PROPERTY CONFISCATIONS. pealed. As Mr. Curtis remarks, this treaty "could not execute itself. It was made, on the one side, by a power capable of performing, but also capable of waiting for the performance of the obligations which rested upon the other contracting party. On the other side, it was made by a power possessed of very imperfect means of performance, yet standing in constant need of the benefit which a full compliance with its obligations would insure. After the lapse of three years from the signature of the preliminary articles, and of more than two years from that of the definitive treaty, the military posts in the western country were still held by British garrisons, avowedly on account of the infractions of the treaty on our part." * Congress therefore passed a resolution on the subject of confiscated property, taking the middle course, as suggested by John Adams, by recommending that the States seize no more goods and property belonging to Loyalists and put no obstacles in the way of their recovering that already confiscated. This raised a storm of protest throughout the country and divided the inhabitants into three parties: those Tories, who wished to regain their property and former rights and power; those violent Whigs, who desired to drive the Tories from the country; and those moderate Whigs, who advocated a Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 173. 367 less rigorous interpretation of the laws, first, because if the Loyalists were driven from the country they would settle in Nova Scotia and destroy the American fisheries, second, because they thought the Tories, if allowed to remain, would contribute to the prosperity of the country, and third, because they knew the Tories had no political influence.* Believing that there was little prospect of obtaining justice in this country, many of the Tories departed for England, hoping that the king, for whom they had suffered, would care for them until their affairs should assume their previous condition. Others went to Florida, then a Spanish possession; others to Canada and Bermuda;† while a few turned pirates, infesting the waters of Chesapeake Bay. In the main, the hopes of the refugees were blasted. While making some small donations to relieve their sufferings, the king practically turned a deaf ear to their entreaties and ignored their claims for damages. They also received a somewhat cold treatment in Canada. On the other hand the English army was accused of taking away a large number of negroes, in violation of the seventh article of the treaty, and when remonstrance was made it was claimed that the negroes were freemen and went voluntarily, and that therefore the British com * McMaster, United States, vol. i., pp. 108-109. † Fiske, Critical Period, p. 130. ‡ McMaster, vol. i., p. 112. 368 BRITISH INFRACTIONS OF TREATY. mander could not lend his aid in were peculiarly sensi The recommendations of Congress were treated with open contempt,|| and it was no more than was to be expected under the existing political conditions. Early in 1785, therefore, Congress resolved to send a minister-plenipotentiary to Great Britain. On February 24 of that year, John Adams, then in France, was appointed to that post, and on May 26 arrived in Fiske, Critical Period, pp. 131-132. See also John Adams, Works, vol. viii., pp. 249-250. For details see McMaster, United States, vol. i., p. 117 et seq. McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, pp. 101-102. See also McLaughlin, Western Posts and British Debts, in Report of the American Historical Association for 1894, pp. 413-444. Pellew, John Jay, p. 240. London to assume his duties.* His instructions were as follows: "You are in a respectful, but firm manner, to insist, that the United States be put, without further delay, into possession of all the posts and territories within their limits, which are now held by British garrisons; and you will take the earliest opportunity of transmitting the answer you may receive to this requisition. "You will remonstrate against the infraction of the treaty of peace, by the exportation of negroes and other American property, contrary to the stipulations on that subject, in the seventh article of it. Upon this head, you will be supplied with various authentic papers and documents, particularly the correspondence between General Washington and others on the one part, and Sir Guy Carleton, on the other. "You will represent to the British ministry, the strong and necessary tendency of their restrictions on our trade, to incapacitate our merchants, in a certain degree, to make remittances to them. "You will represent in strong terms, the losses which many of our, and also of their merchants, will sustain, if the former be unreasonably and immoderately pressed for the payment of debts contracted before the war. On this subject, you will be furnished with papers, in which it is amply discussed." The treatment accorded Adams upon his appearance is variously stated by different historians, and * John Adams, Works, vol. i., p. 418, vol. viii., pp. 229, 239. Regarding the nomination of Adams to this post, Jay wrote to the president of Congress as follows: "It cannot, in my opinion, be long before Congress will think it expedient to name a minister to the court of London. Perhaps my friends may wish to add my name to the number of candidates. If that should be the case, I request the favor of you to declare in the most explicit terms that I view the expectations of Mr. Adams on that head as founded in equity and reason, and that I will not, by any means, stand in his way. He deserves well of his country, and is very able to serve her. It appears to me to be but fair that the disagreeable conclusions, which may be drawn from the repeal of his former commission, should be obviated, by its being restored to him."-Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, vol. vi., p. 457. RECEPTION OF ADAMS. his own account is especially interesting.* Upon being received by the king, he said that he hoped he would be instrumental in "restoring an entire esteem, confidence, and affection; or, in better words, the old good nature and the old good humor between people, who, though separated by an ocean, and under different governments, have the same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood." King George replied: "The moment I see such sentiments and language as yours prevail and a disposition to give this country the preference that moment I shall say, let the circumstances of language, religion, and blood have their natural and full effect." Nevertheless, in spite of these sentiments, the representative of the youthful republic was treated with indifference and neglect, the English statesmen evidently preferring to act with haughtiness, rather than to bind the new republic to them by actions of good will and generosity. Adams says: "Throughout the whole political history of Great Britain, this marked fault may be traced in its relations with foreign nations, but it never showed itself in more striking colors than during the first half century after the independence of the United States. The effects of the mistake then committed have been perceptible ever since. Mr. Jefferson, who soon joined Mr. Adams in London, for the purpose of carrying out, in the case of the British government, the powers vested in the commission to negotiate commercial treaties, has left his testimony of the treatment he met with at court. The king turned his back *See John Adams, Works, vol. i., pp. 418-420, vol. viii., pp. 251-252. John Adams, Works, vol. viii., pp. 256-257. 369 upon the American commissioners, a hint which, of course, was not lost upon the circle of his subjects in attendance.* Who can measure the extent of the influence which even so trifling an insult at this moment may have had in modifying the later opinions of the two men who were subjected to it? And in view of their subsequent career in the United States, who can fail to see how much those opinions have done, to give to America the impressions respecting Great Britain that have prevailed down to this day? Often has it happened that the caprices of men in the highest stations, have produced more serious effects upon the welfare of millions than the most elaborate policy of the wisest statesmen."† ministers were blunt and self-satisMcLaughlin says: "If English fied, no less was Adams. It never occurred to him to favor and flatter or to be ashamed of the young distracted country he represented; and in power of lucid, forceful expression, or in knowledge of public law he had few if any superiors among the English statesmen of the time."‡ On December 8, 1785, Adams presented a memorial to the British Secretary of State, in which he stated. Adams says that at his first interview he was "introduced with every necessary formality, and received with some marks of attention."- John Adams, Works, vol. viii., p. 254. See also p. 274. † John Adams, Works, vol. i., p. 420. McMaster, however, says that Adams was treated "with the same marks of honor it was customary to bestow on the ambassadors of the proudest kings" and was much pleased with the treatment accorded him."- United States, vol. i., p. 234. Jefferson, on the other hand, says "it was impossible for anything to be more ungracious" than their reception by the king and queen. See Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. i., p. 89. McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, p. 103. For Adams' reports of his various conversations preceding this and his letters to Carmarthen, see John Adams, Works, vol. viii., pp. 268-273, 276-278, 284-286, 286-288, 302-310, 310-314, 320-321, 322-325, 325-333. 370 RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS; ACTION OF CONGRESS. that the detention of the western posts was contrary to the treaty of peace, and that the United States required that all his Majesty's armies and garrisons be forthwith withdrawn from the said United States, from all and every of the posts and fortresses before enumerated, and from every other port, place and harbor within the territory of the said United States, according to the true intention of the treaties aforesaid."* On February 28, 1786, Lord Carmarthen made reply, acknowledging the detention of the posts, but saying that the United States had broken the fourth article of the treaty, by interposing impediments to the recovery of British debts in America. † He said: "The little attention to the fulfilling this engagement on the part of the subjects of the United States in general, and the direct breach of it in many particular instances, have already reduced many of the king's subjects to the utmost degree of difficulty and distress; nor have their applications for redress, to those whose situation in America naturally pointed them out as the guardians of public faith, been as yet successful in attaining them that justice, to which, on every principle of law, as well as humanity, they were clearly and indisputably entitled." In conclusion, Carmarthen said: "that * John Adams, Works, vol. viii., pp. 357–358. For a resumé of the British argument, see McMaster, United States, vol. i., p. 236 et seq. whenever America shall manifest a real determination to fulfill her part of the treaty, Great Britain will not hesitate to prove her sincerity to cooperate in whatever points depend upon her, for carrying every article of it into real and complete effect." Accompanying this reply was a statement giving details as to the manner in which infractions of the treaty had been committed by the States. the Adams immediately sent copies of this document to Congress, by which body they were referred for consideration to Jay, Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Jay could not but acknowledge that, in several particulars, the United States had violated treaty, and that Congress were insisting that Great Britain observe the letter of a treaty, the compliance with the provisions of which by the various States, they themselves were unable to compel. Writing to Jay, Washington said: "What a misfortune it is that the British should have so well grounded a pretext for their palpable infractions, and what a disgraceful part, out of the choice. of difficulties before us, are we to act!" Thereupon Congress passed resolutions requesting the States to rescind every law which conflicted with the treaty, saying in their circular letter to the States, "We have deliberately and dispassionately examined and considered the several facts and matters urged by Great Britain, as infractions of the treaty of peace, on the part of America, and FAILURE OF NEGOTIATIONS; THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. 371 we regret that in some of the states, too little attention has been paid to the public faith pledged by the treaty." The majority of the States complied with the recommendation of Congress, and such laws as conflicted with the terms of the treaty were repealed. But Virginia, when repealing previous acts conflicting with the recovery of debts due British merchants, stated that those acts should not be rescinded until the governor issued a proclamation giving notice that the western posts had been evacuated by the British troops, nor until Great Britain had also taken measures to return to citizens of Virginia the negroes carried away contrary to the seventh article of the treaty, or by compensating the owners for them. Thus the matters in dispute remained unsettled for some time, and, as the British continued to occupy the western posts,* they took advantage of the opportunity to inflame the Indian tribes of that vicinity against the Americans. This resulted in holding back emigration from the Eastern states to the West, and for some time prevented the develop On the negotiations for the evacuation of the western posts and for other events in connection with the northwest at this time, see Moore, The Northwest Under Three Flags, pp. 290-314, and the authorities cited, particularly: American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i.; Stone, Life of Joseph Brant; Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, vol. xi.; Andrew C. McLaughlin, Western Posts and British Debts, in American Historical Society Report for 1894; English, Life of George Rogers Clark, vol. ii.; Pickell, History of the Potomac Company. ment of the Great Lake regions. Consequently, realizing the impossibility of concluding a favorable commercial treaty with the British, and knowing that the latter had declined to send a minister to the United States, Adams returned home in 1788. At the same time Congress passed a resolution expressing their high regard for the manner in which he had conducted the negotiations, and thanking him for the perseverance, integrity, and diligence with which he had served his country in that important post.* Beside the difficulties with Great Britain, an open rupture between Spain and the United States seemed probable. The trouble arose over the secret article in the British treaty. By the second article of that treaty the Southern boundary of the territory relinquished by Great Britain was the 31st parallel of latitude from the Mississippi to the Appalachicola, thence down to the Flint River, from that river to the head of the St. Mary's River, and thence to the sea.t South of this line, lay Florida, owned by Spain. England was covetous of this rich territory, and therefore a secret article was inserted, by the terms of which it was agreed that if Great Britain should recover or become possessor of West Florida, the * John Adams, Works, vol. viii., pp. 477-478. Phelps, Louisiana, p. 149; Journals of Congress, vol. ix., p. 26; Ogg, Opening of the Mississippi, p. 397. |