the executive and the ministers of France and England. These will
develope to you the principles on which we are proceeding between the
belligerent powers. The decisions being founded in what is conceived to
be rigorous justice, give dissatisfaction to both parties, and produce
complaints from both. It is our duty, however, to persevere in them, and
to meet the consequences. You will observe that Mr. Hammond proposes to
refer to his court the determination of the President, that the prizes
taken by the Citoyen Genet, could not be given up. The reasons for this
are explained in the papers. Mr. Genet had stated that she was manned
by French citizens. Mr. Hammond had not stated the contrary before the
decision. Neither produced any proofs. It was therefore supposed that
she was manned, principally, with French citizens. After the decision,
Mr. Hammond denies the fact, but without producing any proof. I am
really unable to say how it was; but I believe it to be certain there
were very few Americans. He says, the issuing the commission, Sic. by
Mr. Genet within our territory, was an infringement of our sovereignty;
therefore, the proceeds of it should be given up to Great Britain. The
infringement was a matter between France and us. Had we insisted on any
penalty or forfeiture by way of satisfaction to our insulted rights,
it would have belonged to us, not to a third party. As between Great
Britain and us, considering all the circumstances explained in the
papers, we deemed we did enough to satisfy her. We are moreover assured,
that it is the standing usage of France, perhaps too of other nations in
all wars, to lodge blank commissions with all their foreign consuls,
to be given to every vessel of their nation, merchant or armed; without
which a merchant vessel would be punished as a pirate, were she to take
the smallest thing of the enemy that should fall in her way. Indeed, the
place of the delivery of a commission is immaterial. As it may be sent
by letter to any one, so it may be delivered by hand to him any where.
The place of signature by the Sovereign is the material thing. Were that
to be done in any other jurisdiction than his own, it might draw the
validity of the act into question. I mention these things, because I
think it would be proper, that after considering them and such other
circumstances as appear in the papers, or may occur to yourself, you
should make it the subject of a conversation with the Minister. Perhaps
it may give you an opportunity of touching on another subject. Whenever
Mr. Hammond applies to our government on any matter whatever, be it ever
so new or difficult, if he does not receive his answer in two or three
days or a week, we are goaded with new letters on the subject. Sometimes
it is the sailing of the packet, which is made the pretext for forcing
us into premature and undigested determinations. You know best how far
your applications meet such early attentions, and whether you may
with propriety claim a return of them: you can best judge too of the
expediency of an intimation, that where despatch is not reciprocal, it
may be expedient and justifiable that delay should be so.
I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, Dear Sir, your
most obedient and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLVII.--TO MR. GENET, June 17, X
TO MR. GENET.
Philadelphia, June 17, 1793.
Sir,
I shall now have the honor of answering your letter of the 1st instant,
and so much of that of the 14th (both of which have been laid before
the President) as relates to a vessel armed in the port of New York and
about to depart from thence, but stopped by order of the government. And
here I beg leave to premise, that the case supposed in your letter, of
a vessel arming for her own defence, and to repel unjust aggressions,
is not that in question, nor that on which I mean to answer, because
not having yet happened, as far as is known to the government, I have
no instructions on the subject. The case in question is that of a vessel
armed, equipped, and manned in a port of the United States, for the
purpose of committing hostilities on nations at peace with the United
States.
As soon as it was perceived that such enterprises would be attempted,
orders to prevent them were despatched to all the States and ports of
the Union. In consequence of these, the Governor of New York,
receiving information that a sloop heretofore called the Polly, now
the Republican, was fitting out, arming, and manning in the port of
New York, for the express and sole purpose of cruising against certain
nations with whom we are at peace, that she had taken her guns and
ammunition aboard and was on the point of departure, seized the vessel.
