| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Journals of the Continental Congress --TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1780
A Representation from Abraham Whipple, John Peck Rathburne, Samuel Tucker and Thomas Simpson, late commanders of the continental ships of war, the Providence, Queen of France, Boston and Ranger, was read:
Ordered, That it be referred to the Board of Admiralty.
A letter, of this day, from the Chevalier du Buysson was read:
Ordered, That it be referred to the Board of War.
A petition of Nathan Bush was read.
A report from the Board of Treasury was read:
Treasury Office Octr 14th1780
The Board of Treasury Beg leave to Report--
That it appears by a Return of the Treasurer dated the 12th. instant, that he has received into the Treasury from the Commonwealth of Virginia a certain sum of money in Specie, amounting to one thousand three hundred and eighteen pounds fifteen shillings, at the Rate of seventy five for one which is equal to two hundred and sixty three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars Continental Currency.
That if it be the will of Congress that the aforesaid sum in Specie should be sold for Continental Currency, it may be done on the same terms on which it has been received into the Treasury2
[Note 2: 2 This report is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 136, IV, folio 621.]
Page 935 | Page image
Ordered, That it be referred to a committee of three:
The members chosen, Mr. [Theodorick] Bland, Mr. [James] Duane and Mr. [Thomas] McKean.
On motion of the Medical Committee,
Ordered, That Doctor Isaac Forster and Doctor Jonathan Potts deliver all public stores in their possession to Doctor Thomas Bond, purveyor of the hospitals, or his order, taking duplicate receipts for the same, and transmitting one of each to the Board of Treasury.
Congress took into consideration the draught of the letter to Mr. Jay, and agreed to the same.
The committee, appointed to prepare a letter to the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States at the Courts of Versailles and Madrid, explaining the reasons and principles on which the instructions to Mr. Jay the 4th instant are founded, reported a draft which was agreed to as follows:1
[Note 1: 1 The original droit says: "report the following to Mr. Jay a copy of which with the resolution directing the draught, to be also inclosed to Dr Franklin."]
Sir,
Congress having in their instructions of the 4th instant, directed you to adhere strictly to their former instructions relating to the boundaries of the United States, to insist on the navigation of the Mississippi for the citizens of the United States in common with the subjects of his Catholick Majesty, as also on a free port or ports below the northern limit of West Florida, and accessible to merchant ships for the use of the former; and being sensible of the influence which these claims on the part of the United States may have on your negotiations with the court of Madrid, have thought it expedient to explain the reasons and principles on which the same are founded, that you may be enabled to satisfy that court of the equity and justice of their intentions.
Page 936 | Page image
With respect to the first of these articles, by which the river Mississippi is fixed as the boundary between the Spanish settlements and the United States, it is unnecessary to take notice of any pretensions founded on a priority of discovery, of occupancy, or on conquest. It is sufficient that by the definitive treaty of Paris, of 1763, article seventh, all the territory now claimed by the United States was expressly and irrevocably ceded to the king of Great Britain; and that the United States are, in consequence of the revolution in their government, entitled to the benefits of that cession.
The first of these positions is proved by the treaty itself. To prove the last, it must be observed, that it is a fundamental principle in all lawful governments, and particularly in the constitution of the British empire, that all the rights of sovereignty are intended for the benefit of those from whom they are derived, and over whom they are exercised. It is known also to have been held for an inviolable principle by the United States, while they remained a part of the British empire, that the sovereignty of the king of England, with all the rights and powers included in it, did not extend to them in virtue of his being acknowledged and obeyed as king by the people of England, or of any other part of the empire, but in virtue of his being acknowledged and obeyed as king of the people of America themselves; and that this principle was the basis, first of their opposition to, and finally of their abolition of, his authority over them. From these principles it results, that all the territory lying within the limits of the states, as fixed by the sovereign himself, was held by him for their particular benefits, and must equally with his other rights and claims in quality of their sovereign, be considered as having devolved on them, in consequence of their resumption of the sovereignty to themselves.
Page 937 | Page image
In support of this position it may be further observed, that all the territorial rights of the king of Great Britain, within the limits of the United States, accrued to him from the enterprises, the risks, the sacrifices, the expense in blood and treasure of the present inhabitants and their progenitors. If in latter times expenses and exertions have been borne by any other part of the empire, in their immediate defence, it need only be recollected, that the ultimate object of them was the general security and advantage of the empire; that a proportional share was borne by the states themselves; and that if this had not been the case, the benefits resulting from an exclusive enjoyment of their trade have been an abundant compensation. Equity and justice therefore perfectly coincide, in the present instance, with political and constitutional principles.
