me to form my opinion upon, unaccompanied with the strictures of the
French Minister, I should have laid my finger upon three words only in
it, viz. _en même tems_, and considered the others, to which he meant
to draw my particular attention, by underscoring them, as merely
colorable terms, and a specimen of that finesse, from which the
politics of Europe can never be free. I should therefore have drawn
from it a conclusion very different from that of the French Minister,
viz.--"_It is therefore clear, that their design is to avoid
compromiting themselves by recognising the independence of the United
States, till England herself shall have done it_;" for if, as he would
have me to understand, the mediators do in fact still consider the
United States as British Colonies, and that neither the belligerent
powers, or themselves, ought to interfere in settling the war between
them and Great Britain, without being invited by both parties, how
comes it to pass, that as mediators between the belligerent powers,
meaning not to comprehend America under that predicament, they should
go on to annex, in the nature of condition of their mediation, that
"there shall be _at the same time_ a treaty between Great Britain and
the American Colonies, respecting the re-establishment of peace in
America;" thereby prescribing to a sovereign State _the time_ when it
shall enter upon the settlement of a dispute, existing between the
Sovereign of that State and a part of his subjects, in which they mean
not to intermeddle; and, according to the French Ministers, even the
manner of doing it. For, says he, "the mediating Courts intend
thereby, that your deputies shall treat simply with the English
Ministers, in the same manner as they have already treated in America
with the Commissioners from Great Britain in the year 1778." I could
have set him right in matter of fact here, but it would have answered
no good purpose.
This measure, I am told, has been proposed "to conciliate opposing
pretensions," and "that the result of their negotiations will make
known to the other powers on what footing they ought to be regarded,
and that their public character will be acknowledged without
difficulty _from the moment that the English interpose no
opposition_." If such were the designs of the mediators, why not leave
Great Britain to compose her internal troubles in her own time, and in
her own way, and proceed to the great business of composing those of
the nations of Europe? How are we to account for the Court of London
rejecting the mediation if they conceived the proposition in that very
inoffensive light, which he supposes it to be meant, and if it was so
clear from it, that the mediators would not interfere in our
particular negotiation unless invited to do it, and were determined
never to acknowledge the independence of the United States until Great
Britain herself had done it, or at least till the moment in which she
shall cease to oppose it? Could a more favorable occasion be presented
to Great Britain for negotiation? My present opinion upon this matter
is, that the mediators do in fact consider the United States, as an
independent sovereign power; that upon that principle they wish to
extinguish the flames of war in both countries at the same time; that
they do not flatter themselves they can restore peace to Europe during
the continuance of the war in America, or that the United States will
treat with Britain upon any other ground than that of an independent
power; that to bring about a general pacification, in a manner the
least offensive to any of the belligerent powers of Europe,
particularly Britain, they have framed their propositions in the terms
in which it is conceived; and although they declare in it, that the
other belligerent powers, or even themselves ought not to interfere in
our particular negotiations, yet it seems to be their intention, that
the negotiation between the European powers, should proceed but with
equal pace with our particular one.
I cannot but think the mediators expected the Court of London would
reject this first plan of mediation, on account of the proposition
respecting America (as I am told by a public Minister here, who ought
to be well informed upon the point, they certainly have done) although
it is worded in a manner as little offensive to their feelings as the
nature of things would admit of; and that having tried this measure,
the mediators will next proceed to another, in which their sentiments
in favor of the United States will be less ambiguous.
After all, the French Minister may be perfectly right, touching the
dispositions and resolutions of the mediating powers towards the
United States, but I think his conviction must arise from other facts
and principles, than those he has chosen to expose to me. I feel
myself however on that supposition, at no great loss to determine what
ought to be my own line of conduct. I think it ought to be exactly the
same in both cases, so far as respects the proposed communication of
my public character to this Court. If her Imperial Majesty has really
resolved upon such a strange system of politics, the sooner Congress
obtain the best evidence of it the better, on many accounts, and this
is to be had only by making this experiment. They will among other
things then consider, whether it is worth while for the United States
to be at the expense of supporting a Minister at a Court, which is
resolved to defer the acknowledgment of their independence, till Great
Britain shall have done it herself, or at least to the moment she
shall cease to oppose it. At this period, if it should ever arrive,
the United States, I suppose, would feel themselves as much indebted
to the sovereign, who should offer to acknowledge their independence,
as I should to the French Minister here, who has told me, "that when
you shall have succeeded in surmounting the difficulties, which you
may meet in causing your public character to be recognised at this
Court, you will find me entirely disposed to second you in everything,
which shall regard the common interest of our countries," for any
assistance he may then give me.