That the Governor was not mistaken in the previous indications of her
object, appears by the subsequent avowal of the citizen Hauterive,
Consul of France at that port, who, in a letter to the Governor,
reclaims her as ‘_Un vaisseau arme, en guerre, et pret a mettre a la
voile_;’ and describes her object in these expressions; ‘_Cet usage
étrange de la force publique contre les citoyens d’une nation amie qui
se réunissent ici pour aller defendre leur frères_,’ &c. and again; ‘_Je
requiers, monsieur, l’autorité dont vous êtes revêtu, pour faire rendre
à des Francois, à des allies, &c. la liberte de voler au secours de leur
patrie_.’ This transaction being reported to the President, orders were
immediately sent to deliver over the vessel, and the persons concerned
in the enterprise, to the tribunals of the country; that if the act
was of those forbidden by the law, it might be punished; if it was not
forbidden, it might be so declared, and all persons apprized of what
they might or might not do.
This we have reason to believe is the true state of the case, and it
is a repetition of that which was the subject of my letter of the
5th instant, which animadverted, not merely on the single fact of
the granting commissions of war by one nation within the territory of
another, but on the aggregate of the facts: for it states the opinion of
the President to be, ‘that the arming and equipping vessels in the ports
of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom they are at
peace, was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United States; that
it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby
tended to commit their peace.’ And this opinion is still conceived to be
not contrary to the principles of natural law, the usage of nations,
the engagements which unite the two people, nor the proclamation of the
President, as you seem to think.
Surely, not a syllable can be found in the last mentioned instrument
permitting the preparation of hostilities in the ports of the United
States. Its object was to enjoin on our citizens ‘a friendly conduct
towards all the belligerent powers;’ but a preparation of hostilities is
the reverse of this.
None of the engagements in our treaties stipulate this permission. The
XVIIth article of that of commerce, permits the armed vessels of either
party to enter the ports of the other, and to depart with their prizes
freely: but the entry of an armed vessel into a port, is one act; the
equipping a vessel in that port, arming her, and manning her, is a
different one, and not engaged by any article of the treaty.
You think, Sir, that this opinion is also contrary to the law of nature
and usage of nations. We are of opinion it is dictated by that law
and usage; and this had been very maturely inquired into before it was
adopted as a principle of conduct. But we will not assume the exclusive
right of saying what that law and usage is. Let us appeal to enlightened
and disinterested judges. None is more so than Vattel. He says, L. 3, 8,
104. ‘_Tant qu’im peuple neutre veut jouir surement de cet état, il doit
montrer en toutes choses une exacte impartialité entre ceux qui se font
la guerre. Car s’il favorise l’un au préjudice de l’autre, il ne pourra
pas se plaindre, quand celui-ci le traitera comme adhérent et associé
de son ennemi. Sa neutralité seroit une neutralité frauduleuse, dont
personne ne veut être la dupe. Voyons done en quoi consiste cette
impartialité qu’un peuple neutre doit garder_.
‘_Elle se rapport uniquement à la guerre, et comprend deux choses,
1°. Ne point donner de secours quand on n’y est pas obligé; ne fournir
librement ni troupes, ni armes, ni munitions, ni rien de ce qui sert
directement à la guerre. Je dis ne point donner de secours, et non pas
en donner également; car il seroit absurde qu’un etat secourut en
même tems deux ennemis. Et puis il seroit impossible de le faire avec
égalite; les mêmes choses, le merae nombre de troupes, la même quantite
d’armes, de munitions, &c. fournies en des circonstances differentes,
ne forment plus des secours equivalents_,’ &c. If the neutral power may
not, consistent with its neutrality, furnish men to either party,
for their aid in war, as little can either enrol them in the neutral
territory by the law of nations. Wolf, S. 1174, says, ‘_Puisque Je droit
de lever des soldats est un droit de majeste, qui ne peut être viole par
une nation étrangere, il n’est pas permis de lever des soldats sur le
territoire d’autrui, sans le consentement du maitre du territoire_.’
And Vattel, before cited, L. 3, 8, 15. ‘_Le droit de lever des soldats
appartenant uniquement a la nation, ou au souverain, personne ne peut
en envoler en pays etranger sans la permission du soverain: Ceux qui
entreprennant d’engager des soldats en pays etranger sans la permission
du souverain, et en general quiconque debauche les sujets d’autrui,
viole un des droits les plus sacres du prince et de la nation. C’est le
crime qu’on appelle plagiat, ou vol d’homme. Il n’est aucun état police
qui ne le punisse tres sevérement_.’ &c. For I choose to refer you to
the passage, rather than follow it through all its developements. The
testimony of these, and other writers, on the law and usage of nations,
with your own just reflections on them, will satisfy you that the
United States, in prohibiting all the belligerent powers from equipping,
arming, and manning vessels of war in their ports, have exercised
a right and a duty, with justice and with great moderation. By our
treaties with several of the belligerent powers, which are a part of
the laws of our land we have established a state of peace with them. But
without appealing to treaties, we are at peace with them all by the
law of nature. For by nature’s law, man is at peace with man till some
aggression is committed, which, by the same law, authorizes one to
destroy another as his enemy. For our citizens then to commit murders
and depredations on the members of nations at peace with us, or combine
to do it, appeared to the executive, and to those whom they consulted,
as much against the laws of the land, as to murder or rob, or combine
to murder or rob its own citizens; and as much to require punishment, if
done within their limits, where they have a territorial jurisdiction,
or on the high seas, where they have a personal jurisdiction, that is
to say, one which reaches their own citizens only, this being an
appropriate part of each nation on an element where all have a common
jurisdiction. So say our laws, as we understand them ourselves. To them
the appeal is made; and whether we have construed them well or ill, the
constitutional judges will decide. Till that decision shall be obtained,
the government of the United States must pursue what they think right
with firmness, as is their duty. On the first attempt that was made, the
President was desirous of involving in the censures of the law as few as
might be. Such of the individuals only, therefore, as were citizens of
the United States, were singled out for prosecution. But this second
attempt being after full knowledge of what had been done on the first,
and indicating a disposition to go on in opposition to the laws, they
are to take their course against all persons concerned, whether citizens
or aliens; the latter, while within our jurisdiction and enjoying the
protection of the laws, being bound to obedience to them, and to avoid
disturbances of our peace within, or acts which would commit it without,
equally as citizens are.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of great respect, and esteem,
Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLVIII.--TO MR. HAMMOND, June 19, 1793
TO MR. HAMMOND.
Philadelphia, June 19, 1793.
Sir,
I had the honor to address you a letter on the 29th of May was
twelvemonth, on the articles still unexecuted of the treaty of peace
between the two nations. The subject was extensive and important,
and therefore rendered a certain degree of delay in the reply to
be expected. But it has now become such as naturally to generate
disquietude. The interest we have in the western posts, the blood and
treasure which their detention costs us daily, cannot but produce a
corresponding anxiety on our part. Permit me, therefore, to ask when I
may expect the honor of a reply to my letter, and to assure you of the
sentiments of respect, with which I have the honor to be, Sir, your most
obedient and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLIX.--TO MESSRS. CARMICHAEL AND SHORT, June 30, 1793
TO MESSRS. CARMICHAEL AND SHORT.
Philadelphia, June 30, 1793.
Gentlemen,
I have received from Messrs. Viar and Jaudenes, the representatives of
Spain at this place, a letter, which, whether considered in itself,
or as the sequel of several others, conveys to us very disagreeable
prospects of the temper and views of their court towards us. If this
letter is a faithful expression of that temper, we presume it to be
the effect of egregious misrepresentations by their agents in America.
Revising our own dispositions and proceedings towards that power, we
can find in them nothing but those of peace and friendship for them; and
conscious that this will be apparent from a true statement of facts, I
shall proceed to give you such a one, to be communicated to the court
of Madrid. If they find it very different from that conveyed to them by
others, they may think it prudent to doubt, and to take and to give time
for mutual inquiry and explanation. I shall proceed to give you this
statement, beginning it from an early period.
At the commencement of the late war, the United States laid down as
a rule of their conduct, to engage the Indian tribes within their
neighborhood to remain strictly neutral. They accordingly strongly
pressed it on them, urging that it was a family quarrel; with which they
had nothing to do, and in which we wished them to take no part: and we
strengthened these recommendations by doing them every act of friendship
and good neighborhood, which circumstances left in our power. With some,
these solicitations prevailed; but the greater part of them suffered
themselves to be drawn into the war against us. They waged it in their
usual cruel manner, murdering and scalping men, women, and children,
indiscriminately, burning their houses, and desolating the country. They
put us to vast expense, as well by the constant force we were obliged
to keep up in that quarter, as by expeditions of considerable magnitude
which we were under the necessity of sending into their country from
time to time.
Peace being at length concluded with England, we had it also to conclude
with them. They had made war on us without the least provocation or
pretence of injury. They had added greatly to the cost of that war. They
had insulted our feelings by their savage cruelties. They were by our
arms completely subdued and humbled. Under all these circumstances, we
had a right to demand substantial satisfaction and indemnification. We
used that right, however, with real moderation. Their limits with us
under the former government were generally ill defined, questionable,
and the frequent cause of war. Sincerely desirous of living in their
peace, of cultivating it by every act of justice and friendship, and of
rendering them better neighbors by introducing among them some of the
most useful arts, it was necessary to begin by a precise definition
of boundary. Accordingly, at the treaties held with them, our mutual
boundaries were settled; and notwithstanding our just right to
concessions adequate to the circumstances of the case, we required such
only as were inconsiderable; and for even these, in order that we might
place them in a state of perfect conciliation, we paid them a valuable
consideration, and granted them annuities in money which have been
regularly paid, and were equal to the prices for which they have usually
sold their lands.
Sensible, as they were, of the wrong they had done, they expected to
make some indemnification, and were, for the most part, satisfied
with the mode and measure of it. In one or two instances, where a
dissatisfaction was observed to remain as to the boundaries agreed on,
or doubts entertained of the authority of those with whom they were
agreed, the United States invited the parties to new treaties, and
rectified what appeared to be susceptible of it. This was particularly
the case with the Creeks. They complained of an inconvenient cession of
lands on their part, and by persons not duly representing their nation.
They were therefore desired to appoint a proper deputation to revise
their treaty; and that there might be no danger of any unfair practices,
they were invited to come to the seat of the General Government, and
to treat with that directly. They accordingly came. A considerable
proportion of what had been ceded, was on the revision yielded back to
them, and nothing required in lieu of it: and though they would have
been better satisfied to have had the whole restored, yet they had
obtained enough to satisfy them well. Their nation, too, would have
been satisfied, for they were conscious of their aggression, and of the
moderation of the indemnity with which we had been contented. But at
that time came among them an adventurer of the name of Bowles, who,
acting from an impulse with which we are unacquainted, flattered them
with the hope of some foreign interference, which should undo what had
been done, and force us to consider the naked grant of their peace as
a sufficient satisfaction for their having made war on us. Of this
adventurer the Spanish government rid us: but not of his principles,
his practices, and his excitements against us. These were more than
continued by the officers commanding at New Orleans and Pensacola,
and by agents employed by them and bearing their commission. Their
proceedings have been the subject of former letters to you, and proofs
of these proceedings have been sent to you. Those, with others now
sent, establish the facts, that they called assemblies of the southern
Indians, openly persuaded them to disavow their treaties, and the limits
therein established, promised to support them with all the powers which
depended on them, assured them of the protection of their sovereign,
gave them arms in great quantities for the avowed purpose of committing
hostilities on us, and promised them future supplies to their utmost
need. The Chickasaws, the most steady and faithful friends of these
States, have remained unshaken by these practices. So also have the
Chocktaws, for the most part. The Cherokees have been teazed into some
expressions of discontent, delivered only to the Spanish Governors, or
their agents; while to us, they have continued to speak the language of
peace and friendship. One part of the nation only, settled at Cuckamogga
and mixed with banditti and outcasts from the Shawanese and other
tribes, acknowledging control from none, and never in a state of peace,
have readily engaged in the hostilities against us to which they were
encouraged. But what was much more important, great numbers of the
Creeks, chiefly their young men, have yielded to these incitements,
and have now, for more than a twelvemonth, been committing murders and
desolations on our frontiers. Really desirous of living in peace with
them, we have redoubled our efforts to produce the same disposition in
them. We have borne with their aggressions, forbidden all returns of
hostility against them, tied up the hands of our people, insomuch that
few instances of retaliation have occurred even from our suffering
citizens; we have multiplied our gratifications to them, fed them when
starving from the produce of our own fields and labor. No longer ago
than the last winter, when they had no other resource against famine and
must have perished in great numbers, we carried into their country and
distributed among them, gratuitously, ten thousand bushels of corn; and
that too, at the same time, when their young men were daily committing
murders on helpless women and children, on our frontiers. And though
these depredations now involve more considerable parts of the nation, we
are still demanding punishment of the guilty individuals, and shall be
contented with it. These acts of neighborly kindness and support on our
part, have not been confined to the Creeks, though extended to them in
much the greatest degree. Like wants among the Chickasaws had induced
us to send them also, at first, five hundred bushels of corn, and
afterwards, fifteen hundred more. Our language to all the tribes of
Indians has constantly been, to live in peace with one another, and in
a most especial manner, we have used our endeavors with those in the
neighborhood of the Spanish colonies, to be peaceable towards those
colonies. I sent you on a former occasion the copy of a letter from the
Secretary at War to Mr. Seagrove, one of our agents with the Indians, in
that quarter, merely to convey to you the general tenor of the conduct
marked out for those agents: and I desired you, in placing before the
eyes of the Spanish ministry the very contrary conduct observed by their
agents here, to invite them to a reciprocity of good offices with our
Indian neighbors, each for the other, and to make our common peace the
common object of both nations. I can protest that such have hitherto
been the candid and zealous endeavors of this government, and that
if its agents have in any instance acted in another way, it has been
equally unknown and unauthorized by us, and that, were even probable
proofs of it produced, there would be no hesitation to mark them with
the disapprobation of the government. We expected the same friendly
condescension from the court of Spain, in furnishing you with proofs
of the practices of the Governor De Carondelet in particular practices
avowed by him, and attempted to be justified in his letter.
In this state of things, in such dispositions towards Spain and towards
the Indians, in such a course of proceedings with respect to them, and
while negotiations were instituted at Madrid for arranging these and all
other matters which might affect our friendship and good understanding,
we received from Messrs. de Viar and Jaudenes their letter of May the
25th, which was the subject of mine of May the 31st, to you; and now
again we have received that of the 18th instant, a copy of which is
enclosed. This letter charges us, and in the most disrespectful style,
with:
1. Exciting the Chickasaws to war on the Creeks.
2. Furnishing them with provisions and arms.
3. Aiming at the occupation of a post at the _Ecores Amargas_.
4. Giving medals and marks of distinction to several Indians.
5. Meddling with the affairs of such as are allies of Spain.
6. Not using efficacious means to prevent these proceedings. I shall
make short observations on these charges.
1. Were the first true, it would not be unjustifiable. The Creeks have
now a second time commenced against us a wanton and unprovoked war, and
the present one in the face of a recent treaty, and of the most friendly
and charitable offices on our part. There would be nothing out of the
common course of proceeding, then, for us to engage allies, if we needed
any for their punishment. But we neither need, nor have sought them. The
fact itself is utterly false, and we defy the world to produce a
single proof of it. The declaration of war by the Chickasaws, as we
are informed was a very sudden thing, produced by the murder of some of
their people by a party of Creeks, and produced so instantaneously as to
give no body time to interfere, either to promote or prevent a rupture.
We had, on the contrary, most particularly exhorted that nation to
preserve peace, because in truth we have a most particular friendship
for them. This will be evident from a copy of the message of the
President to them, among the papers now enclosed.
2. The gift of provisions was but an act of that friendship to them,
when in the same distress, which had induced us to give five times as
much to the less friendly nation of the Creeks. But we have given arms
to them. We believe it is the practice of every white nation to give
arms to the neighboring Indians. The agents of Spain have done it
abundantly, and we suppose not out of their own pockets, and this
for purposes of avowed hostility on us; and they have been liberal
in promises of further supplies. We have given a few arms to a very
friendly tribe, not to make war on Spain, but to defend themselves from
the atrocities of a vastly more numerous and powerful people, and one
which by a series of unprovoked and even unrepelled attacks on us, is
obliging us to look towards war as the only means left of curbing their
insolence.