Information

Jays Treaty - History


1795 Jays Treaty

With a war raging between France and England, the United States found itself constantly affected by the actions of one side or the other. The British attempt to blockade France and its colonies proved particularly onerous to the United States, resulting often in the seizure of American vessels. In early 1794, British actions had almost led to an American declaration of war against the British. Instead, it was decided to send John Jay as a special envoy to negotiate an agreement with the British over the disputed issues. Jay negotiated with the British for over four months, generally with British Foreign Secretary Grenville.

Jay was able to achieve many of the goals of his negotiations, although not all of them. One of the areas in which he failed to achieve much success was convincing Britain to alter its policies regarding neutral shipping. He could not get the British to stop defining food as contraband, although they did agree to pay for any food seized. Jay was not able to get the British to agree to pay any compensation for the carrying off of slaves during the Revolutionary War, but he had not made a great effort on that front.

He did achieve an agreement from the British to withdraw from the post in the Pacific Northwest that they had held after the Revolutionary War. In addition, joint commissions were established to settle boundary disputes, as well as decide on compensation for American goods illegally seized by British ships. Finally, the agreement called for freedom of commerce between the United and Great Britain, and allowed some trade with the British West Indies. Only smaller American ships were allowed to trade, however. In addition, there was a ban on the reexport of certain goods from the United States.

As word of the agreement began reaching the US, opponents of any agreement with Great Britain began attacking the treaty as a sell-out. The full text of the agreement did not reach Washington until March 7, 1795. Washington decided to keep the text a secret until he presented it to the Senate in June. He presented it on June 8th. From June 8th to the 26th, the Senate, which was comprised of 20 Federalist and 10 Republicans, debated the treaty. They immediately struck down the clause limiting trade with the British West Indies. However, after intense debate and strong opposition from the Republicans, the treaty was approved 20 to 10.
Washington hesitated in signing the amended treaty, both from practical and constitutional concerns. Could he sign a treaty that had been amended by the Senate? What legal effect did that have? In the meantime, the Republicans were holding demonstrations against the treaty throughout the country. When Washington heard that the French Minister was involved with Secretary of State in opposing the treaty, he immediately signed the the document.

Washington's signing of the treaty calmed some of the passions that the treaty had wrought. Nevertheless, opposition continued. In the next Congress; the House of Representatives, dominated by the Republicans, demanded that the President provide them with a full accounting of Jay's mission and negotiations. Washington refused, claiming that the nature of foreign negotiations demanded a certain level of secrecy. In addition, Washington asserted that a treaty signed by the President after the ratification of the Senate was the law of the land, and that the House had no right to review or oppose it. A growing support for the treaty in the land as prosperity was increasing combined with the continued popularity of Washington to force the Republicans to abandon their opposition.

>

Jay Treaty

An important Federalist figure during the early days of the American republic, John Jay was also a close political ally of George Washington.

Formally titled the "Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America," but more popularly known as the Jay Treaty, the document was officially ratified by President George Washington in August 1795. Debates about the treaty caused Washington to establish a firm protocol concerning the constitutional treaty-making process. His response to the public uproar over the treaty also helped define the executive's role in shaping public sentiment.

By spring of 1794, America appeared to be on the brink of war with England. Citizens claimed that the British government resisted opening its ports to American ships, interfered with neutral shipping rights to fight its war with France, and violated sections of the 1783 Treaty of Peace that ended the American Revolution. Amid clamors from Federalists and Republicans that ranged from negotiations, defense measures, and commercial non-intercourse, President Washington chose to nominate Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay as a special envoy to negotiate disputes between the two nations. Jay's "mission," announced Washington, demonstrated to the world America's "reluctance to hostility." 1

The treaty Jay negotiated with British Foreign Secretary William Wyndham Grenville, favored England's economic and military power. Jay realized that America had few bargaining options and signed an agreement on November 19, 1794. A delay of nearly four months occurred before Washington received a copy. When the treaty arrived on March 7, 1795, Congress had adjourned, and speculative newspapers' essays began to agitate the public.

However, terms of the treaty remained secret while the Senate convened in a special session on June 8, 1795. Few members liked the contents of the treaty, but most objected particularly to Article XII, which limited commercial access to the British West Indies solely to ships of seventy tons or less. The Senate narrowly approved the treaty, subject to a suspension of Article XII and a renegotiation of that section. According to Edmund Randolph, Washington's Secretary of State, a "qualified ratification" was a new development in diplomatic history. 2 However, Washington concluded that partial approval implied final consent.

