The Diplomatic History of the Administrations of Washington and Adams. 1789-1801

Front matter

Q&01 c /4^. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY. THE DIPLOMATIC HISTOKY OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF WASHINGTON AND ADAMS 1789-1801. B V WILLIAM HENRY TRESCOT. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY. 1857. Entered according to !r<j^jgfejj5jgyin the year 1857, by WILLIAM HENRY TEESCOT, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of South Carolina. CAMBRIDGE: ALLEN AND FAKNHAM, PKINTEE9. TO HON. EDWARD EVERETT. Dear Sir, — Since the time when Massachusetts and South Carolina, Virginia and New York, gave to the public service of a common country such men as Washington and Adams, Jay and Pinckney, that country has travelled fast and far. Its territory has expanded, its influence extended, its character matured, and its place in the world has become proudly assured. But the spirit which informed their counsels has departed, and the language of their unselfish patriotism would be profaned in the party controversies of the day.

What is to be the issue of this mis erable dissension, God only knows. But whether this great empire is to outlive its angry disputes, and again move onwards in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace, or whether the grand fabric is to be resolved into separate republics, each carrying out God's purpose in its special civilization, it cannot be amiss, in this day of hard thoughts and bitter words, to go back to our old days and to our ancient rulers for that sober wisdom, which, united or separate, can alone secure our prosperity. It ought not to surprise you, and I am sure it will surprise nobody else, that, fresh from the contemplation of the temperance, judgment, and patriotism of those great rulers, I should find a natural associa tion between your character and that of the wise and virtuous men who created and adorned our early history.

A* VI DEDICATION. It has been, sir, your good fortune to have filled the same high office Which has been illustrated by the names of Jay and Jefferson, Marshall and Madison, Clay and Webster and Calhoun. It was the good fortune of your country, that, during your official life, you were called upon to justify the history of her past growth, and vindicate the strength and justice of her position towards the world. You did both in language which has become history. You linked the eager present with the venerable past, and developed the policy of to-day from the principles and practice of our earliest statesmanship. To whom, then, could I dedicate these pages with more propriety than to him who has so thoroughly represented the traditionary policy of our wisest and greatest statesmen ? And I venture to hope that it will not diminish the slight value of this honest tribute to your public character, that, justified by circumstances which I at least can never forget, I can subscribe myself, in a spirit of sincere and and respectful affection, Your friend, WM. HENRY TRESCOT. Barnwell Island, S. C, j „ r^ Nov. 10,1857. J 9 NU

Preface

. This volume is the sequel to one which 1 ventured to publish in 1852, under the title of " The Diplomacy of the Revolution," and I hope soon to complete the series by a similar one, in reference to the remaining periods of our diplomatic history, in accordance with the division suggested in the first chapter of this book. An attempt to appreciate the progress of international law, as illustrated in the diplomatic history of the world from the peace of Westphalia, undertaken with no view to publication, required the study of the special diplomatic history of each of the great Euro pean powers, and of the United States. The diplomatic history of almost every European state has been written, whether well or ill, by some one of that great body of historical students in the Old World to whom the materials have been accessible ; and outside of their labors, and in illustration of them, there exists an

PREFACE.

. VIII immense mass of memoirs, state papers, and negotia tions, bearing on the same subject. But there was no corresponding summary of our own diplomatic history. The only work of the kind, " The Diplomacy of the United States," by Theodore Lyman, Boston, 1828, although an accurate, laborious, and useful book, is not written from the point of view which I wished to occupy ; and I therefore found it necessary to study the diplomatic history of the United States for myself, as thoroughly as the materials would permit. Finding the study one of great interest to myself, I have thought its results might not be without interest for others. I have published this volume separately, because the twelve years which it includes have a character of their own, and the accession of Mr. Jefferson, reversing that policy, makes the commencement of his administration a proper starting-point for the next period of our history.

The materials which I have used are the official col lections of state papers relating to our diplomatic his tory, in Sparks's Diplomatic Correspondence, from the Declaration of Independence to the Treaty of Peace ; The Diplomatic Correspondence, from 1783 to 1789, published by Congress, in 7 vols. Svo. ; The Secret Jour nals of Congress, Foreign Affairs, from the Meeting

PREFACE.

