agents also made considerable investments in the plantations, for which they provided services. Over time they were able to increase the size of their investments, until they eventually obtained majority control. Indeed it could be arguecl that the agents' ability to raise capital was their most valuable role. T h e agents reinvested their profits in Hawaii, so that by the early 1890s they controlled virtually every major sector of the Islands' economy. T h e adoption of large scale organisation by the Hawaiian sugar industry, in the form of the plantation system, improved the industry's efficiency in three ways: first, the obtaining of an adequate supply of labour; second, the overcoming of technological and biological obstacles to production; and third, effective fertilisation and irrigation. T h e sugar industry initially engaged in a high degree of cooperation after the adoption of the plantation system. Its financia] support for the Roya1 Hawaiian Agricultura1 Society, which was active between 1850 and 1860, ensured the successful advancement of these three objectives.~5 Figure 2. Sugar Cane Exports in Pouncls, 1837-76

Source: Plunters' Monthly (1908) l 5 T. MOI(C;I\N, Huwuii: A Ceotuy . . . ,p.173-94; J.F. STONE,"The Birth o f /\griculturc", C17, C72; S.M. MAICK 2nd J.ADLER,"Clnus Spreckels in Hawaii ...", p.22.

Between 1856 and 1865, the sugar cane exports from Hawaii rose from 554,805 pounds to 15,318,097 pounds, as can be seen in Figure 2. During the Civil War period sugar became a million dollar industry. However, in the post-bellum period Hawaii faced fierce competition with other foreign producers in its principal export market, the United States. Hawaiian sugar was undercut in the American market by low-grade sugar from China, the Philippines and other Far Eastern countries. T h e resulting decline in prices led to a serious decline in the profitability of the industry in the latter half of 1866, and most of 1867. T h e remedies suggested by the industry for the situation were: first, a reciprocity treaty with the United States, or annexation to that country; and second, a working agreement with the sugar refiners of San Francisco.16 T h e Government of Hawaii decided that a reciprocity treaty with the United States would be the most convenient solution to the problems of the sugar industry. In 1867, a draft treaty was put before the U.S. Congress. It was rejected because of strong opposition from some sections of the American business community. In 1872, the sugar industry once again experienced severe problems similar to those in 1866-67. T h e planters argued that the industry provided a poor living and cited the fact that almost every plantation had at some time in its history experienced bankruptcy and that in 1873 only three of Hawaii's 34 sugar plantations were still in the possession of their founders. Charles Nordhoff argued that these failures were only partly the result of bad management. Other factors were also significant. T h e leeside of the islands received virtually no rainfall and there were no good ports apart from Honolulu.~7Hence the reciprocity question was revived, and in 1873, a proposition was made that if Hawaii leased Pearl Harbour to the United States, the Americans might become more favourable towards signing a reciprocity treaty. T h e Reciprocity Treaty was opposed by most native Hawaiians with the support of the British. This lead to the fear in the United States that Britain had designs on Hawaii and so the Reciprocity Treaty was ratified by the U.S. Congress in 1876 without the proposed lease of Pearl Harbour.18 Senator Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, who opposed the treaty, correctly predicted ... that a closer commercial contact and a free reciprocal intercourse will soon extinguish throne and dynasty, as well as the last fleeting breath of their national existence. Once the natives of this waif in the ocean would have cooked and eaten us up in a different way, but this is a reversal of the feast to which we are invited, and now our power of digestion is to be tested.19

l6 l7 l9

M. TATI:,Hawaii: Reciprocity ot.Annexation, p.39-42. Ibid,,p.19-107; C. NOIIDHOFF, "Hawaii Nei-II", p.550-52. M. TATE,Hawaii: Reciprocity ..., p. 108-34. U.S. SENATE,"Hawaiian Reciprvcity Eeaty". . ., p.4.

Figure 3. Exports of Hawaiian Sugar and Molasses, 1875-1900

Source: Schmitt (1977)

