Relations of the United States with Sweden

Introduction

The world war has emphasized the already apparent fact that the United States had hecome a world power that must be considered in a settlement of all important international questions. Other nations thought that the United States was too much absorbed in her own economic and industrial pursuits to take any part in world problems, but she has proved in this war that her interests are wide as the world. The United States has also proved that economic development has not prevented the fostering of advanced ideals in regard to international relations. These ideals have grown up with the nation and are not a recent outburst of patriotic emotion.

In the light of this general fact it has been considered important to study more carefully the negotiations between the United States and Sweden to ascertain the nature of the relations with that country, the problems that have been involved, and how those problems have been solved. A study of those negotiations has revealed the following facts:

First, Sweden assumed a decidedly friendly attitude toward the United States from the very beginning and this friendship is illustrated by the fact that Sweden was the first nation to ask the privilege to make a treaty with the United States as early as 1784, by opening up of the island of St. Bartholomew as a free port in order to aid in the development of the mutual commerce, and by requesting the exchange of public ministers.

Second, when the two countries were suffering from the

effects of the war between England and Napoleon, Sweden in-

'^ vited the United States to join in a league of neutral nations to

^ protect the interest of the neutrals. This proposition was con-

VI INTRODUCTION

sidered by the American Government, which fact is proved by the instructions to John- Jay and the correspondence between James Monroe and the Secretary of State.

Third, the Napoleonic wars brought on claims against Sweden as well as against other European powers, for she also became involved in the Continental System. Although the indemnity losses incurred was tardily agreed upon, the Swedish Government always frankly admitted the justice of the claims of the American merchants and expressed willingness to pay the indemnity. This willingness, on the part of the Swedish Government, to settle the claims is illustrated by the fact that the Crown Prince offered a quantity of cannons and gun powder, his personal property, as a payment on the claims, and also that the Government offered to sell the island of St. Bartholomev.' to the United States and to deduct from the purchase price the amount of the claims.

Fourth, Swedish consular officers tendered their good services in behalf of American sailors and American commerce in Algiers.

The source material used in preparing this study is indicated in the footnotes and in the appended bibliography. The material listed there has been carefully examined, and all irrevelent material has been omitted from the bibliography.

At present only the earlier part of the study of the relations between the two countries is published, but it is the intention of the author, as soon as recent material becomes available, to publish also that part of the study which deals wdth the problems growing out of the world war.

CHAPTER I Relations During the American Revolution

The Declaration of Independence required as a necessary consequence the establishment of foreign relations. Before that time the inhabitants of the eastern shore of North America had belonged to a European Power, and their relation with other nations was therefore part and parcel of the European balance of power. When independence was declared and on the way to become a fact these inhabitants were no longer a mere attachment to another power. The question that must be decided, however, was whether these young states should send representatives to other nations to request admission into the family of nations, or should they quietly await until independence had been achieved and let the commercial advantages of the country solicit the invitation from older nations. The latter view was stated in a letter from Dr. Franklin to Arthur Lee when he was on his fruitless mission to Spain. He said: "A virgin state should preserve the virgin character, and not go about suitoriug for alliances, but wait with decent dignity for the application of others. ' ' ^

Another class of statesmen with a ' ' broader appreciation of political necessity" advocated a policy of diplomatic advances. The question of independence involved, from their point of view, a great number of European interests, and they deemed themselves warranted in demanding effective support in exchange for commercial opportunities. The personification of this poli-

* Sparks, J. Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 67; Franklin to Lee, March 21, 1777.

cy seems to be John Adams who wrote : " I think we have not meanly solicited for friendship anywhere. But to send ministers to every court in Europe, especially the maritime courts, to propose an acknowledgement of the independence of America and treaties of amity and commerce, is no more than becomes us, and in my opinion is our duty to do. It is perfectly consistent with the genuine system of American policy, and a price of respect due from new nations to old ones". ^ Already about a month earlier he had written to the President of Congress : ' ' The counsels of the sovereigns of Europe are not easily penetrated ; but it is our duty to attend to them, and throw into view such information as may be in our power, that they may take no measure inconsistent with their and our interest for want of light — a misfortune that may easily happen. In this view, I could wish that the United States had a minister in each of the maritime courts — I mean Holland, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark and, as the cabinet of Berlin has much influence in the politics of Europe, Prussia".^ Arthur and William Lee also wrote to Congress "stating that they were informed by reliable authority that Spain, Holland, Prussia, Germany, Tuscany, and Sweden were anxious to receive American ministers".* Fortunately for the young republic the latter view prevailed.