An unauthorized copy of the treaty appeared in the Aurora General Advertiser, a Republican newspaper, on June 29. A swirl of largely negative public reaction to the treaty followed. Riots and public bonfires of the British flag, the treaty, and effigies of Jay took place. Essayists fired their opinions in the public newspapers. City and county residents sent their opinions to Washington.

The President described reactions to the treaty as being similar to "that against a mad-dog . . . every one. . .seems engaged in running it down." Washington urged Alexander Hamilton and Federalist supporters of the treaty to spread their views nationwide and counteract the "poison" of its opponents. 3 Washington preferred solicited advice from knowledgeable men, rather than dictates from groups with no constitutional authority. His response to the petition of the Boston Selectmen and similar letters repeatedly stressed the executive's constitutional prerogative in the treaty-making process.

Another complication arose in July 1795, when reports surfaced that the British government approved a new Order in Council concerning neutral vessels that carried provisions bound for French-controlled ports. In mid-August, Washington ratified the Jay Treaty unconditionally amid concern about the impact of protest efforts, how the French might take advantage of such negative reaction, and news of Randolph's possible intrigue with the French government. Washington did not consider the treaty "favorable," but believed ratification far better than "unsettled" conditions. 4

Anti-treaty protests continued into 1796, including an effort by the House of Representatives to force Washington to submit documents that related to the treaty. Washington refused and insisted that the House possessed no constitutional authority to determine treaties. Public sentiment gradually began to praise Washington for his leadership during the crisis. In May 1796, Washington expressed the hope that his ratification of the Jay Treaty would provide America with peace and the time to become a prosperous and powerful nation. 5

Carol Ebel, Ph.D.
Assistant Editor, The Papers of George Washington

Jeanne and David Heidler, authors of Washington's Circle, discuss the historical significance of the Jay Treaty.

Notes:
1. The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, ed. Theodore J. Crackel (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 15:608.

2. Notes of Edmund Randolph, c. June 25, 1795, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress.

3. "George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 29 July 1795," Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress.

4. "George Washington to Edmund Randolph, 22 July 1795," Letter book #30, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress.

5. "George Washington to Charles Carroll, 1 May 1796," The Writings of George Washington (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931).

Bibliography:
Combs, Jerald A. The Jay Treaty: Political Battleground of the Founding Fathers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.

The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, Vols. 15 and 16, ed. Theodore J. Crackel. Charlottesville, Va: University of Virginia Press, 2009, 2011.

Elkins, Stanley and Eric McKitrick. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Estes, Todd, "The Art of Presidential Leadership: George Washington and the Jay Treaty." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 109 (2001):127-158.

Estes, Todd, The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evaluation of Early American Political Culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006.


Introduction

Jay&rsquos Treaty, officially titled &ldquoTreaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty and The United States of America,&rdquo was negotiated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay and signed between the United States and Great Britain on November 19, 1794. Tensions between the two countries had increased since the end of the Revolutionary War over British military posts still located in America's northwestern territory and British interference with American trade and shipping. Jay was only partially successful in getting Britain to meet America's demands and opposition to the treaty in the United States was intense. Although President George Washington was disappointed with the treaty&rsquos provisions, he felt it was the best hope to avert war with Great Britain and submitted it to the Senate for approval. Jay&rsquos Treaty passed the Senate on June 24, 1795, by a vote of 20 to 10, exactly the two-thirds required for approval.


Jays Treaty - History

The "Jay Treaty" was ratified by Congress in 1797. John Jay negotiated this treaty with Great Britain. Under Jay's Treaty, the British agreed to leave areas in the Northwest Territory which they had been required to return earlier, under the Treaty of Paris. This treaty did not, however, oblige the British to observe American neutral rights. Despite the fact that Jay's Treaty was very unpopular, it was ratified by the Senate: 20-10. For the next fifteen years, the United States benefited from the treaty greatly.

With a war raging between France and England, the United States found itself constantly affected by the actions of one side or the other. The British attempt to blockade France and its colonies proved particularly onerous to the United States, resulting often in the seizure of American vessels. In early 1794, British actions had almost led to an American declaration of war against the British. Instead, it was decided to send John Jay as a special envoy to negotiate an agreement with the British over the disputed issues. Jay negotiated with the British for over four months, generally with British Foreign Secretary Grenville.

