Part 30

Dr Franklin did not think they were well founded, nor that any such construction could possibly be put upon the article. North America, he said, strictly speaking, comprised all parts of the Continent north of the Equator, and the Floridas being in the latitude of thirty degrees north, would be comprehended within the meaning of the words “northern parts of America.” I thought it would be best to put it out of all doubt by getting that explanation of the words under the hands of the French Ministry, especially as they would at least admit of dispute, and might in future produce disagreeable consequences. Dr Franklin said, that Congress had given some instructions respecting the cession of part of Florida to Spain, and objected to making any application on the subject to the French Ministry, as it might be taken ill, and added, if my apprehensions were ever so just, it was too late for any remedy in France, but that the Commissioner for the Court of Madrid might guard against any bad consequences in the treaty, which he had to conclude with that Court.

The resolution of Congress of the 30th of December, 1776, to which Dr Franklin alluded, extends only to the town and harbor of Pensacola, and circumstances are much changed in America since that resolution was made. It declares, “that if His Catholic Majesty will join with the United States in a war against Great Britain, they will assist in reducing to the possession of Spain, the town and harbor of Pensacola.” Had Spain complied with the request, had she stood forth our friend in the day of distress, the offer made by Congress might with propriety have been claimed. She did not declare war against Great Britain, and I do not know, that she has done anything yet to entitle her to any great share of our regard. It appeared to me, that if the French Ministry understood the words, as explained by Dr Franklin, they could not take it ill, that such an explanation should be required of them, but if they intended to have them understood as I feared they did, this was the proper place to have the doubts cleared up. If the words were meant to exclude the United States of America from the acquisition of the Floridas, it must have been intended for the benefit of Spain, and therefore the less likely was it to obtain any satisfaction from that quarter.

North America, strictly speaking, according to Dr Franklin, comprises all parts of the Continent north of the Equator. By the same rule it may be said to extend to the ninetieth degree of latitude. Considered in this point of view, no parts to the southward of fortyfive degrees can with propriety be called the _northern parts of America_. But the article seems to have no relation to so extensive a signification, and expresses the intentions of the framers of it very clearly. “_If the United States should think fit to attempt the reduction of_,” not the northern parts of America, but “the _British power_ remaining in the northern parts of America.” This power, without taking notice of an inconsiderable settlement on the Mosquito shore, or of Hudson’s Bay, may be said to have extended from the most southern point of Florida to the most northern part of Canada, and I am of opinion, that the United States of America will not be satisfied if any attempts are made to circumscribe their possessions within narrower limits.

The 9th article of the original treaty approved of by Congress in September, 1776, and transmitted by them to the Commissioners at this Court, not only confirms me in this opinion, but throws great light upon the intentions of the French Ministry. It is as follows; “The Most Christian King shall never invade, nor under any pretence attempt to possess himself of Labrador, New Britain, Nova Scotia, Acadia, Florida, nor any of the countries, cities, or towns on the Continent of North America; nor of any of the Islands of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, St Johns, Anticosti, nor any other island lying near to the said Continent in the seas, or in any gulf, bay, or river, it being the true intent and meaning of this treaty, that the said United States shall have the sole, exclusive, undivided, and perpetual possession of all the countries, cities, and towns on said continent, and of all islands near to it, which now are, or lately were under the jurisdiction of, or subject to the King or Crown of Great Britain, whenever they shall be united or confederated with the said United States.” These words admit of no mistake, no hidden meaning is concealed under them, nor could there be any possibility of contentions respecting the countries therein described, had they been inserted in the treaty.

With all due deference to Dr Franklin, I cannot help declaring, that I am firmly persuaded that the Court of France would not have substituted the 5th article in the place of the above, if they had not had some designs contrary to the intentions of Congress, so clearly expressed in their 9th article. His Most Christian Majesty, in the 11th article of the Treaty of Alliance, does not guaranty _generally_ to the United States their possessions, and the additions or conquests that their confederation may obtain during the war, from any of the dominions now, or heretofore possessed by Great Britain in North America, but stipulates that the guaranty shall only be _conformable to the 5th and 6th articles_. The latter of these contains nothing but a renunciation on the part of France of the Islands of the Bermudas, and of the whole continent of North America. As France does not pretend to any claim upon the Floridas, this renunciation can in no respect affect those Provinces. Spain, who was at the peace in 1763 obliged to cede them to Great Britain, may be desirous of resuming them, and the 5th article in the Treaty of Alliance seems to lay the foundation of such a claim. Should that event ever take place, it would prove extremely prejudicial to the interests of the United States in general, but particularly to those of the South. Spain would by that means have a direct communication with the Indians on our frontiers, and have it in her power to disturb our settlements whenever she pleased.