The war of the American Revolution had not proceeded fai* before the European nations became involved in one way or another, since England "claimed the right to search neutral vessels for contraband of war, and she exercised this right in a high-handed manner". Finding it impossible to obtain redress from England, Gustavus III, of Sweden instructed his minister at London (December 1778) to deliver a remonstrance to the

^Sparks, Diplomatic Corresp., V, 361; Adams to Franklin, October 14, 1780.

'Wharton, F. Revolutionary Diplomatic Corresp., IV, 57; Adams to the President of Congress, September 16, 1780

* Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Corresp., I, 460.

English Government "couched in such sharp terms that Lord Suffolk expressed himself unable to distinguish it from a formal declaration of war ' '. '^

This action on the part of Sweden must have been fairly well considered for already in October the court of Denmark through its envoy in Stockholm inquired if the armed neutrality of 1756 ought not to be renewed. ® The King of Sweden answered in a cordial tone that he wished once more to appeal to England if perchance any relief would be granted without adopting extreme measures. But at the same time Gustavus III requested his minister in Russia to find out if Russia would co-operate. About the end of December 1778 the Empress of Russia answered that she would co-operate if it became necessary.

When the protest of Sweden failed to bring about the necessary relief from England, the King of Sweden proposed to Denmark and Russia that the northern powers should protect their commerce by entering into a convention. This action on the part of Sweden was well known to England for on December 22, 1778, the British Ambassador of Petrograd wrote to the Earl of Suffolk regarding the contemplated action in the following words, "I trust your Lordship will not tax me with negligence, if the messenger is not yet departed. I cannot prevail on Count Panin to give me an answer, and I depend so little on his promise of his enabling me to despatch him to-morrow, that I lose no time in acquainting your Lordship, that on Saturday last the Swedish Minister after enlarging greatly on our conduct towards neutral ships, made a formal proposal to this Court to join with that of Stockholm in forming a combined fleet, sufficiently strong to protect the trade of the north against

^Bain, Gustavus III and Ms Contemporaries, I; 210; Fenberg, Sverigea Ilistoria, V, 299.

" AlbedyhU, Recueil de memoire., 15.

the attacks made upon it. Mr. Nolken [the Swedish ambassador at Petrograd] added, that, if the Empress adopted this plan, there was no doubt that Denmark would also subscribe to it; and that the commerce of these countries, now so interrupted, would be by this means carried on with security". ^ The Ambassador continued, "I have reasons to believe the idea of taking so violent a measure as that of arming an united naval force was immediately rejected ; but that, that of the trade of these countries being illegally interrupted, and the necessity of devising proper methods for its better security, was fully admitted". «

The foreign affairs of Denmark were conducted at this time by Andreas Peter Bernstorff sr., and his policy had always been hostile to Sweden. One writer states that "the insuperable jealousy between Sweden and Denmark, and the disinclination of Russia to offend England, prevented for a time, the formation of a Northern League".® Count Bernstorff worked out a plan of co-operation between Denmark and Russia expecting to leave Sweden outside of the confederation. Russia, however, had not the same interest in protecting neutral commerce as the two Scandinavian states, because its shipping, outside the Baltic, was negligible, and privateers could therefore, in fact, only disturb the commerce to and from Archangel; but this commerce was carried on mainly by the English themselves. ^°

While Russia hesitated to enter whole-heartedly into a convention to protect the commerce of neutral nations, Sweden invited other neutrals to send delegates to "a congress at Stockholm in 1778" to induce Russia to head a league for arming the neutrals. Dr. Franklin must have known about this congress

' Malmesbury, Diaries and Correspondence, I, 189.

