Mississippi, at the _Ecores Amargas_. Considering the measures of this
nature with which Spain is going on, having, since the proposition to
treat with us on the subject, established posts at the Walnut Hills
and other places for two hundred miles upwards, it would not have been
wonderful if we had taken countervailing measures. But the truth is,
we have not done it. We wished to give a fair chance to the negotiation
going on, and thought it but common candor to leave things in _statu
quo_, to make no innovation pending the negotiation. In this spirit we
forbid, and deterred even by military force, a large association of our
citizens, under the name of the Yazoo companies, which had formed to
settle themselves at those very Walnut Hills, which Spain has since
occupied. And so far are we from meditating the particular establishment
so boldly charged in this letter, that we know not what place is meant
by the _Ecores Amargas_. This charge then is false also.
4. Giving medals and marks of distinction to the Indian Chiefs. This is
but blindly hinted at in this letter, but was more pointedly complained
of in the former. This has been an ancient custom from time immemorial.
The medals are considered as complimentary things, as marks of
friendship to those who come to see us, or who do us good offices,
conciliatory of their good-will towards us, and not designed to produce
a contrary disposition towards others. They confer no power, and seem
to have taken their origin in the European practice of giving medals
or other marks of friendship to the negotiators of treaties and
other diplomatic characters, or visitors of distinction. The British
government, while it prevailed here, practised the giving medals,
gorgets, and bracelets to the savages, invariably. We have continued it,
and we did imagine, without pretending to know, that Spain also did it.
5. We meddle with the affairs of Indians in alliance with Spain. We are
perfectly at a loss to know what this means. The Indians on our frontier
have treaties both with Spain and us. We have endeavored to cultivate
their friendship, to merit it by presents, charities, and exhortations
to peace with their neighbors, and particularly with the subjects of
Spain. We have carried on some little commerce with them, merely to
supply their wants. Spain too has made them presents, traded with
them, kept agents among them, though their country is within the limits
established as ours at the general peace. However, Spain has chosen
to have it understood that she has some claim to some parts of that
country, and that it must be one of the subjects of our present
negotiations. Out of respect for her, then, we have considered her
pretensions to the country, though it was impossible to believe them
serious, as coloring pretensions to a concern with those Indians on the
same ground with our own, and we were willing to let them go on till a
treaty should set things to rights between us.
6. Another article of complaint is, that we have not used efficacious
means to suppress these practices. But if the charge is false, or the
practice justifiable, no suppression is necessary.
And lastly, these gentlemen say, that, on a view of these proceedings of
the United States with respect to Spain and the Indians, their allies,
they foresee that our peace with Spain is very problematical in future.
The principal object of the letter being our supposed excitements of the
Chickasaws against the Creeks, and their protection of the latter, are
we to understand from this, that if we arm to repulse the attacks of the
Creeks on ourselves, it will disturb our peace with Spain? That if we
will not fold our arms and let them butcher us without resistance,
Spain will consider it as a cause of war? This is, indeed, so serious an
intimation, that the President has thought it could no longer be treated
with subordinate characters, but that his sentiments should be conveyed
to the government of Spain itself, through you.
We love and we value peace: we know its blessings from experience. We
abhor the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and
calamities. Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we had hoped
that our distance and our disposition would have left us free, in the
example and indulgence of peace with all the world. We had, with sincere
and particular dispositions, courted and cultivated the friendship of
Spain. We have made to it great sacrifices of time and interest, and
were disposed to believe she would see her interests also in a perfect
coalition and good understanding with us. Cherishing still the same
sentiments, we have chosen, in the present instance, to ascribe the
intimations in this letter to the particular character of the writers,
displayed in the peculiarity of the style of their communications, and
therefore we have removed the cause from them to their sovereign,
in whose justice and love of peace we have confidence. If we are
disappointed in this appeal, if we are to be forced into a contrary
order of things, our mind is made up. We shall meet it with firmness.
The necessity of our position will supersede all appeal to calculation
how, as it has done heretofore. We confide in our own strength, without
boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it. If
we cannot otherwise prevail on the Creeks to discontinue their
depredations, we will attack them in force. If Spain chooses to consider
our defence against savage butchery as a cause of war to her, we must
meet her also in war, with regret, but without fear; and we shall be
happier, to the last moment, to repair with her to the tribunal of peace
and reason.