Lieutenant Governor Moultrie, in his letter from Augustine, of the 4th of October, 1775, to General Grant, which was intercepted and published by Congress, among other reasons why General Gage should protect Florida, gives the following; “Consider, says he, that this is the best and only immediate communication between Great Britain and our red brothers,” the Indians. What a horrid use our enemies have made of this communication, you are well acquainted with. Florida was never of any advantage to Spain when in her possession, nor is it probable it ever would be, were it so again; but it will be of the greatest importance to the States of America, on account of security, which in all negotiations has been thought a sufficient reason for a claim, though no right existed, which is not the case in the present instance. In the 11th article, France guaranties to the United States, “their possessions and the additions or conquests, that their confederation may obtain during the war from any of the dominions now, or heretofore possessed by Great Britain in North America, conformable to the 5th and 6th articles.” In the 6th article, I observe, that “The Most Christian King renounces forever the possession of the Islands of Bermudas, as well as of any part of the continent of North America.” Nothing is said about Newfoundland, St Johns, Cape Breton, and the other islands on our coasts. Were they understood to be included in the renunciation and guarantee? Congress, in their original treaty, did not choose to trust to any future constructions, but mentioned each of these islands particularly by name. Whatever power may be in possession of them will in a great measure command the fishery.

This is a matter of great consequence, but, however just my apprehensions may be on this point also, I fear it is now too late to receive any satisfactory explanation respecting it at this Court, and we must again turn eyes towards you for relief. If the Court of Madrid could be prevailed upon to guaranty the Floridas, and these islands also to the United States, you would render an essential service to your country. I have upon many occasions experienced, that whenever her welfare has stood in need of your exertions, you have been ready to afford them, and, therefore, I cannot doubt but you will also do it in the business, which I have just laid before you.

I have the honor to be, &c.

RALPH IZARD.

ARTHUR LEE TO RALPH IZARD.

Chaillot, May 23d, 1778.

Dear Sir,

I have received your favor of the 18th, and remember well the conversation you mention. The 5th article stood originally thus. “Si les Etats Unis jugent à propos de tenter la conquête de la Canada, de la Nouvelle Ecosse, de Terrenueve, de St Jean, et des Bermudes, ces conquêtes en cas de succès appartiendront aux dits Etats Unis.” Even this did not appear to me adequate to the intentions of Congress; I therefore proposed that it should be as extensive and explicit, as was marked out to us in the 9th article of the plan proposed by Congress. My colleagues did not agree with me, and I remember perfectly Dr Franklin’s answer was, that Congress had receded from those claims since, by the concessions directed to be made to Spain. I submitted mine to the opinion of my colleagues.

I have already asked the commands of Congress, relative to conceding anything to Spain agreeably to the instruction of the 30th of December, 1776, which you mention, and you may be assured that I will never subscribe the cession of one inch of what Congress has claimed in the 9th article of their plan, without their express orders. I shall make no observations respecting the degree of gratitude to which Spain may be entitled, but the leaving of articles so loose as to occasion disputes, or making cessions which may plant a thorn in the side of any of the United States, is not the manner I should choose of showing it. How the 5th article came changed so much from what it was at first I never could learn. In my own justification I must observe, that from the conduct of one of my colleagues, and the intrigues of the other, I was furnished with a kind of half information, and secretly counteracted, so as to render it very difficult for me to be of any utility whatever in this negotiation.

I have the honor to be, &c.

ARTHUR LEE.

TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

Paris, June 17th, 1778.

Sir,

Mr Pringle, who was the bearer of my last letter, has given me an account of his conversation with you on the subject of it. It would have been much more satisfactory to me, if, instead of speaking to him about the contents of it, you had done me the honor of writing an answer to it. Words which pass in conversation are sometimes forgotten and sometimes misunderstood. Misrepresentations are sometimes the consequence, which though produced by mistake, to a mind affected by ill treatment, of which neither the occasion can be learned nor the progress stopped, may pass from effects proceeding from either causes. I enclose you a copy of Mr Pringle’s letter. You will be so good as to correct any mistakes that may be found in it. Some there probably are; I do not, for instance, think it likely you could have said that you did not know what I complained of, at the same time that my complaints appear so numerous, that it would require a pamphlet to answer them. It is impossible that both these assertions can be true; and though I cannot agree with you in either, I shall not dispute about them, but refer you to the several letters which I have written since the receipt of your favor of the 29th of January.