Jay was able to achieve many of the goals of his negotiations, although not all of them. One of the areas in which he failed to achieve much success was convincing Britain to alter its policies regarding neutral shipping. He could not get the British to stop defining food as contraband, although they did agree to pay for any food seized. Jay was not able to get the British to agree to pay any compensation for the carrying off of slaves during the Revolutionary War, but he had not made a great effort on that front.

He did achieve an agreement from the British to withdraw from the post in the Northwest Territory that they had held after the Revolutionary War. In addition, joint commissions were established to settle boundary disputes, as well as decide on compensation for American goods illegally seized by British ships. Finally, the agreement called for freedom of commerce between the United and Great Britain, and allowed some trade with the British West Indies. Only smaller American ships were allowed to trade, however. In addition, there was a ban on the re-export of certain goods from the United States.

As word of the agreement began reaching the US, opponents of any agreement with Great Britain began attacking the treaty as a sell-out. The full text of the agreement did not reach Washington until March 7, 1795. Washington decided to keep the text a secret until he presented it to the Senate in June. He presented it on June 8th. From June 8th to the 26th, the Senate, which was comprised of 20 Federalists and 10 Republicans, debated the treaty. They immediately struck down the clause limiting trade with the British West Indies. However, after intense debate and strong opposition from the Republicans, the treaty was approved 20 to 10.
Washington hesitated in signing the amended treaty, both from practical and constitutional concerns. Could he sign a treaty that had been amended by the Senate? What legal effect did that have? In the meantime, the Republicans were holding demonstrations against the treaty throughout the country. When Washington heard that the French Minister was involved with Secretary of State in opposing the treaty, he immediately signed the document.

Washington's signing of the treaty calmed some of the passions that the treaty had wrought. Nevertheless, opposition continued. In the next Congress the House of Representatives, dominated by the Republicans, demanded that the President provide them with a full accounting of Jay's mission and negotiations. Washington refused, claiming that the nature of foreign negotiations demanded a certain level of secrecy. In addition, Washington asserted that a treaty signed by the President after the ratification of the Senate was the law of the land, and that the House had no right to review or oppose it. A growing support for the treaty in the land as prosperity was increasing combined with the continued popularity of Washington to force the Republicans to abandon their opposition.


Jay’s Treaty: History & Significance

“If this country is preserved in tranquility twenty years longer, it may bid defiance in a just cause to any power whatever such in that time will be its popularity, wealth and resources,” stated by George Washington in response to demonstrators over the Jay Treaty. 1 Washington’s remark was regarding the public’s uproar following the release of information on the status of the discord with Great Britain.

The people had just been informed of the contents of the Jay Treaty which were: 1) Britain agreed to give up the fur posts in American territory, 2) Britain also agreed to submit to arbitration the questions of disputed boundaries, the damage done to American shipping, and the debts due to British merchants. Although the people did not like these terms, Washington supported them to prevent us from going to war. Washington made his first move by sending a delegate to England, and furthermore by standing up to congress to get this treaty ratified. He demonstrates again his great moral courage for the welfare of his country.

Although Washington himself did not write the treaty he deserves all the credit for initiating it in the first place. The times had become rough with the British, and according to Hamilton the British were a vital part of our economy. He said ” …the tax on imports furnished much of the money for paying off our foreign, domestic, and state debts.” 2 Along with the British’s impressments of American seamen and their role in our economy Washington knew something had to be done. Washington knew that the tension between America and England had to be thinned out so he decided to send over a special envoy. The individual chosen for the job was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay. John Jay had much experience in this department because he was the former Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the old Confederation. His objective was to make peace between the two countries. He was under instructions to make no commitment in violation of the treaties with France. Fortunately, Washington came to terms to do this, otherwise our infant country may never have grown into what it is today. This indubitably turned out to be one of Washington’s bolder moves towards assisting his country.

Another powerful move was demonstrated by Washington as he persuaded the Senate to ratify the treaty. The Jay Treaty was signed on November 19th , 1794, but was not ratified by the Senate until seven months later. “President George Washington’s signing of the Jay Treaty provoked unimaginable criticism of his character and policies and changed the focus of the debate over the treaty.” 3 Some of the Americans wanted to go to war, so essentially George Washington was putting his name on the line to get this treaty ratified. The Republicans in the House attempted to block the treaty by denying the appropriation for enforcing its provisions. The House request for the papers relating to Jay’s Treaty was refused by Washington because the concurrence of the two Houses was not required to give validity to a treaty and “because of the necessity of maintaining the boundaries fixed by the Constitution.” 4 Again, the people are lucky to have a persistent leader who deserves credit for saving our country.