No objection can be pretended against what is here said, except that the king of Great Britain was, at the time of the rupture with his Catholick Majesty, possessed of certain parts of the territory in question, and consequently that his Catholick Majesty had and still has a right to regard them as lawful objects of conquest. In answer to this objection, it is to be considered, 1. That these possessions are few in number and confined to small spots. 2. That a right founded on conquest being only coextensive with the objects of conquest, cannot comprehend the circumjacent territory. 3. That if a right to the said territory depended on the conquests of the British posts within it, the United States have already a more extensive claim to it than Spain can acquire, having by the success of their arms obtained possession of all the important posts and settlements on the Illinois and Wabash, rescued the inhabitants from British domination, and
Page 938 | Page image
established civil government in its proper form over them. They have, moreover, established a post on a strong and commanding situation near the mouth of the Ohio: whereas Spain has a claim by conquest to no post above the northern bounds of West Florida, except that of the Natchez, nor are there any other British posts below the mouth of the Ohio for their arms to be employed against. 4. That whatever extent ought to be ascribed to the right of conquest, it must be admitted to have limitations which in the present case exclude the pretensions of his Catholick Majesty. If the occupation by the king of Great Britain of posts within the limits of the United States, as defined by charters derived from the said king when constitutionally authorized to grant them, makes them lawful objects of conquest to any other power than the United States, it follows that every other part of the United States that now is, or may hereafter fall into the hands of the enemy, is equally an object of conquest. Not only New York, Long Island, and the other islands in its vicinity, but almost the entire states of South Carolina and Georgia might, by the interposition of a foreign power at war with their enemy, be forever severed from the American confederacy, and subjected to a foreign yoke. But is such a doctrine consonant to the rights of nations, or the sentiments of humanity? Does it breathe that spirit of concord and amity which is the aim of the proposed alliance with Spain? Would it be admitted by Spain herself, if it affected her own dominions? Were, for example, a British armament by a sudden enterprise to get possession of a seaport, a trading town, or maritime province in Spain, and another power at war with Britain, should, before it could be re-conquered
Page 939 | Page image
by Spain, wrest it from the hands of Britain, would Spain herself consider it as an extinguishment of her just pretensions? Or would any impartial nation consider it in that light? [As to the proclamation of the king of Great Britain of 1763, forbidding his governours in North America to grant lands westward of the sources of the rivers falling into the Atlantick ocean, it can by no rule of construction militate against the present claims of the United States. That proclamation, as is clear both from the title and tenor of it, was intended merely to prevent disputes with the Indians, and an irregular appropriation of vacant land to individuals; and by no means either to renounce any parts of the cessions made in the treaty of Paris, or to affect the boundaries established by ancient charters. On the contrary, it is expressly declared that the lands and territory prohibited to be granted, were within the sovereignty and dominion of that crown, notwithstanding the reservation of them to the use of the Indians.]1
[Note 1: 1 The paragraph in brackets is marked: "Amendment proposed to be inserted in the blank in 4th page." It was so inserted and accepted with the rest of the report.]
The right of the United States to western territory as far as the Mississippi having been shown, there are sufficient reasons for them to insist on that right, as well as for Spain not to wish a relinquishment of it.
In the first place, the river Mississippi will be a more natural, more distinguishable, and more precise boundary than any other that can be drawn eastward of it; and consequently will be less liable to become a source of those disputes which too often proceed from uncertain boundaries between nations.
Secondly, It ought not to be concealed, that although the vacant territory adjacent to the Mississippi should
Page 940 | Page image
be relinquished by the United States to Spain, yet the fertility of its soil, and its convenient situation for trade, might be productive of intrusions by the citizens of the former, which their great distance would render it difficult to restrain; and which might lead to an interruption of that harmony which it is so much the interest and wish of both should be perpetual.
Thirdly, As this territory lies within the charter limits of particular states, and is considered by them as no less their property than any other territory within their limits, Congress could not relinquish it without exciting discussions between themselves and those states, concerning their respective rights and powers, which might greatly embarrass the publick councils of the United States, and give advantage to the common enemy.
Fourthly, The territory in question contains a number of inhabitants, who are at present under the protection of the United States, and have sworn allegiance to them. These could not by voluntary transfer be subjected to a foreign jurisdiction, without manifest violation of the common rights of mankind, and of the genius and principles of the American governments.