T h e Reciprocity Treaty, which removed the duty on Hawaiian produced raw sugar cane, resulted in an enormous expansion of sugar exports by both value and volume, as can be seen in Figures 3 and 4, and the Hawaiian sugar industry was transformed from a million dollar enterprise into a multi-million dollar enterprise. T h e number of plantations rose from some 30 just before the treaty to 46 by the end of 1877 and 57 in 1882. A German-born Californian businessman, Claus Spreckels, invested millions of dollars in the Hawaiian sugar industry.20 Spreckels benefited from the grant of crown land free of charge on Maui from the Hawaiian government in controversia1 circumstances. A leading native Hawaiian nationalist member of the Kingdoin's legislature, George Washington Pilipo, declared that this was a "step toward destroying the independence" of Hawaii.21 Indeed the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported in 1884 that King Kalakaua had been Spreckels' "puppet" for several years.22 A consistently favourable balance of trade in Hawaii facilitated the accumulation of capital by the sugar industry. In addition the large sums of money needed to finance the expansion of the industry, and the construction of enormous ditches to irrigate the sub-marginal lands taken into cultivation in this period, were raised mainly in the United States. T h e greater proportion was in the form of loans to the plantation companies and the sugar agencies. Large sums of money were also invested in improved agricultura] implements. Steam ploughs were first introduced at the beginning of the 1880s and subsequently various kinds and makes of cultivaC.G. TILTON,The History of Bunking i11 Huwuii, p.98-113; H.P. B~\i.i>W I N ,"The Sugar Industry ...", p.666; J. ADI.F.II,Claus Sprrckrls ..., p.99. 2 1 J. A1>1.1:1, "How Has Hnwaii Become Americnnizetl?", p.597. 58 This is siinilnr to an 1889 estimate which suggested thnt Aniericans owned 76% of the sugnr industry. C.

SPIIECKELS, "The Future o f the Sandwich Islnnds", p.289. 59 H.C. ALLEN,The Betrayal of Liliuo~ala~li.. ., p.2 16. U.S. CONGIa~unor White? ..., p.16. 70 C. SI'RECK~~LS, "The Future of the Sandwich Islancls", p.287-91. 7 i J.K. Osoitio, Dismembering Lahui.. ., p. 185.

tural crop in Hawaii. There had been an unsuccessful experiment with coffee cultivation in the 1820s.72 It is probable that if sugar cane cultivation had also been unsuccessful, another crop would have eventually succeeded such as the pineapple. It is difficult viewing the first 65 years of the Hawaiian sugar industry not to conclude that the native Hawaiians were as much, if not more, victims of poor governance by their own leaders as they were of the sugar industry, notwithstanding the fact that native Hawaiian historian, Noenoe K. Silva, has recently defended the Hawaiian monarchy, and in particular David Kalakaua, against just such charges.73 As Acting British Consul Alexander Simpson reported in 1843: ... the Chiefs seem to have left caring for the people. Their attention has been

turned more to themselves and their own aggrandisement and they do not seek the welfare of the people as a nation, and therefore they are more oppressed, at the present time, than ever they were in ancient times.. ..74 So while the sugar industry may have been a necessary condition for the demographic and economic demise of the native Hawaiians it was not a sufficient condition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY "A History of the Progress of the Sugar Industry of Hawaii Since the Reciprocity Treaty of 1876", Planters' Monthly, 27 (1908). ADLER,J. "The Maui Land Deal: A Chapter in Claus Spreckels' Hawaiian Career". Agricultura1 History, 34 (1965). - Claus Spreckels: The Sugar King in Hawaii. Honolulu, 1966. ALEXANDER, A.C. Koloa Plantation. Honolulu, 1937. ALEXANDER, W.D. History of the Later Years of the Hawaiian Monarchy and the Revolution of 1893. Honolulu, 1896. ALLARDYCE, J.C. Society, Politics and Religion in the Hawaiian Islands. San Francisco, 1881. ALLEN,H.C. The Betrayal of Liliuokalani: Last Queen of Hawaii, 1838-1917. Glendale, 1982. BALDWIN, H.P. "The Sugar Industry in Hawaii". Ouerland Monthly, 25 (1895). BELL,R. Last Among Equals: Hawaiian Statehood and American Politics. Honolulu, 1984. BENNETT,C.C. L f e on the Sandwich Islands. San Francisco, 1893.

J.F.STONE, "The Kirth of Agriculture", CI7. 73 N.K. SIL\',\, Aloha Iletmyed! ... 74 TNA, ADM1/5531, Lord George Paulet to the Secretary of the Adrniralty, Report by Alcxander Simpjon on Condition of the Sai~dwichIslands, On Board H.R. Majesty's Tender, the "Albert", at Sea, 30 March 1843, p.22. j2