I have requested to be informed of your reasons for withholding from me all communications respecting the treaty of commerce during the negotiation, contrary to an express instruction of Congress. You have constantly, in spite of every endeavor on my part to get your reasons in writing, wrapped yourself up with caution, and notwithstanding the repeated breach of your engagement with me, have not been ashamed to make promises of the same kind and break them again, to amuse me till Mr Deane had an opportunity of going privately away. I shall not examine your inducements for so carefully avoiding to commit yourself to paper on this subject, but only observe that this determination compels me to mention the reasons given by Dr Bancroft and your grandson, which it would have been more agreeable to me to have had under your own hand. Those gentlemen have informed me, that some proposals which Mr Lee had made to you and Mr Deane, respecting his brother and me, made you apprehensive, that it was intended to have us admitted into all consultations, and that every question should be carried by a plurality of voices; that this had determined your conduct with respect to communications to me; but that if you had been ever so well inclined to communicate anything relative to the treaty, you lay under such strong injunctions of secrecy from the French Ministry, that it was out of your power to do it.

With respect to the first of these reasons I shall observe, that if Mr Lee ever made any such proposal, it was entirely unknown to me. I have spoken to him on the subject, and he declares that he never said anything that could in the least justify such an apprehension. There does not indeed seem the least probability that such a proposal could have been made. The unfortunate dispute in which he was engaged with you and Mr Deane, and the decided majority of which you were possessed, would have made such an attempt on his part too weak for a man of common understanding. With regard to the injunctions of secrecy, which the French Ministry are said to have laid you under, I answer, that you had no right to lay yourself under any such injunctions. Before you can avail yourself of that excuse, you should show that you had reminded the French Ministry of there being at that time in Paris two other Commissioners of Congress, to whom your duty required you to communicate not only a copy of the treaty originally proposed by Congress, but also whatever subsequent alterations might be proposed on either side. Had this been done, and had they expressed a desire that those Commissioners also should be unacquainted with the transaction, rather than the smallest obstruction should have been thrown in the way of the negotiation, I should have been contented to have had it kept from me as long as you thought proper.

Having examined these reasons, and I hope at least shown the probability of their being only pretended ones, I shall proceed to state what appears to me to be the true cause of your conduct, and as it will be necessary to trouble you with a dull narrative, you will I hope excuse it on account of the importance of it. I received a letter in October last from Mr William Lee, one of the joint commercial agents for conducting the affairs of the Congress in this kingdom, desiring my attendance at your house at Passy, and informing me, that he had something of importance to lay before the Commissioners. I accordingly attended, and heard an account of some very extraordinary abuses and embarrassments in the commercial department, owing to the misconduct of Mr Thomas Morris, late one of the joint commercial agents, and to the claim which certain persons made to the management of the affairs of the Congress at Nantes. Mr Lee complained of great obstructions, which he had met with from these circumstances, that so far from receiving any assistance from the Commissioners, they seemed to have encouraged the persons who opposed him in the discharge of his duty, and that he had repeatedly written to the Commissioners for their support, without ever having been able to obtain the favor of an answer. He expressed his desire of returning to Nantes, and using his endeavors to prevent the repetition of such abuses as had been stated, and did not doubt but with the support of the Commissioners he should be able to render this material service to the public. The support which he required was a letter from the Commissioners, addressed to all such captains of ships as were in the service of the United States, informing them, that he was an agent properly authorised by Congress to manage their commercial concerns in this country, and that it would be proper for them to follow his instructions. This request, which appeared to me extremely reasonable, was to my astonishment rejected both by you and Mr Deane.

This appeared the more extraordinary to me, as you both acknowledged, that you were perfectly convinced of the truth of what Mr Lee had stated to you, and said you had laid these abuses before Congress, and complained in the strongest terms against Mr Thomas Morris, whose misconduct had occasioned some of them; that Congress had given you a tacit reproof, by taking no notice of the complaints you had made, and that Mr Robert Morris, a member of the committee for foreign affairs, had given you _a rap over the knuckles_ for having made them. I begged you to consider that the silence of Congress, which you had construed into a reproof, might have been occasioned by the multiplicity of business they had to transact, or they might have attended to it, and their letter on the subject have miscarried. This you said could not have been the case, as the complaints to Congress against Mr Morris made but part of your letter; there were several other matters contained in it, which were all answered, and as the complaint against Mr Morris was the only part unnoticed, you considered it as a reproof to you for having written to Congress about it. You had attempted once to correct the abuses, which every body knew were practising at Nantes to a very scandalous degree. Mr Robert Morris had misrepresented your good intentions, and had insinuated in his letter to Mr Deane of June 29th, that your complaints against his brother were made from interested motives, and that you wished him removed to make way for your nephew. As your conduct had in one instance, relative to the abuses at Nantes, been thus misrepresented, you were determined it should in no other, by adhering to your resolution of not meddling with them.