Fifthly, In case the obstinacy and pride of Great Britain should for any length of time continue an obstacle to peace, a cession of this territory, rendered of so much value to the United States by its particular situation, would deprive them of one of the material funds on which they rely for pursuing the war against her. On the part of Spain, this territorial fund is not needed for, and perhaps could not be applied to, the purposes of the war; and from its situation is otherwise of much less value to her than to the United States.
Congress have the greater hopes that the pretensions of his Catholick Majesty on this subject will not be so
Page 941 | Page image
far urged as to prove an insuperable obstacle to an alliance with the United States, because they conceive such pretensions to be incompatible with the treaties subsisting between France and them, which are to be the basis and substance of it. By article eleventh of the treaty of alliance, eventual and defensive, the possessions of the United States are guarantied to them by his Most Christian Majesty. By article twelfth of the same treaty, intended to fix more precisely the sense and application of the preceding article, it is declared, that this guaranty shall have its full force and effect the moment a rupture shall take place between France and England. All the possessions, therefore, belonging to the United States at the time of that rupture, which being prior to the rupture between Spain and England, must be prior to all claims of conquest by the former, are guarantied to them by his Most Christian Majesty.
Now, that in the possessions thus guarantied was meant, by the contracting parties, to be included all the territory within the limits assigned to the United States by the treaty of Paris,. may be inferred from the fifth article of the treaty abovementioned, which declares, that if the United States should think fit to attempt the reduction of the British power remaining in the northern parts of America, or the islands of Bermudas, &c., those countries shall, in case of success, be confederated with, or dependent upon, the United States. For, if it had been understood by the parties that the western territory in question, known to be of so great importance to the United States, and a reduction of it so likely to be attempted by them, was not included in the general guaranty, can it be supposed that no notice would have been taken of it, when the
Page 942 | Page image
parties extended their views, not only to Canada, but to the remote and unimportant island of Bermudas. It is true that these acts between France and the United States are in no respects obligatory on his Catholick Majesty, unless he shall think fit to accede to them. Yet as they show the sense of his Most Christian Majesty on this subject, with whom his Catholick Majesty is intimately allied; as it is in pursuance of an express reservation to his Catholick Majesty in a secret act subjoined to the treaties aforesaid of a power to accede to those treaties, that the present overtures are made on the part of the United States; and as it is particularly stated in that act, that any conditions which his Catholick Majesty shall think fit to add, are to be analogous to the principal aim of the alliance, and conformable to the rules of equality, reciprocity and friendship, Congress entertain too high an opinion of the equity, moderation and wisdom of his Catholick Majesty not to suppose, that, when joined to these considerations, they will prevail against any mistaken views of interest that may be suggested to him.
The next object of the instructions is the free navigation of the Mississippi for the citizens of the United States, in common with the subjects of his Catholick Majesty.
On this subject, the same inference may be made from article seventh of the treaty of Paris, which stipulates this right in the amplest manner to the king of Great Britain; and the devolution of it to the United States, as was applied to the territorial claims of the latter. Nor can Congress hesitate to believe, that even if no such right could be inferred from that treaty, that the generosity of his Catholick Majesty would not suffer the inhabitants of these states to be put into
Page 943 | Page image
a worse condition, in this respect, by the alliance with him in the character of a sovereign people, than they were in when subjects of a power who was always ready to turn their force against his Majesty; especially as one of the great objects of the proposed alliance is to give greater effect to the common exertions for disarming that power of the faculty of disturbing others. Besides, as the United States have an indisputable right to the possession of the east bank of the Mississippi for a very great distance, and the navigation of that river will essentially tend to the prosperity and advantage of the citizens of the United States that may reside on the Mississippi, or the waters running into it, it is conceived that the circumstances of Spain's being in possession of the banks on both sides near its mouth, cannot be deemed a natural or equitable bar to the free use of the river. Such a principle would authorize a nation disposed to take advantage of circumstances to contravene the clear indications of nature and Providence, and the general good of mankind.
The usage of nations accordingly seems in such cases to have given to those holding the mouth or lower parts of a river no right against those above them, except the right of imposing a moderate toll, and that on the equitable supposition, that such toll is due for the expense and trouble the former may have been put to. "An innocent passage (says Vattel) is due to all nations with whom a state is at peace; and this duty comprehends troops equally with "individuals." If a right to a passage by land through other countries may be claimed for troops, which are employed in the destruction of mankind, how much more may a passage by water be claimed for commerce, which is beneficial to all nations.
