A MASTERPIECE OF DIPLOMACY:
ANGLO-AMERICAN NEGOTIATIONS AT GHENT,
(AUGUST - DECEMBERg 1814)'
by
James Cleveland Wood
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
In P a r t ia l F u lfillm en t of She Requirements
For th e Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
In th e Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
19 6 6
SmTEMMT I I AUTHOR
This th e s is has been subm itted in p a r t i a l fu lfillm e n t of
requirem ents fo r an advanced, degree a t The U niversity of Arizona
and i s deposited in th e U niversity lib r a r y to be made a v a ila b le
to borrowers under r u le s of th e L ib rary 0
B rie f quotations from t h i s th e s is are allow able w ithout
sp e c ia l perm ission, provided th a t accurate acknowledgment of
source i s made. Requests f o r perm ission f o r extended quotation
from o r reproduction of t h i s m anuscript in whole or in p a rt may
be granted by the head of th e major department or th e Dean of
th e Graduate College when in h is judgment the proposed use of
the m a te ria l i s in the in te r e s ts of sc h o larsh ip » In a l l other
in sta n c e s, however, perm ission must be obtained from th e author.
APPROVAL.BI THESIS DIRECTOR
This th e s is has been approved on th e date shown below:
(L
J, A, Beatson
-ofessor of H istory
PREFACE
The diplom atic f i e l d of study in h is to ry i s a most challenging
and complex one. ; How one d eals w ith h is "brothers" becomess c e r ta in ly „
a m atter of In te rn a tio n a l importance because of i t s e f f e c t on a l l
people.
This i s a study of n e g o tia tio n s t h a t le d to the signing of
the Treaty of Ghent and which a ffo rd s a fa sc in a tin g in s ig h t in to the
give and take th a t c h a ra c te riz e s high le v e l diplom atic n e g o tia tio n s.
To an American h is to ria n th ese n e g o tia tio n s are e sp e c ia lly in te re s tin g
because of the prominent and strong p e rs o n a litie s of th e American
commissioners a t Ghent.
The m a te ria ls used in t h i s th e s is can be found in th e U niversity
o f Arizona L ibrary.
I would lik e to acknowledge two people fo r th e ir
h elp fu ln ess in my preparing t h i s paper.
Dr. James A. Beatson helped
by giving many c o n stru ctiv e c ritic is m s and much time w ith which to
discu ss th e to p ic .
And to my w ife, Lula B e lle , fo r th e much needed
in s p ir a tio n in fin is h in g th e t h e s i s s I give my thanks.
ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSI'AACT o o o c o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
V
CHAPTER
1.
THE PEACE OF PARIS - A CONTINUATION OF PROBLEMS
2o
NEGOTIATIONSj FIRST PHASE:
3.
.
1
AUGUST 6 - OCTOBER 14 „ .
23
,0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEGOTIATIONS SECOND PHASE: OCTOBER 15 =
DECEMBER 24
4.
. .
REACTIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
LIST OF REFERENCES
. . . . . . .
5^
.
73
93
±v
ABSTRACT
The Americans won t h e i r f ig h t f o r independence w ith the Treaty of
P a ris in 1783=.
This T reaty, however, l e f t many problems to be solved:
th e question of th e In d ian s, when th e B r itis h f o r t s were to be removed,
the u n c le ar boundaries, and la c k of proper commercial agreements w ith
England.
These problems and u n s e ttle d m a tte rs, plu s th e more acute
maritime questions, drew th e U nited S ta te s and England to war in June,
1812.
The peace n e g o tia tio n s began alm ost as the war d id .
The
Americans se n t fiv e well-known Americans to Ghent, in Holland, w hile
the B r itis h se n t th re e unknown men to re p re se n t the B r itis h Cabinet.
The American fiv e were in te r n a lly divided among them selves as w e ll as
a g a in st th e B r itis h .
The n e g o tiatio n s were very near to clo sin g many
tim es, and w ithout the w illin g n e ss to compromise on both sid e s, the
peace e f f o r ts would have been f o r naught.
The Americans and the
B r itis h surrendered many ideas th a t they had f e l t in the beginning
were e s s e n tia l to any tr e a ty .
The Treaty of Ghent, i t s e l f , did end
the war b u t l e f t th e major problems to be s e ttle d a t some l a t e r d a te .
Both the Americans and th e B r itis h denounced th e tr e a ty , b u t
the welcoming of peace overshadowed th e term s them selves.
The next
decade saw the more p ressin g questions = commercial agreem ents. Great
lak es disarmament, th e s e ttlin g of boundaries
s e ttle d p eacefu lly as
the United S ta te s and Great B rita in learn ed to re s p e c t one another.
v
, CHAPTER 1
' -
THE PEACE OF PARIS - A
CONTHHATIOI OF PROBLEMS
Great B rita in form ally recognized American independence when
her re p re se n ta tiv e s signed th e Treaty of P a ris , September 3, 1783o The
achievement of independence had not come e a s ily „ However James Warren,
a frie n d of th e Adams fam ily and a former re p re se n ta tiv e to the
M assachusetts L e g isla tu re , wrote to American delegate John Adams in
P a ris on June 24, 1783:
"Every Body th in k s th e Terms honourable on
your p a r t, and q u ite equal to th e most sanguine E xpectations and y e t
1
every Body i s not p le a s e d ." Alexander Hamilton wrote to John Jay
about th e acceptance of th e tr e a ty :
" I have been w itness w ith
pleasu re to every event which had had a tendency to advance you in
th e esteem of your country . . . .
The peace . . . does th e highest
2
honour to those who made i t . "
With th e signing of th e peace tr e a ty ,
the u ltim a te cause f o r which th e colonies had been f ig h tin g ,
independence, was won; however, t h i s proved to be only th e beginning
of new disagreem ents and th e fla re -u p of old ones as Americans began
th e ir attem pt to keep the independence lig h t s a liv e and burning
b rig h tly .
1. Warren-Adams L e tte r s , 1778=1814, The M assachusetts
H is to ric a l S ociety, 1925, Volume H , p. 218.
. 2. Henry P. Johnston, The Correspondence and P ublic Papers of
John Jay, Hew York, London, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1890=1893, Volume I I I ,
p 7 /0 o
i
The y e ars follow ing t h i s Anglo-American Peace of P a ris were
d i f f i c u l t y ears f o r both sid e s involved.
The B r itis h had l o s t a
tremendous p a rt of th e ir empire§ th e Americans had to f i g h t to keep
a liv e what they had won.
Constant disagreem ents a t tim es alm ost le d
to war between the two co u n tries i however„ time continued to s lip
slowly by w ithout war, perhaps because of the compromise involved in
Jay*s T reaty of 1794.
I t i s the a u th o r's purpose in t h i s chapter to
t r e a t th e v arious issu e s th a t were n o t s e t tl e d by th e T reaty of 1783
so th a t some of the problems which o a st a shadow over th e n eg o tiatio n s
leading to a settlem en t of the War of 1812 can be b e tte r understood.
The prelim inary a r t i c l e s of peace were signed a t P a ris on
lovember 30, 1782.
A fter r a t i f i c a t i o n s had taken place on both sid es
th e Treaty of P a ris was proclaim ed in e f f e c t on A p ril 15, 1783°
In
A rtic le I Great B rita in acknowledged th e independence of th e th ir te e n
colonies of the U nited S ta te s .
A rtic le I I attem pted to define the
boundary of th e United S ta te s ; i t i s the e a ste rn boundary t h a t w ill
be discussed l a t e r , when i t became a major source of controversy
between th e two c o u n tries.
A rtic le I I I s ta te s th a t
the People of the U nited S ta te s s h a ll continue to enjoy
unmolested the R ight to tak e F ish of every kind on th e Grand
Bank, and on th e other Banks of Mewfoundland.. . and a t a l l
other Places in th e Sea where the In h a b ita n ts of b o th C ountries
used a t any time h e reto fo re to f i s h . And a lso th a t th e
In h ab ita n ts of th e U nited S ta te s s h a ll have L ib erty to take
F ish of every kind on such p a rt of th e Coast of Newfoundland.. .
so long as the same s h a ll remain u n s e ttle d .
1.
William M. Malloy, com piler. T re a tie s . Conventions.
I n te rn a tio n a l A cts, Protocols and Agreemen ts , 1776-1909. Washington.
Gbverhment'' P rin tin g u i f ic e , ±9IU7 Volumd I," p.
H ereafter c ite d
as Malloy.
For th e L o y a lists th e re m s somethings howeverB i t d id n o t
give them much room on which to stand.
" I t i s agreed t h a t th e
Congress s h a ll e a rn e s tly recommend i t to th e L eg isla tu re s of. th e
re sp e c tiv e S ta te s » to provide f o r th e R e s titu tio n of a l l E s ta te s 9
1.
R ights s and P ro p e rtie s which have been c o n fisca te d . . . . 11 A
recommendation was n o t enough; i t would have taken much stro n g er
language than th a t to make th e s ta te s complyo
A rtic le VII s e t a l l p riso n e rs f re e on both s id e s B and
provided th a t "his B ritan n ic Majesty s h a l l p w ith a l l convenient
speed, and w ithout causing any d e stru c tio n or carrying away any
Negroes, or o th er Property o f the American In h ab ita n ts withdraw
a l l h is Armies, G arrisons and F le e ts from th e sa id United S ta te s ,
and from every P o rt, P lace, and Harbour w ith in the same, 11
A rtic le
V III s ta te d th a t th e n av ig atio n o f th e M ississip p i River from i t s
source to th e ocean should always be f re e and open to th e c itiz e n s
o f G reat B rita in and th e United S ta te s ,
John Jay, American S ecretary f o r Foreign A ffa irs , had
th e d i f f i c u l t ta s k of working f o r a s o lu tio n o f the v ario u s issu e s
which soon "arose out of the execution o f, or ra th e r th e f a ilu r e
3
to execute, the tr e a ty of peace,"
G reat B rita in had two choices
as to her p o lic y toward her former c o lo n ies.
1,
Malloy, pp. j>88.»589=
2,
Malloy, p. 589=
One was the
3= Samuel Flagg Bemis, The American S e c re ta rie s of S ta te
and Their Diplomacy. New York, Pageant Book Company, 1958, Volume
I I r :p 7 209^ h e re a fte r c ite d as Bemis, The American S e c re ta rie s of
S ta te and Their Diplomacy.
— —
4
acceptance of American independence s and an attem pt to e s ta b lis h a close
and c o rd ia l understanding w ith them based on re c ip ro c ity o f commerce,
allowing the U nited S ta te s to have a l l the b e n e fits which i t had under
th e o ld n av ig ation laws.
In t h is way G reat B rita in could have helped
h e r s e lf , because she might p o ssib ly have broken up th e Franeo~American
a llia n c e .
This would have involved moving th e B r itis h tro o p s from the
U nited S ta te s , in ste a d of leaving them th e re .
The second p o s s ib ility ,
and th e one the E nglish chose, was to reg ard th e U nited S ta te s as an
a lie n and r i v a l n a tio n a g a in st whose commerce and p o l i t i c a l in te r e s ts
Great B rita in should be je a lo u sly on i t s guard,
1
d i f f i c u l t road to follow .
England chose the
The th ir te e n colonies had won t h e i r o b jectiv e =«= to become
to g eth er independent u n ite d s ta te s .
However th e re was no smooth and
c le a r - c u t p a th f o r the newly fre e d colonies:
a government had to be
e sta b lish e d , u n ity of a l l th e th ir te e n colonies was im perative,
L afay ette, a young Frenchman who had fought g a lla n tly f o r th e Americans
during th e American R evolution, wrote to th e C ontinental Congress a fte r
th e p re lim in a rie s o f peace had been signed:
’l a y the s ta te s be so bound
to each o th er as fo rev er to defy European p o l i t i c s .
Upon th a t union t h e i r
consequence, th e ir happiness w i l l depend.
This i s the f i r s t wish of a
2
h e a rt more tr u ly American than words can e x p re ss ,u
John Adams wrote
1, Semis, The American S e c re ta rie s of S ta te and Their
Diplomacy, Volume I I , pp, 209=210,
2, Jared Sparks, e d ito r, The Diplomatic Correspondence of
th e American R evolution, Washington, John 0, Rives, 1857, Volume V,
pp, 408-409= H ereafter c ite d as Sparks,
5
to th e C ontinental Congress about the signed tr e a ty of peace:
" I have
th e honor to co n g ratu late Congress upon l t 9 as i t i s a oompletion of
1
the work of peace „ and the b e s t th a t we could o b ta in ," Power and u n ity
in government were th e th in g s most needed a t t h i s c r i t i c a l tim e, b u t
they were both lack in g .
The states; u n ite d had many growing p a in s.
For
th is reason the now independent s ta te s could not demand t h a t B rita in
carry out th e terms of th e tr e a ty .
These American s ta te s were only
beginners in th e f i e l d of diplomacy, they were attem pting to le a rn how
to operate e ffe c tiv e ly w ith the powers of Europe,
Therefore, th e Treaty
of P a ris of 1?83 was not the end of the tro u b le s between G reat B rita in
and th e United S tates? th ese problems were to endure fo r decades.
A rtic le I I of th e tr e a ty had e sta b lis h e d the e n tir e boundary
of th e United S ta te s 9 b u t b efo re the tr e a ty was a c tu a lly signed a
controversy over the e a ste rn boundary appeared.
e aste rn boundary in t h i s way:
The t r e a ty s ta te d the
"E ast, by a lin e to be drawn along th e
middle of th e r iv e r S t, Croix, from i t s mouth in the Bay of Fundy to
i t s source, and from i t s source d ir e c tly n o rth to the a fo re sa id
Highlands, which divide the r iv e r s th a t f a l l in to th e A tla n tic Ocean
p
from those which f a l l in to th e r iv e r S t, Lawrence , , , , "
The
immediate controversy which developed in to one of very long standing
1,
Sparks, Volume IV, p. 110,
2,
Mallcy, Volume I , p, j>88.
had, to do w ith the S t0 Croix Rivero
The n e g o tia to rs had used M itc h e ll’s
Map on which the St* Croix River was c le a r ly b u t wrongly marked.
There
had been no in k lin g of t h a t tr a g ic c a rto g ra p h ic a l inaccuracy which was
soon to cause an in te rn a tio n a l d isp u te over a d e fin itio n designed to
prev en t a l l d isp u te s.
M itchell had described "but two, in ste a d of , th re e
r iv e r s which empty themselves in to th e la y of Passamaquoddy., The
e a ste rn of those he had placed a t th e head of the bay, near the cen tre
1
of it;, and c a l ls i t S t. C roix."
The w estern r iv e r he c a lle d the
Passamaquoddy.
I t had been in 1764 when Governor Bernard of M assachusetts
se n t a surveyor to th e Passamaquoddy Bay to fin d out about t h is a re a.
B ernard’s surveyor, John M itchel, re p o rte d th a t the Indians had . .
id e n tif ie d , the M&gaguadavie as th e S t. Croix.
In the follow ing
y ear Governor Wilmot of Nova S co tia likew ise t r ie d to survey th e
boundary.
His surveyor, Charles M orris, found Indians who to ld
2
him th a t the S t. Croix was th e Cobseook.
Now, the Magaguadavic
River was n o rth e a st of Passamaquoddy Bay, g re a tly favoring the
Americans.
The Cobseook River was a g re a t d eal southwest of
Passamaquod# Bay? t h i s g re a tly favored th e B r itis h .
1. American S ta te P aperst Foreign R e la tio n s. Boston,
Thomas B. W ait, l b ! 9 ? Washington, B nited S ta te s Congress, Gales
and Seaton, 1832, Volume X, p . l4 . H ereafter c ite d as American
S ta te Papers.
2. A lfred Le Roy B urt, The U nited S ta te s . Great B r ita in .
and B r itis h North America, lew Haven" i a l e U niversity 'Press, 1944,
p. 73. H ereafter c ite d as B urt.
People from lova S cotia had begun a settlem en t c a lle d St„
Andrews 9 which was on the e a ste rn bank of th e Schoodie R iver» The
Sehoodie River i s lo c a te d alm ost c e n tra lly between th e Magaguadavie
1
River and th e Gobscook R iver.
Thus th e Americans were convinced
th a t th e B r itis h were s e ttlin g on American s o i l .
On iovember 12. 17#@
Governor Hancock of M assachusetts wrote to the governor of Nova S cotia
concerning t h is m atter.
Meanwhile though^ a new province had been
c re ate d . New Brunswick, and she was resp o n sib le fo r th e disputed
te rrito ry o
Governor G arleton of New Brunswick d id not re p ly on the
su b je ct f o r s ix months.
On December 27, 1784, General Rufus Putnam wrote a l e t t e r
about h is fin d in g s from surveying th e e a ste rn extrem ity o f M assachusetts
f o r the s ta te government.
was misworded.
Putnam f e l t , f i r s t of a l l , t h a t the tre a ty
The tr e a ty s ta te d th a t i t "gave the United S ta te s a l l
th e isla n d s w ith in twenty leagues of th e shore of th e Republic between
2
a lin e drawn due e a s t from th e mouth of th e S t. Croix. 11 For t h is
reason he f e l t n e ith e r th e Magaguadavie nor th e Sehoodie could be the
c o rre c t r iv e r because n e ith e r f u l f i l l e d th ese term s.
Putnam concluded
th a t th e peace commissioners had considered th e whole of Passamaquoddy
Bay as th e mouth of th e S t. Croix.
In the spring of 1785 John Jay spoke up in th e C ontinental
Congress.
He f e l t t h is d isp u te should be s e ttle d and he f e l t t h i s
1.
American S ta te P apers:
Foreign R e la tio n s. Volume X, p. 13.
2.
Malloy, Volume I , p. 588*
could, be done by an in te rn a tio n a l commission,
Jay suggested t h a t th e
United S ta te s m in iste r to Great B r ita in could broach t h i s .
But before
anything was done a l e t t e r was receiv ed on June 21s 1?85 from th e
governor of lew Brunswick, in sp ire d by London, s ta tin g t h a t only the
Sehoodie could p o ssib ly be the r e a l S t, Croix; th e B r itis h were in no
mood to compromise.
I t was l a t e r in th e summer of 1785 t h a t James Avery, a
M assachusetts c o lle c to r of e x cise, re p o rte d th a t lew Brunswick was
claim ing a l l of th e isla n d s in the Passamaquoddy Bay.
A f a u lty map,
a misworded tr e a ty of peace, a d e sire f o r as much land as p o ssib le
in th e n o rth ea st «— a l l of th ese sp e lle d tro u b le over t h i s p a rtic u la r
p a r t of th e boundary,
American m in iste r to England, John Adams, had
spoken in London about John Ja y ’s idea f o r a commission, b u t nothing
ever came of i t .
The issu e was q u ie t fo r se v e ra l y e a rs, and th en
because of th e i n te r e s ts of a p riv a te c itiz e n P re sid e n t George
Washington took a look a t th e M assachusetts t e r r i t o r y ,
Washington
s ta te d th a t th e B r itis h were s t i l l encroaching on American s o i l and
suggested t h a t Ja y ’s idea of a commission be follow ed up; however,
nothing happened u n t i l Jay him self went to England in 179^=
The
boundary is s u e , by t h i s tim e, was com pletely overshadowed by other
is s u e s , e sp e c ia lly commercial ones.
The Treaty of P a ris , although th e preamble ta lk e d of
e sta b lis h in g r e c ip ro c ity , contained no p ro v isio n fo r reopening tra d e .
This w orried Great B rita in e sp e c ia lly , because she was a f r a id other
c o u n trie s, such as France, would se ize th e opportunity to capture the
American tra d e .
However, th e p ro h ib ito ry le g is la tio n passed in
before th e war9 had n o t been rep ealed .
im portant to th e Americans a ls o .
This commercial business was
John Adams had w ritte n from P a ris on
February 5g 1783 to Robert R0 L iv in g sto n 5 "A tr e a ty of commerce w ith
Great B rita in i s an a f f a i r of g re a t importance to both c o u n tries.
He took th is opportunity to says
" I t i s our p a r t to be th e f i r s t to
send a m in iste r to G reat B r ita in 9 which i s th e o ld er, and as y e t the
superior S ta te .
I t becomes us to send a M in ister f i r s t , and I doubt
n ot th e King of G reat B rita in w ill vezy soon r e tu rn th e compliment."
2
The Fox m in istry , e a rly in Ju ly , 1783 allowed d ire c t tra d e to be
reopened between th e U nited S ta te s and th e B r itis h West In d ies;
however th e renewed in te rc o u rse was not to be as f re e as th a t of
prewar days.
Those s p e c ifie d a r t i c l e s grown in America "may, u n t i l
fu rth e r o rd er, be imported by B r itis h su b je c ts in B ritis h = b u ilt
sh ip s, owned by h is M ajesty’s su b je c ts, and navigated according to
law, from any p o rt of th e United S ta te s of America to any of h is
M ajesty’s West In d ia Isla n d s; and th a t rum, sugar, m olasses, c o ffe e .. .
may be exported by B r itis h su b je c ts, in B r itis h ships" from the West
3
Indian Islan d s to th e U nited S ta te s .
The sp e c ifie d a r t i c l e s did not
include th e im portant item s of American f i s h and meat.
Some Engl i sh
p o litic ia n s favored a l i b e r a l commercial p o lic y ; these men, le d by
William P i t t , the younger, and Lord Shelburne, wanted fr e e commercial
'
1.
Sparks, Volume IV, p. 14.
2.
Sparks, Volume IV, p. 14.
3.
Sparks, Volume IV, p. 60.
10
in te rco u rse between the two c o u n trie s.
There wasa though9 a considerable
body of opinion which favored a r i g i d maintenance of E ngland's nav ig atio n
system? t h i s d e sire f o r a r i g i d system was le d by th e shipping in te r e s t,
which was stru g g lin g to preserve i t s maritime monopoly, • Lord S h e ffie ld
spoke in t h i s manner regarding American commerce,
, , , A. B i l l was f i r s t introduced in to Parliam ent, Had i t passed
in to a law, i t would have a ffe c te d our most e s s e n tia l in te r e s ts
in every branch of commerce 9 and in every p a rt of th e world? i t
would have deprived of t h e i r e ffic a c y and navig atio n law s, and
undermined th e whole naval power of B ritain ? i t would have
endangered the repose of Ire la n d , and e x cite d the j u s t
in d ig n atio n of Bnssia, and other countr ie s $ the West In d ia
p la n te rs would have been th e only su b je cts of B rita in who could
have derived any b e n e f i t ,, , from t h i s open in te rco u rse d ir e c tly
w ith the American s t a t e s , , , , The nav ig atio n A ct, th e b a s is of
our g re a t power a t sea, gave us th e tra d e of the w orld: i f we
a l t e r t h a t a c t, by p erm ittin g any s ta te to tra d e w ith our
isla n d s , or by su ffe rin g any s ta te to brin g in to t h is country
any produce b u t i t s own, we d e s e rt the N avigation A ct, and
s a c r if ic e the marine of England,, , , This country has n o t found
i t s e l f in a more in te r e s tin g and c r i t i c a l s itu a tio n than i t i s
a t p re se n t. I t i s now to be decided whether we a re n o t to be
ruined by the Independence of America, or n©t,+
The v ic to ry of th e p ro ta g o n ists of B r ita in ’s e sta b lis h e d system in
1783 and 1?84 meant th a t in the y ears immediately follow ing independence
th e United S ta te s was placed s t r i c t l y on th e fo o tin g of any e th e r fo re ig n
n a tio n ,
Now, t h is c e rta in ly destroyed American dreams and hopes of
re c ip ro c ity .