The prominent individual who deserves all the credit in nurturing our country from its young and early days is unquestionably George Washington. The passage of the Jay Treaty was instrumental in allowing the young country to develop economically and ultimately prevent war with Britain. The second influential move he made was to have this treaty ratified. He argued that the country did not need to draw itself into a war with a country that held ninety percent of its imports. Washington had to fight for this with his reputation and even his life. These were the visions of George Washington. As the years went by because of George Washington, the United States and Great Britain were able to settle their differences peacefully. In doing so they followed the precedent of arbitration established in Jay’s Treaty and they demonstrated to the world one way of avoiding wars. 5


Jays Treaty - History

Grain was the most valuable cash crop for many American farmers. In the West, selling grain to a local distillery for alcohol production was typically more profitable than shipping it over the Appalachians to eastern markets. Hamilton’s whiskey tax thus placed a special burden on western farmers. It seemed to divide the young republic in half—geographically between the East and West, economically between merchants and farmers, and culturally between cities and the countryside.

In western Pennsylvania in the fall of 1791, sixteen men, disguised in women’s clothes, assaulted a tax collector named Robert Johnson. They tarred and feathered him, and the local deputy marshals seeking justice met similar fates. They were robbed and beaten, whipped and flogged, tarred and feathered, and tied up and left for dead. The rebel farmers also adopted other protest methods from the Revolution and Shays’ Rebellion, writing local petitions and erecting liberty poles. For the next two years, tax collections in the region dwindled.

Then, in July 1794, groups of armed farmers attacked federal marshals and tax collectors, burning down at least two tax collectors’ homes. At the end of the month, an armed force of about 7,000, led by the radical attorney David Bradford, robbed the U.S. mail and gathered about eight miles east of Pittsburgh. President Washington responded quickly.

First, Washington dispatched a committee of three distinguished Pennsylvanians to meet with the rebels and try to bring about a peaceful resolution. Meanwhile, he gathered an army of thirteen thousand militiamen in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. On September 19, Washington became the only sitting president to lead troops in the field, though he quickly turned over the army to the command of Henry Lee, a Revolutionary hero and the current governor of Virginia.

As the federal army moved westward, the farmers scattered. Hoping to make a dramatic display of federal authority, Alexander Hamilton oversaw the arrest and trial of a number of rebels. Many were released due to lack of evidence, and most of those who remained, including two men sentenced to death for treason, were soon pardoned by the president. The Whiskey Rebellion had shown that the federal government was capable of quelling internal unrest. But it also had demonstrated that some citizens, especially poor westerners, viewed it as their enemy.

Around the same time, another national issue also aroused fierce protest. Along with his vision of a strong national financial system, Hamilton also had a vision of an America busily engaged in foreign trade. In his mind, that meant pursuing a friendly relationship with one nation in particular: Great Britain.

America’s relationship with Britain since the end of the Revolution had been tense, partly because of warfare between the British and French. Their naval war threatened American shipping. Most obvious and galling to American citizens was the “impressment” of seized American sailors into Britain’s powerful navy, which made American trade risky and expensive—not to mention humiliating. Nevertheless, President Washington was conscious of American weakness and was determined not to take sides. In April 1793, he officially declared that the United States would remain neutral. With his blessing, Hamilton’s political ally John Jay, who was currently serving as chief justice of the Supreme Court, sailed to London to negotiate a treaty that would satisfy both Britain and the United States.

Jefferson and Madison strongly opposed these negotiations. They mistrusted Britain and wanted America to favor France instead. The French had recently overthrown their own monarchy, and Republicans thought the United States should be glad to have the friendship of a new revolutionary state. They also suspected that a treaty with Britain would favor northern merchants and manufacturers over the agricultural South.

In November 1794, despite their misgivings, John Jay signed a “treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation” with the British. Jay’s Treaty, as it was commonly called, required Britain to abandon its military positions in the Northwest Territory (especially Fort Detroit, Fort Mackinac, and Fort Niagara) by 1796. Britain also agreed to compensate American merchants for their losses. The United States, in return, agreed to treat Britain as its most prized trade partner, which meant tacitly supporting Britain in its current conflict with France. Unfortunately, Jay had failed to secure an end to impressment.