. IX thereof to the Dissolution of the Confederation by the Adoption of the Constitution ; The American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, 4 vols. folio, from the Adop tion of the Constitution to the Treaty of Ghent ; and the Lives and Letters of such of the distinguished actors in our political history as have been published. Among these I feel bound to refer specially to the large and valuable publication of the Letters and Works of John Adams, prefaced by a biography of great inter est and value, and, considering the relation of the author and the subject, of singular and honorable im partiality. Besides these, I have had the MSS. col lections of General Thomas Pinckney and General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the one minister to Eng land and Spain, and the other minister to France. As there were no discoveries to make in our diplomatic history, I have made none, and whatever value these pages may have must attach to the connected and impartial narrative which I have endeavored to construct.

Whenever I have quoted a public state paper with out a special reference, it will be found under its proper date in one of the above published collections ; and for the facts of our general history, a knowledge of which I have assumed in the reader, the authority will

PREFACE.

. X be found in any of the general histories of the United States. I cannot conclude this preface without acknowledg ing my sense of grateful obligation to Professor Bowen, of Harvard University, for the kindness with which he undertook, and the care with which he has accom plished, the troublesome task of correcting the proofs of this volume as they came from the press. In the body of this work, by inadvertence, a reference to the Life of Gouverneur Morris, by Dr. Sparks, as authority for certain facts in Mr. Morris's ambassadorial career, was omitted. The reference belongs to the chapter on the French negotiations. 9 N060 CONTENTS.

Chapter I. From The Treaty Of Peace

1783, TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, 1788. The Diplomatic History of the United States may be divided into three periods, — from Washington to Jeffer son, from Jefferson to the Declaration of Mr. Monroe, and from that Declaration to the present day.* This division is, of course, to some extent arbitrary, but still correct enough for the purposes of a continuous and general narrative ; and each of these periods may be fairly considered as the illustration of a special condi tion of public necessities, and as the natural manifestation of an independent principle of our foreign policy. * The character and circumstances of this famous Declaration will be discussed in its proper place in the history of the period to which it belongs. I use the term here simply as a convenient description of that period, when the consequences of our foreign policy, from the accession of Mr. Jefferson to the Treaty of Ghent, were, to borrow a compact and comprehensive French phrase, resume', in the official acts of the government.

The condition of the country at the inauguration of General Washington's administration was, in many respects, anomalous. It was a transition leading to a great change, and required an activity of diplomatic life that has not since been either necessary or possible. In the first place, the independence of the colonies had not abruptly cut all connection with Europe ; and as the colonial policy of the great maritime states had always been considered questions of European concern, the powers of the old world did not at first recognize the extent of that independence. They still fancied themselves directly interested in the politics of the United States. And it is safe to say, that the admission of an American minister into an European con gress would have appeared a more natural diplomatic proceeding in 1788 than at any later period of our history.

Again : there existed at that time, in Europe, an ex aggerated idea of the immediate importance of Amer ican commerce. It was a time when great interests were about to take the place of great men, but while they were still felt through the action of governments, rather than in their own strength. Governments, there fore, everywhere strove by treaties to secure commercial advantages ; and the correspondence of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, who represented the country abroad from the peace of 1783 to the adoption of the constitution, bears testimony to the anxiety of many maritime powers to conciliate and secure these supposed advantages. The indissoluble commercial connection be tween England and the United States had not then established itself; and the general idea was, that the independence of the colonies had broken up an old and rich commerce, the fragments of which were to be obtained by early and liberal conventions.

In the third place, the treaty with France was one of mutual guarantees, and many of its clauses were open to interpretations involving the United States in the stormy and changeful politics of that unhappy empire. The circumstances of France soon, indeed, compelled her to insist upon that construction of the treaty most favorable to her belligerent rights, and the government was plunged into an harassing controversy both with England and France. The task of the administration was, in negotiating such treaties as were absolutely necessary for the interests of the country, to avoid all political engagements ; and, in carrying out faithfully such treaties as had already been negotiated, to shun all action that might compromise the neutrality of the country. In other words, its object was to establish by diplomacy what had already been achieved by arms, — the perfect independence of the United States ; not their isolation from the great affairs of the world, but the right to determine for themselves how far then interests were implicated in European politics, and how far they would permit themselves to be made parties to any European agitation.

Situated as were the Euro pean states, they were not always arbiters of their own interests; and there existed on their part a strong dis position to apply the rule of their own conduct to the new republic, and compel a participation in a common fate. To resist this pretension, and thus perfect the work of the Revolution, was neither an easy nor a safe achievement; and it was accomplished only after many disheartening trials, and through the long, patient, and painful negotiations which gave character to this period by the treaties with England, Spain, and France. With the accession of Mr. Jefferson, opened a new state of affairs. The commerce of the country, in its gradual increase, had demonstrated that its natural channels could neither be created nor changed by treaty stipulations, and the idea of the importance of treaty connections with America had lost much of its original force.