There was no tra d e a t a l l w ith Canada during th e f i r s t
y ears o f p eaceful separations
a B r itis h Order in Council of A p ril 8, 178j>,
forbade the im portation of any American produce in to th e province.
Lord Dorchester became the Canadian Governor in 1786, and by
A p ril 18, 1787 he had opened commercial in te rco u rse w ith th e neighboring
1, Buhl J , B a r tl e t t , e d ito r, The Record of American Diplomacy,
New York, A lfred A, Knopf, 1954, pp, 48=49, H ereafter c ite d as B a r tle tt,
11
s ta te s of th e United. S ta te s « When London found out about t h i s , however9
she in s is te d th a t t h is tra d e be elosedo
The B r itis h m ercantile system
was s t i l l in e f f e c t to a considerable degree? i t was damaging to the
United S ta te s th a t they had n o t receiv ed a commercial clause i n the
Treaty th a t ended,th e war.
A rtic le V II of th e Treaty of P a ris s ta te d t h a t a l l B r itis h
men and p o sts were to be removed from th e United S ta te s ,
Robert
L ivingston wrote to George Washington on A p ril 12, 1?83:
" I co n g ratu late
your Sxeelleney most sin c e re ly upon th e c e ssa tio n o f h o s t i l i t i e s ? M
however, " i t i s a very c a p ita l em ission in our t r e a ty th a t no time has
1
been fix e d f o r the evacuation of lew T o rk ,11 I t turned o u t, however,
th a t th e troops moved immediately out of lew York,
C, A, Be, La Luzerne-,-
a Frenchman, wrote to George Washington on November 21, 1783:
"I beg
your Excellency to rec eiv e ay sin c ere c o n g ratu latio n s upon th e evacuation
2
of New York? t h is grand event completes your g lo r y ,11 But Luzerne was
n o t thinking of th e e n tir e north ern boundary, fo r the B r itis h d id not
withdraw q u ie tly from th e re ,
B rita in simply refu sed to surrender the
t e r r i t o r y she had signed away in th e tr e a ty .
The c h ie f of th ese p o sts
-
thus h eld were Oswegatchie (Ogdensburg, New York), Oswego, N iagara,
Presque I s le (E rie , Pennsylvania), Sandusky, D e tro it, and Mlohillmaokinac.
They were only a few is o la te d f o r t s on th e edge of th e United S ta te s and
th e i r t o t a l area was a n e g lig ib le number of a c re s, y e t they enabled
1,
Sparks, Volume VI, p. 2W,
2,
Sparks, Volume VI, p, 126,
s
12
B rita in to r e ta in e ffe c tiv e c o n tro l over many thousand square m iles of
American t e r r i t o r y » Americans immediately began to reason t h a t the
B r itis h and Canadians d id not want to give up the valuable fu r tra d e ;
and th e B r itis h d id not mean to keep i t a s e c re t, fo r they asked f o r
a th re e y ear p erio d to move a l l th e B r itis h out of th a t a re a.
The
Americans countered t h i s by proposing a continuance of th e B r itis h
occupation only u n t i l Congress ordered evacuation and American
g a rriso n s a rriv e d to take over from the B r itis h .
The f u r tra d e could have been one of the reasons why th e
B r itis h continued to keep the w estern p o s ts , b u t only one reason.
The Indians were c e rta in ly a b a sic fa c to r in the problem.
The
B r itis h had blundered in t h e i r diplomacy; th e promises B r ita in had
made to th e United S ta te s clashed w ith the ones she had made w ith
her Indian a l l i e s .
Thus, B r ita in had th e choice of breaking her
word e ith e r to the w hite Americans or re d Americans.
The United
S ta te s could have been a tremendous help in th e so lu tio n of t h is
problem i f she had not been so weak and u n stab le a t t h i s tim e.
She
had f a i l e d to work out and adopt a se n sib le Indian p o lic y or to cre ate
a government which could do so.
The T reaty of 1783 had f a i l e d to mention th e Indians; th u s,
i t was l e f t to th e United S ta te s to d eal w ith the re d men as she saw
fit.
Various t r e a t i e s were n e g o tiate d .
At F o rt Stanwix in 1 7 # ; a t
F o rt McIntosh in 1785; a t th e mouth of th e Miami in 1706; and a t F ort
Harmar in 1789 the agents of Congress n e g o tia te d piecem eal t r e a t i e s ,
which, added to g e th e r, were to have given an approximation to a
g en eral settlem en t of the n o rth ern i n t e r i o r .
But the Indians refu sed
13
to be beaad by t h is settlem eeto
They declared the t r e a t i e s w orthless.
The B r itis h decided on a two=.fold p lan fo r t h e i r in te r io r p o lic y .
F irs t,
they weald persuade th e re d men th a t th e ir r e a l i n te r e s t la y in coming
to terms w ith th e v ic to rs in the l a t e war; second, t h e i r purpose was
to r e s to re the sh a tte re d confidence of th e Indians in th e B r itis h ,
Even
some people in the U nited S ta te s , because of the v io le n t Indian mood,
f e l t i t was b e tte r t h a t th e B r itis h keep the f o r t s f o r a w hile lo n g er,
even i f they were breaking the Treaty of P a ris ,
At f i r s t i t had been th e B r itis h f u r tra d e t h a t had been
p a r t i a l l y resp o n sib le f o r th e ir f a ilin g to evacuate th e p o sts,
th e a ttitu d e of the Indians was given as a reason
Pontiac ’ s R evolt,
Next,
to prevent another
Canadian Governor Haldimarnd t r i e d to in crease
in d e f in ite ly th e p e rio d of B r itis h occupation,
Haldimand was moved
in t h is req u e st by h is d e sire f o r B r itis h p r o f i t s .
He f e l t th a t th e
su ffe rin g s of the L o y a lists in the U nited S ta te s could be used as a
p u b lic j u s t if i c a t io n f o r B r itis h r e f u s a l to evacuate the p o sts; and
th e r e te n tio n of th e p o sts might be used to re lie v e th e su ffe rin g s of
the L o y a lis ts,
Also, t h is was a good way to coerce American debtors
and to g e t t h e i r B r itis h c re d ito rs paid.
The B r itis h did have a p o in t here.
The Americans had been very
n e g lig en t in paying th e ir debts to B r itis h c re d ito rs .
A lso, in A rtic le
V of the Treaty of P a ris , Congress promised th a t i t would e a rn e stly
recommend to the le g is la tu r e s of the various s ta te s th a t they re s to re
the c o n fiscated p ro p erty and r ig h ts of " re a l B r itis h su b je c ts" and of
those people who were w ith in the B r itis h lin e s in America b u t had
never borne arms a g a in st the United S ta te s ,
Here again the tr e a ty
14
was mlsworded or worded n o t stro n g ly enough.
Congress d id ‘'e a rn e stly
recommend" t h is to the s ta te s tint very few s ta te s took any a c tio n to
re lie v e p ressu re on th e L o y a lists,
.
John Adams, on a rriv in g in England, had found out by 1?85
t h a t American o b sta cles to th e recovery of B r itis h debts had ra is e d
a B r itis h o b stacle to th e tra n s fe r,.o f p o s ts .
At t h a t time Adams
reversed th e B r itis h argument by saying th a t re te n tio n o f th e p o sts
w ithheld from th e U nited S ta te s a tra d e which would have a s s is te d
g re a tly in the payment o f B r itis h d eb ts,
Adams re tu rn e d home in 1?88
because diplom atic r e la tio n s between the two c o u n tries had been severed.
The B r itis h had re fu sed to send a m in iste r to th e U nited S ta te s , thus
causing th e break.
I t was, however9 in 1789 t h a t a t r a i n of events g o t under way
which g re a tly enhanced the chance t h a t B rita in would withdraw from th e
fo rts ,
One o f th ese was th e adoption of th e C o n stitu tio n of th e United
S ta te s of America,
Now the former colonies had fo r th e f i r s t time a
s ta b le and powerful government.
The o th er event was the beginning of
th e French R evolution th a t plagued England f o r more than twenty y e ars.
Great B r ita in had to fac e the c o n tin en t now; l a t e r she would have to
reco n sid er h er p o lic y toward the United S ta te s ,
A th ir d event in the
follow ing y e a r, 179©, th e lo o tk a Sound A ffa ir =»« Spanish se iz u re of
E nglish sh ip s in the Northwest
w orried B rita in a ls o ,
• :
I t was the newly inaugurated P re sid e n t Washington who took th e
f i r s t step in approaching th e B r itis h under th e new government,
Washington wrote to Gowerneur M orris, who was in P a ris , asking him
to approach the B r itis h government in fo rm ally ,
Washington had th ree
15
p o in ts he wanted ra is e d to the B r itis h ,
withdrawal from th e f o r t s .
T h e .f ir s t was th e su b je ct of
The second was th e American com plaint th a t
slav es belonging to American c itiz e n s of th e Republic had been c a rrie d
o ff during the evacuation of B r itis h troops although th e tr e a ty had
s tip u la te d th a t t h is should n o t happen.
The th ir d p o in t which M orris
was to r a is e was th e commercial t r e a ty so much d e sire d by th e United
1
S ta te s ,
The year 1790 saw a n ti- B r itis h sentim ent r i s e in th e United
S ta te s ,
In the autumn o f t h a t year American General Jo siah Harmar
s e t out to invade the h e a rt of the Indian t e r r i t o r y and to b u ild a
f o r t on th e Maumee River a t the p rin c ip a l town of th e Miami t r ib e .
The p lan was a good one9 fo r the Maumee was th e c en ter of th e n a tiv e
confederacy now dominated by Chief Joseph B rant0 and th e Miamis, who
had signed no t r e a t y 9 were among th e most h o s tile of a l l the w estern
■
Ind ian s, U nfortunately9 Harmar was com pletely u n successful. The
B r itis h were blamed f o r th e f a i l u r e 9 because th e savages were using
B r itis h arms and ammunition supplied to th e Indians through
B ritis h -h e ld f o r t s on American s o i l .
General A rthur S t, C la ir
attem pted a sim ila r move in 1791 and h is attem pt was likew ise
unsu ccessfu l,
low th e B r itis h had a firm hold on the in te r io r p o sts
w ith no one to challenge them,
S ta te s , wanted peace.
Y ets B rita in , as w ell as th e United
However, th ere were o b stacles in th e way of
a settlem e n t.
1 , John G. F itz p a tric k , e d ito r. The W ritings of George
Washington, Washington, B, C ,, United S ta te s Government P rin tin g
O ffice, 1939, Volume XXX, pp. ¥KUWL
1
16
A fter the d e fe a t of General S t. G la ir th e B r itis h found a new
p re te x t f o r holding the p o sts i they wanted a new boundary se ttlem en t.
They proposed the, establishm ent of a n e u tra l b a r r ie r of e x clu siv ely
Indian t e r r i t o r y between th e Republic and th e neighboring B r itis h
co lo n ies.
B rita in was w illin g to pay th e p ric e of giving up th e p o sts
in r e tu r n f o r t h i s change of boundary.
Americans th en , as in 1814,
had no in te n tio n whatsoever of giving up lan d to th e In d ian s, and
made t h is c le a r to Hammond, the new B r itis h m in iste r to th e United
S ta te s .
A conference was scheduled a t Sandusky, where th e ta lk s of
boundary could continue,
nothing came of th e ta lk s , and American
r e la tio n s ra p id ly d e te rio ra te d w ith the In d ian s.
Also th e B r itis h ,
a f t e r d e clarin g war on France on February 1, 1793, were embarrassed
by t h i s American embroilment.
The Indian problem came to a head on August 20, 1794 when
American General Anthony Wayne le d h is men in th e B a ttle of F allen
Timbers.
General Wayne wrote to Henry Knox, th e S ecretary of War,
on August 28, 1794:
" I t i s w ith i n f i n i t e p leasu re t h a t I now
announce to you th e b r i l l i a n t success of th e F ederal army under my
command, in a gen eral a c tio n w ith the combined fo rc e of th e h o s tile
In d ian s, and a considerable number of the v o lu n teers and m i l i t i a of
D e tro it, on the 20th of August over th e B r itis h p o st and g a rriso n ,
1
a t th e fo o t of th e ra p id s ."
I t was a s o lid v ic to ry f o r Wayne and
th e Americans? th e Indians had f a lle n v ictim s to th e ir new m asters.
4.
American S ta te P apers:
Indian A f f a ir s . Volume I f , p. 491.
A fter h is d e fe a t of the In d ian s» General Wayne imposed on them
th e Bpeaty of G reenville of August 39 1795=
This tr e a ty eeded to th e
U nited S ta te s most of the p re se n t s ta te of Ohio, leav in g to the n a tiv e s
a broad s t r i p of land along the shore of Lake E rie between the Maumee
and Cuyahoga River So
The Indians a lso y ie ld e d six te e n s tr a te g ic p o in ts'
in th e Northwest T e rrito ry f o r m ilita ry posts* w ith a r i g h t of way to
them acro ss Indian lands <, This helped open the way to w hite
1
settlem en t of most of the Ohio reg io n 0 The Treaty o f G reenville
c e r ta in ly d id not p u t an end to many of th e problems in the lorthw esto
The tr e a ty began by s ta tin g as i t s purpose:
"To p u t an end to a
d e stru c tiv e war* to s e t t l e a l l controversies* and to r e s to re harmosy
and frie n d ly in te rc o u rse between the sa id U nited S ta te s and Indian
2
tr ib e s e .o o ” Wayne’s campaign d e fin ite ly helped the U nited S ta te s
government to reso lv e problems w ith in i t s own t e r r i t o r i a l borders.
Anglo-American r e la tio n s continued to d e te rio ra te a f t e r t h i s b a tt l e ;
the two were very close to war.
Not long before th is* Chief Ju s tic e
John Jay had s a ile d to England as sp e c ia l envoy to seek a settlem en t
of the issu e s between the two c o u n tries.
Alexander Hamilton* S ecretary of th e Treasury* had urged the
P resid en t to send another m in iste r to G reat B rita in .
Though P resid en t
Washington had chosen Jay* i t was Hamilton who d ra fte d the In stru c tio n s
1. Samuel Flagg Bemis* Ja y ’s T reaty. New Haven and London*
Tale U n iv ersity Press* i$6Z9 p. fcJU
2.
American S ta te P apers;
Indian A ffa irs . Volume IV, p. 562,
18
fo r him.
Hamilton sa id in r e la tio n to t h i s ta s k :
“energy, -without
a s p e rity seems b e s t to comport -with the d ig n ity of n a tio n a l language.»0«
We are s t i l l in the p a th of n e g o tiatio n s l e t us n o t p la n t i t w ith
1
th o r n s .11 He d ire c te d Jay to secure th e c essio n of the w estern posts?
re p a ra tio n s fo r lo sse s su stain ed by the a c tio n s o f B r itis h c ru is e rs
and adm iralty courts? compensation f o r th e slav es c a rrie d away by th e
B r itis h aray in 1783? and a commercial t r e a ty w ith Great B rita in .
Jay a rriv e d in London in the f a l l of 1794 a t a bad time i f he
were hoping fo r concessions from th e B r itis h .
The B r itis h had won many
v ic to r ie s over t h e i r French enemy and were in no mood to give up anything.
However, B rita in d id n o t want war w ith the U nited S ta te s == as a B r itis h
m in iste r sa id , the Americans “are so much in debt to t h is country th a t
2
we. sc arc ely dare to q u a rre l w ith them .!i ~= b u t the issu e of war or
peace depended to a la rg e degree upon th e conduct pursued by th e U nited
S ta te s toward the b e llig e r e n ts .
Even though America was n e u tr a l her
shipping was being c o n fiscated and destroyed a t w ill by th e B ritis h .
For th e sake of peace Jay decided to attem pt only a settlem e n t of the
most p ressin g problems between the two c o u n trie s.
He was to ld by Lord
G renville th a t the United S ta te s must demonstrate her n e u tr a lity before
G reat B rita in would surrender the Northwest p o sts or make a commercial
tr e a ty w ith th e re p u b lic .
1. Bemis, The American S e c re ta rie s of S ta te and Their Diplomacy.
Volume I I , p. 116.
’
- — —
2. W itt Bowden, "English M anufacturers and th e Commercial
T reaty of 1786,« American H is to ric a l Review. Hew York and London, The
Macmillan Company, 1919, Volume XXV, p. 25.
;
•
19
•
To secure th e ir o b je c tiv e s. Jay was obliged in e ff e c t to
renounce th e freedom o f the seas.
So longer could th e United S ta te s
■m aintain her previous p o s itio n s s th a t fr e e ships make fre e goods i
?t h a t n e u tra ls a re e n title d to tra d e f r e e ly w ith b e llig e re n ts in
' non-contraband goods? and t h a t a contraband l i s t must be confined
to a few war-mkking a r t i c l e s .
How th e B r itis h concept of b e llig e r e n t’s
r ig h ts was w ritte n in to Ja y ’s tre a ty s
Haval sto re s were held to be contraband? p ro v isio n s, under
some ill- d e f in e d circum stances, could not be c a rrie d in
n e u tr a l ships to enemy ports? th e U nited S ta te s acquiesced
in th e so -c a lle d "Rule of 1756” by which trad e w ith enemy
colonies p ro h ib ite d in tim e of peace could n o t be le g a lis e d
in time of war? G reat B rita in was gran ted m ost-favored-nation
treatm ent? and th e United S ta te s assu red Great B rita in th a t
i t would n o t perm it i t s p o rts to be made a base of operations
f o r th e ships and p riv a te e rs of Bis B rita n n ic M ajesty’s
enemies and t h a t the sa le of p riz e s in American p o rts would
no longer be p e rm itte d .^
The U nited S ta te s in tu rn was promised th a t th e Northwest
p o sts s t i l l h eld by the B r itis h would be evacuated by June, 1796.
The o th er d isp u tes between th e two c o u n trie s — th e amount of
compensation fo r s p o lia tio n s , th e claim s o f B r itis h c re d ito rs who
had been deprived of th e ir money from th e United S ta te s , th e
Northwest Boundary between th e U nited S ta te s and Canada «==> were
re f e r r e d to the arbitram ent of jo in t commisions.
Nothing was
mentioned about compensation f o r slav es belonging to American c itiz e n s
c a rrie d o ff by th e B r itis h army in 1783.
Also th ere was no guarantee th a t
1. Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and th e Foundations
of American Foreign P o licy . New York, A. JL Knopf, 1949, p p T ^ S ^ s T ” "
.te e rie a a s o ld ie rs would n o t be Impressed in to the rogyal n&vy*
Jay a ls o
signed a eommeroial t r e a ty w ith G reat B rita in which gave American sh ip s 8
under c e r ta in r e s t r i c t i o n s a th e p riv ile g e of trad in g w ith In d ia; and
opened th e B r itis h West In d ies to American v e sse ls which weighed seventy
tons or le s s .
This was some breakthrough o f th e B r itis h m ercantile
system b u t only a sm all one.
'
Americans from a l l se c tio n s denounced Jay ’s T reaty.
Ja y was
denounced as a t r a i t o r ; however9 he had done what he f e l t had to be
done; he had preserved peace, a t l e a s t f o r th e time b eing.
w estern p o sts problem had been solved.
Hew the
Other problems l e f t over from
th e T reaty of 1783 were to be stu d ied and s e t tl e d by a r b itr a tio n
commissions.
Seme s t i l l were n o t solved; these helped to le a d to
the War of 1812.
Even though Ja y ’s T reaty continued to be condemned by
Republicans as a s a c r if ic e of American r ig h ts and honor, i t made
p o ssib le a la rg e in cre ase in American shipping and tra d e , simply
by confirming n e u tr a lity of th e United S ta te s .
As th e y ears
passed, however, her supposed n e u tr a lity brought many problems to
America as a r e s u l t of th e Wars of th e French R evolution in Europe.
The U nited S ta te s f e l t she could tra d e f r e e ly w ith the b e llig e re n ts ;
B rita in d id n o t.
There was constant disagreement over a r t i c l e s th a t
c o n s titu te d contraband.
ideas over blockades.
Also, London and Washington had d iff e r e n t
England e s ta b lis h e d "paper b lo ck a d es;" B rita in
in te rp re te d the r i g h t of v i s i t and search broadly, whereas the
Americans would have lik e d to r e s t r i c t the r i g h t to t h a t of merely
21
examining a s h ip ’s papers«
Impressment became a b i t t e r s u b je c t9 and i t s
a irils continued to plague ingl©=Amer!ean r e la tio n s .
R elatio n s between B rita in and th e U nited S ta te s continued to
d e te rio ra te during the f i r s t decade of th e 1800’s .
The B r itis h
continued to pass Orders In Council t h a t r e s t r i c t e d American tra d e .
The Americans r e t a l i a t e d w ith the lonim portation Act of 1806g the
Embargo Act of 1807» th e Ronintereourse
#2 of 1810.
Act of 18090 and Macon’s B i ll
The problem of impressment was dram atized bgr th e
Chesapeake A ffa ir of March 7? 1807*
This a f f a i r alm ost produced war9
b u t war was a c tu a lly th e l a s t d e sire of b o th the B r itis h and the
American governments.
P re sid e n t Je fferso n was determined to use any
means to keep th e United S ta te s out of war.
A Congressional committee
was appointed to in v e s tig a te the Chesapeake A ffa ir and i t concluded:
Resolved, t h a t the a tta c k o f th e B r itis h ship of war leopard
on th e United S ta te s ’ f r ig a te Chesapeake„ was a f la g r a n t
v io la tio n of the ju r is d ic tio n of th e United S ta te s 9 and
th a t th e continuance o f the B r itis h squadron (of which th e
leo p ard was one) in t h e i r w aters, a f t e r being n o tif ie d
of th e proclam ation of th e P re sid e n t of th e United S ta te s ,
ordering them then to d ep art the same, was a f u rth e r
v io la tio n th e re o f.