It is evident from hence, that I am not likely to receive from him the
least assistance in the business of my mission. I must proceed in it
therefore by myself, or be totally inactive. I thought it advisable
to assure the French Minister, that I would wait some time for the
answers of the Courts of Versailles and Madrid, lest he might think I
treated his opinions with disrespect. In doing this I think no injury
will happen to our interests, for besides the possibility that some
important information may be obtained from them, and the effect they
may have at this Court, I am told Count Panin will shortly return to
Court, and that he has the most favorable sentiments of the United
States, of any of her Imperial Majesty's Ministers. Should this
information be just, an advantage is to be expected by the delay.
Congress will doubtless consider the difficulty of my situation,
standing alone upon new ground, and will make every allowance for it I
ought in reason to expect.[21]
I am, with the highest respect, and most perfect esteem, &c.
FRANCIS DANA.
FOOTNOTES:
[21] The French government seem to have considered the proposition of
the mediating powers, by which England and the United States were to
treat separately, as impracticable and inadmissible. In their answer
they say,
"His Majesty thinks it his duty to say, that he has allies, with whom
he has inviolable engagements; that he should betray them in
abandoning the American cause; and that it would be abandoning this
cause for him to negotiate a separate peace. The high mediators have
seen the impossibility of such an attempt, since they have themselves
perceived the impossibility of proceeding at an equal pace with the
negotiation of the King and that of the United States. But even
admitting, that the King could separate his affairs from those of
America, that he could consent to pursue only his personal interests,
and leave to the Americans the task of coming to an accommodation with
their ancient metropolis; what would be the result of this conduct? It
would evidently be an illusory peace, a mere creation of the brain.
Indeed, if (as there is the strongest evidence) the Americans persist
in refusing to return to obedience to the British Crown, the war will
continue between England and her ancient Colonies, and the King will
then be obliged, as he is now, to assist them." _Flassan_, Vol. VII.
p. 319.
Again, the French government say in their answer;
"The two Imperial Courts cannot flatter themselves with the hopes of
bringing their mediation to a happy issue, if they do not prevent the
subterfuges and false interpretations, which either of the belligerent
powers may avail themselves of to explain according to their views the
preliminary propositions, which will certainly happen if they do not
previously ascertain the sense of the expressions, which relate to
America.
"The Court of London will elude as much, and as long as she possibly
can, the direct or indirect acknowledgment of the independence of the
United States, and will avail herself of the terms that are used in
speaking of them, to maintain that she is not obliged to treat with
her ancient Colonies as with a free and independent nation. From
whence it will follow, that when the mediation is in force, and they
shall be about to enter upon the negotiation, they will dispute the
character in which the American Plenipotentiary shall be received. The
King of England will consider him as his subject, while Congress will
demand that he should be received as the representative of a free
people, by means whereof the mediation will be stopped at the first
outset.
"To prevent this inconvenience it should seem, that previous to any
other measure, the character of the American agent ought to be
determined in the most precise and positive manner, and Congress
should be invited to confide its interests to the mediation. This
invitation is so much the more interesting as the negotiation relative
to America should go hand in hand with that of the Courts of Madrid
and Versailles, and by consequence the negotiations, although
separate, should commence at the same time. But who will invite the
Congress to treat with England? The King (of France) cannot, since the
first article excludes him from the negotiation. This task then can
only be executed by the mediators themselves. All that the King can
do, and that he will do with zeal and fidelity, is to invite the
Americans to the peace, and to facilitate it by every means, which
they believe compatible with their essential interests. But that the
King may take this step with safety and the hopes of success, and with
the certainty of not rendering himself suspected by the Americans, it
is necessary that he should first know the determination of the
mediators upon the observations now made to them, and that this
determination should be such as to secure to the United States their
political existence."
* * * * *
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
St Petersburg, October 1st, 1781.
Sir,
In the project of a treaty, which France proposes to Russia, there is
an article to this effect;
"When the subjects of France shall carry in their own vessels French
goods into Russia, and shall exchange them for Russian goods, in such
cases there shall be a drawback of the duties, both of importation and
exportation, paid by the subjects of France."
France, to induce Russia to grant this, says, "France will want great
quantities of Russian goods, which, after the war, France will not be
obliged to take of Russia, for France can have the like from America,
and though perhaps not so cheap, yet it will be the interest of
France, if Russia should not grant this, to pay America fifteen or
twenty per cent more for the same articles; for this would enable
America to take off more French goods, and to pay France for them."
Hemp is particularly mentioned.
I pray you to keep this to yourself, and I have the honor to be, &c.
FRANCIS DANA.
* * * * *
TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
St Petersburg, October 15th, 1781.