Page 944 | Page image
Here again it ought not to be concealed, that the inconveniences which must be felt by the inhabitants on the waters running westwardly, under an exclusion from the free use of the Mississippi, would be a constant and increasing source of disquietude on their part, of more vigorous precautions on the part of Spain, and of an irritation on both parts, which it is equally the interest and duty of both to guard against.
But notwithstanding the equitable claim of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, and its great importance to them, Congress have so strong a disposition to conform to the desires of his Catholick Majesty, that they have agreed that such equitable regulations may be entered into as may be a requisite security against contraband; provided, the point of right be not relinquished, and a free port or ports below the thirty-first degree of north latitude, and accessible to merchant ships, be stipulated to them.
The reason why a port or ports, as thus described, was required must be obvious. Without such a stipulation, the free use of the Mississippi would in fact amount to no more than a free intercourse with New Orleans and other ports of Louisiana. From the rapid current of this river, it is well known that it must be navigated by vessels of a peculiar construction, and which will be unfit to go to sea. Unless, therefore, some place be assigned to the United States where the produce carried down the river, and the merchandise arriving from abroad, may be deposited till they can be respectively taken away by the proper vessels, there can be no such thing as a foreign trade.
There is a remaining consideration respecting the navigation of the Mississippi which deeply concerns the maritime powers in general, but more particularly
Page 945 | Page image
their Most Christian and Catholick Majesties. The country watered by the Ohio, with its large branches, having their sources near the lakes on one side, and those running north-westward and falling into it on the other side, will appear from a single glance on a map to be of vast extent. The circumstance of its being so finely watered, added to the singular fertility of its soil, and other advantages presented by a new country, will occasion a rapidity of population not easy to be conceived. The spirit of emigration has already shown itself in a very strong degree, notwithstanding the many impediments which discourage it. The principal of these impediments is the war with Britain, which cannot spare a force sufficient to protect the emigrants against the incursions of the savages. In a very few years after peace shall take place, this country will certainly be overspread with inhabitants. In like manner as in all new settlements, agriculture, not manufactures, will be their employment. They will raise wheat, corn, beef, pork, tobacco, hemp, flax, and in the southern parts, perhaps, rice and indigo, in great quantities. On the other hand, their consumption of foreign manufactures will be in proportion, if they can be exchanged for the produce of their soil. There are but two channels through which such commerce can be carried on; the first is down the river Mississippi; the other is up the rivers having their sources near the lakes, thence by short portages to the lakes, or the rivers falling into them, and thence through the lakes and down the St. Lawrence. The first of these channels is manifestly the most natural, and by far the most advantageous. Should it however be obstructed, the second will be found far from impracticable. If no obstructions should be thrown in its course down the
Page 946 | Page image
Mississippi, the exports from this immense tract of country will not only supply an abundance of all necessaries for the West India islands, but serve for a valuable basis of general trade, of which the rising spirit of commerce in France and Spain will no doubt particularly avail itself. The imports will be proportionally extensive; and from the climate, as well as from other causes, will consist of the manufactures of the same countries. On the other hand, should obstructions in the Mississippi force this trade into a contrary direction through Canada, France and Spain, and the other maritime powers will not only lose the immediate benefit of it themselves, but they will also suffer by the advantage it will give to Great Britain. So fair a prospect could not escape the commercial sagacity of this nation. She would embrace it with avidity. She would cherish it with the most studious care. And should she succeed in fixing it in that channel, the loss of her exclusive possession of the trade of the United States might prove a much less decisive blow to her maritime pre-eminence and tyranny than has been calculated.
The last clause of the instructions, respecting the navigation of the waters running out of Georgia through West Florida, not being included in the ultimatum, nor claimed on a footing of right, requires nothing to be added to what it speaks itself.
The utility of the privileges asked to the State of Georgia, and consequently to the union, is apparent from the geographical representation of the country. The motives for Spain to grant it must be found in her equity, generosity, and disposition to cultivate our friendship and intercourse.
Page 947 | Page image
These observations you will readily discern are not communicated in order to be urged at all events, and as they here stand in support of the claims to which they relate. They are intended for your private information and use, and are to be urged so far, and in such forms only, as will best suit the temper and sentiments of the Court at which you reside, and best fulfil the objects of them.1
[Note 1: 1 This letter was entered only in the manuscript Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs. It is in the writing of James Madison, and is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, I, folios 239--247.]
Adjourned to 10 o'Clock to Morrow.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |