thusiastic patriotism and loyalty to America and American ways. "They" (the French), he said at one time, "are not a moral people; they know not what it is." His firmness, energy, and sagacity admirably supplemented the calm, complacent temper of the more experienced diplomat. 1 The situation in the spring of 1782 was complicated. The revolt of the American colonies had brought in its train a great European war. France, seeking revenge for the disasters of twenty years before, had made war on England, and had finally succeeded in bringing the elusive court of Spain to take a like step (1779). Holland also had joined the allies. The countries of the north and east were joined in the so-called "Armed Neutrality," which was unfriendly in spirit to Great Britain. For some time France had been bearing the burden of the American war, if, in fact, one could longer call it American; she was at the head of a great alliance against which England with accustomed bravery was fighting sturdily and well. Vergennes, looking out upon the field, had more than one fear that the combination he had arranged with infinite patience and cunning would go to pieces before his eyes, and that France would have little for her pains except ruined finances and the qualified 1 Wharton, Dip. Corresp. of Am. Rev., V., 849; John Adams, Works, III., 303. 'See Van Tyne, American Revolution (American Nation, IX.), chap. xvii. friendship of independent America. The United States was weak, and congressional councils were distracted by rival factions. Spain was eager only for her own gain, and could not be relied on to be either steadfast or considerate. She had entered the war, not for any abstract policy of state, but to win substantial accessions of territory. "The Spanish," said the French minister Montmorin, "like little children, are to be attracted only by shining objects." Anxious that America should not leave France in the lurch by making an independent treaty with England, the French representative in America induced Congress to instruct the commissioners for peace "to make the most candid and confidential communications upon all subjects to the ministers of our generous ally, the king of France; to undertake nothing in the negotiations for peace or truce without their knowledge and concurrence; and ultimately to govern yourselves by their advice and opinion." " These were somewhat humiliating directions; but of course America was bound in honor not to make a separate treaty or to leave France to fight her way to peace as best she might. When Spain entered the war, by the secret treaty with France of April, 1779, it was agreed that one purpose of the war should be certain additions to Spanish territory, and notably the conquest of Gibraltar. Inasmuch Doniol, Histoire de la Participation, II., 798. as the purpose of the alliance between America and France had been declared to be the independence of the United States, it is plain that France and Spain, without the knowledge of America, had entered into an agreement which might prolong the war for purely European purposes entirely foreign to American interests or desires. We may doubt, therefore, the wisdom and policy of these instructions from Congress, although the United States was bound by every dictate of honor and good conscience not to abandon France on trivial grounds or for selfish ends. In the spring of 1782, before Jay came to Paris, and while Fox was still in the cabinet, informal negotiations began between Franklin and Oswald, and by this means certain communications were submitted to Shelburne.1 Franklin dwelt on the desirability of reconciliation, "a sweet word," and suggested that "reparation" might be voluntarily made by England to those who had suffered peculiarly in the war by the burning of homes and villages. "Nothing would have a greater tendency to conciliate. And much of the future commerce and returning intercourse between the two countries may depend on the reconciliation." With refreshing courage, as if representing a conquering nation, he mildly suggested that England should of her own accord give up Canada. Oswald was in turn told by Shelburne that reparation would not 1 Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, III., 180. be heard of, and that he was to "make early and strict conditions, not only to secure all debts whatever due to British subjects, but likewise to restore the Loyalists to a full enjoyment of their rights and privileges." "No independence," he was informed, was "to be acknowledged without their being taken care of." He was also told that England must hold as far as the Penobscot River. These instructions formed the core of the British demands, and we thus see at the beginning the subjects that were to be discussed at greatest length and that constituted the most serious obstacles to final agreement: the debts of British merchants; compensation to the loyalists; the northern and eastern boundary. Later there was added to these subjects of controversy the right of the Americans to make use of the Newfoundland fisheries. Oswald was at last fully commissioned to treat for peace. He was a Scotch merchant, not a trained diplomatist. Owing to his possession of estates in America and his connections with that country, he had been at times consulted by the government during the war.' Like Shelburne he was a disciple of Adam Smith, and a man of liberal principles. He was of a mild, temperate, and friendly disposition, but scarcely a match in wits for the talented American commissioners with whom he came into competition. The first difficulty arose concerning the suffi- 2 ciency of Oswald's commission. He was authorized to treat with the commissioners of "Colonies or plantations," and to conclude with "any person or persons whatsoever, a peace or truce with the said Colonies or plantations." To Jay, whom sombre experiences in Spain had perhaps made unusually sensitive, such a commission seemed entirely unsuitable, and he flatly refused to treat seriously with Oswald on any such basis. The states had long since ceased to be colonies or plantations, he asserted, and until England was ready to negotiate with the United States he would go no further. Franklin, on the other hand, thought that the commission was satisfactory enough. Vergennes agreed with Franklin, and by advising the Americans to proceed with the negotiations, to content themselves with the substance and not make too much ado about the shadow, he aroused Jay's suspicions. Jay believed that Vergennes did not desire the independence of America until all possible use had been made of her, and that in the end American interests would be sacrificed to Spain. In this mood he went so far as to explain to Oswald that it was good policy for England to render America independent of France, and that a new commission recognizing the states as independent would have the desired effect. Franklin finally consented to accept Jay's theory and demand a new 1 Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, III., 249. 2 Jay, Corresp. and Public Papers, II., 372, 373, 381. VOL. X.-3 |