S ecretary of S ta te James Madison had w ritte n to James Monroe,
American M in ister to B rita in , as Oarly as March 6, 180j):
’’The
experience of every day shows more and more th e o b lig a tio n on
both sid es to e n te r se rio u sly on th e means of guarding th e harmony
o f th e two c o u n tries a g a in st the dangers, w ith which i t i s threatened
1.
American S ta te Papers. Volume V, p. 497.
by a. perseverance o f G reat B rita in in her i r r e g u l a r i t ie s on th e high
1
seas, and p a rtic u la r ly in th e impressments from American v e s s e ls ,H
At th is time the B r itis h d id n o t d e sire another eneny fo r they had
th e ir hands f u l l .
E ventually, however, the United S ta te s was d riv en to war
w ith G reat B rita in on June IS , 1812 through a com plicated s e t of
reasons whose r e la tiv e importance in th e d ecisio n to go to war i s
s t i l l being debated by American h is to r ia n s today.
As soon as war
had been declared P re sid e n t Madison announced h is w illin g n e ss to
n e g o tia te w ith the understanding th a t freedom of the seas could be
secured and Impressment of American c itiz e n s would be stopped.
1,
American S ta te Papers, Volume VI, p . 173.
CHAPTER 2
NEGOTIATIONS, FIRST PHASE:
. '
' AUGUST 6 - OCTOBER 14
Peace f e e le r s began before th e beginning of the War of 1812,
P re sid e n t Madison, who had been r e lu c ta n t to ask f o r a d e c la ra tio n
of war and " re g re ttin g th e n e c e ssity which produced i t , " looked
hopefully toward an e a rly end to h o s t i l i t i e s .
Soon a f t e r the
d e c la ra tio n of war the B r itis h government, wishing to liq u id a te a
minor war and concentrate upon the major one, a g a in st Napoleon,
se n t an adm iral to Washington w ith a rm istice proposals, b u t
n e g o tia tio n s f a i l e d to develop because of Madison's continued
in siste n c e th a t th e B r itis h renounce impressment,
B r i ta i n 's a lly
R ussia, eager to secure su p p lies from America as w ell as unhampered
m ilita ry a id from England, tw ice o ffere d to m ediate.
The f i r s t o ffe r was made to American M inister to R ussia,
John Quincy Adams, by Count Romanzoff, th e Russian C hancellor,
Adams wrote in h is d ia ry on September 21, 1813 th a t he had been to ld
by Romanzoff th a t the Emperor, Alexander I "had thought th ere was
various in d ic a tio n s t h a t th e re was on b o th sid es a re lu c ta n c e a t
engaging and prosecuting the w ar," and the Emperor thought th a t " a n ,,,
arrangement of th e d iffe re n c e s between the p a r tie s might be accomplished
23
more e a s ily and speedily by in d ire c t than by a d ir e c t n e g o tia tio n .11
The idea of Russian m ediation in the n e g o tia tio n was seised upon
eagerly in Washington.
A lb ert G a lla tin and James A. Bayard were
h u rrie d ly dispatched to S t. Petersburg to a c t w ith Adams in tre a tin g
w ith England.
The B ritish!, however, d eclin ed the Russian o ffe r.
During th e w inter of 1 8 1 3 = 1 8 1 4 th e Russians made another
o ffe r of m ediation to the B r itis h .
Lord G astlereagh again refu sed .
But on November 4, 1813, the B r itis h wrote a note to th e American
government o fferin g to t r e a t d ir e c tly .
The news of t h is d ir e c t
B r itis h proposal and Madison8s acceptance reached th e Americans a t
S t. Petersburg, R ussia, in January, 1814.
The s i t e fo r th e
n e g o tia tio n s proposed by th e B r itis h was Gothenburg, Sweden? however,
th e s i t e was soon changed to Ghent, a sm all town in the Low C ountries
The road to peace was now opening.
The fiv e American n e g o tia to rs appointed by Madison had
a rriv e d a t Ghent by June 28, 1814.
This group, probably the a b le s t
d ele g atio n th a t the U nited S ta te s has ever se n t to a peace conference
was one of v a rie d i n t e l l e c t s and p e rs o n a litie s .
However, they were
u n ite d in t h e i r fix e d purpose of seeking and finding an honorable
1.
A llan le v in s , e d ito r, The Diary of John Quincy Adamss
1794-1845. lew York, Charles S c rib n e r8s Sons, 1951, p . 987 H ereafter
c ite d as le v in s .
peace,
"The only serio u s d i f f ic u lt y in th e American commission m s
1
i t s excess of s tr e n g th ," Henry Adams comments.
The nominal head of the fiv e man commission m s John Quincy
Adams of M assachusetts,
He had had much diplom atic experience as a
r e s u l t of having been w ith h is f a th e r , John Adams, former M inister
to England and the second P resid en t of the U nited S ta te s ,
At t h i s
time John Quincy Adams m s the American Ambassador to R ussia,
As
head of th e American peace commission, John Quincy Adams was n o t very
o p tim istic nor hopeful f o r a quick tr e a ty mad fe a re d t h a t delay would
hinder th e American cause,
A lbert G a lla tin had been an in d u strio u s S ecretary of th e
Treasury under P resid en ts Je fferso n and Madison,
He had disagreed
w ith J e ffe rs o n 's embargo and a lso d is lik e d M adison's nonintereourse
law#
He had n o t wanted th e war; however, i t had come and he wanted
to add th e achievement o f peace to h is se rv ic e s,
G a lla tin was not
loquacious when i t came to p re d ic tin g th e outcome of th e tr e a iy
n e g o tia tio n s; he p re fe rre d to keep h is thoughts on t h is m atter to
him self,
Henry Slay, th e le a d e r of th e West and th e Speaker of th e
House of R ep resen tativ es, was fU rth e re st from Adams i n h is opinions,
fe e lin g stro n g ly th a t delays in the n e g o tia tio n s only helped th e
Americans.
1, Henry Adams, H istory of th e United S ta te s during the
A dm inistration of James Madison, Hew fo rk . A ntiquarian P re ss , L td ,,
1891=1896, Volume IV, p, 14. H ereafter c ite d as Adams, H istory of
the United S ta te s ,
26
James A« Bayard0 F e d e ra lis t senator from Delaware, lacked firm
convictions of h is own.
A fter hearing arguments from Adams he would
f e e l th e United S ta te s was in tro u b le 9 w hile w ith Clay he saw much
hope f o r th e fu tu re »
Jonathan R u ssell, the f i f t h member o f the commission, had
been a charglf d 'a f f a i r e s in P a ris' and was now th e new American
m in iste r to Sweden.
He, to o , lacked firm convictions of h is own?
th e re fo re , h is mood and tone switched depending w ith whom he had
a conversation.
The month of Ju ly , 1814, quickly passed as th e American
commission w aited in Ghent w ith no word from the B r itis h .
to be expected th e re a c tio n among the group was mixed.
As was
Some f e l t
the delay helped th e Americans to prepare themselves? o th e rs f e l t
th a t t h is was d isa stro u s to American p ro sp e cts.
I t was August 6, 1814, th a t the B r itis h d eleg atio n f i n a l ly
a rriv e d in Ghent.
This d ele g atio n c o n siste d of th re e mens
Admiral
Lord Gambler; Hr, W illiam Adams, a gentleman of th e law; and Henry
Goulburn, one o f the S e c re ta rie s of th e C olonial Department.
"Gambler
was an Admiralty o ff ic e r who had seldom been to sea and was b e s t known
f o r h is lea d ersh ip of an expedition t h a t had bombarded and g u tted
d efen seless Copenhagen.
Adams was an obscure adm iralty lawyer who
was d estin ed to j u s t if y h is o b sc u rity , and Goulburn, a y o u th fu l
i
underling in the C olonial Departm ent.H Thus, th re e r e l a ti v e
1, Bradford P erkins, C astlereagh and Adams, Berkeley and
Los Angeles, U n iv ersity of C a lifo rn ia P re ss, 1 9 # T p . 59, H ereafter
c ite d as Perkins.
27
unknowns had been sen t to d iscu ss peace w ith fiv e d istin g u ish e d
Americanso
I t was su rp risin g to the Americans t h a t men of such
mediocre s ta tu re were given the ta s k of making a peace tr e a ty w ith
th e United S ta te s ,
"Their fu n ctio n was to respond to th e m anipulation
of th e s tr in g s in London,, == They were very u se fu l serv an ts $ i f only
1
because they were men of l i t t l e consequence,"
I t was c e rta in th a t
Prime M inister Lord L iverpool, Foreign M inister G astlereagh, and
C olonial S ecretary B athurst were to make a l l of the im portant d e cisio n s.
"Since i t
[th e B r itis h commission
had no power of i n i t i a t i v e , i t
2
r e fe rre d alm ost everything to su p erio rs in London.”
The f i r s t meeting began on Monday, August 8, 1814, a t a
n e u tra l h o te l suggested by the B r itis h d e le g atio n .
were seated in one room a t one ta b le .
At l a s t these men
Admiral Gambler opened the
d iscu ssio n s fo r th e B r itis h and Adams follow ed f o r the Americans.
Gambler then motioned fo r Goulburn, a member of Parliam ent and Under
S ecretary f o r Mar and th e C olonies, to take over.
I t f e l l to Goulburn
to rea d th e p o in ts of in s tru c tio n from the B r itis h government.
F irs t,
he s ta te d th a t they would d isc u ss fo rc ib le seizu re of American seamen
or impressment i f the Americans wanted to , b u t d iscussing i t would be
as f a r as they were allowed to go.
Second, the B r itis h would req u ire
some re v isio n of th e Canadian boundary.
Third, B rita in would not
1. George Danger f i e l d , The Bra of Good F eelin g s. Mew York,
Bar c o u rt. Brace and Company, 1952, pTT>4, H ereafter c ite d as
D angerfield.
2. Alexander DeConde, A H istory of American Foreign P o licy .
Mew York, Charles S c rib n e r’s Sons, 1963, p . 109. H ereafter c ite d as
DeConde.
28
extend th e p riv ile g e of allowing Americans to dry f i s h on th e Canadian
c o a sts.
Fourth, any t r e a ty would have to provide terms of peace and
s a tis f a c to r y boundaries fo r the Indian a l l i e s of B rita in ,
F in a lly
Goulburh announced " th a t h is government would make no peace t h a t did
n o t include th e Indians and give them s e c u rity by marking o ff th e ir
t e r r i t o r y ’as a permanent b a r r ie r between the dominions of Great
B rita in and th e United S t a t e s ,, , 1 and th a t th e p riv ile g e of fis h in g
and drying w ith in B r itis h ju r is d ic tio n would n o t be renewed
g r a tu ito u s ly ,"
At f i r s t th e re was s ile n c e .
Then Bayard asked whether the
proposed Indian boundaries meant a c q u is itio n of American t e r r i t o r y
by Great B rita in ,
But the American peace commissioners were on strong
ground so long as they could t i e in th e Indian question w ith the
t e r r i t o r i a l question by arguing t h a t the sin e qua non involved a
c essio n of American s o i l ,
’’Their strong n o tes of p r o te s t, which were
promptly p rin te d , appealed both to n a tio n a l p rid e and to th e buoyant
2
expansionism of the day, ” Goulburn re p lie d in th e n eg ativ e. Then
Goulburn asked whether the Americans had receiv ed in s tru c tio n s on any
o f th ese item s.
The Americans gave no answer,
John Quincy Adams
1, 8, M. Gates, "The Peace N egotiations between G reat B rita in
and th e United S ta te s , 1812-1814, ’’ an unpublished th e s is deposited
in th e Graduate School of the U niversity o f Minnesota, 1934, p. 393,
as quoted in B urt, p. 352.
2. Charles M. G ates, "The West in American Diplomacy,
1812-1815," The M ississip p i Valley H is to ric a l Review, Volume XXVI,
Mo. 4 , March, 1946, p. 596.
29
r e ite r a te d th e in s tru c tio n s read by Goulburn and sa id t h a t the Americans
had to confer before they could give an answer,,
He d id ask i f the
B r itis h d esired to d iscu ss impressment; a l l of the B r itis h d elegates
echoed a n egative answer=
The tone o f th e B r itis h in s tru c tio n s was very s h a r p ., They
contained, however, no sp e c ific proposals, on any of th e p o in ts
enumerated.
On two of th e B r itis h p o in ts , however, Indians p a c ific a tio n
and boundaries, and f is h e r ie s , th e Americans had no in s tru c tio n s
whatever.
On the other two p o in ts , impressment and boundary re v is io n s ,
moreover, th e Americans and th e B ritis h obviously were f a r a p a rt.
The re a c tio n of th e d eleg atio n on hearing th e in s tru c tio n s
of th e ir B r itis h c o u n terp arts was one of dismay.
"Their term s," Bayard
1
complained, "were those o f a Conqueror to a conquered P eople."
le t,
those terms appeared to r e f l e c t dominant opinion in B rita in .
When th e
n e g o tia to rs had prepared to leave f o r Ghent, fo r example, The London
Times o ffere d i t s advice.
"Our demands may be couched in a sin g le
w ord,11 i t sa id , ^Submission!*8
On A p ril 4 th e Americans had received
th e ir f i n a l in s tru c tio n s from S ecretary of S ta te James Monroe.
"D efin itio n s of n e u tra l r ig h ts and blockade, indem nities fo r
1.
DeConde, p. 110,
2.
The London Times, as quoted in DeConde, p. 110.
s p o lia tio n s £, p ro h ib itio n of B r itis h tra d e w ith the In d ian s, and freedom
1
of United S ta te s operations o f th e Great Lakes -»*. a U must be pursued®81
Above a l l th e S ecre tary of S ta te in s is te d t h a t some se ttlem e n t was to
be worked out concerning t h a t e v il — impressment.
impressment was to be the primary g oal.
The a b o litio n of
"This p ra c tic e being e s s e n tia lly
a cause o f war and the primary o b je c t of your n e g o tia tio n ," Monroe
in d ic a te d , "a tr e a ty o f peace leaving i t in s ile n c e , and tru s tin g to
a mere understanding lia b le to doubts and d if f e r e n t explanations,
would n o t be th a t s e c u rity which th e U nited S ta te s have a r i g h t to
2
e x p e c t."
A fter the Americans had p aid a courtesy c a l l to th e B r itis h
on the afternoon of August 8, and a f t e r d inner, a c o u rie r entered
w ith d isp atch es from. Monroe which showed a major p o lic y change.
Da
h is l e t t e r of June 25 Monroe had sa id t h a t the commissioners could
suggest th a t th ere be an a r t i c l e in the tr e a ty re fe rr in g both
impressment and commercial r e la tio n s to a sep arate n e g o tia tio n .
On
June 27 Monroe wrote th a t i f i t was necessary to secure peace, a l l
mention o f impressment might be om itted from the tr e a ty .
The
Americans’ o rig in a l in s tru c tio n s had in s is te d th a t, i f they could
1. As quoted in Engelman, The Peace of Christmas Eve, New
York, H arcourt, Brace and World, I n c ., 1962, p. 13^. H ereafter
c ite d as Engelman.
2. Monroe to G a lla tin , Adams, and Bayard, A p ril 15, 1813,
In s tru c tio n s , Volume V II, quoted in P erkins, p. 53=
31
n o t procure the a b o litio n of Impressment, " a l l fu rth e r n e g o tiatio n s
1
w i l l cease9 and you w ill re tu rn home w ithout delay„11 The commissioners
were to ld by Monroe in two subsequent l e t t e r s to remain firm b u t to use
t h e i r own d is c re tio n in pushing th e American stand on impressment.
Each
commissioner, n e v e rth e le ss, firm ly b e liev ed th a t the su b je c t of
impressment had to be pushed, because t h i s , in t h e i r eyes, was one of
th e p rin c ip a l causes of the war,
G a lla tin abandoned hope fo r peace a f t e r the reading of the
B r itis h note of August 8,
On the tw e n tie th of the same month he wrote
to George D a lla s:
Our n e g o tiatio n s may be considered as a t an end. Some o f f i c i a l
n otes may y e t p a ss, b u t the n atu re of th e demands of th e
B r itis h , made a ls o as a prelim inary ’sin e qua non,.e to be
adm itted as b a s is before a d isc u ssio n , i s such th a t th e re can
be no doubt of a speedy ru p tu re of our conferences, and t h a t
we w i l l have no peace. G reat B rita in wants war in order to
c rip p le us? she wants aggrandizement a t our expense? she may
have u l t e r i o r objects? no resource l e f t b u t in union and
vigorous prosecution of the war, 'When her terms are known
i t appears to me im possible t h a t a l l America should n o t
u n ite in defence o f her r i g h ts , of her t e r r i t o r y , I may say
of her independence, I do n o t expect to be longer th an
th re e weeks in Europe,
On Tuesday morning, August 9, the two groups met again,
John
Quincy Adams informed th e B r itis h t h a t the Americans had in s tru c tio n s
on impressment and n a tio n a l boundaries, b u t non® on the f is h e r ie s or
on Indian peace or Indian boundaries,
1, American S ta te Papers:
pp. 701-702.
Adams continued, under B ritis h
Foreign R e la tio n s, Volume I I I ,
2. Henry Adams, The L ife of A lb ert G a lla tin , Hew York, P eter
Smith, 1943, p. 52^o H ereafter quoted as Adams, The L ife of A lb ert
G a lla tin ,
'
’™
32
p r o te s t, to r e c i te the American points®
The f i r s t American objectiveg he
sa id , was to achieve a d e fin itio n of blockade and another s a tis fa c to ry
d e fin itio n of o th er n e u tra l and b e llig e r e n t rights®
A lso, th e Americans
would submit " c e rta in claim s of indemnity to in d iv id u a ls f o r captures and
1
se izu re s preceding and subsequent to th e war®"
These were th e p rin c ip a l
American demands, a c tu a lly inadequate re d re ss fo r th e many grievances th e
Americans had su ffe red a t th e hands of the B ritis h .
Adams in d ic a te d th a t
o th er p o in ts would be r a is e d a f t e r peace had been n e g o tiate d .
He sa id
these o th er p o in ts had been l e f t out of th e American in s tru c tio n s to
help f a c i l i t a t e peace.
But t h i s fooled no one.
The i n i t i a t i v e was
c le a r ly held by th e B ritis h .
A debate began, a f t e r John Quincy Adams had completed h is speech,
over th e v a lid ity of B r ita in 's in te r je c tin g th e Indians and f is h e r ie s in to
th e n e g o tia tio n .
Due to the sh o rt d istan c e between th e B r itis h d elegates
and t h e i r government le a d e rs th e American Adams suggested th a t the B r itis h
ask th e ir government to modify i t s
in te re s te d .
stand. But th e B r itis h were not
G a lla tin then began a long defense of h is c o u n try 's treatm ent
of th e Indians.
Two days l a t e r , on August 11, Henry Clay was to w rite to
h is f rie n d , W illiam H= Crawford:
The B r itis h Commissioners are in s tru c te d to i n s i s t upon as a
sin e qua non to th e conclusion of any tr e a ty of peace t h a t the
p a c ific a tio n s h a ll include th e Indian a l l i e s of Great B ritain?
and th a t an Indian boundary s h a ll be fix e d by th e t r e a t y . . , to
c re a te a b a r r i e r . . . . In which n e ith e r th e U. S. or G. B. are
to be a t l ib e r ty to purchase from th e Indians.
1.
Kevins, p. 123.
2. James F. Hopkins, e d ito r. The Papers of Henry Clay,
Lexington, Kentucky, U niversity o f Kentucky Pres s7 ^9W IvoIum e I ,
p. 960. H ereafter c ite d as Hopkins.
Goulburn had sa id t h a t th e Indian t e r r i t o r y was meant to be a b a r r ie r , a
b u ffe r between th e U nited S ta te s and Canada.
To t h i s , f i n a l ly , the
Americans r e p lie d t h a t they would n o t be ab le to reach a p ro v isio n a l
agreement on th e Indian q u estio n .
T herefore, a suspension of the
conference was agreed upon so the B r itis h could c o n su lt London.
Before
concluding t h is meeting a f i n a l sessio n was c a lle d fo r the next day to
draw up a p ro to co l of th e f i r s t two m eetings.
Discussion and arguments follow ed on August 10 as the two
commissions read th e i r v ersio n of a p ro to c o l.
F in a lly th e two proposed
v ersio n s were s e t tl e d and th e f i r s t round of Anglo-American n e g o tiatio n s
had come to an end.
James G a lla tin , se c re ta ry to h is f a th e r , wrote in
h is d iary on August 10 of d i f f i c u l t i e s w ith in th e American commissions
"Father fin d s g re a t d if f ic u lt y w ith h is own colleagues.
The accident
which placed him a t the fo o t of th e Commission placed Mr. Adams a t the
head of i t ,
Messrs. Clay, Bayard, and R u ssell l e t Mr, Adams p la in ly
know th a t , though he might be the nominal mouthpiece, G a lla tin was
I
t h e i r le a d e r ."
When th e dispatches from the commissioners a t Ghent were
receiv ed in America during the f i r s t week of October, th e Cabinet was
amazed a t the demands p u t forward by the B r itis h ,
P re sid e n t Madison
wrote to Thomas Je fferso n on October 10:
1, James G a lla tin , A Great Peace Maker: The Diary of James
G a lla tin , Hew Xork, Charles S c rib n e r1s Sons, 1914, p. 28% S ereafter
c ite d as G a lla tin .
Our m in iste rs were a l l p resen t g and in p e rfe c t harmony of opinion
on th e arrogance of such demands = They would probably leave
Ghent sh o rtly a f t e r the s a ilin g of th e v e sse l j u s t a rriv e d .
Nothing can prevent i t . . . though i t might be somewhat favored
by an indignant ru p tu re of the n e g o tia tio n , as w e ll as by the
in te llig e n c e from t h i s Country and th e ferm entations taking
place in Europeo1
Adams wrote to Monroe on August 1 7 s
MSo f a r as the in te n tio n s of the
B r itis h government can be c o lle c te d from the newspapers i t would appear
2
th a t they c a lc u la te upon an immediate ru p tu re of t h is n e g o tia tio n .81
The follow ing was p rin te d on October 28, 1814 in the D aily N ational
I n te llig e n c e r :
" I t i s im possible th a t any American can l i s t e n to such
terms w ithout in d ig n a tio n .«,=.
These a re demands, attem p ts, or
p rete n sio n s, which U nited America w i l l never submit to , b u t w ith the
lo s s of her freedom ."
There were comments p rin te d in N ile s 1 Weekly
R eg ister of October 15» 1814, about the demands t h a t the Americans were
asked to submit to in the f i r s t B r itis h n o te :
"On the documents in se rte d
in t h is number i t i s superfluous to remark, except they have ex cited an
u n iv e rsa l b u rs t of in d ig n atio n , and an unanimous determ ination to re p e l,
to th e l a s t extrem ity, the outrageous p reten sio n s of the enemy.
are such as America w i l l never submit to .