The President charges you to communicate the contents of this letter
to the court of Madrid, with all the temperance and delicacy which the
dignity and character of that court render proper; but with all
the firmness and self-respect which befit a nation conscious of its
rectitude, and settled in its purpose.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and
respect, Gentlemen, your most obedient and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLX.--TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, July 18,1793
_To the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court of the United
States_.
Philadelphia, July 18,1793.
Gentlemen,
The war which has taken place among the powers of Europe, produces
frequent transactions within our ports and limits, on which questions
arise of considerable difficulty, and of greater importance to the peace
of the United States. These questions depend for their solution on the
construction of our treaties, on the laws of nature and nations, and on
the laws of the land; and are often presented under circumstances which
do not give a cognizance of them to the tribunals of the country. Yet
their decision is so little analogous to the ordinary functions of the
executive, as to occasion much embarrassment and difficulty to them. The
President would, therefore, be much relieved, if he found himself free
to refer questions of this description to the opinions of the judges of
the Supreme Court of the United States, whose knowledge of the subject
would secure us against errors dangerous to the peace of the United
States, and their authority insure the respect of all parties. He has
therefore asked the attendance of such judges as could be collected
in time for the occasion, to know, in the first place, their opinions,
whether the public may with propriety be availed of their advice on
these questions. And if they may, to present, for their advice, the
abstract questions which have already occurred, or may soon occur, from
which they will themselves strike out such as any circumstances might,
in their opinion, forbid them to pronounce on.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of great esteem and respect,
Gentlemen, your most obedient, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXI.--TO MR. GENET, July 24,1793
TO MR. GENET.
Philadelphia, July 24,1793. Sir,
Your favor of the 9th instant, covering the information of Silvat
Ducamp, Pierre Nouvel, Chouquet de Savarence, Gaston de Nogère, and G.
Blustier, that being on their passage from the French West Indies to
the United States, on board merchant vessels of the United States with
slaves and merchandise, of their property, these vessels were stopped by
British armed vessels and their property taken out as lawful prize, has
been received.
I believe it cannot be doubted, but that by the general law of nations,
the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are free, and the
goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize.
Upon this principle, I presume, the British armed vessels have taken
the property of French citzens found in our vessels, in the cases above
mentioned, and I confess I should be at a loss on what principle to
reclaim it. It is true that sundry nations, desirous of avoiding the
inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked,
carried into port, and detained under pretence of having enemy goods
aboard, have in many instances introduced by their special treaties
another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy
goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; a principle much less
embarrassing to commerce, and equal to all parties in point of gain
and loss. But this is altogether the effect of particular treaty,
controlling in special cases the general principle of the law of
nations, and therefore taking effect between such nations only as have
so agreed to control it. England has generally determined to adhere to
the rigorous principle, having, in no instance, as far as I recollect,
agreed to the modification of letting the property of the goods follow
that of the vessel, except in the single one of her treaty with France.
We have adopted this modification in our treaties with France, the
United Netherlands, and Russia; and therefore, as to them, our vessels
cover the goods of their enemies, and we lose our goods when in the
vessels of their enemies. Accordingly, you will be pleased to recollect,
that in the late case of Holland and Mackie, citizens of the United
States, who had laden a cargo of flour on board a British vessel, which
was taken by the French frigate L’Ambuscade and brought into this port,
when I reclaimed the cargo, it was only on the ground that they were
ignorant of the declaration of war when it was shipped. You observed,
however, that the 14th article of our treaty had provided that ignorance
should not be pleaded beyond two months after the declaration of war,
which term had elapsed in this case by some days, and finding that to
be the truth, though their real ignorance of the declaration was equally
true, I declined the reclamation, as it never was in my view to
reclaim the cargo, nor apparently in yours to offer to restore it, by
questioning the rule established in our treaty, that enemy bottoms make
enemy goods. With England, Spain, Portugal, and Austria, we have no
treaties: therefore, we have nothing to oppose to their acting according
to the general law of nations, that enemy goods are lawful prize, though
found in the bottom of a friend. Nor do I see that France can suffer
on the whole; for though she loses her goods in our vessels when found
therein by England, Spain, Portugal, or Austria, yet she gains our goods
when found in the vessels of England, Spain, Portugal, Austria, the
United Netherlands, or Prussia: and I believe I may safely affirm that
we have more goods afloat in the vessels of these six nations, than
France has afloat in our vessels; and consequently, that France is the
gainer and we the loser by the principle of our treaty. Indeed, we are
losers in every direction of that principle; for when it works in our
favor, it is to save the goods of our friends; when it works against us,
it is to lose our own; and we shall continue to lose while the rule is
only partially established. When we shall have established it with all
nations, we shall be in condition neither to gain nor lose, but shall
be less exposed to vexatious searches at sea. To this condition we are
endeavoring to advance; but as it depends on the will of other nations
as well as our own, we can only obtain it when they shall be ready to
concur.