'Bain, Gustavus III, and his Contemporaries, (1746-1792), I, 210.

'* Hildebrand, Sverigea Historia, VIII, 54.

for he wrote about it to the Danish minister approving a claim for compensation for attending such a convention on December 25, 1778, in the following words : " I have considered the proposition, and see no objection to it. I will write to Congress in favor of it, if desired". ^^

On December 31, 1778, the English Ambassador at Petrograd again wrote about this subject to the Earl of Suffolk as follows: "In one of his last conversations he [Count Panin] told me that he was obliged to express Her Imperial Majesty's wishes, that we should put a little more circumspection in our mode of proceeding against the ships of Neutral States; that we should otherwise irritate powers now well disposed toward us; that Denmark, Sweden, and Holland had respectively solicited the Empress to join with them in a representation to us on this subject". "

The northern neutrals did not stop with mere protests foi on February 14, 1779, the Swedish envoy at Petrograd was requested to make a proposal to that court, ^^ and on the 18th of the same month, the King of Sweden, after having reached an agreement with Denmark, issued a declaration according to which the two nations were to convoy their merchant vessels. About this agreement John Adams wrote to Arthur Lee : ' ' The declaration of the Northern Powers against the right of England to stop their merchant vessels and arming to support their rights are important events". ^* Russia had promised to help protect the commerce which went north of Norway, and, although Denmark considered this offer unsatisfactory, Sweden, anxious to obtain any improvement in her relation with Russia, accepted whatever could be obtained for the time being. It was this con-

" Wharton, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Corresp., I, 618. " Malmesbury, Diaries and Correspondence, I, 190. **Albedyhll, Recueil de memoire, 18.

"Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Corr., Ill, 214; Adams to Arthur L«e, June 9, 1779.

federation to which John Adams referred when he wrote to the President of the Continental Congress: "Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, comprehended under the denomination of the northern powers, have been thought by some to be interested in our return to the denomination of Great Britain. Whether they consider themselves in this light or not, their late declarations against the rights of England to interrupt their navigation and their arming for the protection of their commerce on the ocean, and even in the English channel, are unequivocal proofs of their opinion concerning the right in our contest and of their intentions not to interfere against us ". ^^

The burden of arming the convoys fell rather heavily on Sweden, for Russia's aid was faultering and doubtful, and Denmark began to negotiate with England anew for the amelioration of commercial restrictions. ^® For Sweden, however, any understandi)ig with Russia was preferable to the condition that preceded the adoption of the convention; besides that she could render effective aid to her old friend and ally, France, in her endeavor to assist the young American Republic.

The fundamental principles of the convention between Sweden and Denmark were repeated almost verbatim in the convention proclaimed by Russia on March 10, 1780. Although the formulation of these principles did not effect any compromise on the part of Great Britain, their formulation and enforcement by an armed force of nations constituted an advance in the history of public law.

Early in 1780, however, when Spain sunk two Russian merchant vessels, Russia became at once interested in a more vigor ous enforcement of the principles contained in the convention of the armed neutrality; and the Empress Catherine II, invited Sweden and Denmark to join with her to protect their commerce

•••Wharton, Op. Cit., Ill, 285.

"' Hildebrand, Sveriges Hisloria, VIII, 54.

against disturbances of hostile fleets. At this time Denmark was less interested in the enforcement of neutral rights than a year and a half earlier, for in the meantime she had entered into a treaty with England which would grant her most of the privileges she desired, but Russia finally induced Denmark to join.

