« PreviousContinue »
at one period of the negotiation, a proposition by which a certain territory lying between the dominions of the two contracting parties was to have been allotted to the Indian nations. But it does not appear that this formed a part of their ultimatums, and it is clear that Mr. Pitt, in his answer, did not object to the proposition. He objected, indeed, to the proposed line of demarcation between the countries belonging to the two contracting parties, upon two grounds: first, that the proposed northern line would have given to France what the French themselves had acknowledged to be part of Canada, the whole of which, as enjoyed by His Most Christian Majesty, it had been stipulated was to be ceded entirely to Great Britain. Secondly, that the southern part of the proposed line of demarcation would have included within the boundary of Louisiana the Cherokees, the Creeks, the Chicasaws, the Choctaws, and another nation who occupied territories which had never been included within the boundary of that settlement. So far was Mr. Pitt from rejecting, as alleged by the American plenipotentiaries, the proposition of considering Indian nations as a barrier, that, at one period of the negotiations, he complained that there was no provision for such a barrier; and he thus energetically urges his objection in his letter to Mr. Stanley, the British plenipotentiary at Paris, dated on the 26th of June, 1761. "As to the fixation of new limits to Canada towards the Ohio, it is captious and insidious, thrown out in hope, if agreed to, to shorten thereby the extent of Canada, and to lengthen the boundaries of Louisiana, and in the view to establish, what must not be admitted, namely, that all which is not Canada is Louisiana, whereby'all the intermediate nations and countries, the true barrier to each province, would be given up to France."
The undersigned confidently expect that the American plenipotentiaries will not again reproach the British Government with acting inconsistently with its former practice and principles, or repeat the assertion made in a former note, that a definition of Indian boundary, with a view to a neutral barrier, was a new and unprecedented demand by any European power, and, most of all, by Great Britain. The very instance selected by the American plenipotentiaries undeniably proves that such a proposition had been entertained both by Great Britain and France, and that Mr. Pitt, on the part of Great Britain, had more particularly enforced it.
It remains only to notice two objections, which the American plenipotentiaries have urged against the proposal of Indian pacification, advanced by the undersigned; first, that it is not reciprocal; secondly, that, as the United States could have no security that the Indian nations would conclude a peace on the terms proposed, the objection would be, in effect, unilateral.
The article now proposed by the undersigned, and herewith enclosed, is free from both objections, and appears to them so characterized by a spirit of moderation and peace, that they earnestly anticipate the concurrence of the American plenipotentiaries.
Whatever may be the result of the proposition thus offered, the undersigned deliver it as their ultimatum, and now await with anxiety the answer of the American plenipotentiaries, on which their continuance in this place will depend.
Article proposed by the British plenipotentiaries.'
The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may be at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively, all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed, or been entitled to, in 1811, previous to such hostilities.
Provided, always, That such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities againt the United States of America, their citizens and subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.
And His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end, immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to
American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. III, p. 723.
such tribes or nations respectively, all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed, or been entitled to, in 1811, previous to such hostilities.
Provided, always, That such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty and his subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.
J. Q. Adams to the Secretary of State.
GHENT 10. October 1814. N. 140. The SECRETARY OF STATE, OF THE UNITED STATES. SIR, Since the departure of Mr. Dallas, with the dispatches of the joint mission, by the John Adams, our Conferences with the British Plenipotentiaries, have been suspended, and all our official intercourse with them has been in writing.
A copy of their first note, dated 19. August, was forwarded by Mr. Dallas.—On the 24th of the same month we answered that Note, rejecting in the most explicit terms the proposed definitive Indian Boundary, the cession of Territory to Great Britain, and the demand of a stipulation on our part to dismantle the fortifications on our frontiers, and to maintain no naval force upon the Lakes.
On the 5th of September we received their second Note, dated the 4th.-It insisted on all the demands made in the first, but manifested a disposition to modify some parts of them, and to abandon others—We answered it on the 9th. They had given us the alternatives of continuing the Negotiation upon their exposition of their Views; of breaking it off: or of referring to our Government, for further Instructions—You will recollect however that in their first Note they had warned us, that if we should refer to our Government, they would not be bound to abide by their present offers, but would vary their demands according as the circumstances of the War might warrant. Our answer to their alternatives was that we desired to continue the Negotiation provided they would abandon the demands which we had already rejected.
Their third Note was dated on the 19th of September, and received by us on the 20th. It abandoned the definitive Indian Boundary as a sine qua non,, but expressed an intention to propose a temporary Boundary, for discussion. It abandoned apparently the demand for the exclusive military occupation of the Lakes; but announced the purpose of making a proposal on this subject so liberal and generous that they thought it could not be refused. But they presented as a new Sine qua non that the Indian Allies of Great Britain should be included in the pacification.
Our answer was delivered to them on the 26th of September. It proposed an Article in the nature of an Amnesty; that no persons, whether Citizens, Subjects, or Indians of either party, should be molested or annoyed, in person or property for any part taken by them in the War.
On Saturday Evening the 8th instant, we received their fourth Note, enclosing a proposed Article as their ultimatum. It provides that on the Ratification of the Peace, all hostilities against the Indian Tribes or Nations engaged in the War shall cease on both sides; provided the Indians shall on their part cease from hostilities on the notification of the Peace to them-And that they shall be restored to all the rights, privileges and possessions as they held them in 1811 before the commencement of the War.
We do not send you copies of all these Papers by the present occasion, because we expect to dispatch a Messenger to you in a very few days, when we shall have prepared our answer to this last Note. Although I am not certain that the Negotiation will close at this stage, and although the British Government have abandoned so much and such objectionable parts of their Sine qua non, I see no reason for altering the opinion expressed to you at the close of our joint Letter of 19. August.
Mr. Boyd arrived at Bordeaux on the 17th at Paris on the 23d and here on the 29th ultimo. He is now at Amsterdam; we expect his return in the course of a few days—We have applied for a Passport for the return of the Transit.
We received the duplicates of your dispatches of 25 and 27. June, from the British Plenipotentiaries-But your letter of 9. July was not with them.
I am with perfect respect, Sir, your very humble and obed't Serv't.
We have just received despatches from Ghent, which I shall lay before Congress to-day. The British sine qua non excluded us from fishing within the sovereignty attached to her shores, and from using these in curing fish; required a cession of as much of Maine as would remove the obstruction to a direct communication between Quebec and Halifax; confirmed to her the Passamaquoddy Islands as always hers of right; included in the pacification the Indian allies, with a boundary for them (such as that of the Treaty of Greenville) against the United States mutually guaranteed, and the Indians restrained from selling their lands to either party, but free to sell them to a third party; prohibited the United States from having an armed force on the lakes or forts on their shores; the British prohibited as to neither; and substituted for the present North Western limit of the U. States a line running direct from the West end of Lake Superior to the Mississippi, with a right of G. Britain to the navigation of this river. Our ministers were all present, and in perfect harmony of opinion on the arrogance of such demands. They would probably leave Ghent shortly after the sailing of the vessel just arrived. Nothing can prevent it but a sudden change in the British Cabinet, not likely to happen, though it might be somewhat favored by an indignant rupture of the negotiation, as well as by the intelligence from this Country and the fermentations taking place in Europe.
IWritings of James Madison (Cong. Ed.), Vol. II, p. 589.