Your reasons did not appear at all satisfactory to me, and I took the liberty of telling you so, which gave you very great offence. I was extremely sorry for it, but did not at that time, nor have I upon the most mature deliberation since been able to conceive how it could have been avoided consistent with my duty. I requested you to consider how unreasonable it was, to allow your resentment against the Committee for a supposed tacit reproof, and against Mr Robert Morris for what you called _a rap over the knuckles_, to operate to the prejudice, perhaps to the destruction of the commercial concerns of your country. Your answer was direct and positive; “If these consequences should happen, Mr Robert Morris and the Committee must be answerable for them, but you were determined not to meddle with the matter.” In this determination Mr Deane co-operated, and we parted without Mr Lee’s having been able to obtain any satisfaction on the subjects of his complaints, except a promise on your part to countermand an order you had given relative to the sale of one of the prizes at Nantes. This promise, however, I understand was not fulfilled. I most solemnly protest, that I believe this interview to have been the cause of your excluding me from all communications.

Perhaps it may be said, that you were not required by Congress to make those communications. This may be considered in the nature of those injuries against which no positive law can be produced, but which are, notwithstanding, known to be injuries by all the world. Had the directions of Congress, however, in these points, been as explicit as words could make them, I doubt not but you would have found the means of evading them, as you have in others, if it suited your purpose, and have drawn arguments for your justification from every source. I shall trouble you with my reasons for thinking so. I requested of you at Chaillot, to let me know why you had disregarded the instructions of Congress respecting the treaty; you expressed your doubts whether Congress intended to have anything communicated to me, except the treaty after it was _concluded_. I referred you to the words of the instruction itself, which I had quoted to you in my letter, and asked you if you thought it possible, that the gentlemen who had written them could have been so ignorant, as not to know the distinction between a _proposition_ and a _conclusion_. Other doubts arose. If I had been at Florence, the department which was assigned me by Congress, it might have been inconvenient to have followed the strict letter of the instructions, by sending every alteration of the treaty, that might have been proposed on either side, on account of the danger of their being intercepted.

In this I agreed with you perfectly, and told you that if I had been at Florence, you would have had an excuse which at that time was of service to you. I am sorry to be obliged to refer to words spoken in conversation; I have wished to avoid it, but you have put it out of my power. Had you written down what I have just related, which you promised me to do, it might have been of service to you in one instance. You would have recollected having already given it as your opinion, that if I had been at Florence, it would have been improper to have sent me the alterations proposed in the treaty, and would probably not have mentioned to Mr Pringle a reason in your justification totally the reverse of this. As you have, however, done it, it will be necessary to remind you that my not having gone to Florence has been entirely owing to reasons given me by the Tuscan Minister at this Court, which I have informed Congress of. These reasons were also communicated to you and the other Commissioners, and you thought they ought to be complied with.

You observed to Mr Pringle, that I had written you an angry letter. When you reflect upon your proceedings towards me, that ought not to surprise you. Having considered myself injured by you, I make a complaint to you in writing; you deny that it is well founded, and promise me an explanation of your conduct. Relying upon your word, I suffer myself to be amused from time to time by promises and excuses, till Mr Deane, who has supported you in all your measures, sails for America. Would it not have been fair and honorable to have given me your reasons in justification of your conduct before that gentleman’s departure, that I might have had an opportunity either of being convinced by them or of refuting them, and that his verbal representations in America might not be made without having anything from me to oppose them.

I am very gravely told, that as a proof of your not having thought it a good opportunity, you had not yourself written by Mr Deane. Is there a man of common sense in the world, who will not see, that as Mr Deane is a party concerned in the contest, which has unhappily subsisted between us, and of course will be interested in your justification, there was no absolute necessity for your writing, but that the very reverse was the case with me? Having thus blown up a flame about me, you are unreasonable enough to be surprised at my being warmed by it. Does not this resemble the conduct of the tyrant Kouli Khan, who, having cut the tendons of a man’s legs with his sword, would afterwards have compelled him to dance? I must be very plain in telling you, that I envy not the feelings of that man, be his reputation ever so highly exalted, who can with coldness either offer or receive an injury.