They
Such as none b u t a slave
would accede t o . " But i t seems th a t in N ile s ' Weekly R eg ister of
October 20 th ere i s a d if f e r e n t p le a :
"However strange i t may appear,
w rite rs in th e Boston newspapers are lab o rin g "with might and main8 to
show th a t we may subscribe to the B r itis h conditions w ithout s a c rific in g
1= L e tte rs and other W ritings of James Madison. P h ilad elp h ia,
Jo B. L ip p in eo tt and Company, 1865, Volume I I , p . 589.
2.
W orthington Ohauncey Ford, e d ito r , W ritings of John Quincy
Adams, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1915, Volume V, p . 87. H ereafter
c ite d as Ford.
our honor ~= and in s is tin g th a t we ought to do i t . "
Peace c e r t a i n ^ was
th e cry of th e n o rth e a ste rn F e d e ra lis ts .
Although th e Americans had had two meetings w ith th e envoys from
England9 th e demands of the B r itis h government had been too ambiguous
f o r the Americans to le a rn a ry th in g .
I t seemed th a t th e B r itis h
commissioners were not t o t a l l y informed as to how t h e i r superiors f e l t
on a l l m atters,
low again i t was a m atter of w aiting.
At t h is time
i t f e l l to John Quincy Adams to prepare an account of th e i n i t i a l
proceedings f o r S ecretary of S ta te Monroe.
AH of th e commissioners
read i t , made th e i r own c o rre c tio n s, and then a compromise d r a f t was
reached on th e paper f i n a l ly se n t to Monroe.
The American commissioners
wrote to S ecretary of S ta te Monroe on August 12 s
"We would say t h a t i t
could n o t be doubted th a t peace w ith th e Indians would c e r ta in ly follow
a peace w ith Great B r i t a i n ... a n d ... having no i n te r e s t nor any motive
to continue a sep arate war a g a in st th e In d ian s, th e re could never be
a moment when our government would n o t be disposed to make peace w ith
1
them .. .
The accounts of the f i r s t meetings between the Americans and th e
B r itis h peace commissioners reached London a t th e end of the second week
in August.
Foreign S ecretary C astlereagh was preparing to leave fo r th e
co n tin en t of Europe and th e Congress of Vienna.
When Lord C astlereagh
and h is a d v isers receiv ed these accounts, the American problem was no t
1.
B a r tle tt, pp. 148=149,
uppermost in th e i r minds; thus* the in s tru c tio n s se n t to th e B r itis h
commissioners were completed in h a ste ,
And as a bonus Lord C astlereagh
decided to d e liv e r the new in s tru c tio n s in person * which he did on the
n ig h t of August 18,
At th ree p,m, on August 19 th e two groups met once again.
A fter
b r i e f g ree tin g s Goulburn began to rea d th e new in s tru c tio n s from
C astlereagh,
F irst* th e B r itis h government was "surprised" t h a t the
American commissioners had n o t been in s tru c te d on the su b je ct "of an
In dian p a cific a tio n * and boundary* as i t might n a tu ra lly have been
expected th a t G reat B rita in could n o t consent to make a peace and
1
leave her a l l i e s a t th e mercy of a more powerful enemy,"
The l e a s t
th a t would be expected of th e Americans was to agree to some type of
a p ro v isio n a l a r t i c l e about the Indian t e r r i t o r y .
I f the Americans
would not do t h i s , then th e n e g o tiatio n s would n o t continue.
I f the
U nited S ta te s d id l a t e r r e j e c t such an a r t i c l e a l l other tr e a ty
agreements would be n u l li f i e d .
Again Goulburn s ta te d t h a t th e
Indians must be included in th e tr e a ty .
The Indians were to be
p ro te c te d by t h i s permanent b u ffe r s ta te between the United S ta te s
and Canada,
Goulburn d id s ta te th a t h is government would accept* w ith
some changes* the Treaty of G reenville of 1795»
2
Maybe Goulburn had
fo rg o tte n t h a t t h is t r e a ty had been can celled by other agreements more
favorable to th e U nited S ta te s ,
1,
Kevins, p» 126,
2,
Hopkins* p, 969,
Sec©udB Goulburn began to rea d about th e adjustm ent of the
boundary between Canada and th e U nited States.
Great B rita in would be
able to use the Great lak e s fo r exclusive m ilita ry occupation.
I t was
req u ire d by G reat B rita in th a t the U nited S ta te s would s tip u la te to
have no naval fo rce on th e Lakes,, from O ntario to Superior; and to
b u ild no f o r t s in th e f u tu r e , nor to preserve those already b u i l t upon
i
t h e i r shores.
However„ th e Americans would be allowed to continue
■
commercial n avigation on th ese bodies of w ater.
Third, Goulburn continued w ith the statem ent t h a t i t would be
necessary to make a change in the boundary lin e from Lake Superior to
th e M ississip p i R iver.
Great B rita in must be able to navigate th e
M ississip p i R iver, as the Treaty of 1783 s tip u la te d .
P a rt of Maine
would have to be ceded to England so t h a t she would have a d ir e c t
B
m ilita ry road from H alifax to Quebec.
A sh o rt d iscu ssio n follow ed f o r purposes of c la r if ic a tio n .
G a lla tin asked what would happen to a l l th e w hite s e t t l e r s in th is
b u ffe r a re a.
Then a note was sent by the American commissioners
to S ecretary of S ta te Monroe about th e meeting of August 19 s ta tin g
th a t th e B r itis h had sa id
th a t n e ith e r th e United S ta te s nor Great B rita in should ever
h e re a fte r have th e r ig h t to purchase or acquire any p a r t of
th e t e r r i t o r y thus recognised as belonging to th e In d ia n s .. . ,
And asked what was the in te n tio n o f th e B ritis h Government
resp ec tin g th e c itiz e n s in t h is a r e a ... b u t t h a t such of the
in h a b ita n ts as would u ltim a te ly be included w ith in th e Indian
t e r r i t o r y must make t h e i r own arrangem ents, and provide fo r
them selves.^
1.
Bevins, p. 12?.
2.
3°
Hopkins, p. 969.
-American S ta te P ap ers:
Foreign R e la tio n s, Volume I I I , p.
Goulburn sa id th a t maybe t h is gave the Americans a reason to ask f o r
m odifications on t h i s p o in t.
At t h i s time John Quincy Adams asked f o r
a "written statem ent of th e B r itis h demands, and to t h i s th e B r itis h
decided to comply.
The B r itis h f e l t e la te d over th e meeting of August 19,
They
b eliev ed th a t some progress had been made fo r th e B r itis h cause.
However, th e Americans l e f t the meeting in a depressed s t a te .
N either
in th e conference of th a t day nor in th e ir w ritte n statem ent had th e
B r itis h commissioners mentioned any o f th e American p o in ts .
Foreign
M inister C astlereagh had f e l t th a t the Americans knew how England
stood on the f is h e r ie s and impressment, so th e re was no need in
mentioning e ith e r .
As to claim s of indem nities by the Americans,
C astlereagh was d e fin ite ly opposed; so, t h is m atter was l e f t unmentioned,
Adams wrote th e re p o rt to James Monroe w ith no d i f f ic u lt y .
It
was th e answer to the B r itis h t h a t caused much debate among the American
d e le g ates.
I t was on August 25 t h a t th e American commissioners answered
th e s e t o f in s tru c tio n s t h a t had been given to them by the B ritis h ,
There was an emphatic "no" to making a te n ta tiv e agreement on the
Indian proposal,
"To surrender both the r ig h ts of so v ereig n ity and of
s o i l over n e arly one=third of the t e r r i t o r i a l dominions of the United
S ta te s to a number of Indians, n o t probably exceeding twenty thousand,
th e undersigned are so f a r from being in s tru c te d or auth o rized th a t they
assu re th e B r itis h p le n ip o te n tia rie s t h a t any arrangement f o r th a t
1
purpose would be in stan tan eo u sly re je c te d by t h e i r governm ent," As
1, Charles F rancis Adams, e d ito r. Memoirs o f John Quincy Adams,
comprising p o rtio n s of h is M ary from 1795=1848, (12 volumes, 1874-1877),
as quoted in B angerfield, p, .697
39
fo r th e boundary, th e B ritis h co n d itio n s on t h is p o in t s e re n o t founded
on u t i p o s s id e tis or s ta tu s quo ante bellum .
The B r itis h proposals
would dismember th e American Republic, a r r e s t i t s n a tu ra l growth,
expose i t s n o rthern and w estern f r o n t ie r to B r itis h invasion and Indian
aggression, deprive i t s people of n a tu ra l r ig h ts on t h e i r own shores and
w aters, and admit fo re ig n in te rfe re n c e in t h e i r domestic concerns,
"A,
tr e a ty concluded on such terms would be b u t an a rm is tic e ,n |jEt could
n o tj
" , , , be supposed t h a t America would long submit to conditions so
in ju rio u s and d eg rad in g ," jjor would h e s ita te J
a t th e f i r s t
favorable opportunity, to re c u r to arms f o r the recovery of her
1
t e r r i to r y , of. her r ig h ts , o f her h o n o r,"
I f t h is were n o t the ease,
new causes f o r war would appear and a c tu a lly nothing would be solved,
low, the B r itis h commissioners se n t t h e i r answer p lu s the
American note of August 25 to London fo r Liverpool and B ath u rst and
a lso se n t G astlereagh in B aris a copy of th e American n o te.
The B r itis h
commissioners urged a term in atio n of th e n e g o tia tio n s because the
Americans were adamant in t h e i r demands,
G astlereagh a t t h i s time was _
deeply involved i n European n egotiations? th u s, he d id n o t a tte m p t.to
d r a f t a re p ly to the Americans.
He d id suggest to th e remainder of
the B r itis h c ab in et, however, th a t the Indian proposal should be
reconsidered.
He f e l t th a t "the substance of the problem facing the
B r itis h government was whether i t wished to continue the war to gain
• 3-° American S ta te P apers:
P» 356.
Foreign R e la tio n s. Volume I I I ,
t e r r i t o r i a l adjustm ents or make peace soon ’saving a l l our r ig h ts and
1
re ta in in g th e f is h e r ie s 3 which they do n o t appear to questio n .
B ath u rst, concerned about what th e th re e commissioners might
say to th e Americans, wrote a h asty note to them in s tru c tin g them "to
2
suspend a l l fu rth e r proceedings u n t i l you hear from u s . 11
C astlereag h ’s l e t t e r of suggestion a rriv e d i n London.
The next day
G astlereagh to ld
Lord L iverpool on August 28 th a t the whole t e r r i t o r i a l question was one
3
o f expediency, n o t to be in s is te d upon a tth e p o in t of a ru p tu re .
L iverpool was most unhappy w ith th e American n o te.
wrote to the Duke of W ellington on September 2:
The Prime M inister
"The American note i s
a most impudent one, and, as to a l l i t s reasoning, capable of an
ir r e s i s ta b le answer , which, i f i t should be necessary to p u b lish ,
w i l l, I am persuaded, have i t s proper e f f e c t in America.
L iverpool
b eliev ed th a t a few changes, leaving b a s ic a lly the same B r itis h demands
should once more be presented to th e American commissioners.
So as a
r e s u l t of th e e f f o r ts o f L iverpool, G astlereagh, Cooke of th e B r itis h
Foreign O ffice, and Henry B a th u rst, a l e t t e r was composed th a t was to
be se n t to the American commissioners.
The B ritis h commissioners could
rephrase i t so long as they l e f t th e b a sic demands i n ta c t .
1. C harles W illiam Vane, e d ito r , Correspondence, Despatches.
and Other Papers o f Viscount G astlereagh, London. John Murray,
Albemarle S tr e e t, 1853, Volume X, pp. 101-102.
2.
As( quoted in Ingelman, p . 176.
3. W ellington, Supplemental Despatches. Volume IX, pp. 192-193,
as quoted in Bangerfield., p. 687*
4. W ellington, Supplemental Despatches. Volume IX, p. 212, as
quoted in Ford, p. 102.
41
About t h i s time th ere oeeurred a m ilita ry d is a s te r of the f i r s t
w ater fo r th e American cause« I t was August 24 th a t th e B r itis h had
swept in to Washington and burned a l l p u b lic b u ild in g s = On September 1,
I8l4„ James Madison issu e d a proclam ation in referen ce to t h i s
calam itous events
Whereas th e enemy by a sadden in c u rsio n have succeeded in
invading th e c a p ita l of th e n a tio n .. . they wantonly
destroyed the p u b lic e d if ic e s , having no r e la tio n in
th e ir stru c tu re to operations of w a r.. . and whereas i t
now a p p e a rs ,.« to be h is avowed purpose to employ the
fo rce under h is d ire c tio n in destroying and laying
waste such towns and d i s t r i c t s upon the co ast as may
be found a s s a i la b le .. . and t h a t th e United S ta te s have
been as co n stan t in t h e i r endeavors to reclaim th e
eneny from such outrages by the c o n tra s t of th e i r own
example as they have been ready to term inate on
reasonable conditions the war i t s e l f . . . do issu e t h is
my proclam ation, exhorting a l l th e good people th e re o f
to u n ite th e ir h e a rts and hands in giving e f f e c t to
th e ample means possessed fo r th a t purpose.*
While aw aiting an answer to th e ir note of August 25 th e American
commissioners a t Ghent had an opportunity to t a l k inform ally w ith the
B r itis h d e le g ates.
John Quincy Adams ta lk e d w ith Mr. Goulburn on
September 1 and in d ic a te d the su b je ct of h is conversation when w ritin g
to Monroe four days l a t e r :
1, James D. Richardson, A Compilation of th e Messages and
Papers of th e P re s id e n ts : 1789-18977"Washington, Government P rin tin g
O ffice, 189^7 Volume I , ppT 545=546.
I
42
The s tra n g e s t fe a tu re in the gen eral complexion of h is discourse
was the in f le x ib le adherence to th e proposed Indian boundary
l in e . But the p re te x t upon which t h i s p ro p o sitio n had in the
f i r s t in stan ce been placed, th e p a c ific a tio n w ith th e Indians
and th e i r fu tu re s e c u rity was alm ost abandoned — avowed to
be a secondary and very subordinate o b je c t. The s e c u rity of
Canada was now s u b s titu te d as the prominent m otive. =«. This
was no o ther than a profound and ran k lin g jealousy a t th e
ra p id in crease of population and of settlem e n ts in th e United
S ta te s , an impotent longing to thw art t h e i r progress and to
s tu n t th e ir growth. With t h i s temper p re v a ilin g in th e
B r itis h c o u n cils, i t i s n o t in the hour of th e ir success th a t
we can expect to o b tain a peace upon term s of equal ju s tic e
or o f re c ip ro c ity , The note from London was f i n a l ly d e liv e re d to th e American
commissioners on September jSs i t d id n o t d i f f e r g re a tly from the
B r itis h note of August 20,
ex p an sio n ist tendencies t
The note spoke again of American
" I f th e p o lic y o f th e United S ta te s had
been e s s e n tia lly p a c if ic , as th e American p le n ip o te n tia rie s a s s e r t
i t ought to b e .. , i t might n o t have been necessary to propose the
p recautionary p ro v isio n s now under d is c u s s io n ," b u t
th e American government has been influenced by a very
d if f e r e n t p o lic y , by a s p i r i t of aggrandizement n o t
necessary to t h e i r own s e c u rity , b u t in creasin g w ith
the e x te n t of t h e i r empire, had been too c le a rly
m anifested by t h e i r p rogressive occupation of th e
Indian t e r r i t o r i e s , by the a c q u is itio n of L ouisiana,
by th e more re c e n t attem pt to w rest by fo rc e of arms
from a n a tio n in amity th e two F lo rid a s , and, l a s t l y ,
by th e avowed in te n tio n of permanently annexing the
Canadas t o the U nited S ta te s ,
1.
Ford, pp. 119-120.
2, . American S ta te P apers:
P. 713.
Foreign R e la tio n s, Volume I I I ,
AlsOp th e n o te c o n tim ed by rep eatin g a l l of th e former B r itis h demands
fo r u n i la t e r a l American disarmament of th e G reat la k e s t changes in th e
Maine boundary; and fo r settlem en t o f th e northw estern boundary« This
B r itis h note again spoke of th e Indian boundary? however9 i t showed th e
1
f i r s t sig n s of B r itis h y ie ld in g on t h is demand.
The American commissioners were angered g re a tly a t the B ritis h
n o te.
They regarded th e B r itis h terms as completely unacceptable.
Clay observed th a t a half«=page r e je c tio n of th e note would be
s u f f ic ie n t,
G a lla tin and Adams, on th e o th er hand, f e l t i t deserved
a lengthy re p ly , and f i n a l ly a l l of th e commissioners agreed.
This
American answer took each p o in t th a t the B r itis h had made and discussed
it.
The Americans sa id th e B r itis h had discussed a l l th e issu e s except
th e r e a l ones fo r which, th e two c o u n tries were fig h tin g .
Therefore,
th e Americans made i t c le a r t h a t these B r itis h conditions could form
no b a s is fo r peace.
I t was September 9 when the Americans had fin is h e d th e ir
answer, and i t was tra n sm itte d to the B r itis h commissioners.
On
t h is very same day C astlereagh was w ritin g to Liverpool from Munich,
expressing h is disapproval of the stand Great B rita in had taken,
C astlereagh and Liverpool both knew th a t popular opinion in B rita in
'
>
favored th e term ination of the American war, B athurst wanted to
s tic k w ith the B r itis h Indian, p o lic y ,
Liverpool agreed t h a t i t was
n ecessary to include th e Indians in th e peace, b u t n o t as a sine
1,
American S ta te P ap ers:
Foreign R elatio n s, Volume I I I , p. 713,
qua non.
The B r itis h were now planning "to ask fo r more than they
expected to g e t and fo rc e the Americans to s a c r if ic e something to
1
reduce th e t o t a l p e n a lty .11 Said Liverpool $
We might thus be n a tu ra lly brought by degrees to our
ultimatum, and during the time occupied by the
d iscu ssio n we might hear what had been the progress
of our arms, I confess I cannot b e liev e th a t w ith th e
pro sp ect of bankruptcy b efore them, the American
government would n o t wish to make peace, i f they can
make i t upon terms which would n o t give a triumph of
th e ir enem ies,^
Before the Cabinet had receiv ed the American note of September 9
from the Americans, B athurst had w ritte n to the B r itis h commissioners
informing them of the C abinet’s c u rre n t p o s itio n in reg ard to the
n e g o tia tio n s.
When Liverpool receiv ed the American answer of September 9,
h is re a c tio n was very p e ssim is tic .
He f i r s t thought of breaking o ff
the n e g o tia tio n s; then he decided th a t th e Americans had the b e tte r
argument and the more popular one.
I f th e n e g o tia tio n s ceased over
the Indian p ro p o sitio n , B rita in would fo rev e r a f t e r be stuck w ith i t
and unable to r e t r e a t from i t .
Slowly perhaps, b u t su re ly th en , the
Indian demand would have to be w h ittle d down, and the Lakes p ro p o sitio n
would have to be abandoned as such and merged in to the la rg e r question
of th e readjustm ent of th e Canadian boundary,*^
On September 16 the th ir d s e t of in s tru c tio n s of th e B ritis h
government was se n t to th e B r itis h commissioners.
I t a c tu a lly
contained few changes on th e Indian policy; although i t looked l i t t l e
1. As quoted in Ehgelman,
p. 181,
2, As quoted in Engelman,
p . 181,
3» Engelman, p. 184.
d if f e r e n t in form, the Indian b u ffe r s ta te as o rig in a lly proposed m s
doomed.
This B r itis h note d id not mention c o n tro l of th e la k e s except
to say th a t th e Lakes q u e stio n would be a p a rt of th e Canadian boundary .
readjustm ent.
Again the Americans were accused of being expansionists
in a harangue which included a statem ent about Generals W illiam Hull
and Alexander Smyths who had a lle g e d ly sa id th a t th e Americans planned
to capture Canada.
On September 19 the B r itis h d e leg atio n se n t th e i r t h ir d note
to t h e i r American co u n te rp arts.
At t h is time the American group was
wondering what la y in the fu tu re fo r them.
I t seemed t h a t the n e g o tia tio n s
were n o t proceeding as s a t is f a c to r i l y as they should have been.
I t was
in t h is frame of mind th a t the Americans receiv ed on September 19 the
th ir d B r itis h n o te.
They observed th a t the G reat Lakes demand had been
dropped from the n o te, and th a t the Indian demand a lso had been changed,
b u t n o t dropped.
John Quincy Adams f e l t “the B r itis h note was over-
bearing and in s u ltin g i n i t s t o n e ... b u t i t abandons a g re a t p a r t of th e
1
sin e qua non! "
I t seemed to Adams t h a t G a lla tin and Bayard were ready
to accept t h i s m odified B ritis h proposal.
And " th e n ," sa id Adams
heated ly , " is i t a good p o in t to admit the B ritis h as the sovereigns
2
and p ro te c to rs of our Indians?"
Adams had made h is p o in t, and th e
o th er two men y ield ed .
A fter much d iscu ssio n and debate among the
1.
le v in s , p. 134.
2.
Kevins, p. 135®
,
Americans they voted unanimously a g a in st accepting th e B r itis h proposals,
Adams, w ritin g to h is w ife, Louisa C atherine, on September 2? to ld her
about th e Americans working to g eth er to compose a re p ly to the B ritis h
n o te.
He to ld her th a t each p a rt was d iscussed, re v ise d , re je c te d ,
amended and then accepted.
Also he re p o rte d th e e a r l i e r d r a f ts of
previous n o tes had been w ritte n by G a lla tin and him self.
He continued:
"In t h is process about seven-eights of what I w rite , and one-half of
what Mr, G a lla tin w rite s i s stru c k out.
The reason of th e d ifferen c e
i s th a t h is composition i s argum entative, and mine i s declam atory.
He i s always p e rfe c tly cool, and 1, in the judgement of my colleagues,
1
am o ften more than tem perately warm,H The Americans agreed to accept
Adam’s suggestion th a t an Indian amnesty rep la ce th e B r itis h proposal.
Besides the d i f f i c u l t i e s between th e American and B r itis h
commissioners, the Americans had problems among them selves,
Adams
was deeply wounded by th e many changes which h is colleagues made in
h is d r a f ts .
On October 5 Adams wrote to W illiam Crawford in P a ris :
" I b eliev e th e so le o b je c t of B rita in in p ro tra c tin g our sta y here i s
to impose bo th upon America and upon Europe, while she may g lu t a l l
her v in d ic tiv e p assio n s and bring us to term s of unco n d itio n al
2
su rre n d e r,"
Jonathan B u ssell b e liev ed th e commissioners did n o t
1,
Ford, pp, 146-14?,
2,
Ford, p, 152,
consider, him of much worth so he moved out o f th e h o te l t h a t housed h is
companions.
D espite t h i s bick erin g the American answer was completed
and se n t to the B r itis h ,
I t was apparent to the B r itis h when they receiv ed th e answer
from th e Americans on September 26 th a t t h e i r minds had n o t been changed
in th e l e a s t .
F i r s t s th e American note s ta te d th a t th e m atters of
L ouisiana and th e F lo rid as re fe r re d to in th e previous B r itis h note
had nothing whatsoever to do w ith Great B rita in ,
.Second, the American
commissioners suggested t h a t there, be a commission s e t up to s e t t l e
the Maine boundary in ste a d of a c essio n as th e B r itis h proposed.
Third,
the Americans in s e rte d th a t Generals Hull and Smythe c e rta in ly were n o t
members o f th e American government and t h a t th e ir statem ents could n o t
be accounted fo r.
Fourth, th e Americans s ta te d em phatically th a t they
would n o t submit to any form of th e B r itis h demand f o r an Indian b u ffe r
s ta te .
The Americans in s e rte d th a t they wanted peace w ith the Indians,
Goulburn, Br, Adams and Gambler, n o t knowing how t h e i r government would
r e a c t to t h i s American note, forwarded i t to London,
On September 29 George Boyd, b ro th e r-in -la w of John Quincy Adams,
a rriv e d a t Ghent,
Congress,
He brought news th a t Henry Clay had been re -e le c te d to
Also he brought "clippings from th e R ational I n te llig e n c e r,
announcing a new ‘ft*eaty of G reenville and the s h i f t of a la rg e bloc of
2
Indian tr ib e s from the B r itis h to th e American cau se,"
Clay wanted a
1.
Ingelman, p, 196,
2, The R ational In te llig e n c e r , Washington, as quoted in
Bngelman, p , 196,
.
48
copy of t h is newspaper- a r t i c l e se n t to London, and f i n a l ly a l l h is
colleagues agreed upon t h i s , which was done on September 30,
Washington had fa lle n !
October 1,
This was
The news had a rriv e d in Ghent on
c e rta in ly heartbreaking news considered in
conjunction w ith th e
u n sa tis fa c to ry s ta te of th e n e g o tia tio n s.
October 11 Mams wrote to h is w ife:
On
" I t appears, however, th a t the
B r itis h m in iste rs have not shared in a l l th e delusions of t h e i r populace i n reg ard to th e i r l a t e achievement a t Washington,
Here £ i n
liurepel we have heard b u t one sentim ent expressed upon th e su b ject
1
th a t of u n q u a lifie d d e te s ta tio n ,” Clay wrote to Crawford on October
17 about th e s itu a tio n in America:
" I w is h ,,, i t were p o ssib le to
pass over in sile n c e and bury in o b liv io n , th e d is tre s s in g events
which have occurred a t home.
Bat i t would be in vain to attem pt to
conceal th a t they have given me the deepest a f f l i c t i o n .
The enemy, i t
i s tr u e , has l o s t much in c h a ra c te r, a t l e a s t in the estim atio n of
Z
th e im p a rtia l w o rld ,”
Rufus King, prominent F e d e ra lis t Senator
from New York, declared in Congress a f te r th e a tta c k on Washington:
"Altho th e D eclaration of war was unnecessary, and highly inexpedient,
th e Manner in which i t has been prosecuted by the Enemy, and th e avowed
'Purpose of waste andD istru c tio n t h a t he proclaim s, have so changed the
C haracter of the War,
th a t i t has became the Duty of a l l to u n ite in the
1,
Ford, pp, 156=157o
2,
Hopkins, p, 988,
adoption of vigorous measures to re p e l the Invaders of the Conntry» and
1
to p ro te c t i t s e s s e n tia l B ights and Honor,” And i t seemed th e B r itis h
were delaying th e ir answer to t h e :American note.
I t was Saturday, October 8, when th e American commissioners
receiv ed th e fo u rth B r itis h note.
I t began by s ta tin g th a t n e g o tia tio n s
would only be continued i f th e Indian q u estio n was s e ttle d .
This time
the B r itis h declared t h a t the Indians must be re s to re d to a l l r ig h ts ,
p ossessions and p riv ile g e s which they enjoyed as of 1811,
th r e a t o f an Indian b u ffe r s t a te .
req u ired now.
Gone was th e
Only a peace w ith the Indians was
In th e note B athurst s ta te d th a t Indian p a c if ic a tio n was
a must; t h a t w ithout i t th e n e g o tia tio n s would be closed?
The paper
"berated th e Americans f o r a d isp la y of bad f a i t h and the p ra c tic e of
2
in te rn a tio n a l im m orality1' in re la tio n s h ip to her in te r e s ts in
Louisiana and th e F lo rid a s,
p a r t o f Maine.
Then i t in d ic a te d th a t England wanted
L ast i t denounced once again the proclam ations of
Generals H ull and Smythe,
John Quincy Adams wrote of t h i s n o te :
"It
i s by f a r th e most labored, the b e s t w ritte n , and th e most deserving
of a complete and s o lid answer , of any one t h a t we have receiv ed
from them ,"
3
Each of th e Americans knew t h a t t h is note had to be accepted
s u b s ta n tia lly because i t a rriv e d a f t e r th e news about Washington,
An
1. Rufus King Papers, Memorandum o f October, 1814, Hew York
H is to ric a l S ociety, quoted in P erkins, p, 96.
2.
Engelman, p , 200,
3.
As quoted in Engelman, p, 201,
50
a r t i c l e in th e London Times of October
p rin te d in the Richmond
Enquirer on December 22, re v e a ls the g en eral concensus in B rita in a t
th is tim e,
"There i s an opinion p r e tty g en erally p re v a le n t, b u t to
which we cannot accede, t h a t the n e g o tia tio n s a t Ghent w ill soon lea d
to peace.
Those who in c lin e to th is id ea , apprehend t h a t the'American
government are disposed to y ie ld to alm ost a l l th a t we demand,„, by the
e v id en t n e c e ssity of re -e s ta b lis h in g th e ir fin an ces and commerce.11
Madison wrote to John Adams:
"our enemy knowing t h a t he had peace in
h is own hands, specu lates on the fo rtu n e of e v e n t s .,..
He can a t any
moment, as he supposed, come to our te rm s ..,
or
h is demands may be
1
In s is te d on, or even extended."
The problem fo r the commissioners
was how to accept th e B r itis h proposals,
undertook to d r a f t a re p ly .
Adams and G a lla tin b oth
On Saturday, October 12, th e group met
to decide which d r a f t to accept,
l e i t h e r proved s a tis fa c to r y .
decided to take both d r a f ts and blend them in to h is own d r a f t,
Olay
Olay’s
note was accepted on th e follow ing aftern o o n , although Adams d is lik e d
i t , fe e lin g that "the tone of a l l B r itis h n o tes was a rro g a n t,
overbearing, and o ffen siv e.
The tone of ours i s n e ith e r so bold nor
so s p ir ite d as I th in k i t should be.
I t i s too much on the d e fe n siv e ."
2
C lay 's note sa id f i r s t , t h a t in reg ard to statem ents concerning American
1, Irv in g B rant, James Madison: Commander in C hief, 1812-1836,
In d ian ap o lis and New York, The B obbs-M errill Company, I n c ,, 1961, p," 353,
2,
Mevins, p. 138,
am bitions to acquire Canadian t e r r i t o r y th e B r itis h were under an
erroneous im pression and th a t a iy statem ents about t h is were purely
explanatoryo
the Americans9 Clay continued, did n o t understand why
th e B r itis h chose to q u estio n the v a lid ity of th e L ouisiana Purchase
now and n o t a t th e time of the purchase» The American note made l ig h t
of th e statem ents of Generals H ull and Smythe.
Again th e United
S t a te s ’ commissioners could not agree to th e B r itis h proposals fo r
an Indian settlem ent*
The Americans d id concede t h a t th e l a s t B r itis h
proposal w ith reg ard to the Indians was so sim ila r to th e rep eated
suggestions of th e m in iste rs o f th e United S ta te s t h a t the B ritis h
commissioners could "agree to admit i t in substance as a p ro v isio n a l
a r t i c l e , su b je c t, in the manner o rig in a lly proposed by th e B r itis h
Government, to the approbation or r e je c tio n of th e Government of the
1
United S ta te s * * .,"
The Americans now suggested th a t the B r itis h tu rn
to those p o in ts on which they should be n e g o tia tin g in th e f i r s t p lace.
This note was d eliv ered to th e B r itis h on October 14,
At the same tim e, d e lib e ra te ly , the B r itis h commissioners sen t
the American d eleg ates newspaper accounts of B r itis h v ic to r ie s in the
f i e l d of North America,
This included an account of B r itis h seizu re of
towns in th e .Passamaquoddy Isla n d s, th e d e stru c tio n of th e United S ta te s
f r ig a te Adams, and th e re p u lse of an American a tta c k on M iehilimackinac,
I t seemed t h a t an unhappy w inter la y in sto re fo r the f iv e Americans,
1,
Hopkins, p, 985=
CH&pm 3
MSGOTIA.TIONS„ SECOND PHASE: .
OCTOBER 15 - DECEMBER 24
I t was f a l l of the y ear by now and w ith t h i s new season had
come some m ilita ry setbacks fo r th e B r itis h in North Americao
The
lo s s of th e B r itis h f l e e t a t Plattsburgh^ lew York, on September 11
d e fla te d B r itis h hopes fo r a m ilita r y v ic to ry over th e U nited S ta te s
considerably.
When news of t h i s a rriv e d in London i t was alm ost
u nbelievable to the C abinet,
B a th u rs t’s f i r s t thoughts were th a t the
American commissioners had a t l e a s t agreed in substance to th e ir
Indian proposal.
Now B athurst b eliev ed i t was e s s e n tia l th a t the
Americans accept the p rin c ip le of u t i p o s s id e tis .
They must accept
t h is p rin c ip le before t e r r i t o r i a l claim s could be presented.
Obviously
th e acceptance of th is p rin c ip le by th e United S ta te s would have been a
v i r tu a l admission of d e fe a t.
Cabinet had in mind included:
The t e r r i t o r y th a t B athurst and th e
a new boundary between Maine and New
Brunswick; r e te n tio n o f F o rt Niagara and th e is la n d and f o r t of
M ichilim ackinac; exchange of a few minor f o r t s ; and American cession
of C arlton Isla n d , one of th e Thousand Isla n d s,
Also th e B r itis h
would i n s i s t th a t the p riv ile g e th e Americans had gained from the
Treaty of 1?83 of drying f i s h on Canadian shores was now to be ended.
F in a lly , th e B r itis h wanted an a lte r a tio n in th e northw estern boundary
52
53
from th e Lake of the Woods to th e M ississip p i R iver,
This was a l l s e t
f o r th in th e f i f t h B r itis h n o te 5 i t arrived, a t Ghent on October 18,
On October 19 S ecretary of S ta te James Monroe wrote to th e
American m in iste rs th a t t h e i r r e je c tio n o f th e previous terms proposed
by th e B r itis h had been approved by the P re sid e n t,
Monroe s ta te d ,
f u r th e r , th a t the P resid en t had shown th ese papers to Congress and
had had them p rin te d in th e newspapers. This e f f o r t , Monroe re p o rte d ,
1.
had u n ite d a l l o f th e American people,~
Liverpool wanted the B r itis h commissioners to p o in t out to the
Americans how fo rtu n a te they were t h a t events were tu rn in g t h e i r way.
The Prime M inister f e l t :
" I f the Americans a re unreasonable in
d eclin in g th e moderate terms of peace which you are authorized to
propose, th e country a t la rg e w ill f e e l i t necessary to support a war,
the w orst e f f e c ts of which w i l l be the leav in g them in t h a t s ta te in
B
which they had e x is te d and prospered, 11 "There i s no d is p o s itio n ,"
he concluded, "to exact any terms from them in c o n s is te n t w ith t h e ir
honour; th e c o n te st i s a c o n te st only f o r term s of p eace,"
3
This
note from L iverpool was to be shewn to th e American d e le g atio n .
The
Americans had a l l of t h i s inform ation =>«= th e f i f t h B r itis h note and
L iv erp o o l8s l e t t e r — by October 21,
The news of the B r itis h d e fe a t a t P lattsb u rg h d id n o t impress
th e Americans,
They were s t i l l p e ssim is tic , thinking probably th a t
1-
American S ta te Papers < Foreign R e la tio n s, Volume I I I , p. 732,
2.
Bngelman, p, 232,
3»
Bngelman, p, 232,
the news from America was exaggerated9 and even I f American m ilita ry
prospects were looking up they probably would n o t l a s t .
Americans thought t h is l a t e s t B r itis h note unacceptable.
Again the
Unanimously
they refu sed to accept u t i p o s s id e tis ; they would not consider ceding
any American t e r r i to r y .
The Americans now suggested th a t the B r itis h
submit a p r o je c t9 or i f they d id n o t so d e s ire , th a t both d elegations
compose p ro je c ts .
The American note embodying t h is was completed and
in th e hands of the B r itis h commissioners on Monday, October 2h.
Although th e Americans had devoted le s s time and thought to
th e composition of t h e i r note of October
than to 'any of t h e i r
previous n o te s, i t caused a bigger sen sa tio n in B rita in than any
th a t had preceded i t .
lo r d L iverpool, a f t e r reading the n o te , wrote
to th e Duke of W ellington:
The l a s t note of the American p le n ip o te n tia rie s p u ts an end,
I th in k , to any hopes we might have e n te rta in e d of our being
able to b rin g th e war w ith America a t t h is time to a
co n clu sio n ...« The d o c trin e of the American government i s
a very convenient one, th a t they w ill always be ready to
keep what they acq u ire, b u t never give up what they
l o s e . . . . We s t i l l th in k i t d e sira b le to gain a l i t t l e
more time before the n e g o tia tio n i s brought to a c lo se ,
and we s h a ll th e re fo re c a l l upon them to d e liv e r in a
f u l l p ro je c t of a l l the conditions on which they are ready
to make peace before we e n te r in to d iscu ssio n on any of
the p o in ts contained in our l a s t note.-*Liverpool urged G astiereagh to keep h is frie n d s among th e r u le r s of
Europe.
The Prime M inister f e l t th e Cabinet could not give the Americans
o
" re c ip ro ca l r e s t it u t io n " of t e r r i t o r y as they asked.
1. W ellington, Supplemental Despatches. Volume IX, p . 384,
quoted in Adams, L ife o f A lb ert G a lla tin , p. 0 6 a
2.
Engelman, p. 236.
55
G a lla tin w o te to Monroe on October 26 t e l l in g of th e l a t e s t
B r itis h demands and asking f o r new in stru e tio n so
He discussed the
Indian q u estio n a ls o :
With re sp e c t to th e Indian a r t i c l e 6 ray only motive fo r
assen tin g to i t «==> and I b e liev e t h a t i t was the same
w ith ray colleagues *»« was t h a t having l i t t l e hope f o r
peace 8 I thought i t much more favorable 8 w ith re s p e c t
to p u b lic opinion in th e e aste rn p a r t o f th e Union,
th a t we should break on o th er grounds$ and p a r tic u la rly
on th a t of t e r r i t o r i a l rig h ts,, than on t h a t of Indian
p a c if ic a tio n .1
Bayard wrote to Andrew Bayard on October 26:
" I f Great B rita in
th in k s i t lik e ly th a t she w i l l in any form be involved in a c o n tin e n ta l
warg she w ill hasten to make peace w ith us®
Thus in a g re a t measure
does our d estin y depend upon operations n o t under our control* nor
2
w ith in our view®"
B athurst a t t h i s tim e wrote to th e B r itis h commissioners
explaining t h a t f i r s t * th e B r itis h needed tim e: and second* B athurst
d id n o t want th e Americans to th in k th a t the B r itis h would break o ff
th e n e g o tia tio n s because o f t e r r i t o r i a l demands®
So the B r itis h deleg ates
se n t a sh o rt d isp a tc h to the Americans s ta tin g th a t they had d eliv ere d a
p ro je c t in t h e i r l a s t n ote and asking f o r an American counterproject®
B r itis h d eleg ates s ta te d they had nothing fu rth e r to add®
The note of the B r itis h th a t was to answer the American one of
October 24 a rriv e d a t the residence o f th e American commissioners on
1. Henry Adams* editor* The W ritings of A lb ert G a lla tin ® lew
York* A ntiquarian Press* Ltd® * I8 9 l* l# 6 * Volume I* p® 640®
2. E lizab eth Bonnan* editor* "Papers of James A® Bayard*
1796=1815*" Annual Report o f the American H is to ric a l A sso ciatio n * 1913*
pp» 348=349® H ereafter c ite d as Bonnan®
The
56
October 31.
I t d id n o t su rp rise the fiv e men because each one of them
f i r m l y b eliev ed t h a t the B r itis h wanted delay.
The Americans, however,
were s t i l l under th e s p e ll th a t had come w ith th e f a l l of Washington;
they d id not give much weight to American v ic to r ie s a t P lattsb u rg h ,
Baltim ore, or P o rt .Brie.
" I t was inconceivable to the Americans th a t
*|
th e B r itis h might be d e s p e ra te ."
They only knew th a t the B ritis h had
compromised on the Indian p o lic y .
The note d eliv ere d to th e Americans
by Anthony S t. John Baker, the S ecretary of the B r itis h P le n ip o te n tia rie s ,
on October 31 contained no new demands.
I t simply s ta te d t h a t the B r itis h
had given th e i r term s, and th a t nothing fu r th e r was necessary on t h e i r
p a r t.
They proposed th a t the Americans make a p ro je c t of a tr e a ty . For _
th e f i r s t tim e, the Americans were having th e opportunity to make up
the form at.
Adams and G a lla tin both began making d r a fts of th e p ro je c t.
"The American relu c ta n ce to take the f i r s t step in designing the tr e a ty
sprang from an aversion composed of ignorance of p o ssib le g ain and fe a r
of p o ssib le in te r n a l d iv is io n , th a t might be comparable in i t s own way 2
to th e schism th a t e x is te d between the two c o u n tr ie s .”
While the Americans were working on th e ir .p ro je c t, th e European
settlem en t was not coming easy.
Czar Alexander wanted to keep Poland
as h is t e r r i t o r y w ith him self as king.
B rita in opposed t h i s .
However,
i t d id seem th a t Russia had the edge because th e B r itis h were Involved in
3
a war th a t took some of her tim e.
G reat B rita in had too many iro n s in
th e f i r e so th a t she could n o t term inate anything su c c e ssfu lly .
1.
Engelman, p. 237.
2.
Engelman, p. 2&1.
3.
B urt, p. 362.
The drawing up of a. d r a f t fo r a p ro je c t proved a most d i f f i c u l t
ta s k fo r th e fiv e Americans = Impressment, n e u tra l r ig h ts and indem nities
were no longer indispensable conditions b u t were s t i l l a m atter of
p a tr i o ti c p rid e .
One of the most c o n tro v e rsia l o f the mangy items
concerned th e Sew England f is h e r ie s and th e r ig h ts of n av ig atio n of
th e M ississip p i R iver.
These were c e rta in ly m atters o f s e c tio n a l concern.
John Quincy Adams had as h is main o b jec tiv e to keep th e fish in g r ig h ts
fo r h is fello w Hew Englanders.
E nglish on th e M ississip p i.
Clay9 fo r h is West, d id n o t want th e
Besides these im portant issu e s Clay and
Adams were having t h e i r own personal feud.
Adams was d isg u sted by the
h a b its and morals of Henry Clay, and t h is fe e lin g c e rta in ly c a rrie d
over in to th e work on the p ro je c t.
G a lla tin , aware that, an American p ro je c t would be necessary
even b efo re receiv in g th e B r itis h n o te , had brought h is d r a f t forward
on October 30.
He suggested t h a t both the f is h e r ie s and th e M ississip p i
r ig h ts be renewed.
Clay was outraged!
He saw no reason a t a l l to rev iv e
B r itis h n av ig atio n of th e M ississip p i nor to mention th e f is h e r ie s a t
a ll.
Henry Clay "could n o t understand th e magnitude o f the fis h e ry
q u estio n , nor how the mere r i g h t to catch f i s h , a r i g h t in h is region
fre e to everyone, should be an eq u iv alen t f o r these o th er demands, and
X
he would have surrendered the fis h e ry q u e stio n w ithout a c o n te s t."
Several days l a t e r Clay came forward w ith an idea alread y espoused by
Adams.
He argued t h a t th e f is h e r ie s should be considered as a p a rt of
1, Thomas W ilson, "The Treaty o f G hent," Magazine o f American
H isto ry , H is to ric a l P u b lica tio n Company, July-Becember, 1888, Volume XL,
p. 383.
American independence th a t could n o t be taken away.
With some
d iscu ssio n t h is was accepted and ended one sore spot.
Looking a t John Quincy Adam's d r a f t of th e p ro je c t, h is
colleagues found most o f i t acceptable.
c ritic is m ;
One statem ent met w ith
Adams suggested t h a t the Americans have as an a lte rn a tiv e
to th e p ro je c t the p rin c ip le of s ta tu s quo an te helium ,
G a lla tin
agreed w ith Adams from th e beginning 9 b u t Clay refu sed to accept
t h is and in d ic a te d t h a t i f i t were th e b a s is o f a tr e a ty he might not
sign i t .
On November 10 the American p ro je c t accompanied by a covering
note was d e liv ered by C hristopher Hughes to th e B r itis h commissioners
and was to a rriv e i n London on Sunday, November 13,
The note mentioned
th e p o s s ib ility of the p rin c ip le of s ta tu s quo; d id n o t d iscu ss the
M ississip p i a t a l l ; sa id the f is h e ry r ig h ts could n o t have been taken
away because of the war, and l i s t e d some of the h i s t o r ic a l precedents
fo r some of the p r o j e c t's a r t i c l e s .
The American p ro je c t began w ith an a r t i c l e th a t c a lle d fo r an
end to a l l h o s t i l i t i e s and urged t h a t a l l p riso n e rs and t e r r i t o r y be
retu rn ed .
A rtic le I I discussed when the war would end a f t e r the tr e a ty
had been signed.
A rtic le s I I I through VI discussed the s e ttin g up of
a r b i t r a l commissions f o r fix in g c e r ta in boundaries a f t e r the conclusion
of th e war.
A rtic le s I I I and IV c a lle d fo r a commission to s e t t l e th e
boundary running through th e Maim highlands and th e Passamaquodby
Isla n d s, the exact lim its of the boundary s tre tc h in g n o rth and west
from the Maine highlands to the S t, Lawrence.