Sir,
Since my letter to your Excellency of September 15th, enclosing a
duplicate of mine from Berlin, and copies of all the enclosed papers,
the French Minister has sent me a copy of all the propositions of the
mediators, and of the answer of the Court of Versailles. I have the
satisfaction to think the inferences I then drew from the first
propositions only, are well supported by the tenor of the second, in
which they expressly say, that our particular peace shall not be
signed, but conjointly, and at the same time with that of the powers,
whose interests shall have been treated of by the mediating powers;
that the pacifications, notwithstanding they may be treated
separately, shall not be concluded the one without the other; that
care shall be taken constantly to inform the mediators of the
progress, and of the state of our particular treaty, to the end the
mediation may be able to govern itself in the progress of that, which
is intrusted to them, according to the state of our particular
negotiation, and that both of the pacifications, although they shall
have been separately concluded, shall be solemnly guarantied by the
mediators, and all other neutral powers, whose guarantee the
belligerent powers shall judge proper to ask.
What force are we now to allow to the terms in the first proposition
"the American Colonies," and "without the intervention of any of the
other belligerent powers, or even that of the two Imperial Courts,
unless their mediation has been formally demanded, and granted upon
this object?" Is it clear from hence, that the design of the
mediators is to avoid exposing themselves by acknowledging the
independence of the United States before Great Britain has done this
herself? Do not the propositions speak this language to Britain? You
may make such a peace with America, not only as she chooses to make
with you, but as the other belligerent powers, and we shall choose you
should make with her; and remember you are to have no peace in Europe,
unless you give peace to America, and when this peace is once made, we
will take care you shall not break it. We shall soon see by the
replies, which the mediators will give to the belligerent powers,
particularly to the Court of Versailles, whether they will recede in
favor of Britain from their first plan of pacification, or go on in
their next a step further in the spirit of their former system. It
seems, that consistent with their own dignity, they can neither
retreat or remain on the same ground. The independence of the United
States was certainly the basis of the first plan of pacification, and
I have no great fears, that it will be departed from.
I have lately been told by a person, who certainly knew the truth of
the matter, in so confident a manner that I have no room to doubt it,
that it was a secret part of the original plan of the armed
neutrality, as soon as it should be completed, that the neutral
confederated powers should propose a general pacification between the
belligerent powers, which it was supposed could not be brought about
otherwise than by leaving America free and independent, and to enforce
this proposition by their joint armaments; and that so long ago as in
May, 1780, if Holland had done her part, affairs were then in all
other quarters in a proper train to have carried the whole plan into
execution; but unfortunately for her British influence was too great
there, and instead of doing the business at once, they entered upon
the parade of sending a brace of Ambassadors to this Court, not with a
view to finish, but at least to delay it. Holland, in fact, did not
accede to the Marine Convention, which was first entered into by
Russia and Denmark on the 9th of July, 1780, and next by Sweden on the
21st of the same month, until the 20th of November following, and it
was not signed on their part till the 5th of last January. All this
time her navy was neglected, and the mischiefs she has suffered are
not the only ones consequent upon her tardiness and inactivity. For
Britain has been thereby enabled for a while to detach Denmark from
the confederation, or at least to make that Court indifferent in the
business of it. It was but a short time after it had adopted the plan
before it made a breach upon it by including in a treaty with Britain,
hemp, &c. among contraband articles. From that time the spirit of the
confederation seems to have languished. The Danish Minister most
interested in it has been superseded. Count Panin, who in this Court,
it is said, was its principal support, retired. It is true, he has
lately returned to Court, but has not assumed his former office of
Chief Minister in the Department of Foreign Affairs, though he is
still of the Privy Council. My information about the share he has in
those affairs is very different; by some I am told, he has little or
no influence in them, by others, that he possesses a considerable
portion of his former influence, and my informants on both parts ought
to, and perhaps do, know the truth of the matter. On one side
everything is veiled in profound mystery, and nothing is let out but
what presents a discouraging prospect.
It has not such an effect upon my mind at present, and I am strongly
encouraged to hope, that the confederation will become properly
invigorated by the accession of the King of Prussia. The first open
part he took in it, was the issuing his ordinance of the 30th of last
April. Soon after this, (the 8th of May) he entered into a similar
convention with the Empress. About this time, (the 23d of May,) the
propositions for a general pacification were made, and on the 20th of
August, both the Prussian and Russian Ministers at the Hague notified
to the States-General the accession of his Prussian Majesty to the
confederation. Laying these things together, and presuming as I do,
that the confederated powers can have no well-grounded hope of reaping
any lasting benefit from their confederation, for the maintenance of
the liberty of their commerce, and of their navigation, but in the
establishment of the independence of the United States, one might
conclude with confidence, that all would soon go well between us, if
it was confidently to be concluded, that all Courts are governed by
the real interests of their countries, even where that is clearly
understood, or act upon a permanent system. All now depends upon the
stability of the Empress. If she should persevere in the noble line
she has marked out, of Sweden and of Russia there is no danger, and it
is probable Denmark will not stand out. The Emperor has ceased his
opposition to the confederation. The step is now short for him to
favor and support it. I believe it may be depended upon, that he has
already agreed to accede to it.