For Federalists, this treaty was a significant accomplishment. Jay’s Treaty gave the United States, a relatively weak power, the ability to stay officially neutral in European wars, and it preserved American prosperity by protecting trade. For Jefferson’s Republicans, however, the treaty was proof of Federalist treachery. The Federalists had sided with a monarchy against a republic, and they had submitted to British influence in American affairs without even ending impressment. In Congress, debate over the treaty transformed the Federalists and Republicans from temporary factions into two distinct (though still loosely organized) political parties.


What was the XYZ Affair?

It might sound like something out of “Sesame Street” but the XYZ Affair was, in fact, a diplomatic incident between France and America in the late 18th century that led to an undeclared war at sea.

In 1793, France went to war with Great Britain while America remained neutral. Late the following year, the United States and Britain signed the Jay Treaty, which resolved several longstanding issues between those two nations. The French were infuriated by Jay’s Treaty, believing it violated earlier treaties between the United States and France as a result, they went on to seize a substantial number of American merchant ships. When President George Washington sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as the U.S. minister to France in 1796, the government there refused to receive him. After John Adams became president in March 1797, he dispatched a three-member delegation to Paris later that same year in an effort to restore peace between the two countries. Once the diplomats—Pinckney along with John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry𠅊rrived overseas they tried to meet with France’s foreign minister, Charles de Talleyrand. Instead, he put them off and eventually had three agents inform the U.S. commissioners that in order to see him they first would have to pay him a hefty bribe and provide France with a large loan, among other conditions. Pinckney’s supposed response was: “No! No! Not a sixpence!”

When word of the French demands reached the United States, it caused an uproar and prompted calls for war. After some members of Congress asked to see the diplomats’ reports regarding what had transpired in France, Adams handed them over with the names of the French agents replaced with the letters X, Y and Z thus the name XYZ Affair. Congress subsequently authorized various defense measures, including the creation of the Department of the Navy and the construction of warships. Then, in July 1798, it authorized American ships to attack French vessels, launching an undeclared naval war that came to be referred to as the Quasi-War. The hostilities were settled with the Convention of 1800, also known as the Treaty of Mortefontaine, which was ratified in 1801.


Jays Treaty - History

There shall be a firm, inviolable and universal peace, and a true and sincere friendship between his Britannic Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the United States of America and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns and people of every degree, without exception of persons or places.

His Majesty will withdraw all his troops and garrisons from all posts and places within the boundary lines assigned by the treaty of peace to the United States. This evacuation shall take place on or before . . . [June I, 1796,] . . .: The United States in the mean time at their discretion, extending their settlements to any part within the said boundary line, except within the precincts or jurisdiction of any of the said posts. All settlers and traders, within the precincts or jurisdiction of the said posts, shall continue to enjoy, unmolested, all their property of every kind, and shall be protected therein. They shall be at full liberty to remain there, or to remove with all or any part of their effects and it shall also be free to them to sell their lands, houses, or effects, or to retain the property thereof, at their discretion such of them as shall continue to reside within the said boundary lines, shall not be compelled to become citizens of the United States, or to take any oath of allegiance to the government thereof but they shall be at full liberty so to do if they think proper, and they shall make and declare their election within one year after the evacuation aforesaid. And all persons who shall continue there after the expiration of the said year, without having declared their intention of remaining subjects of his Britannic Majesty, shall be considered as having elected to become citizens of the United States.

It is agreed that it shall at all times be free to his Majesty's subjects, and to the citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said boundary line, freely to pass and repass by land or inland navigation, into the respective territories and countries of the two parties, on the continent of America (the country within the limits of the Hudson's bay Company only excepted) and to navigate all the lakes, rivers and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other. But it is understood, that this article does not extend to the admission of vessels of the United States into the sea-ports, harbours, bays, or creeks of his Majesty's said territories nor into such parts of the rivers in his Majesty's said territories as are between the mouth thereof, and the highest port of entry from the sea, except in small vessels trading bona fide between Montreal and Quebec, under such regulations as shall be established to prevent the possibility of any frauds in this respect. Nor to the admission of British vessels from the sea into the rivers of the United States, beyond the highest ports of entry for foreign vessels from the sea. The river Mississippi shall, however, according to the treaty of peace, be entirely open to both parties and it is further agreed, that all the ports and places on its eastern side, to whichsoever of the parties belonging, may freely be resorted to and used by both parties, in as ample a manner as any of the Atlantic ports or places of the United States, or any of the ports or places of his Majesty in Great Britain.