A rtic le V c a lle d fo r a
commission to d iscu ss th e d iv id in g lin e which cu t through th e S t,
Lawrence and the Great Lakes,
A rtic le VI c a lle d fo r a commission to
defin e th e in te rn a tio n a l demarcation from Lake Superior to th e Lake of
th e Woods,
A ll of these were d isp u tes l e f t over from th e Treaty of 1783,
Each sid e would have one commissioner0 and these two could appoint the
1
th ir d . A rtic le VII sp e c ifie d the powers of the commissions.
A rtic le V III s ta te d t h a t th e northw estern boundary as a lin e
drawn from th e northw estern p o in t of the Lake of the Woods due n o rth
or south to the fo rty -n in th p a r a lle l and thence westward to the Stony
Mountains,
Indians,
A rtic le IX discussed the n e c e ssity fo r peace w ith the
A rtic le X s ta te d t h a t both powers should " re s tra in the Indians
liv in g w ith in t h e i r re sp e c tiv e dominions from committing h o s t i l i t i e s
2
a g a in st th e t e r r i t o r y , c itiz e n s or su b je c ts of the o th er p a r t y ,11
A rtic le XI provided f o r the temporary p ro h ib itio n of impressment.
A rtic le XII was t o r e s t r i c t th e B r itis h in th e i r use of blockades.
A rtic le X III asked indem nities f o r U nited S ta te s c itiz e n s .
A rtic le XIV
would g ra n t amnesty to a l l those who had worked on e ith e r sid e .
A rtic le
XV provided the machinery f o r r a t i f i c a t i o n s of the tr e a ty . ^
The B r itis h commissioners were amazed a t the American p ro je c t
fo r a tr e a ty .
C-oulburn suggested to B athurst th a t the t r e a ty "must be
decided e n tir e ly in favour of Great B r i t a i n . T h e American p ro je c t
a rriv e d in London on Sunday, lovember 13,
1.
Sngelman, pp. 2A5-2fr6.
2.
Sngelman, p. 246,
3= Sngelman, pp. 246-247.
4,
Sngelman, p. 247,
This was a se rio u s time fo r
60
th e B r itis h .
The American war was n o t going w ell.
I t had been on
November 3 th a t th e Cabinet decided to ask th e Bake of W ellington i f
he would go to th e United S ta te s to help brin g v ic to ry f o r the B ritis h .
On November 9 W ellington had re p lie d :
I have already to ld you and Lord B athurst th a t I f e e l ho
o b jectio n to going to Americag though I don’t promise to
m yself much success th e re . .
That which appears to me to
be wanting in America i s n o t a g e n e ra lg or a g e n eral o ff ic e r
and tro o p s, b u t a naval s u p e rio rity on th e la k e s .. . . In
reg ard to your p re se n t n e g o tia tio n s, 1 confess th a t I th in k
you have no r i g h t, from th e s ta te of war, to demand any
concession of t e r r i t o r y from Am erica.. . . You have no t
been able to c a rry i t in to th e enemy’s t e r r i t o r y ,
notw ithstanding your m ilita ry success and now undoubted
m ilita ry s u p e rio rity , and have n o t even c le are d your own
t e r r i t o r y on the p o in t of a t t a c k . . . . Why s tip u la te fo r
th e " u ti p o s s id e tis ? ” You can g e t no t e r r i to r y ; indeed,
th e s ta te o f your m ilita ry o p eratio n s, however, c re d ita b le ,
does n o t e n t i t l e you to demand any.
A fter W ellin g to n 's l e tte r ,O f November 9, th e B r itis h demands fo r
t e r r i t o r y became im possible.
Thus th e v ic to ry of Macdonough a t
P la ttsb u rg h Bay on September 11 was a c tu a lly more im portant than
any of the Americans r e a lis e d ,
C astlereag h ’s n e g o tiatio n s w ith o th er European powers was not
making much progress e ith e r .
On November 4 Adams wrote to h is w ife:
"Me see p la in ly enough th a t we s h a ll have no peace b u t by the f a ilu r e
of the B r itis h government to give th e law to a l l Europe a t V ie n n a ,,.,
In th e meantime, they are merely m ultiplying d iscu ssio n s to keep the
2
n e g o tia tio n a l i v e . ” Public opinion in France and a lso in England
'
was fo r an end to th e war.
A few days a f t e r th e American p ro je c t
1.
As quoted in B angerfield, p. 77»
2.
Ford, pp. 177-178.
a rriv e d word came to London th a t th e Madison a d m in istratio n had
published i t s m in is te r’s dispatches, reco rd s of the peace ta lk s through
the end of August,
lews came w ith t h is th a t Madison was to have th ese
p u b lic atio n s se n t a l l oyer the world.
people now were u n ite d as never b e fo re .
Reports sa id th a t th e American
On the 18th these American
re p o rts of the n e g o tia tio n s were p rin te d in the B r itis h newspaper .
1
low Englishmen were u p set w ith the B r itis h demands; they wanted p eace."
On Friday, November 18, Liverpool wrote to C astlereagh i
1 th in k we have determined i f a l l o th er p o in ts can be
s a t is f a c to r i l y s e ttle d , n o t to continue th e war f o r the
purpose of obtaining or securing any a c q u isitio n of
t e r r i to r y . We have been le d to t h i s determ ination by
th e c o n sid eratio n of the u n s a tis fa c to ry s ta te of the
n e g o tiatio n s a t Vienna, and by t h a t o f th e alarming
s itu a tio n of the i n te r io r of France: We have a lso
been obliged to pay se rio u s a tte n tio n to the s ta te of
our f in a n c e s ,... Under such circum stances, i t has
appeared to us d e sira b le to bring th e American war i f
p o ssib le to a conclusion,®
On Monday November 21 i t f e l l to B athurst to d r a f t in s tru c tio n s
fo r th e B r itis h commissioners.
He s ta te d t h a t B rita in now would adopt
the s ta tu s quo and would n o t renew the q u estio n resp ec tin g the
f is h e r ie s , which in so many words would continue to give th e Americans
t h i s r ig h t.
Also B athurst s ta te d t h a t u t i p o s s id e tis was n o t a probable
a b lu tio n and should n o t be demanded any lo n g er.
The American commissioners on November 25 receiv ed a m ail
packet from America which had th re e l e t t e r s in i t from James Monroe.
The S ecretary of S ta te sa id th a t , because of a d e sire f o r peace, the
1.
Engelman, p. 252.
2.
Engelman, p. 253.
a d m in istratio n was a u th o rizin g the commissioners to make s ta tu s quo
ante helium th e b a s is of the tr e a ty .
ju s t if i e d in taking t h i s stand.
How John Quincy Adams f e l t
Also, Monroe p ra ise d th e fiv e
n e g o tia to rs and gave them a f re e hand in making the peace tr e a ty ,
The B r itis h answer to the American p ro je c t a rriv e d on Sunday,
Movember 27=
There were se v e ra l changes th e B r itis h had in mind;
however, " a l l th e d i f f i c u l t i e s to the conclusion of a peace appear
to be now so n early removed, th a t ogr colleagues a l l considered i t as
X
c e r ta in ," John #uincy Adams wrote in h is d ia ry on November 27,
A rtic le 1 which th e Americans had phrased "to r e s to re persons or
p la c e s ,, , taken by e ith e r p a r t y ," was amended to rea d " p la c e s ,, ,
belonging to e ith e r p a rty and taken by th e o th e r," thus e ffe c tiv e ly
excepting Moose Isla n d , th e o rig in a l ownership of which was contested.
A rtic le I I s ta te d th a t th e end of h o s t i l i t i e s would take place a f t e r
"the exchange of r a t i f i c a t i o n s ," n o t, as th e d e c e itf u l Americans
3
wished, " a f te r th e signing of t h is t r e a t y , "
A rtic le s I I I through VII were rephrased s lig h tly to th e
B r itis h lik in g .
In referen ce to the a r b i t r a l commissions, th e re
should be one commissioner from each country.
I f someone e ls e was
needed a sovereign from a frie n d ly s ta te could be In v ite d ,
The
Americans had suggested t h a t the two commissioners could e le c t a
th ir d one; on t h i s th e B r itis h were n o t w illin g to take a chance.
1,
le v in s , p, 144,
2,
Malloy, Volume I I , p, 613,
3,
Bngelman, p, 260,
63
A rtic le T i l l was com pletely a lte r e d in the B r itis h p ro je c t.
The
northw estern boundary was to be
drawn due west from the Lake of the Moods „ along fo rty ~ n in th
p a r a lle l of n o rth la titu d e . <.» so f a r as th e t e r r i t o r i e s of
th e United S ta te s extend in th a t q u a r te r .=. [n o t J due n o rth
or south from th e most northw estern p o in t of th e Lake of the
Woods» u n t i l i t s h a ll in te r s e c t the f o r ty ..ninth p a r a l le l of
n o rth la titu d e , and from the p o in t of such in te rs e c tio n due
w e s t... as f a r as th e sa id re sp e c tiv e t e r r i t o r i e s extend in
th e q u a rte r...a ^ A lso, th e B r itis h were to have access "to the riv e r M ississip p i, w ith
th e ir goods, e ff e c ts , and merchandise, a n d ... His B ritan n ic M ajesty’s
su b je cts s h a ll have and enjoy th e fre e n avigation of th e sa id r i v e r , "
2
The American v ersio n of A rtic le IX, the Indian a r t i c l e , was
accepted by th e B r itis h .
A rtic le s X through XI?
the r e s t r a i n t of
th e Indians; temporary b u t renewable p ro h ib itio n of impressment;
r e s t r i c t i o n of blockades; payment by the B ritis h of indem nities; and)
mutual g ran tin g of amnesty
a l l had w ritte n beside them th e one word
" in a d m issib le."
With th e r e c e ip t of t h is B r itis h note th e American group now
f e l t th e re was hope fo r peace.
sid e .
Even Adams was looking on th e b rig h t
On November 29, 1814 he wrote to Louisa Catherines
They have r e je c te d w ithout exception everything th a t we had
demanded on the p a r t of the United S ta te s ; b u t they have
abandoned everything im portant th a t was inadm issible of t h e i r
own demands. The o b jec ts upon which they s t i l l i n s i s t , and
which we cannot y ie ld , are in themselves so t r i f l i n g and
in s ig n if ic a n t th a t n e ith e r of th e two n a tio n s would to le r a te
a war f o r them. We have everything b u t peace in our hands. 3
1.
Engelman, p. 261.
2.
Engelman, p. 261.
3.
Ford, p. 219.
The American commissioners f e l t th a t the B r itis h ren u n ciatio n of u t i
p o s s id e tis was a s ig n if ic a n t ste p toward peace» Bo one was u p set by
th e B r itis h a ttitu d e on impressment, blockade, amnesty, and Indian
su p erv isio n .
These would have f u l f i l l e d America’s h ig h est dreams,
b u t they had f a ile d to remain big is s u e s .
The questions of the
M ississip p i, the f is h e r i e s , and the Passamaqueddy Isla n d s formed the
area which s p l i t th e Americans and a lso th e two groups,
G a lla tin was th e one who t r i e d to h e al these wounds.
Be
proposed t h a t the Americans ask fo r the r i g h t to the f is h e r ie s in
exchange fo r the B r itis h r i g h t of navig atio n of the M ississip p i,
was indignant a t t h i s id ea,
Clay
"However, th e proposal came to a vote and
Adams, Bayard, and G a lla tin voted f o r i t .
indem nities th e re was a change.
On th e su b je ct of
F in a lly , a c o ro lla ry to th e a r t i c l e
was reduced to cover only the f i r s t s ix months of the war.
The American
note was se n t to th e B r itis h commissioners on lovember 30 and a jo in t
sessio n was to be held on December 1, th e f i r s t such sessio n since
August 19,
The Americans had accepted most of th e o th er B r itis h vetoes
o f American proposed a r t i c l e s .
They had vigorously objected to B r itis h
re v is io n s of A rtic le I and A rtic le V III,
In A rtic le I th e phrase
"belonging to one p a rty and taken by th e o th e r," in re fe ren c e to
t e r r i t o r y , c le a rly assured B r itis h continued possession of th e
1
Passamaqueddy Isla n d s,
The B r itis h changes in A rtic le V III would
1,
Bngelman, p , 266,
give them th e r ig h t to navigate th e M ississip p i -without making any
concessions on the. f is h e r ie s a t a l l .
Thus the Americans had re je c te d
b oth A rtic le s I and V III.
On November 30, 181* James Monroe, in America, had w ritte n to
Thomas Jefferso n about th e proceedings a t Ghent.
He sa id t h a t u t i
p o s s id e tis had been suggested by th e B r itis h in r e la tio n to a l l
t e r r i t o r y , b u t t h a t the Americans had r e je c te d t h i s .
"Our g en t, th in k
t h a t i f t h is d i f f ic u lt y was s e t t l 'd another would a r is e , b e liev in g th a t
they a re gaining time only, to see th e r e s u l t of n e g o tia tio n a t Vienna,
which i s very u n c e rta in , b u t more lik e ly to preserve peace than produce
1
w a r."
This note probably would have caused l i t t l e commotion among
th e B r itis h commissioners except fo r th e f a c t th a t they were assuming
more r e s p o n s ib ility than th e in s tru c tio n s or th e Cabinet had given
them.
The B r itis h th re e d id n o t know how f a r t h e i r government would
support them.
The American fiv e were n o t c e rta in how f a r they could
p ress w ithout causing a ru p tu re .
The debate over A rtic le I , th a t of B ritis h c o n tro l of th e
Passamaquoddy Isla n d s, ended w ithout any agreement.
The men d id agree
to reword A rtic le I I I so th a t th e disp u ted is la n d question could be
s e ttle d by a commission.
On the m atter of the le n g th of the periods
between the exchange of r a t i f i c a t i o n s and the end of h o s t i l i t i e s , the
Americans agreed to the B r itis h suggestion.
The Americans a ls o agreed
1, S ta n isla u s Murray Hamilton, e d ito r . The W ritings of James
Monroe. New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1901, Volume V, p.' 301.
66
w ith the B r itis h on th e composition of th e a r b i t r a l commissions; one
person was to be appointed tgr each sid e and i f necessary "a frie n d ly
sovereign” could be used.
G a lla tin suggested S t. Andrews, lew
Brunswickg and A lbary9 lew York as s i t e s fo r the commission m eetings.
These were accepted by th e B ritis h .
Then they took up a d iscu ssio n of A rtic le V III.
John Quincy
Adams agreed th a t th e B r itis h d id have the r i g h t to navig atio n of the
M ississip p i from th e Treaty of 1783.
Yet, he asked, d id t h i s mean
th a t th e Americans had th e r i g h t to the f is h e r ie s as provided in th a t
same tr e a ty of 1783?
The B r itis h r e p lie d w ith a "n o .”
Then Adams
pointed out th a t i f th e re was no need Of an a r t i c l e fo r one th e re was
no need of an a r t i c l e fo r th e o th e r.
The arguments continued w ith
n e ith e r sid e gaining any ground u n t i l the su b je c t was changed.
Adams
proposed th a t the United S ta te s would p re ss indemnity claim s only fo r
the f i r s t s ix months of th e war.
The conference appeared on th e su rface to be an American
v ic to ry , b u t i t seemed t h a t on n e ith e r side was th ere a change of
a ttitu d e .
The B r itis h th re e f e l t th a t they now understood b e tte r
th e American p o sitio n on a l l iss u e s .
The Americans were more confused.
They s t i l l d id n o t know how th e B ritis h government f e l t ; only how i t s
th re e re p re se n ta tiv e s a t Ghent f e l t .
As soon as th e conference ended th e B ritis h se n t dispatches to
Liverpool and B athurst in London.
th in g s had gone.
The Cabinet was pleased w ith the way
In A rtic le I , the new in s tru c tio n s drawn up in London
s ta te d th a t e ith e r the American wording should be re s to re d or th e
B r itis h v ersio n should remain in ta c t w ith the ownership of th e
Passamaquoddy Isla n d s to be re fe r re d to one of the boundary commissions.
On the problems of the M ississip p i and the f is h e r ie s the Americans were
1
to be o ffered a " f a ir e q u iv a le n t."
I f t h i s was n o t accepted the
B r itis h commissioners should suggest t h a t both c o u n tries accept th e
ren u n ciatio n of both r ig h ts .
In a d d itio n to th ese major items? the Cabinet decided to
propose an a r t i c l e dealing w ith the a b o litio n of the slave tra d e .
Also B athurst wanted an a r t i c l e t h a t would propose keeping open th e
Courts of J u s tic e in each country fo r th e claim ants of both n a tio n s.
These in s tru c tio n s were firm ; however, B athurst made c e rta in t h a t the
B r itis h commissioners understood th a t, i f necessary, they could r e t r e a t
on a l l p o in ts .
These in s tru c tio n s a rriv e d in Ghent on December 9 and
another jo in t meeting was scheduled f o r December 10.
This meeting was much more c o rd ia l than the f i r s t meeting on
December 1.
Again the B r itis h and American commissioners went over th e
tr e a ty a r t i c l e by a r t i c l e .
On A rtic le I and the v a lid r i g h t to the
Passamaquoddy Isla n d s n e ith e r a so lu tio n nor a compromise was a rriv e d a t .
On A rtic le T i l l
be s e ttle d .
the M s s is s ip p i- f is h e r ie s question — .nothing could
The B r itis h proposed th e f a i r equivalent phrase; the
Americans sa id they would consider i t .
1.
Engelman, p. 272.
The Americans thought th e
a r t i c l e s on slave trad e and th e c o u rts to be unnecessary,,
A fter a
d isc u ssio n of these p o in ts the meeting was adjourned u n t i l the
follow ing Monday, December 12,
Bayard had w ritte n to h is frie n d L evett H arris on December 6:
The n e g o tia tio n had been designedly spun out by th e B r itis h
government in order to have th e b e n e f it of azy favourable
events which might occur before th e clo sin g of the y e ar.
But th e time had a rriv e d which has obliged them to decide
upon a new campaign in America or to make peace. And they
have chosen the l a t t e r . They have given up a l l the m a te ria l
p reten sio n s w ith which th e y -s e t out and some sm all p o in ts
only remain to be arranged.
The American group was divided a f t e r the meeting ended,
©nly John
Quincy Adams now wanted to continue working fo r th e Passamaquoddy
Isla n d s and th e f is h e r ie s ,
Bayard and G a lla tin g who had been w ith
Adams, favored only a sm all e f f o r t; i f i t seemed hopeless they
favored giving i t up,
follow ed ©lay.
©lay was a g a in st working f o r t h is ; B u ssell
At one p o in t ©lay cursed th e M assachusetts F e d e ra lis ts 6
who were headed f o r th e H artford Convention, and a ls o Adams who took
such an o b stin a te stand.
F in a lly a l l of th e commissioners decided to
make one more attem pt f o r the isla n d s and th e f is h e r ie s .
Both sid es were w orried on Monday, December 12 as they
convened again.
Each hoped fo r more than they would a c tu a lly obtain,
Gn f i r s t discussing A rtic le I , n e ith e r sid e gave up any ground; the
su b je c t brought only argument.
At l e a s t th e Americans had been u n ifie d .
How John Quincy Adams suggested t h a t th e M is s is s ip p i-fis h e rie s problem
be l e f t f o r n e g o tia tio n a f t e r peace had been signed.
1,
Bonnam, p , 357,
Ho one, however,
could agree on a proper wording of an a r t i c l e of t h is t$ p e g so the
B r itis h asked fo r a w ritte n d r a f t proposal which they could send to
London,.
A fter a sh o rt 9 inconclusive d isc u ssio n on the a r t i c l e s about
th e slave tra d e and the courts,, th e meeting was adjourned*
A lb ert G a lla tin had c e rta in ly been of v i t a l importance to
th ese l a s t meetings and to th e e n tire negotiations*
His song James*
quoted in h is d ia ry on December 12 from a p riv a te note receiv ed by
h is fa th e r from the Duke of W ellington assuring him o f h is support*
W ellington sa y s:
Pray do n ot take offence a t what I say* In you I have th e
g r e a te s t confidence* I hear on a l l sid e s th a t your
moderation and sense o f ju s tic e , to g eth er w ith your good
common sense, p laces you above a l l th e other d e le g ates, n o t
excepting ours* The Emperor Alexander has assured me of
th is* He says we can p lace absolute re lia n c e in your word*
'Peace was d esired on a l l sides*
For th e next two days the Americans
were to work on and complete th e ir l a s t note to the B ritish *
They
knew t h a t i f they did su c ce ssfu lly n e g o tia te a t r e a ty i t would be a
bad one*
They f e l t t h i s way because they had given up a l l of t h e i r
o rig in a l demands i i t seemed th a t peace would be decided b u t nothing
else*
As th e note emerged in i t s f i n a l form se v e ra l item s had been
decided*
The Passaraaquoddy Isla n d s could be excepted from th e a r t i c l e
on t e r r i t o r i a l re s to ra tio n , b u t the c o n flic tin g claim s must be s e ttle d
soon a f t e r th e war ended.
1*
I t s ta te d ;
G a lla tin , p* 35*
70
The undersigned a re n o t aware what claim Great B rita in can
have to the n av ig atio n of the M ississippi^ unless she founds
t h a t claim on th e a r t i c l e in th e peace of 1?83. I f she
founds i t on th a t a r t i c l e „ she must admit the claim of the
United S ta te s to the f is h e r ie s w ith in B r itis h ju r is d ic tio n
secured by th e same tr e a ty . The U nited S ta te s asks no new
a r t i c l e on the su b je c t. The undersigned have o ffere d to
accede to a new a r t i c l e confirming both th e r ig h ts . They
have o ffered to be s i l e n t w ith reg a rd to both. To any
s tip u la tio n abandoning th e r i g h t as claimed by th e United
S ta te s they cannot su b sc rib e .3Mention of the M ississip p i and th e f is h e r ie s was to be om itted from
th e tr e a ty .
"These claim s, to o , would be decided a f t e r th e w a r ....
2
The r e s u l t , 11 sa id Clay, "would be a damned bad t r e a t y . " No one
disag reed , e sp e c ia lly John Quincy Adams,
In America th e re was p rin te d in th e Daily N ational In te llig e n c e r
in Washington t h is statem ent about th e n e g o tia tio n s :
From the beginning of September to the 31 st of October news
continued to pervade London of th e f a i l u r e of B r itis h arms
in America. Thus th e commissioners continued to l e t
themselves down e a s y ,... The m otive, a fe a r of war w ith
America of long d u ratio n , and the consequent n e c e ssity of
new ta x e s, new lo an s, w ith an apprehension of a lo s s of
p o p u l a r i t y , „ The stormy asp ect of Europe had, lik e w ise ,
i t s in flu ence*''
I t was December 22,
John Quincy Adams, concerned over the expected
answer from London, was walking through the s tr e e ts of Ghent when
Bayard e x cite d ly ra n up to him and to ld him th a t th e B r itis h had
accepted,
James G a lla tin wrote in h is d ia ry on December 22:
answer to-day.