The progress, too, of the great revolution which convulsed the old world until 1815, was fast absorbing the attention of the European powers. And during this period of unequalled importance and excitement, it became very clear that the interests of the new republic were, and for some time must be, entirely dis connected from the ruling interests of the European confederacy. The Revolution having given us an independent national existence, and the administrations of Washington and Adams having vindicated our perfect independence of national action, it remained for Mr. Jefferson and his successors to complete this work. So long as the United States were bounded by terri tories belonging to European powers, they were at any time subject to foreign and extrinsic influences, and liable to be drawn into the consequences of political action not always proceeding from their own interests ; and the full independence of no maritime country could be considered established in face of the belligerent pre tensions of the European nations, during this period most extravagantly pressed, and, so far as force went, most powerfully supported.

The two leading ideas, therefore, of this second stage of our foreign policy were : first, the necessary territorial extension of the United States, which would leave their independence of action uninfluenced by the neighborhood of Euro pean colonies ; and next, the recognition of their equal right to the great maritime prerogatives of an independ ent and commercial people. As far as circumstances permitted, the first was carried out in the purchase of Louisiana and Florida; and the second developed in the long controversy terminating in the war of 1812. And, though this war did not effect a technical solution of the vexed question of neutral rights, yet it was a declaration that no infringement upon our full equality of maritime privileges could be ventured without instant war with a nation, who, by a brilliant series of naval achievements, had manifested at least its ability to hold its own.

With this period, the minority of the United States terminated. The necessary conditions of an active and healthy life were fulfilled, and the United States stood before the world with their territories compact, their 1* national interests clearly defined, and their political intelligence alert, practised, and ready for the exigency of any future question. With this period, also, the founders of the republic withdrew from participation in the daily life of the nation. They had labored fearlessly and faithfully through the dangers of the war, — through the darkness and despondency of the Confederation, — through the perplexed and hazardous discussions of the Convention. With rare courage and temper and wisdom, they had laid broad the foundations of a great country ; and, with singular good fortune, had been permitted to perfect the government which they had initiated.

For more than a quarter of a century, the men who framed the constitution were allowed to administer it ; and, having thus formed it in infancy and moulded its youth, they retired, one after another, from the scenes of their great achievements, leaving to a new generation the respon sibility of its mature manhood. But, as if to conse crate with the grace of their final benediction its fore most step, it was granted to Mr. Monroe, the last of the venerable company, to inaugurate, by his famous Declaration, the vigorous commencement of our national life. From the date of this Declaration, our foreign policy, if it has not taken a higher tone, has at least expressed itself in a more systematic development. To this period belong the settlement of the French claims, so ably conducted by Mr. Rives ; the Treaty of Wash ington, so admirably negotiated by Mr. Webster; the Oregon Question, adjusted by Mr. McLane ; the An nexation of Texas, in great measure due to the active resolution of Mr. Calhoun ; and those masterly discus sions of national interests and international law which have made the state papers of Mr. Everett and Mr. Marcy proud and perpetual records in our national his tory.

I propose, in the present volume, to write the history of the first of these three periods.* It was a time of trial and trouble, but it was illustrated by great names and honorable labors ; and the whole superstructure of our after history rests upon the foundation of its calm and patient sagacity, its simple and unfaltering truth fulness. To comprehend fully, however, the position of the country at the inauguration of General Washington, it will be necessary briefly to review the condition of our foreign relations during the five years which elapsed between the treaty of peace of 1783 and the adoption of the constitution in 1788. It would be almost as easy for a man in the vigorous and varied activity of his matured life to realize faith fully to himself the uncertainty and weakness of his infancy, as for a citizen of the United States at the present day to reproduce the condition of his country * For that period, which, commencing with the Declaration of In dependence, terminated at the treaty of peace, 1783, I may be permitted to refer to " The Diplomacy of the Revolution," by the author of this volume.