The following principles, quoted almost word for word from the earlier convention, constituted the basis of the armed neutrality on which Russia invited her neighbors to join with her:

1. "That all neutral vessels ought to navigate freely from

one port to another, as well as upon the coasts of the powers at war;

2. ' ' That the effects belonging to the subjects of the bellig-

erent powers shall be free in neutral ships, excepting always contraband goods;

3. "That her imperial majesty, in consequence of the limits

above fixed, will adhere strictly to that which is stipulated by the tenth and eleventh articles of her treaty of commerce with Great Britain, concerning the manner in which she ought to conduct herself toward all the belligerent powers ;

4. ' ' That as to what concerns a port blocked up, we ought

not, in truth, to consider as such any but those which are found so well shut up by a fixed and sufficient number of vessels belonging to the power which attacks it that one cannot attempt to enter into such a port without evident danger ;

5. "That these principles alone laid down ought to serve

as a rule in all proceedings whenever there is a question of legality of prizes". ^'^

"Wtarton, Op. Git., Ill, 608; cf. Malmesbury, Diaries and Corres pondence, I, 251.

From the facts stated above, it becomes clear that the armed neutrality was in force prior to the proclamation of Catharin.3 II, and that it originated with Sweden and Denmark rather than with Russia. As a matter of fact the armed neutrality of 1779- 1780 was only a fruitition of earlier agreements to the same effect. If an attempt is made to find the origin of the idea, and the principles involved, it becomes necessary to go back into the close of the sixteenth century. Those agreements, far less known than the later one, were nevertheless effective in bringing about the desired end; and the honor for their establishment belong to Denmark and Sweden ; the first thought about it undoubtedly emanated from Denmark.

It was during the war of the allied powers against Louis XIV that England and Holland entered into an agreement, in August 1689, which united their powers under William III, to checkmate France. According to the first article of their agreement all commerce with France was to be prohibited. This treaty contradicted earlier treaties between these countries and the northern powers; and when the privateers began to make commerce dangerous the governments of Sweden and Denmark became uneasy. For this reason the Danish Government instructed Its minister at tiie Court of Sweden to propose that a united force of armed vessels be fitted out to convoy their merchant vessels. Sweden whose polities at this time was otherwise hostile to Denmark, consented to the proposal and the result was the "Tractat till Navigationens och Commerciens sakerhet" (A Treaty for the Safety of Commerce and Navigation), which was concluded at Stockholm, March 10, 1691, and was renewed by the Danish Minister Jens Juel, March 17, 1693. These are the earliest agreements of their kind and were not without results, for both England and Holland found themselves obliged to make good the losses sustained by the northern powers. ^®

The third league of nations to enforce the right of neutral commerce was brought about on July 12, 1756 by signing of a formal convention at Stockholm. ^^ It was later extended in 1759 by the entrance of Russia. The existence of this union and the reason for it do not seem to be very well known to English readers, but, because this union is closely related to the later one, a short account of it may be included here.

The events are intimately connected with the seven years war. The war which broke out in the American colonies between France and England had not even been officially declared when English vessels began to visit and search all merchant vessels en route for France. The question of contraband became especially important, but since the treaty of peace at Utrecht, 1713, [parg. XIX,XX] specifically stated what was to be considered contraband, this question ought to have been rather easily solved. But the English Government made a different application of the rule in each instance and counted as contraband many other commodities known only to their own privateers. Thus the old selfish system was in full swing. Very soon the effects of this system became known among the northern powers. Already in August 1755 England's disregard for neutral rights went so far that an English frigate, sent to the sound to convoy English vessels home, visited and searched a Swedish vessel just outside of Helsingor, under the pretense that it was searching for goods destined to France. This act was performed right under the Danish guns on Kroneborg;

" For a summary of the agreementi see Sprinchorn, Ett bidrag till den vapnade neutralitetens historia i Norden in Historisk Tidskrift (188]- 82), I, 248. For a full discussion of the earlier treaties see Reedlz, H. C. Danmarks og Sveriges forbindelse till de neutrala handelsrettigheters beskyttelse i aarene 1690 till 1693; De Skand. literatseLikapea skrifter, 21 Bend. Copenhagen 1826.