If I were to hazard an opinion touching the manner in which our
particular business will issue here, it is that the success of it will
depend upon the neutral powers consolidating themselves in their
confederation; that even after this should take place, our
independence will not be acknowledged by this Court before all the
neutral confederated powers shall have agreed upon this measure, and
are fully prepared to adopt it, and that even Holland waits for this
event, although her ease is now different from theirs, by being
actually at war with our enemy.
The ground on which the secret part of the original plan of the armed
neutrality abovementioned was formed, was an apprehension of the
powers engaged in it, that by the loss of America, and by the
continuance of the war, the maritime force of Britain might be too
much reduced to preserve the balance of power upon the ocean; but as
she has not abated of her haughtiness, her injustice, and outrageous
violations of the rights of the neutral maritime powers, and still
opposes herself to the establishment of a system calculated to secure
those rights, and to vindicate the general law of nations, thereby
manifesting, that the measure of her power is to prescribe her rule of
right, they have become tolerably well reconciled to the idea of
seeing her more effectually weakened and humbled.
On the whole, I am not anxious about the manner of _thinking_ of the
neutral powers, touching the great objects which concern our
fundamental interests. We have nothing to apprehend, I believe, but
the baneful influence of British gold, which can serve but to defer
for awhile, however, the event they most dread, the open
acknowledgment of our independence by this, and the other neutral
powers. I expect to be informed of the answer of this Court to that of
Versailles respecting the pacification, as soon as it shall be
communicated to the French Minister. It has already been delayed
longer than I was given to understand it would be, which is owing,
probably, to the necessity of consultations with the Court of Vienna.
I shall wait but a few days for it, before I make the communication
of my mission to this Court, unless some matter which I do not
foresee, should render it expedient to delay doing it still longer.
I am, with the highest respect, and most perfect esteem, &c.
FRANCIS DANA.
* * * * *
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO FRANCIS DANA.
Philadelphia, October 22d, 1781.
Sir,
Congress having lately thought it advisable that their correspondence
with foreign Courts and their Ministers abroad should pass through the
hands of their Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I enclose the act by
which they did me the honor to appoint me to that office. In this
character, Sir, I have the pleasure of communicating to you the
important account of two signal victories, which have lately been
obtained over the enemy in this quarter, the one by General Greene,
which has been followed by the re-establishment of the governments of
South Carolina and Georgia, in which States, though the enemy hold one
or two posts, yet they have no command of the country. The other still
more signal, by the allied arms of France and America over Lord
Cornwallis, in Virginia. By the latter, near seven thousand men,
including seamen, fell into our hands; and about one hundred vessels,
above fifty of them square rigged.
You will not fail to make the best use of this intelligence, which
must fix our independence, not only beyond all doubt, but even beyond
all controversy. I should have mentioned to you, that besides the
troops and seamen abovementioned, the enemy lost during the siege of
Yorktown, including those that were taken, upwards of two thousand
negroes. The naval force of France in these seas under the command of
the Count de Grasse, amounts to thirtyfour sail of the line, that of
the British to twentyfour. Both fleets have lately sailed, the one
from New York, the other from the Chesapeake. We daily expect to hear
of their meeting, and promise ourselves a second victory, since every
advantage is on the side of the French. Should they think it more
advisable to go to the West Indies, the Islands must fall an easy prey
to them, as the whole British fleet is at present on this coast, nor
will it be in their power to follow immediately, as Sir Henry Clinton
with the best part of the troops from New York are on board the fleet,
which, on the very day that Cornwallis surrendered, left New York for
his relief. These must be brought back and re-landed, which will be a
work of some time.
It is of importance to you to know that the spirit of opposition to
the independence of this country, which was languishing when you left
it, has been growing weaker ever since, and may now be said to be
quite extinct. To this, the settled form that our governments have
assumed, the success of our arms, and above all, the shocking
barbarity of the British, have greatly contributed.
As this letter goes by an uncertain conveyance, and as, indeed, I have
hardly yet entered upon my office, having only been qualified a few
days since, I do not think it prudent to proceed to any minute
discussions. I can only tell you, that the people here entertain the
highest respect for the Court you are at. They consider the plan of
the armed neutrality as the best proof of an enlarged and generous
policy, and look upon its execution as a charter of enfranchisement
from the ambition of Princes; granted by the wisdom of the Empress to
the trade of the world. The sense of Congress on this subject, I
enclose you in an abstract from their minutes of October 5th,
1780;[22]