I cannot, therefore, but flatter myself, that on revising the cases of
Ducamp and others, you will perceive that their losses result from the
state of war, which has permitted their enemies to take their goods,
though found in our vessels; and consequently, from circumstances over
which we have no control.
The rudeness to their persons, practised by their enemies, is certainly
not favorable to the character of the latter. We feel for it as much as
for the extension of it to our own citizens, their companions, and find
in it a motive the more for requiring measures to be taken which may
prevent repetitions of it.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient,
humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXII.--TO MR. GENET, August 7, 1793
TO MR. GENET.
Philadelphia, August 7, 1793.
Sir,
In a letter of June the 5th, I had the honor to inform you that the
President, after reconsidering, at your request, the case of vessels
armed within our ports to commit hostilities on nations at peace with
the United States, had finally determined that it could not be admitted,
and desired that all those which had been so armed should depart from
our ports. It being understood afterwards, that these vessels either
still remained in our ports, or had only left them to cruise on our
coasts and return again with their prizes, and that another vessel, the
Little Democrat, had been since armed at Philadelphia, it was desired
in my letter of the 12th of July, that such vessels, with their prizes,
should be detained, till a determination should be had of what was to be
done under these circumstances. In disregard, however, of this desire,
the Little Democrat went out immediately on a cruise.
I have it now in charge to inform you, that the President considers
the United States as bound, pursuant to positive assurances given in
conformity to the laws of neutrality, to effectuate the restoration of
or to make compensation for prizes, which shall have been made of any
of the parties at war with France, subsequent to the fifth day of June
last, by privateers fitted out of our ports.
That it is consequently expected, that you will cause restitution to be
made of all prizes taken and brought into our ports subsequent to
the above mentioned day by such privateers, in defect of which, the
President considers it as incumbent upon the United States to indemnify
the owners of those prizes; the indemnification to be reimbursed by the
French nation.
That besides taking efficacious measures to prevent the future fitting
out of privateers in the ports of the United States, they will not give
asylum therein to any which shall have been at any time so fitted out,
and will cause restitution of all such prizes as shall be hereafter
brought within their ports by any of the said privateers.
It would have been but proper respect to the authority of the country,
had that been consulted before these armaments were undertaken. It would
have been satisfactory, however, if their sense of them, when declared,
had been duly acquiesced in. Reparation of the injury to which the
United States have been made so involuntarily instrumental is all which
now remains, and in this your compliance cannot but be expected.
In consequence of the information given in your letter of the 4th
instant, that certain citizens of St. Domingo, lately arrived in
the United States, were associating for the purpose of undertaking a
military expedition from the territory of the United States, against
that island, the Governor of Maryland, within which State the expedition
is understood to be preparing, is instructed to take effectual measures
to prevent the same.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient and
most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXIII.--TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, August 16,1793
TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.
Philadelphia, August 16,1793.
Sir,
In my letter of January the 13th, I enclosed to you copies of several
letters which had passed between Mr. Ternant, Mr. Genet, and myself,
on the occurrences to which the present war had given rise within our
ports. The object of this communication was to enable you to explain
the principles on which our government was conducting itself towards
the belligerent parties; principles which might not in all cases be
satisfactory to all, but were meant to be just and impartial to all. Mr.
Genet had been then but a little time with us; and but a little more was
necessary to develope in him a character and conduct so unexpected
and so extraordinary, as to place us in the most distressing dilemma,
between our regard for his nation, which is constant and sincere, and a
regard for our laws, the authority of which must be maintained; for
the peace of our country, which the executive magistrate is charged to
preserve; for its honor, offended in the person of that magistrate; and
for its character grossly traduced, in the conversations and letters of
this gentleman. In the course of these transactions, it has been a great
comfort to us to believe, that none of them were within the intentions
or expectations of his employers. These had been too recently expressed
in acts which nothing could discolor, in the letters of the Executive
Council, in the letter and decrees of the National Assembly, and in the
general demeanor of the nation towards us, to ascribe to them things
of so contrary a character. Our first duty, therefore, was, to draw
a strong line between their intentions and the proceedings of their
Minister; our second, to lay those proceedings faithfully before them.