" AlbedyWl, Recueil de memoire, 11.

therefore the act aroused the indignation of the Danish Government, and Baron Bernstorff sr. who together with A. G. von Moltke controlled the politics of Denmark, instructed the Danish envoy at London to unite with the Swedish Minister in a protest. Von Moltke also suggested to the Swedish minister at Copenhagen that Sweden and Denmark ought to agree on a plan to safeguard their shipping during the war between France and England. The negotiations proceeded rapidly and in February 1856 a plan was submitted to a secret committee of the Riksdag. The proposition was read, discussed and approved in about half an hour, which fact may indicate the care with which the proposition had been prepared by the Government. After a counter proposition was received from Denmark, a mutual agreement was reached and the convention was signed July 12, 1856. ^°

The Proclamation of Catharine II, on March 10, 1780, came therefore, not, as has been often assumed, as something entirely new and unheard of, but as an expression of the experience of the northern nations. -^ The principle which the earlier agreements had tested were embodied in the new one. The only exception was the agreement of 1756 wherein Denmark objected to the principle of free ships, free goods, on the ground that she did not desire unnecessarily to offend England.

The declaration of the northern neutrals struck at the very center of English interests. "In some confused minutes of a debate in the House of Lords on the 14 of April [1780] it is said that Lord Camden expressed his astonishment and regret

"• Sprinchorn, C. Ett bidrag till den vapuade neutralitetens historia i Norden, in Svensk Historisk Tidskrift (1881-2), I, 250 f.

" Mr. Bain in Gustavus III, and his contemporaries, I, 149, asserts that the action of Catharine II, was taken in revenge because England would not co-operate with her in suppressing the revolution in Sweden 1772; therefore when England asked for 20,000 soldiers to restrain ' ' the increasing frenzy of his Majesty's unhappy and deluded people on the other side of the Atlantic, ' ' and a draft treaty to that effect was actually sent to Gunning, Catharine II explained away her promise.

NEGOTIATIONS DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION H

at the memorial from Russia The thought of that manifesto made him shudder when he first read it, particularly as he

knew how his country stood in respect to other powers ' '.^^

John Adams significantly added that if the Court of England had had only common information "they would have known that this combination of maritime powers has been forming these eighteen months, and was nearly as well agreed to a year ago as it is now". "

England did not, however, willingly accede to the principles of the armed neutrality for she held that Sweden was inspired by an excessive friendship for France and therefore also for the United States. The measure she adopted to counteract the armed neutrality seems therefore specifically aimed against Sweden. John Adams wrote about it to the President of Congress on April 4, 1780, in the following words: "The Swedish frigate lUerim, of thirty-four guns, commanded by Captain Ankerloo, on the 28 of February, at half after eight o'clock at night, met an English privateer belonging to Minorca, of twenty-eight guns. The Swedish captain after hailing the privateer, let her continue her course, and went on quietly his own : about half an hour after, the privateer returning ranged herself astern of the frigate and unexpectedly discharged both his broadsides, loaded with langrage, which killed three sailors, broke the thigh and right leg of the Captain, wounded the Lieutenant and some people of the crew. Ankerloo, who in the evening had been obliged by a violent gale of wind to draw in his guns and shut up his ports, not finding himself prepared for battle, his officers took immediate measures, with the utmost alertness, for repulsing the privateer, which did in fact at last receive a broadside from the frigate; but on the whole, she escaped in the night, by the force of sails and oars. After this perfidy on the part of the English, Anker-

" Wharton, Dipl. Coir, of the Am. Rev., Ill, 632, ='=' Wharton, Op. Cit., Ill, 676.

loo would have entered Marsailles for the sake of dressing his wounds, but having met with contrary winds and bad weather for three days, he put into Malaga, where he went ashore to the house of the Swedish consul, where he is since dead of wounds". "

England even claimed the right to search merchant vessels under convoy. The following has been taken from a report to the President of Congress from John Adams dated January 16, 1782. "They write from Stockholm, that the Court of London has thought proper to make representations to that of Sweden, concerning a recounter, which a convoy of merchant ships, under escort of the Swedish frigate, the Jaramas, had with the English squadron of commodore Stewart, who would have visited these ships. The Court of London pretends that he was authorized to make such a visit, even in virtue of the articles of the convention of the armed neutrality, concluded between the three powers of the north; but that the court of Stockholm, far from blaming the refusal of the captain of the Jaramas, to permit the visit, had highly approved his conduct, and answered that this officer had acted conformably to his duty, for that the regulation in one of the articles of the convention of the armed neutrality in regard to the visit of merchant ships, respected only vessels, which navigated without convoy, but not at all those which should be found under convoy, and consequently under the protection of a sovereign flag the warranty of the nature of their cargo, and of the property". -^ The decision of the Court of Sweden was referred to Catharine II, and she approved it and assured the Swedish Government of her co-operation to defend the right of neutrals.