"An
Father now sees clearHy th e avowed wish of the English
Government to make p e a c e .. . . "
if
1.
Ford, pp. 233-234.
2.
Quoted in Engelman, p. 279.
3» Gales and Seaton, e d ito r s , The Dally N ational I n te llig e n c e r.
December 17, p. 3, Washington, 1814, December 17, p. 3.
4,
G a lla tin , p. 35»
71
Now i t was ju s t a m atter of s e t tl i n g a few d e t a i l s » Everybody
was happy except fo r Henry Clay.
he had made many prom ises.
He had been a War Hawk in 1812, and
Now i t seemed t h a t a l l of these had vanished.
Clay made a very vigorous speech expressing h is views.
I t took
G a lla tin , th e author of most of the American n o tes, to q u ie t Clay,
Now
a jo in t meeting was c a lle d fo r December 23.
Adams wrote to h is w ife t h a t day;
We s h a l l , . , a l l sign th e tr e a ty , and I b e lie v e i t w ill.b e
r a t i f i e d in America. But you must expect th a t we s h a ll a l l
be censured and reproached fo r i t . . . . We s h a ll, however,
have th e conscious s a tis f a c tio n of having surrendered no
r ig h t of th e n a tio n , of having secured every im portant
in te re s t? of having y ie ld e d nothing which could p o ssib ly
have been m aintained, and of redeeming our union from a
s itu a tio n of u n p a ra lle le d danger and deep distress.-*Both sid e s expected a tr e a ty to emerge from t h is m eeting.
Each
acceded to th e p e tty whims of the o th er.
Some changes in wording were
made w ith com plaint from, the o th er sid e .
The Americans agreed to the
B r itis h slave proposal? th e Americans would n o t accept the c o u rts
a rtic le .
There was only anger over th e B r itis h demand th a t repayment
of th e debts in cu rred by p riso n e rs of th e war, advanced in paper, be
p aid in specie.
This was f i n a l l y decided, w ith the help of Clay, in
fav o r of th e B r itis h .
With t h i s the meeting adjourned.
Each commission
was to make th re e copies o f the tr e a ty to be signed th e follow ing
afternoon.
1.
A comparison of the o rig in a l demands from both c o u n tries
Ford, pp. 243=246.
72
1
suggests th e r e la tiv e success of each sid e in th e n e g o tia tio n s« At
s ix p.m. on December 2% 1814, th e two commissions signed a "Treaty of
Peace and Amity Between His B rita n n ic M ajesty and the -Suited S ta te s of
America. ”
1- Bemis, John Quincy Adams and th e Foundations of American
Foreign P o licy , p. 1647
CHm m 4
RffiCTIOKS AND SETTLEMENTS
A fter fiv e long d i f f i c u l t months of n e g o tia tio n s th e Treaty of
Ghent re s to re d peace between G reat B rita in and the United S ta te s ,
For
the e ig h t men who had been th e n e g o tia to rs , i t came as a welcome r e l i e f .
N either sid e f e l t i t had achieved a complete v ic to ry 9 b u t, a t th e same
tim e, n e ith e r f e l t i t had su ffe red a d e fe a t.
A ll of th ese men had put
th e ir maximum in to t h is e f f o r t to secure th e b e s t p o ssib le advantage fo r
t h e i r country.
For a l l o f them th e re was s a tis f a c tio n th a t peace had
been obtainedl
The tr e a ty of December 24, 1814 can be c a lle d su c ce ssfu l simply
because i t brought peace.
Great B rita in , who had had only one sm all
in terim of peace since th e beginning of th e wars w ith France in 1793,
was anxious to r i d h e rs e lf of war.
Sentim ent in the Unite d S ta te s had
been divided on the war from i t s beginning.
New E ngland's opposition
to the war, culm inating in th e H artford Convention, had reached a
dangerous p itc h .
P re sid e n t Madison welcomed th e Treaty of Ghent as a
"reprieve from doom fo r uy a d m in istra tio n ,n
The United S ta te s needed
a chance to begin reb u ild in g a f te r a war which had been c o s tly both
m il i ta r i ly and f in a n c ia lly .
73
The terms of th e Treaty of Ghent were n o t com plieated.
Two
a r t i c l e s c a lle d f o r ”a firm and u n iv e rs a l peace” between th e United
S ta te s , G reat B rita in , and th e Indians,
One a r t i c l e s ta te d th a t w ith
th e r a t i f i c a t i o n of the tr e a ty by both sid e s a l l h o s t i l i t i e s would end
Another s ta te d t h a t p riso n e rs of war would be s e t fre e as soon as they
had p aid th e ir debts which may have been co n tracted during th e ir
c a p tiv ity .
In fo u r a r t i c l e s i t was provided th a t t e r r i t o r i a l disputes
between th e two c o u n tries were to be r e fe r re d to a r b i t r a l commissions
fo r settlem en t.
The powers and r e s p o n s ib ilitie s of th ese commissions
were l i s t e d in another a r t i c l e ,
tra d e .
Another condemned the fo re ig n slave
Peace, indeed, had been re s to re d b u t none of th e outstanding
issu e s which had produced the war were solved.
The fiv e American commissioners accepted th e ir work as
s a tis f a c to r y .
But they d id n o t expect th e ir tr e a ty to be popular
w ith th e ir fellow-Americans,
from t h e i r countrymen,
Indeed, they a n tic ip a te d only c ritic is m
Henry Clay p re d ic te d th a t the t r e a ty "would
b re a k ,, ,
me down e n tir e ly , and we should a l l be su b je ct to much
1
reproach, ” G a lla tin and Adams both agreed w ith Clay, Only Bayard
p re d ic te d popular applause, and he was not d estin ed to liv e long
enough to enjoy i t .
The day a f t e r th e t r e a ty was signed Clay and
G a lla tin both wrote a p o lo g e tic a lly to Monroe,
G a lla tin to ld th e
S ecretary of S ta te he regarded th e tr e a ty as th e b e s t p o ssib le under
1,
Hopkins, pi 1007,
75
th e e x is tin g circum stances<, Clay9 w hile adm itting th a t no American war
aims had been achieved,, s t i l l f e l t th a t th e tr e a ty "cannot be pronounced
1
vesy unfavourableo We l o s t no t e r r i t o r y 9 I th in k no honor."
John Quincy Adams considered th e tr e a ty "an u nlim ited arm istice
£ ra th e r J than a peace. .<, hardly le s s d i f f i c u l t to p reserve th a n ... to
2
o b ta in .fi Like G a lla tin , though, he b e lie v e d th e tr e a ty th e b e s t p o ssib le
under th e circum stances.
"We have abandoned no e s s e n tia l r i g h t , 81 he
w rote to h is mother,
and i f we have l e f t everything open fo r fu tu re controversy, we
have a t l e a s t secured our Country th e power a t her own option
to e x tin g u ish the w a r.. . . The day we agreed to sig n i t , I
to ld my colleagues t h a t i t would im m ortalise the n e g o tia to rs
on both sid e s, as a m asterpiece of diplomacy, by th e address
w ith which i t avoided th e adjustm ent of any one d isp u te t h a t
had ever e x is te d between th e p a r tie s . C ertain i t i s , t h a t no
o th er than such a peace could have been made.-5
P re sid e n t James Madison was e la te d over the tr e a ty .
He
"congratulated Congress and th e people upon an event highly honourable
to th e n a tio n , and one term inating w ith p e c u lia r f e l i c i t y a campaign
sig n a lise d by th e most b r i l l i a n t su c c e sse s." He continued:
The l a t e war, although r e lu c ta n tly d eclared by Congress, had
become a necessary r e s o r t to a s s e r t th e r ig h ts and
independence of the n a tio n . I t had been waged w ith a success
which i s th e n a tu ra l r e s u l t of the wisdom of the le g is la tiv e
c o u n cils, of th e p a trio tis m of th e people, of th e p u b lic
s p i r i t o f th e m i l i ti a , and of th e v a lo r of th e m ilita ry and
nav al fp rees of th e eomtagr*
1.
Hopkins, p. 1007=
2.
Ford, pp. 245=246.
3=
Ford, pp. 248, 26l.
4. G aillard. Bunt, e d ito r . The W ritings o f James Madison, lew
York and London, G. P. Putnam's Sons, Volume V III, 1908, p. 324.
th e B r itis h commissioners — Lord Gambler, Gonlbiarn, and Dr*
Adams — a ls o p rofessed s a tis f a c tio n w ith the tr e a ty .
The th re e men had
reason to be proud5 they had stood up and asked fo r more than had the
London Cabinet,
When the B r itis h Cabinet had changed i t s p o lic y , th e ir
th ree commissioners had fought fo r ju s t a l i t t l e more than was req u ired
of them.
And t h is was su ccessfu l in fo o lin g fiv e Americans, fo r the
Americans had f a ile d to see through t h i s .
The B r itis h Cabinet was re lie v e d to be r i d of th e American war,
b u t they had no enthusiasm about th e tr e a ty .
Lord Sidmouth s ta te d th a t
th e m in iste rs considered i t "a g re a t r e l i e f , though not in a l l re sp e c ts
a su b je ct of e x u lta tio n .,r
Anthony S t. John Baker and th e b ro th er of
Lord Gambler had l e f t immediately fo r London a f t e r the signing of the
tr e a ty on December 24, 1814.
The Cabinet and Prince Regent immediately
approved th e tr e a ty , and i t receiv ed form al B r itis h r a t i f i c a t i o n on
December 28,
This speed in r a tif y in g shows how eagerly th e B r itis h
government d esired peace.
The B r itis h government's r a t i f i c a t i o n was
v io le n tly denounced in the London p re s s.
The Richmond Enquirer of
February 18, 1815 con tain s th e re a c tio n of two B r itis h newspapers:
"The London Times, a m in is te r ia l p r i n t, denounces the tr e a ty in the
stro n g e st term s, as highly dishonorable to Englands while th e Morning
C hronicle, an a n ti- m in is te r ia l paper, considers i t as advantageous to
th e B r itis h n a tio n ."
The London Times of December 30 sa id :
"We have
1.
The L ife and Correspondence of th e Right Hon. Henry
Addington, F i r s t Viscount Sidmouth. Volume I I I , p. 122, quoted in
P erkins, p. 132.
77
r e t i r e d from the combat w ith the s tr ip e s y e t bleeding on our backs, w ith
our re c e n t d e fe a ts , a t P lattsb u rg h , and on Lake Champlain, unavenged.
To make peace a t such a moment,, , b etra y s a deadness to th e fe e lin g s of
honour, and shows a tim id ity of d is p o s itio n , in v itin g fu rth e r in s u lt,
The B r i ti s h .did value th e tr e a ty f o r two reasons.
F irs t:
it
was a g re a t boost to the economy of th e country to be e n tir e ly fre e of
war.
The p b rts once again were wide open and became bus7 and goods
became more, p le n tif u l.
Second, both d ip lo m a tica lly and m il i ta r i ly i t
l e f t th e B r itis h f re e to n e g o tiate w ith the European powers= The
m in istry f e l t confident th a t th e tr e a ty would strengthen Lord
C astlereag h ’s hand a t Vienna,
When th e news of the peace reached Vienna
on New Y ear's Day, 1815, i t was w e ll receiv ed .
day rec eiv in g c o n g ratu latio n s on the tr e a ty ,
The B r itis h spent the
"We have become more
European," C astlereagh commented w ith s a tis f a c tio n , " , , , and by th e
2
Spring we can have a very n ice army on th e C o n tin e n t,"
C astlereagh
now f e l t a g re a t deal more confident and b e liev ed t h a t he could demand
and receiv e more from the Russians,
a lso welcomed the tr e a ty .
The B r itis h diplom ats in P a ris
The Duke of W ellington was p a rtic u la r ly
e n th u s ia stic and h a s tily se n t a co n g ratu lato ry note to Edward
L ivingston, th e American m in iste r.
Many of the newspapers in England opposed, r a t i f i c a t i o n of the
tr e a ty .
The London Times, very much opposed, inveighed a g a in st the
1,
The London Times, as quoted in Engelman, pp, 287=288,
2, Charles K, Webster, The Foreign P olicy of C astlereagh,
1812-1815, pp. 370=372, as quoted in P erkins, p. 132.
"deadly instrum ents eoo degrading manner of term inating th e war,
» ,, premature and in g lo rio u s peace0"
The Times hoped the Americans
would r e j e c t the tr e a ty , thus prolonging th e war u n t i l Madison f e l l .
Mew England perhaps seceded, and th e Royal Navy erased th e s ta in s
1
of d isg ra ce .
There was a lso a rumor t h a t th e Rrince R eg en tr
2
ex co riated h is m in iste rs fo r th e ir weakness.
The Sun expressed
r e g r e t th a t th e American government had escaped payment f o r th e war,
y e t welcomed the end of " th is w asting and u se le ss" c o n te st.
The
Post re g r e tte d th a t General Ross and o th er commanders had n o t burned
more p riv a te p ro p erty so t h a t the Americans would be punished fo r
d eclarin g war.
Both th e Post and th e S ta r , using th e te x t of th e
tr e a ty as i t was n o t meant to be used, expected th e boundary commissions
to arrange cessions to B rita in .
This pro sp ect alone, they suggested,
3
reco n ciled them to th e settlem e n t.
Only one major London newspaper defended the. tr e a ty as a
trium ph, and t h is was th e London C ourier.
I t s defense probably was
a ta s k imposed upon the newspaper by th e m in istry .
The Courier pointed
out th a t the Americans had f a i l e d to secure a sin g le item f o r which
they went to war and m aintained th a t, w hile a more e a s ily defended
1. London Times. December 27, 28, 29, 1814, as quoted in
Hezekiah M iles, e d ito r . M iles* Meekly R e g is te r. B altim ore, The
F ranklin P ress, 1814-1815, Volume V U I, p. 30. H ereafter c ite d
as M iles.
2. Edinburgh Evening Cour a n t. December 26, 1814, as quoted
in M iles, Volume V III.
.
’ 3« The Sun (London), December 27, 28, 1814; P o st. December.
27, 28, 29, 30, 1814; S ta r . December 27, 1814, as quoted in Perkins,
pp. 135-136.
79
boundary fo r Canada was th e o r e tic a lly d e s ira b le , th e Americans had
1
absorbed so much punishment t h a t they would n o t again a tta c k i t .
The Treaty of Ghent a c tu a lly was n o t a surrender on the p a rt
o f B rita in .
She s t i l l m aintained her m aritim e p rete n sio n s.
Canadian
in te r e s ts l o s t nothing except th e ir hopes f o r boundary r e c t if i c a t io n
and commercial c o n tro l of th e American in te r io r .
The p ro sp ect fo r an
Indian b u ffe r zone had been abandoned, b u t an a r t i c l e provided f o r the
establishm ent of peace w ith the Indians a f t e r th e war ended.
The
boundary q u estions were s t i l l to be s e ttle d .
More im portant were the psychological im plications of the
tr e a ty .
England had, fo r the f i r s t tim e, come clo se to recognizing
American e q u a lity a t Ghent.
The B r itis h Cabinet had resp ec ted American
demands, although they d id not agree w ith them.
The Cabinet had learn ed
th a t the fiv e American commissioners could n o t be pushed around, th a t
they would continue to f ig h t ten acio u sly fo r what they thought to be
th e b e s t in te r e s ts of th e United S ta te s .
On January 2, 1815, Anthony S t. John Baker and Henry C a rro ll,
C lay’s se c re ta ry , s a ile d fo r America aboard the B ritis h sloop of war
F a v o rite ,
I t was n o t u n t i l Saturday, February 11, th a t the ship
docked in New York.
Washington,
Six days l a t e r Baker and C a rro ll a rriv e d in
Christopher Hughes had g o t to Washington th re e days
e a r l i e r , landing a t Annapolis.
Baker was su rp rise d to f in d th a t the
American Senate had already unanimously r a t i f i e d the Treaty o f Ghent.
1. The Courier (London), December 2?, 28, 29, 1814, as
quoted in Perkins, p. 134.
On th e n ex t day, February 18, P resid en t Madison proclaim ed the tr e a ty in
e f f e c t.
This, again, i s eloquent testim ony to the American d e sire fo r
peace.
The tr e a ty was receiv ed w ith g re a t enthusiasm by th e American
people and th e ir le a d e rs .
I f Americans had never before known
d esp eratio n , they experienced i t in the dark weeks th a t immediately
preceded knowledge of the outcome of th e Ghent n e g o tia tio n s.
I t i s easy to perceive th e joy and s a tis f a c tio n of th e
people of t h is c it y . Accustomed to consider the Americans
as alm ost erased from th e l i s t of n a tio n s , they have seen
them a t le n g th take up and su sta in th e most noble a ttitu d e
as an independent people, proud of i t s p a trio tis m , i t s
fo rce and i t s a n cien t g lo ry . No doubt th e conditions of
the peace w ill be honorable to both p a r tie s ,
The Treasury was empty and nobody bad any ideas as to how to re p le n ish
it.
The War Department had stru g g led , w ith l i t t l e success, to r a is e
an aray to p ro te c t th e Gulf Coast and th e M ississip p i.
New England
F e d e ra lis ts were demanding an end to Madison’s government.
And then, suddenly a l l was changed.
News reached Washington
of th e smashing of the B r itis h a t New Orleans by Andrew Jackson.
Days
l a t e r came th e news of the Treaty of Ghent.
Americans f e l t th a t B rita in
2
had been "driven to the w all by American arms and n e g o tia to rs . 11 America
had reason to re jo ic e ! Even the F e d e ra lis ts were pleased w ith the news.
1.
N ile s, Volume V III, p. 41.
2,
Bngelman, p. 290.
. "Who would, n o t be an im erlean?" asked M iles * Weekly R e g iste r.
th e re p u b lic ’.
A ll ha i l l
"Long liv e
1
l a s t asylum o f oppressed humanity! ’’ So,
p a ra d o x ic a lly , although the tr e a ty signed a t Ghent secured none of th e
American p ro fessed war aims, i t proved to be the most popular tr e a ty
th a t had ever been signed by the United S ta te s .
The Richmond Enquirer e d ito ra liz e d as follow s:
To James Madison, P re sid e n t of th e U. S ta te s , to th e Congress
who declared, and prosecuted th e war, to those generous
s p i r i t s who never d eserte d th e ir country a t the tim e of her
utmost need, to those who have been th e instrum ents (under
a wise Providence) of conducting us to glo ry and renown, l e t
th e thanks of t h i s n a tio n be g i v e n .... We have waged A W&R,
which has covered us w ith g l o r y . . . . We occupy a higher
Stand than ever in
th e eyes of th e world our re p u ta tio n
ensures re s p e c t —
and re s p e c t ensures more c i v i l tre a tm e n t., ,
b u t what a noble recompense fo r money spent and liv e s lo s t?
Glory, re p u ta tio n , re s p e c t, wisdom.^
When i t p rin te d th e te x t- o f th e Treaty of Peace, th e Richmond Enquirer
of February 22, 1815, had changed i t s a ttitu d e somewhat;
now
"We have
seen the Treaty of Peace, and a re eq u ally disappointed and pleased
a t i t s p ro v is io n s ;’’ . . . £ b u tj "The war i t s e l f i s d isg ra c e fu l to them
£ B ritish ^]
— They, the proudest people in the world, have been met
and d efeated , single-handed, t o o ."
Madison’s opponents a lso welcomed peace, b u t, lik e the
opposition in England, reminded the country th a t the ad m in istratio n
deserved c r e d it n e ith e r fo r the tr e a ty nor f o r the conduct of the war.
"Yes, th e Olive Branch i s . . . re s to re d to our bleeding, su ffe rin g
1,
M iles, as quoted in Engelman, p. 290.
2, Thomas R itc h ie , e d ito r, The Richmond E nquirer, Richmond,
February 18, 1815, p. 3.
e<mnta?y, ” th e F e d e ra lis t V irg in ia P a tr io t adm itteds b u t i t emphasized
t h a t peace had come only " a f t e r .„» a long and glooBy n ig h tp in which
scarce a ra y of hope was seen or f e lt* by those devoted to th e
1
happiness and p ro sp e rity of America. ” This sa id p la in ly t h a t James
Madison had placed th e n a tio n in jeopardy.
Some s a id th a t "Bivine In terv e n tio n " saved th e country* some
sa id i t was th e Ghent commissioners* a few p ra is e d B r itis h moderation*
b u t no F e d e ra lis t had any p ra is e f o r Madison as a r e s u l t of th e peace.
Even though th e F e d e ra lis ts were happy f o r peace* they opposed the terms
of th e tr e a ty by saying t h a t they made th e war com pletely f u t i l e .
The
war* they poin ted out* f a ile d to g ain ary o b jectiv e — not Canada* not
an end to impressment* and not a code of n e u tra l
r ig h ts .
Many Republicans lo u d ly h a ile d th e tre a ty ? however* many of
them kept s i l e n t on the major iss u e s .
In one a r t i c l e i t was s ta te d
t h a t America’s a b i l i t y to endure th e c o n te st f o r some t h i r t y months
had Increased her self-co n fid en ce and ra is e d her re p u ta tio n abroad.
a
This became th e cry of Republicans in defending the t r e a ty a g a in st
F e d e ra lis t a tta c k s .
America had su ffe red l i t t l e b u t i n s u l t since
she had gained her independence.
The war i t s e l f had proved t h a t a
Republican form of government could su c ce ssfu lly execute a c o n flic t
o f t h i s type.
The war had stim ulated the growth of American industry
1. V irg in ia P a tr io t (Richmond) * February 18* 1815, as quoted
in Perkins* p. 1% .
2. "A C itiz en of P h ila d e lp h ia ," The Second C ris is of America,
or a Cursory View of th e Peace (lew Xerk* l8 l5 )* pp. 4-5* as quoted in
Perkins* p. 148.
,
83
and manufacturing and had tau g h t th e n a tio n to develop her tremendous
a g ric u ltu r a l reso u rces.
But, more im portant was the enhancement of
America8s re p u ta tio n abroad.
"From a s ta te of h u m iliation in the eyes
o f th e w o rld ," the P h ilad elp h ia Aurora d eclared , %e stand on an
e le v a tio n which now commands the re s p e c t of a l l the w o rld ."
This
statem ent was c e rta in ly an exaggeration, b u t a step in t h i s d ire c tio n
had begun.
I t was in Bongress in 1816 t h a t Henry Clay used the same
arguments.
"Have we gained nothing by th e war?" he asked.
our p resen t s itu a tio n ?
and confidence a t home.