Appleton, 1852. at the date of that treaty which secured its independence. In every element which contributes to the glory and strength of national existence, — an efficient government, compact territory, flourishing finances, a prosperous commerce, dense population, and an effective military and naval force, — the United States of America were, in 1783, singularly deficient. They had, indeed, unparalleled resources ; a soil whose prodigal bounty was fed by the inexhaustible mines and lavish valleys and fruitful hills of an untouched continent; majestic rivers whose currents rolled in proud anticipation of a priceless commerce, and broad bays whose arms spread wide to welcome the freighted argosies of the world. The spirit of their people was free, bold, and venturesome ; shrewd in enterprise, quick in resolution, and possessing unbounded faith in themselves and their future.

Above all, they had, and honored in their councils, not a few of those " kingly spirits of history," who, when they receive full and obedient recognition from the people, are the highest manifestation of national life, and the surest guarantee of national character. But this rich soil, with its treasures of corn and coal and cotton and gold and lead, was to be won and worked. Forests were to be felled and cities to be builded, harbors to be created and rivers to be rendered navigable. The spirit of the people was to be developed by labor, and even the great men who had by seven years of suffering achieved independence, were to be perfected by a wider and more difficult experience. For it must not be supposed that the treaty of peace secured the national life. Indeed, it would be more correct to say, that the most critical period of the coun try's history embraced the time between the peace of 1783 and the adoption of the constitution in 1788.

It is now almost impossible to understand how the Articles of the Confederation, which constituted the rev olutionary government, lasted through the struggles of that difficult time.* The central power was clumsy in its construction, uncertain in its action, and very feeble in its execution. It certainly did not either lead popu lar sentiment, or develop a consistent scheme of na tional policy. The indomitable spirit of the people * For the history of the Confederation, the only authority with which I am acquainted is " The History of the Formation and Adop tion of the Constitution of the United States," by Mr. George T. Curtis, of Boston. The first volume of this work only has been published, including the period of the Confederation. As the great party divisions of our political history have taken their rise in differ ent constructions of the constitution, and as every one brings to the study of that instrument a mind more or less biased by early, and, of necessity, prejudiced convictions, it is of course impossible to pro nounce an opinion on this work until it is completed.

Inferring some of Mr. Curtis's opinions from his argument in the Dred Scott case, I can anticipate a wide difference on many important points. I can say, however, with truth and great pleasure, that so far the work is a credit to the graver literature of the country. It is con ceived in a spirit of candid, philosophical inquiry, and execvited in a manner honorable to the taste, learning, and honesty of its accomplished author. conquered by endurance the chief obstacles to success, while the necessary unanimity of action and opinion was preserved by the individual influence of the great men who appeared together in the different colonies, and commanded, each in his sphere, the confidence of his immediate section. The subordination of the gov ernment to the individual ability of its instruments was most striking in the foreign relations of the country, and the diplomacy of the Revolution was the result rather of the wisdom of Franklin, Adams, and Jay, than of the prolonged and perplexed deliberation of the Conti nental Congress.

Efficient and sufficient, however, as might be the articles of the confederation for the purpose of giving validity to the diplomatic transactions which resulted in the treaty of peace, the provisions of those articles rendered the government absolutely im potent for the continued administration of the foreign affairs of the new commonwealth. And the inquiry made by the Duke of Dorset, in reply to the advances of the American commissioners towards the negotia tion of a commercial treaty with Great Britain, suggested insuperable difficulties.

" Having communicated," says his Grace, in a letter dated March 26, 1785, " to my court the readiness you expressed in your letter to me of the 9th December, to remove to London for the purpose of treating upon such points as may materially concern the interests, both political and commercial, of Great Britain and America, and having at the same time represented that you declared yourselves to be fully authorized and em powered to negotiate ; I have been, in answer thereto, instructed to learn from you, gentlemen, what is the real nature of the powers with which you are invested, whether you are merely commissioned by Congress, or whether you have received separate powers from the respective States The apparent determination of the respective States to regulate their own separate interests, renders it absolutely necessary, towards form ing a permanent system of commerce, that my court should be informed how far the commissioners can be duly authorized to enter into any engagements with Great Britain which it may not be in the power of any one of the States to render totally useless and inefficient." * Now the Articles of Confederation, after providing in Art. 2, that " each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled," provided in Art. 9, that " the United States, in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, .... of sending and receiving ambassadors, entering into treaties and alliances ; provided, that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing * Dip.