The Continental Congress carefully discussed the information received from the representatives in Europe, and on Sep-

" Sparks, J. Dipl. Corr., II, 699 f .

" Sparks, J. Dipl. Corr. of the Am. B»v., VI, S4t.

tember 26, 1780, a ''committee to whom was referred the motion of Mr. [Samuel] Adams, reports that, Whereas her Imperial Majesty of all the Russias, animated with the clearest sentiment of Justice, equity and moderation, and a strict regard to the unquestionable rights of neutrality and the most perfect freedom of commerce that can consist with such neutrality has notified both to the belligerent and neutral Powers, the following propositions to which his Most Christian Majesty, the Illustrious ally of these United States and his Catholic Majesty two of the belligerent Powers, and most of the neutral Powers in Europe have acceded.

"The Congress of the United States of America willing to testify their moderation and regard to the rights of neutrality and freedom of commerce, as well as their respect for the Powers and potentates who have adopted the propositions have :

"Resolved, That all neutral vessels have by the Law of Nations a right to navigate freely to and from ports and on the coasts of the powers at war, when not prohibited by treaty or municipal law.

' ' That in the case aforesaid the effects of belligerent Powers, or belonging to their subjects shall be free in neutral vessels except always contraband. That the term contraband be confined to those articles expressly declared such by the articles of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce of the 6th day of February 1778, between his Most Christian Majesty and these United States.

"That with regard to ports or places blocked up or closely invested, none shall be considered as such but those which by a seige or blockade are so closely invested that an attempt cannot be made to enter such ports or places without evident danger.

"That the above principles serve as a rule in all proceedings of justice in the United States on all questions of capture.

"Ordered that the committee of Foreign Affairs transmit copies of the above act to the Minister Plenipotentiary of these

States at the Court of Versailles to be by him communicated to the Neutral Powers in Europe and others whom it may concern". ^^

The same day, September 26, 1780, Robert Livingston introduced a resolution of the following content : ' ' Congress have considered the declaration of the Empress of all the Russias, relative to the rights of neutral vessels. The regulations it contains are useful, wise, and just. The acts of a sovereign who promotes the happiness of her subjects and extends her views to the welfare of nations, who forms laws for a vast empire and corrects the great code of the world, claims the earliest attention of a rising republic therefore

"Resolved, That the Board of Admiralty report instructions for the commanders of armed vessels commissioned by the United States conformable to the principles contained in the said declaration.

"Resolved, That copies of the above resolution be transmitted to the Minister of the United States respectively, and to Monssre de Marbois, charge des affaires, from his Most Christian Majesty"."

On October 4 it was decided to consider the report on the resolution, relative to the armed neutrality of the north, on the following day. ^^ On the 5th, Congress took into consideration "the report of the committee on the motion relative to the proposition of the Empress of Russia; and thereupon came to the following resolution;

"Her Imperial Majesty of all the Russias, attentive to the freedom of commerce, and the rights of nations, in her declaration to the belligerent and neutral powers, having proposed regulations, founded upon principles of justice, equity, and

=" Journals of Cont. Congress, XVIII, 864 ff. -' Journals of the Cont. Congress, XVIII, 866. -* Journals of the Cont. Congress, XVIII, 899.

moderation, of which their Most Christian and Catholic Majesties, and most of the neutral maritime powers of Europe, have declared their approbation.

"Congress, willing to testify their regard to the rights of commerce, and their respect for the sovereign, who hath proposed and the powers that have approved the said regulations ;