BISHOP,S.E. Why Are The Hawaiians Dying Out? Or, Elements of Disability Among the Hawaiian People. Honolulu, c. 1888. - "How Has Hawaii Become Americanized?". Ouerland Monthly, 25 (1895). BRADLEY, H.W. The American Frontier i?zHawaii, 1789-1843. Stanford, 1942. CALHOUN,C.W. "Morality and Spite: Walter Q. Gresham and US Relations with Hawaii". Paczjic Historical Review, 52 (1 983). CHINEN,J.J. The G ~ e aMahele: t Hawaii's Land Diuision of1848. Honolulu, 1958. CONKOY, H . The Japanese Frontiel in Hawaii, 1868-1898. Berkeley, 1953. DEAN,A.L. Cooperation in the Sugar Industry of Hawaii. New York, 1933. ELKIN,W.B. "An Inquiry Into the Causes of the Decline of the Hawaiian People". American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1902). GOODALE,W.W. "The Hawaiian As An Unskilled Laborer". Journal of Race Deuelopment, 5 (1915). GREEN,R.C. Mahaka Before 1880 AD. Honolulu, 1980. KAME'ELEIHIWA, L. Natiue land andforeign desires. Honolulu, 1992. KUYKENDALL, R.S. The Hawaiian Kingdom, 1854-1874: Twenty Critica1 Years. Honolulu, 1954. L A CROIX,S.J. and C. GRANDY. "The Political Instability of Reciprocal Trade and the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom". Journal ofEconomic Histoy, 57 (1997). LA CROIX,S.J. and J. ROUMASSET. "The Evolution of Private Property in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii". Journal of Economic History, 50 (1990). LILIUOKALANI. Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen. Tokyo, 1964. MACCAUGHEY, V. "The Economic Woods of Hawaii". Forestry Quarterly, 14 (1916). MARK,S.M. and J. ADLER."Claus Spreckels in Hawaii: Impact of a Mainland Interloper on Development of Hawaiian Sugar IndustryH.Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 10 (1957). MCNEILL,W.H. Plagues and Peoples. New York, 1998. MINTZ,S.N. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York, 1986. MOLI~ETT, J.A. Capital i?z Hawaiian Sugar: Its Formation and Relation to Labor and Output, 1870-1957. Honolulu, 1961. MORGAN,T. Hawaii: A Century of Economic Change, 1778-1876. Cambridge, Mass., 1948. MOYNAGH, M. Brown or White? A History of the F& Sugar Industry, 1873-1973. Canberra, 1982. "Native Hawaiian Committee to Hon. H.A.R. Carter and Hon. J.S. Walker, 12 September 1881". In: U.S. SENATE.Hearings Before the Committee on Energy and Natuml Resources on the Report of the Natiue Hawaiian Study Commission. Washington, D.C., 1985. NORDHOFF,C. "Hawaii Nei-11". Harper's New Monthly Magazine, 47 (1873). OSORIO,J.K. Dismembering Lahui: A History of the Hawaiian Nation to 1887. Honolulu, 2002.

POEF. " T h e Hawaiian Islands: W h a t they are, and ought we to receive them?".De Bow's Reuiew, 24 (1858). POOL,D.I. The Maori Population of New Zealand, 1769-1971. Auckland, 1977. "Report o n Culture, Needs and Concerns for the Social and Economic Well Being Ouero f Keanae-Wailuanui Community". In: U.S. H o u s ~OF REPRESNTATIVES. sight Hearing Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on Natiue Hawaiian Study Commission Report. Washington, D.C., 1985. SAUNDERS, K . Workers in Bondage: The Origins and Bases of Unfree Labor in Queensland, 1824-1916. St. Lucia, 1982. SEAGRAVE, F.H. "Sugar Growing in Hawaii". Ouerland Monthly, 32 (1898). SILVA,N . K . Aloha Betrayed!: Natiue Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism. Durham, N.C., 2004. SPRECKELS, C . " T h e Future o f the Sandwich Islands". North American Reuiew, 152 (1891). STANNARD,D.E. Before the Horror: The Population of Hawai'i Before the Eue of Western Contact. Honolulu, 1989. STAUFFER, R.H. Kahana: How the land was lost. Honolulu, 2004. STONE,J.F. " T h e Birth o f Agriculture". Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 4 April 1920. J .A History of C. Brewer and Company Limited: One Hundred Years i?zthe SULLIVAN, Hawaiian Islands 1826-1926. Boston, 1926. T A K A KR.I ,Pau Hana: Plantation Life and Labor in Hawaii, 1835-1920. Honolulu, 1983. TATE,M . The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History. N e w Haven, 1965. - Hawaii: Reciprocity or Annexation. East Lansing, 1968. TAUSSIG, F.W. "Sugar: A Lesson on Reciprocity and the T a r i f f ' .Atlantic Monthly, 101 (1903). TAYLOR, W . H . " T h e Hawaiian Sugar Industry" (Ph.D. Thesis). Berkeley: University o f California, 1935. TILTON, C.G. The History of Banking in Hawaii. Honolulu, 1927. TRASK H.-K. , "Settlers o f Color and 'Immigrant' Hegemony: 'Locals' in Hawai'i". Amerasia Journal, 26 (2000),p.1-24. U.S. CONGRESS. President's Message Relating to the Hawaiian Islands. Washington, D.C., 1893. U.S. SENATE."Hawaiian Reciprocity Treaty", Speech of Hon. Justin S. Mowill of Vermont in the United States Senate, Executiue Session, 18 March 1875. Washington, D.C., 1875. W I L C OCX. ,Sugar Water: Hawaii's Plantation Ditches. Honolulu, 1996. WOOD, Dr. "Our Island Neighbors". De Bow's Reuiew, 22 (1857).