Corres. 1783-1789, Vol. II., p. 297. such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own peo ple are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever." And it also provided, in the same article, that the consent of nine States should be necessary to the exercise of even this limited power. Such a pro vision, in the presence of thirteen States, differing widely in the character of their production and the interests of their commerce, was an absolute negative upon any permanent or concerted action. In addition to this, there was no efficiently con structed Department of State. Congress itself was gradually subsiding into a political inanity; the States were absorbed in their local affairs ; their most distinguished men were employed at home ; a quorum of members was tardily and with great difficulty convened at the seat of government ; the federal and state finances were in a condition of almost hopeless embarrassment ; the military force of the country nearly dis banded; and the executive government itself, at the very time it was offering to negotiate with the most powerful nation of the world, was driven from the capi tal by a military insurrection which lacked principle to be called a rebellion, and had' scarcely strength enough to be termed a riot.

The questions, too, which were of first importance to the United States, were precisely those commercial and territorial questions which needed prompt action, a vigorous government, and competent military force: such questions, for example, as the boundaries between Spain and themselves ; the restora tion of the frontier posts by the English ; the commerce with the West Indies, and the navigation of the Mis sissippi. And yet, unfortunately, these were just the questions most calculated to excite sectional feeling, to develop mischievously local differences, and consequent ly, under the limitation of the Confederation, the most unlikely to be settled. All therefore which could be expected at this period of our history was, that the government should give up nothing, and, if it pressed no claims, that at least it should abandon none.

And this is just what the government did. It held every thing in statu quo between the treaty of independence and the adoption of the constitution ; and therefore it is that from the transactions of these five years can best be learned the position of the United States upon the opening of General Washington's administration. In 1781, the Continental Congress, which had in the first years of the war neglected the organization of any department of foreign affairs, was compelled, by the growing necessities of its diplomatic relations, to estab lish some orderly arrangement in this branch of administration. They resolved, " That the extent and the rising im portance of these United States entitle them to a place among the great potentates of Europe, while our political and commercial interests point out the propriety of cultivating with them a friendly correspondence and connection.

" That to render such an intercourse advantageous, the necessity of a competent knowledge of the interests, views, relations, and systems of those potentates, is obvious. " That a knowledge, in its nature so comprehensive, is only to be acquired by a constant attention to the state of Europe, and an unremitted application to the means of acquiring wellgrounded information. . . . " That to answer these essential purposes, the com mittee are of opinion that a fixed and permanent office for the department of foreign affairs ought forthwith to be established, as a remedy against the fluctuation, the delay, and indecision to which the present mode of managing our foreign affairs must be exposed." Under this new and better arrangement, Robert R. Livingston, of New York, was elected " Secretary of Foreign Affairs."

After filling this responsible post with eminent ability from the 20th of October, 1781, until June, 1783, Mr. g Livingston resigned. Congress post poned the election of his successor until they had determined upon a place of permanent session ; and, in the mean time, conducted the correspondence with their foreign ministers through the successive presidents of their own body, Boudinot, Mifflin, and Lee. On the 7th of May, 1784, Mr. Jay was elected to the vacant post. A happier selection could not have been made. Mr. Jay, after filling high and responsible office at home, had been Minister to Spain, and one of the plenipotentiaries in Paris who negotiated the treaty of peace. The grave truthfulness of his character, the sobriety of his judgment, and his inflexible resolution, all abundantly illustrated in long public service, secured him the con fidence of the country, while his diplomatic experience gave him precisely that knowledge of national and European interests and influences most needed in those questions which the varied policies of England, France, and Spain were anxious to settle, each to its own special advantage.

Of all men in the country, Mr. Jay was thus the best fitted to comprehend the position of our ministers abroad, to appreciate their despatches, and, at the same time, to guide the deliberations of Congress in harmony with the policy of the department. Be tween Mr. Livingston's resignation and Mr. Jay's entry into office, Congress received and replied to several diplomatic communications, which, possessing perhaps no political value, were yet interesting as reflections and indications of European opinion. In March, 1783, the Burgomasters and Senate of the Free City of Ham burg addressed, through John Abraham de Boor, to Congress, whom they style "right noble, high, mighty, most honorable Lords," a " most obsequious missive," in which, referring to the treaty of peace with England, they say : " We, impressed with the most lively sensations on the illustrious event, the wonder of this and the most remote future ages, and desirous fully to testify the part we take therein, do hereby offer your High Mightinesses our service and attachment to the cause ; " and then, stating the advantages of a reciprocal trade, proceed, " intercessionally and most obsequiously to request your High Mightinesses to favor and counte nance the trade of our merchants, and to suffer them to enjoy all such rights and liberties as you allow to merchants of nations in amity, which, in gratitude and with zeal, we will in our place endeavor to retribute, etc., etc."