On the declaration of war between France and England, the United States
being at peace with both, their situation was so new and unexperienced
by themselves, that their citizens were not, in the first instant,
sensible of the new duties resulting therefrom, and of the restraints it
would impose even on their dispositions towards the belligerent powers.
Some of them imagined (and chiefly their transient sea-faring citizens)
that they were free to indulge those dispositions, to take side with
either party, and enrich themselves by depredations on the commerce of
the other, and were meditating enterprises of this nature, as there
was reason to believe. In this state of the public mind, and before
it should take an erroneous direction, difficult to be set right and
dangerous to themselves and their country, the President thought it
expedient, through the channel of a proclamation, to remind our fellow
citizens that we were in a state of peace with all the belligerent
powers, that in that state it was our duty neither to aid nor injure
any, to exhort and warn them against acts which might contravene this
duty, and particularly those of positive hostility, for the punishment
of which the laws would be appealed to; and to put them on their guard
also, as to the risks they would run, if they should attempt to carry
articles of contraband to any. This proclamation, ordered on the 19th
and signed the 22nd day of April, was sent to you in my letter of the
26th of the same month.
On the day of its publication, we received, through the channel of the
newspapers, the first intimation that Mr. Genet had arrived on the 8th
of the month at Charleston, in the character of Minister Plenipotentiary
from his nation to the United States, and soon after, that he had
sent on to Philadelphia the vessel in which he came, and would himself
perform the journey by land. His landing at one of the most distant
ports of the Union from his points both of departure and destination,
was calculated to excite attention; and very soon afterwards, we learned
that, he was undertaking to authorize the fitting and arming vessels
in that port, enlisting men, foreigners and citizens, and giving them
commissions to cruise and commit hostilities on nations at peace with
us; that these vessels were taking and bringing prizes into our ports;
that the Consuls of France were assuming to hold courts of admiralty on
them, to try, condemn, and authorize their sale as legal prize, and all
this before Mr. Genet had presented himself or his credentials to
the President, before he was received by him, without his consent
or consultation, and directly in contravention of the state of peace
existing, and declared to exist in the President’s proclamation, and
incumbent on him to preserve till the constitutional authority should
otherwise declare. These proceedings became immediately, as was
naturally to be expected, the subject of complaint by the representative
here of that power against whom they would chiefly operate. The British
minister presented several memorials thereon, to which we gave the
answer of May the 15th, heretofore enclosed to you, corresponding in
substance with a letter of the same date written to Mr. Ternant, the
Minister of France then residing here, a copy of which I send herewith.
On the next day Mr. Genet reached this place, about five or six weeks
after he had arrived at Charleston, and might have been at Philadelphia,
if he had steered for it directly. He was immediately presented to the
President, and received by him as the Minister of the Republic; and as
the conduct before stated seemed to bespeak a design of forcing us into
the war without allowing us the exercise of any free will in the case,
nothing could be more assuaging than his assurance to the President at
his reception, which he repeated to me afterwards in conversation, and
in public to the citizens of Philadelphia in answer to an address from
them, that on account of our remote situation and other circumstances,
France did not expect that we should become a party to the war, but
wished to see us pursue our prosperity and happiness in peace. In a
conversation a few days after, Mr. Genet told me that M. de Ternant had
delivered him my letter of May the 15th. He spoke something of the case
of the Grange, and then of the armament at Charleston, explained the
circumstances which had led him to it before he had been received by
the government and had consulted its will, expressed a hope that the
President had not so absolutely decided against the measure but that he
would hear what was to be said in support of it, that he would write me
a letter on the subject, in which he thought he could justify it
under our treaty; but that if the President should finally determine
otherwise, he must submit; for that assuredly his instructions were to
do what would be agreeable to us. He accordingly wrote the letter of
May the 27th. The President took the case again into consideration, and
found nothing in that letter which could shake the grounds of his former
decision. My letter of June the 5th notifying this to him, his of June
the 8th and 14th, mine of the 17th, and his again of the 22nd, will show
what further passed on this subject, and that he was far from retaining
his disposition to acquiesce in the ultimate will of the President.
It would be tedious to pursue this and our subsequent correspondence
through all their details. Referring therefore for these to the letters
themselves, which shall accompany this, I will present a summary view
only of the points of difference which have arisen, and the grounds on
which they rest.