R e sp e c ta b ility and c h a ra c te r abroad
"What i s
se c u rity
I f we have not obtained in the opinion of some
th e f u l l measure of r e tr ib u tio n , our c h arac ter and C o n stitu tio n are
2
placed on a s o lid b a s is , never to be shaken."
The War of 1812 c e rta in ly was n o t a m ilita ry v ic to ry fo r
Madison and h is a d m in istratio n .
p o te n tia l d is a s te r .
A ctually America escaped from a
As th e terms of the tr e a ty l e f t so much s i l e n t ,
John Quincy Adams8 grandson observed th a t th e n e g o tia to rs "gained
th e i r g r e a te s t trium ph in r e f e rr in g a l l t h e i r d isp u tes to be s e ttle d
3
by tim e, th e f i n a l n e g o tia to r, whose d ecisio n they could s a fe ly t r u s t . "
The t r e a ty helped to make the United S ta te s a n atio n .
During the war
she had been divided; now a l l Americans stood to g eth er in peace to f ig h t
1.
Aurora. February 20, 1815, as quoted in P erk in s, p. 149.
2. Annals o f Congress of the U nited S ta te s , Washington, Gales
and Seaton, Publishers7” l85^7™14th Congress, 1 s t se ssio n , p . 783,
3. Adams, H istory of th e United S ta te s during the A dm inistrations
o f Je fferso n and Madison, Volume EG, p. 53.
84
fo r a stro n g er and mere powerful country,
A lb ert G a lla tin r ig h tly siz ed
up the s itu a tio n :
The war has been productive of e v il and good: b u t I th in k
th e good preponderate s „ , , , Under our former system we were
becoming too s e lf is h , too much attac h ed e x clu siv ely to th e
a c q u is itio n of w ealth, above a l l too much confined In our
p o l i t i c a l opinions to lo c a l and s ta te o b je c ts. The war
has renewed and re in s ta te d the N ational fe e lin g s and
c h a ra c te r, which the Revolution had given, and which were
d a ily lessened. The people have now more gen eral o b jec ts
of attachm ent w ith which t h e i r p rid e and p o l i t i c a l opinions
are connected. They are more Americans: they f e e l and a c t
more as a N ation, and I hope th a t th e permanency o f th e
Union i s thereby b e tte r secured.
P ro jectin g th e theme of g reatn ess in the fu tu re fo r America, the
Richmond Enquirer declared February 18, 1815:
"The sun never shone
upon a people whose d e s tin ie s promised to be grander. 11
Throughout 1815 f e a r , suspicion and rec rim in atio n hung over
r e la tio n s between B rita in and the U nited S ta te s .
Very few Americans
b e liev e d th a t the peace would be permanent and watched the B r itis h
su sp icio u sly .
Pamphlets in America echoed t h is fe e lin g .
S ecretary
o f th e Treasury Alexander D allas wrote one of th e se , "An E xposition
of the Causes and C haracter of th e l a t e W ar."
This document heatedly
denounced England, causing an uproar th e re and in America.
P resident
Madison suggested th a t dem obilization should n o t be h asty .
John Quincy
Adams agreed.
A ll the "combustible m a te ria ls" in both c o u n trie s, he
2
sighed, made a long peace highly u n lik e ly .
With Napoleon' s re tu rn
from Elba i t seemed highly probable th a t c o n flic ts would again break
1. G a lla tin to Lyon, Hay 7, 1815, G a lla tin MSS, as quoted
in P erkins, p. 154.
2.
Ford, Volume V, p. 401.
out between the two Anglo-Saxon countries,,
stated ?
Henry CLsy, then, in London
" I t is<.oo p robable, ” he w rote9 6I00» t h a t a s p i r i t of revengeB
0»o a p rid e in shewing to the world th a t n e ith e r the war nor the peace;
w ith t h is countzy, has impaired her maritim e claim sB or her determ ination
to e x e rt them, w ill a l l u n ite , w ith th e o b je c t of d is tre s s in g France,
ooo in stim u latin g her [B rita in J in to her former vio len ces on the
1
Ocean. ” Also, the B r itis h evacuation of American t e r r i t o r y seemed
to the, Americans to take place too slowly.
Most of t h i s had .been
completed by Ju ly , 1815 when the B r itis h evacuated M iehilimackinac,
However, th e fea red new war w ith B rita in never m aterialized? i t seemed
th a t B rita in had lea rn ed a g re a t d e a l from th e War of 1812.
?. Between July and October, 1815, th e Americans concluded
fo u rtee n Indian t r e a t i e s .
The northw estern Indians, by f a l l of th a t
y e a r, had become p eacefu l occupants of U nited S ta te s t e r r i t o r y .
B r itis h
o f f i c i a l s c a re fu lly avoided encouraging Indian re s is ta n c e to the United
S ta te s .
The Indian is s u e , th en , so im portant from 1783 to 1815, had
ceased to tro u b le Anglo-American r e la tio n s by the end of 1815.
> Another issu e th a t arose in 1815 involved the in te r p r e ta tio n of
the language o f th e Treaty of Ghent.
A rtic le I p ro h ib ite d the "carrying
away. b. o f . , , any Slaves or other p riv a te property" when B r itis h or
American- fo rce s withdrew from eneisy t e r r i t o r y .
As soon as th e tr e a ty
had been r a t i f i e d , a d isp u te arose over th e la rg e number of slaves —
o
th e Americans l a t e r claimed 3,600 =.«= c a rrie d away by th e Royal Navy.
1. .Hopkins, p . 1302.
2.
P erkins, p. 166,
86
The B r itis h denied t h a t A rtic le I covered slav es on sh ip s, even i f the
ships were in American w aters, when peace f i n a l ly came. • The Americans
in s is te d t h a t i t d id apply to those on sh ip s.
A fter se v e ra l y ears the
two c o u n tries subm itted t h i s q u estio n to th e Czar of R ussia who
decided in favor of th e Americans.
In 1826, the B r itis h agreed to pay
1
$1,200,000 to q u ie t American claim s fo r th e lo s s of th ese slav es.
The American commissioners had been given th e a u th o rity to
n e g o tiate commercial agreement w ith England a f t e r the Treaty of Ghent
had been r a t i f i e d .
Clay and G a lla tin were the American re p re s e n ta tiv e s ,
while Goulburn, Dr. Adams, and S ir F. J. Robinson were th e B ritis h
d eleg ates.
They f i r s t met in London in A p ril, 1815.
G a lla tin and
Clay hoped to p u t in to t h i s tr e a ty the m aritim e p r in c ip le s , including
p ro h ib itio n of impressment, which had been re je c te d a t Ghent.
t h i s th e B r itis h would have no p a r t.
But of
The f i n a l tr e a ty r a t i f i e d on
Ju ly 3, 1815 continued th e commercial a r t i c l e s of Ja y ’s o ld Treaty
of 179^9 which had expired in 1807.
I t provided fo r freedom of
commerce between th e United S ta te s of America and Great B r ita in ’s
European possessions (but n o t th e B r itis h West Indies or B r itis h
North America) re c ip ro c a lly on the same terms as B ritis h n a tio n a ls .
The American p le n ip o te n tia rie s in London d id not agree a t a l l w ith th e
B r itis h p lan th a t only an enumerated l i s t of American products could
be imported in to th e B r itis h West In d ies and B r itis h North America.
1, Bemis, John Quincv Adams and th e Foundations of American
Foreign P o licy , pp. 231-232.
87
And th ese c e r ta in a r t i c l e s could be tra n sp o rte d only in B r itis h sh ip s=
Thus, the B r itis h enjoyed a tria n g u la r tra d e from Great B rita in to the
United S ta te s to th e West In d ies and back? w hile the Americans were
r e s t r i c te d to th e d ir e c t trad e between the U nited S ta te s and Great
1
B rita in ,
There was a lso p rovision in t h is commercial agreement in
1815 fo r consuls in each o th e r’s dominions, and a p ro h ib itio n of
d iscrim in atin g d u tie s by e ith e r p a rty a g a in st the commerce and ships
2
of th e o th er.
The tr e a ty of commerce was accepted in both co u n tries
w ith a minimum of comment.
At any r a t e , tra d e between the two c o u n tries
grew and continued to prosper during th e coming y e a rs.
In A p ril, .181? th e Rush=»Bagot Agreement solved a problem th a t
th e Americans had been attem pting to solve since th e Treaty of 1?83;
th e d e m ilita riz a tio n of th e American-Canadian f r o n tie r .
During th a t
y ear an exchange of notes between Richard lu s h , A cting=Secretary of
S ta te , and Charles Bagot, B r itis h M in ister a t Washington, s tip u la te d
th a t n e ith e r the United S ta te s nor Great B rita in should m aintain any
armed naval fo rce s on th e Great Lakes except sm all c u tte r s ,
"In th is
arrangement the in te r e s ts of th e two governments a re m utually
promoted ==> and mazy occasions of c o llis io n and jealousy avoided.
It
saves a g re a t expence to both? and i s , b e sid e s, an evidence of
confidence and good w ill which i t i s th e i n te r e s t of b o th to prom ote,"
3
Another problem had been solved, and t h i s agreement i s s t i l l in e ff e c t
today.
1,
B angerfield, p, 12,
2.
3»
American S ta te P apers; Foreign R e la tio n s, Volume VI, p, 640,
M iles, Volume XU , p, 398,
88
The boundary question was one th a t tro u b led Anglo-American
r e la tio n s fo r se v e ra l decades» I t was in 1817 th a t the a r b i t r a l
commission appointed under A rtic le I ? of the Treaty of Ghent fo r the
isla n d s in Passamaquoddy Bay and Grand Manan Isla n d in th e Bay of
Punc^r made i t s d e cisio n .
I t awarded in the same y e a r, Moose Isla n d ,
Dudley Isla n d , and F rederick Isla n d to th e U nited S ta te s , and a l l the
o th er isla n d s in Passamaquoddy Bay as w ell as Grand Manan to Great
B rita in ,
However, i t was not u n t i l 1910 th a t a tr e a ty w ith Great
B rita in was r a t i f i e d to remove u n c e rta in ty concerning the boundary lin e
in Passamaquoddy Bay,
X
On October 20 the n e g o tiatio n s leading to the Convention of
1818 between the United S ta te s and Great B rita in got under way in
London,
These n e g o tia tio n s involved the northw est boundary controversy
which had been a problem since 1783,
G a lla tin , American M inister to
France, and Richard Rush, American M inister to Great B rita in , proposed
to extend th e boundary from the Lake of the Woods westward to the
P a c ific Ocean along th e lin e of the fo r ty -n in th p a r a l le l o f n o rth
la titu d e .
But Great B rita in would not agree to t h i s in 1818 because
she d id n o t want to give up her claim s to th e Oregon t e r r i t o r y .
So,
in A rtic le I I of th e Convention i t was s tip u la te d th a t the lin e of
fo rty -n in th p a r a lle l o f n o rth l a titu d e should be the boundary of the
United S ta te s and B r itis h North America westward from th e Lake of the
Woods to th e Stony (Rocky) Mountains,
1,
At t h i s time i t was agreed " th a t
Malloy, Volume I I I , p, 2617,
th e country on the northw est c o a st, claim ed by e ith e r p a rty , should,
w ithout p reju d ice to th e claim s of e ith e r , and fo r a lim ite d time
| te n y e a rs 1 be opened f o r the purpose of tra d e to th e in h a b ita n ts
1
of bo th c o u n trie s, 11
A problem t h a t had caused much debate and argument a t Ghent
was again brought to the conference ta b le in 1818; i t was th e
f is h e r ie s .
At the beginning of the d iscu ssio n s the B r itis h demanded
th e r i g h t of n a v ig a tio n of the M ississip p i in re tu rn f o r a renewal
of fish in g l i b e r t i e s , b u t abandoned th a t demand.
F in a lly , th e B ritis h
granted a permanent extension of the fis h in g l ib e r ty to U nited S ta te s
c itiz e n s "forever" in common w ith B r itis h su b je cts on th e follow ing
c o a sts :
th e southern co ast of Newfoundland from Gape Bay to the
Rameau Isla n d s, and on th e w estern and n o rth e rn co asts from Cape Bay
to the Ouirpon Isla n d s; on the shores of th e Magdalen Isla n d s, and on
2
th e c o a st of lab rad o r frcm Mount Joly northward in d e fin ite ly .
A lso,
the c itiz e n s of th e United S ta te s were to enjoy the l ib e r ty fo rev er to
dry and cure f i s h on the u n s e ttle d shores of Labrador and southern
Newfoundland,
The United S ta te s , in tu rn , renounced other l i b e r t i e s
prev io u sly claimed.
This Convention of 1818 was a m ilestone in
improving r e la tio n s between Great B r ita in and the United S ta te s ,
Another problem between the two c o u n tries had been solved.
The commissions s e t up by the T reaty of Ghent d id n o t fin d an
easy so lu tio n to the boundary problems.
p , 642,
1,
Malloy, Volume I , p, 632,
2,
American S ta te P apers:
The Fassamaquoddy Bay area
Foreign R e la tio n s, Volume VI,
controversy9 was s e ttle d by i t s commission in 1817? t h i s took care of
A rtic le 17 of the Treaty,
The commission appointed under A rtic le V
d id n o t complete i t s survey of the n o rth e a ste rn boundary u n t i l 1820,
b u t when t h is ta s k had been completed they s t i l l could reach no
compromise.
The B r itis h claim involved the s a c r if ic e of a la rg e area
of what th e Americans considered American so ils th e re fo re , th e
)
commission became deadlocked in 1822,
In 1827, in accordance w ith
th e Treaty, th e case was subm itted fo r a r b itr a tio n to the King of
th e N etherlands,
Feeling th a t he lacked inform ation to decide on
the m erits of th e a c tu a l p o in ts in d isp u te , the a r b itr a to r proposed
a compromise in 1831 which divided the t e r r i t o r y in to two roughly
equal p a rts .
Both p a r tie s r e a lis e d t h a t the King had overstepped
h is bounds, b u t in the beginning both th e United S ta te s and Great
B rita in were prepared to accept i t .
The big o b jectio n , however,
came from th e c itiz e n s of Maine who were n o t disposed to give up
ary of th e i r t e r r i t o r y .
P resid en t Jackson asked th e Senate fo r
advice, they advised a g a in st accepting the reward, and th u s the
m atter was to remain unsolved f o r a l i t t l e over a decade.
The commission appointed under A rtic le 71 fo r the r i v e r
and lake boundary between the S t, Lawrence River and Lake Huron
worked out an agreement on t h i s lin e b j 1822,
I t was accepted now
because th e area had been com pletely surveyed.
The commission th a t had been appointed under A rtic le VI
was supposed to consider the m atters under A rtic le VII a f t e r they
had disposed of the previous problems.
The boundaries in A rtic le VII
of the Treaty were from the w estern end o f Lake Huron to th e
northernm ost p o in t of th e Lake of th e Woods,
The surveying o f t h is
t e r r i t o r y la s te d u n t i l 1826, b u t th e commission proved unable to
reach a d e cisio n , leaving th e d e lin e a tio n of t h i s p a rt of the boundary
to be decided by th e Webster-AsKburton Treaty of 1842,
A p a rt of the boundary, then, had been defined, b u t boundary
problems remained to c a s t a shadow over Anglo-American r e la tio n s
during th e 1830 1s and 18408s .
I t was probably fo rtu n a te fo r th e
U nited S ta te s th a t the Maine and Oregon boundaries were n o t f i n a l ly
s e ttle d u n t i l 1842 and 1846 re s p e c tiv e ly .
In the y ears between 1820
and 1840 American c itiz e n s in in creasin g numbers moved in to th ese
d isp u ted areas strengthening American claim s to both a re a s.
Thus i t
was th a t the T reaty of Ghent which solved none of the outstanding
1, The lin e began a t th e f o r t y - f i f t h p a r a lle l a t the S t,
Lawrence R iver; went southwest to Lake O ntario; through the c en ter of
Lake O ntario u n t i l i t came to the body of w ater connecting i t w ith
Lake E rie; then south through the c e n te r of the Niagara River u n t i l i t
emptied in to Lake E rie , The lin e continued through the c en te r of Lake
E rie u n t i l i t came to th e body of w ater t h a t separated Lakes E rie and
Huron. The lin e went n o rth through th e c e n te r of the D e tro it R iver,
through the c en te r of Lake S t. G la ir, through the c e n te r of the S t,
C la ir River and then through th e c en ter o f Lake Huron u n t i l i t reached
th e westernmost p o in t of the la k e . This boundary settlem en t was very
sim ila r to th e one suggested a t Ghent,
issu e s between th e United S ta te s and Great B rita in provided both the
time and th e machinery through which th ese problems could be amicably,
resolved through the p eacefu l channels of diplomacy.
LIST OF REFERENCES
DOCUMENTS
American S ta te Paperso
. Boston, Thomas B» Wait, 1819; Washington, Gales and Seaton
38 Volumes, Vols. I l l , IV, V, VI, 1832.
Annals of Congress of th e United S ta te s »
Washington, Gales and Seaton, P u b lish e rs, I 8560
Malloy, W illiam M., com piler.
T re a tie s „ Conventions, In te rn a tio n a l A cts, P rotocols and
AgreementsT~T7T6IXfO^. '"W shingt'on/ Governraent P rin tin g
O fH ceTTV olum es, Vols. I , I I , I I I , 1910.
BOOKS
Adams, Henry.
H istory o f the United S ta te s during th e A dm inistrations
oY ^ e fre rs o h and~lia3isoh. "New"'f^%AntjSuaHTan '^ e s sT
L td ., 9 Volumes, Vols. H , IX, 1891-1896,"
Adams, Henry.
•The L ife of A lb ert G a lla tin .
New York, P eter Smith, 1943.
Adams, Henry, e d ito r .
The W ritings of A lbert G a lla tin . New York, A ntiquarian
. P ress, L td ., 3 Volumes, Vol. I , i 960.
B a r tle tt, Ruhl J . , e d ito r.
The Record of American Diplomacy.
Knopf7™T954”
”
New York. A lfred A.
Bemis, Samuel Flagg, e d ito r.
The American S e c re ta rie s of S ta te and Their Diplomacy. New
York, Pageant Book Company, 10 Volumes, IX, 1958.
Bemis, Samuel Flagg.
J a y 's T reaty.
19627
New Haven and London, Yale U niversity Press
Bemis, Samuel Flagg.
John Quincy Adams and th e Foundations of American Foreign
P o licy . New York, A lfred A. Knopf, 19^9.
Bowden, W itt,
"English M anufacturers and the Commercial Treaty of 1?86 ,
w ith France, The", American H is to ric a l Review, ¥olume XX?,
Hew York and London, The Macmillan Ccmpary, 1919, pp. 18-35.
B rant, Irv in g .
James Madison: Commander in C h ief: 1812-1836. Indianapolis
and Mew York, The Bobbs-M errill Coupany. I n c ., 1961.
B urt, A lfred LeRoy.
The United S ta te s , Great B r ita in , and B r itis h Horth America.
Mew BavenT Yale U niversity P re ss, 19^0,
B angerfield, George.
The Era of Good F ee lin g s;, Mew York, H arcourt, Brace and
Company, 1952,
BeConde, Alexander,
A H istory of American Foreign P o licy .
S c rib n e r’s Sons', T9 0 .
Mew York, Charles
Donnan, E lizab eth , e d ito r.
"Papers of James A, Bayard, 1796-1815," Annual Report of th e
American H is to ric a l A sso ciatio n . 19139 Volume I I , Washington,
Government P rin tin g O ffice, 1915.
Engelman, Fred L.
The Peace of Christmas Eve.
UotMTTSmTT 1^7™— ~
Mew York, H arcourt, Brace and
F itz p a tric k , John C ., e d ito r.
The W ritings of George Washington. Volume XXX, Washington,
D. C.", Un,i te d "B ta te s Government P rin tin g O ffice, 39 Volumes,
Vol. XXX, 1939.
Ford, Worthington Chauncey, e d ito r.
W ritings of John Quincy Adams. Mew York, The Macmillan
Company, 6 "Volumes, Volume V, 1913.
G a lla tin , James,
A Great Peacemaker: The Diary o f James G a lla tin .
C harles S c rib n e r’s Sons? JW h -------------------------
Mew York.
Gates, Charles M.
"The West in American Diplomacy, 1812-1815,» The M ississippi.
Valley H is to ric a l Review, Volume XXVI, Humber 4, March!, 1940,
ppr499-5l01!
Hamilton, S ta n isla u s Murray, e d ito r.
W ritings of James Monroe.
TTolum es, VoTT V, I 90E
Mew York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
95
Hopkinsg James F„, editor*
The Papers of Henry Clay. Lexington, Kentucky, U niversity of
Kentucky P ress, 7 Volumes, Vol. I , 1899-1903.
Hunt, G a illa rd , e d ito r.
The W ritings of James Madison. New York and London, G. P.
Putnam’s Sons, 9 Volumes, Vol. V III, 1908,
Johnston, Henry P.
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay. New York,
Eonden, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 4 Volumes, Vol. I l l , 1890-1893.
L e tte rs and other W ritings of James Madison,
pEIlaHeTphia, J 7 b . L ip p in co tt Company, 5 Volumes, Vol. I I ,
I 865.
Bevins, A llan, e d ito r.
The Diary of John Quincy Adams :
S criB n errs™Hons,
1794-1845.
New York, Charles
P erkins, Bradford.
C astlereagh and Adams. Berkeley and Los Angeles, U niversity
of C a lifo rn ia P ress, 1964,
Richardson, James D ., e d ito r.
Vol. I , 1896,
Sparks, Jared , e d ito r.
The Diplomatic Correspondence of th e American R evolution.
Washington, John C. R ives^""6 Volumes/'VolsT'^IV, V, VI, I 857.
Vane, Charles W illiam, Marquess of Londonberry, e d ito r.
Correspondence, Despatches, and Other Papers of Viscount
Castlereagh.'" London,^UoBn Murray, ID Volhmes, vol. iu ,
.. Albemarle S tr e e t, 1853.
Warren-Adams L e tte r s , 1778-1814.
’ """Theh^asac'husetts h is 'to r lc a l S o c i e t y , 2 Volumes, Vol. I I ,
I 9I 7- I 925.
Wilson, Thomas, Hon.
"The Treaty of Ghent,” Magazine o f American H isto ry . Volume XL,'
H is to ric a l P u b licatio n Compary, Ju]y - DecemFer,' 1888, pp. 372-286.
2WSPAPBRS
Gales and Seaton, e d ito rs .
The Daily N ational I n te llig e n c e r .
M iles, Hezekiah, e d ito r.
M iles1 Weekly R e g iste r.
l'8I4-X8T5~~x.
R itc h ie , Thomas, e d ito r.
The Richmond E nquirer.
Washington, 1814-1815.
B altim ore, The F ranklin P re s s ,
Richmond, 1814-1815.