Template:Nhsc-v1-160
possession of the islands as a conquest, or for the purpose of colonization, and that no power ought to seek for any undue control over the e x i s t i n g Government, or any exclusive p r i v i l e g e s or preferences in matters of commerce.M 67/ The document was sent to Great Britain and France and became known as the "Tyler Doctrine," d t t e r the then-President John Tyler. Havinq successfully completed their negotiation in the United States, the k i n g ' s representatives left for Europe to continue their quest for formal recognition. Before they could complete negotiations for recognition in Europe, however, the "Paulet Affair" intervened. Lord Paulet, captain of the British f r i g a t e Carysfort, was sent to Honolulu to protect B r i t i s h i n t e r e s ts as a result of complaints--mainly about land--by the acting B r i t i sh consul in Honolulu, Alexander Simpson. Paulet made demands on the Hawaiian government and threatened to f i r e upon Honolulu if they were not met. To avoid c o n f l i c t , the king made a provisional cession of the islands to Great Britain on February 25, 1843. Until the end of July, the Hawaiian Islands were under the British flag. When : t was informed of what Paulet had dene, the B r i t i s h Government disavowed P a u l e t ' s act and sent Rear Admiral Richard Thomas to restore Hawaiian sovereignty, which he did on July 31, 1843. After this episode was resolved, the Hawaiian delegation continued t h ^ i r European negotiations. Finally, on November 11, 1843, a j o i nt d e c l a r a t i o n was sianed in London by which the Cvieen of Great Britain and the K;ng of France recognized the independence of the Sandvich (Hawaiian) Islands. The United States refused to sign the ceclaration on the grounds that it was contrary to America's policy of avoiding entangling a l l i a n c e s . Instead, the United States stood by the Tyler Doctrine. Despite this formal recognition of independence, nequi table t r e a t i es were s t i l l a problem for Hawaii. In 1844, the British presented the Hawaiian Government with a convenrion with objectionable a r t i c l e s sicu lar to those of the Laplace Convention of 1839. The government signed the convention but wrote to the nead of the British foreign office seekinu modifications. New t r e a t i e s were signed with Britain and France in 1846, s t i l l with objectionable a r t i c l e s on tracie preferences and the composition of j u r i e s. In the mid-1340's and 1850's Hawaii was finally able to achieve equitable t r e a t i e s . In 1846 Hawaii signed a s a t i s f a c t o r y treaty with Denmark that did not contain the r e s t r i c t i ve clauses of the Biitish and French t r e a t i e s . Eventually, even Britain and the United States relaxed their discriminatory a t t i t u d e s . By the 1840's, the a r t i c l e s of arrangement with the United States, which had f i r s t been negotiated in 1826, hac ceased to be regarded as a vaiid t r e a t y . A new treaty s a t i s f a c t o r y tc the Hawaiian Government was signed in 1849 and remained in effect until the annexation. The American treaty served as the basis for a new, more equitable treaty with Great Britain, signed in 1851. In turn, this treaty was the basis for t r e a t i e s yith Sweden and Norway in 1852. Thus Hawaii progressed toward more equitable treaty r e l a t i o n s . France was an exception, since it continued to i n s i s t upon a r t i c l e s objectionable to the Hawaiian Government. Moreover, most-favored-r.ation clauses enabled other nations to claim, the benefits of the r e s t r i c t i v e clauses in the French treaty. Trade and Annexation Economic development in the late 1840's and early 1850's foreshadowed the dominant role the United States
|