All goods and merchandise whose importation into his Majesty's said territories in America, shall not be entirely prohibited, may freely, for the purposes of commerce, be carried into the same in the manner aforesaid, by the citizens of the United States, and such goods and merchandise shall be subject to no higher or other duties, than would be payable by his Majesty's subjects on the importation of the same from Europe into the said territories. And in like manner, all goods and merchandize whose importation into the United States shall not be wholly prohibited, may freely, for the purposes of commerce, be carried into the same, in the manner aforesaid, by his Majesty's subjects, and such goods and merchandise shall be subject to no higher or other duties, than would be payable by the citizens of the United States on the importation of the same in American vessels into the Atlantic ports of the said states. And all goods not prohibited to be exported from the said territories respectively, may in like manner be carried out of the same by the two parties respectively, paying duty as aforesaid.

No duty of entry shall ever be levied by either party on peltries brought by land, or inland navigation into the said territories respectively, nor shall the Indians passing or repassing with their own proper goods and effects of whatever nature, pay for the same any impost or duty whatever. But goods in bales, or other large packages, unusual among Indians, shall not be considered as goods belonging bona fide to Indians.

No higher or other tolls or rates of ferriage than what are or shall be payable by natives, shall be demanded on either side and no duties shall be payable on any goods which shall merely be carried over any of the portages or carrying-places on either side, for the purpose of being immediately reembarked and carried to some other place or places. But as by this stipulation it is only meant to secure to each party a free passage across the portages on both sides: it is agreed, that this exemption from duty shall extend only to such goods as are carried in the usual and direct road across the portage, and are not attempted to be in any manner sold or exchanged during their passage across the same. . . .

Whereas it is uncertain whether the river Mississippi extends so far to the northward, as to be intersected by a line to be drawn due west from the Lake of the Woods, in the manner mentioned in the treaty of peace between his Majesty and the United States: it is agreed, that measures shall be taken in concert between his Majesty's government in America and the government of the United States, for making a joint survey of the said river from one degree of latitude below the falls of St. Anthony, to the principal source or sources of the said river, and also of the parts adjacent thereto and that if on the result of such survey, it should appear that the said river, would not be intersected by such a line as is above mentioned, the two parties will thereupon proceed by amicable negociation, to regulate the boundary line in that quarter, as well as all other points to be adjusted between the said parties, according to justice and mutual convenience, and in conformity to the intent of the said treaty.

Whereas doubts have arisen what river was truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix, mentioned in the said treaty of peace, and forming a part of the boundary therein described that question shall be referred to the final decision of commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz. [Each party to choose one commissioner, and these two to choose a third. The commissioners to "decide what river is the river St. Croix, intended by the treaty," and the decision to be final.]

Whereas it is alledged by divers British merchants and others his Majesty's subjects, that debts, to a considerable amount, which were bona fide contracted before the peace, still remain owing to them by citizens or inhabitants of the United States, and that by the operation of various lawful impediments since the peace, not only the full recovery of the said debts has been delayed, but also the value and security thereof have been, in several instances, impaired and lessened, so that by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the British creditors cannot now obtain, and actually have and receive full and adequate compensation for the losses and damages which they have thereby sustained. It is agreed, that in all such cases, where full compensation for such losses and damages cannot, for whatever reason, be actually obtained, had and received by the said creditors in the ordinary course of justice, the United States will make full and complete compensation for the same to the said creditors: But it is distinctly understood, that this provision is to extend to such losses only as have been occasioned by the lawful impediments aforesaid, and is not to extend to losses occasioned by such insolvency of the debtors, or other causes as would equally have operated to produce such loss, if the said impediments had not existed nor to such losses or damages as have been occasioned by the manifest delay or negligence, or wilful omission of the claimant.
[Claims to be adjudicated by five commissioners, with powers and duties as herein prescribed. The awards of the commissioners to be final, "both as to the justice of the claim, and to the amount of-the sum to be paid to the creditor or claimant."]

Whereas complaints have been made by divers merchants and others, citizens of the United States, that during the course of the war in which his Majesty is now engaged, they have sustained considerable losses and damage, by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property, under colour of authority or commissions from his Majesty, and that from various circumstances belonging to the said cases, adequate compensation for the losses and damages so sustained cannot now be actually obtained, had and received by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings it is agreed, that in all such cases, where adequate compensation cannot, for whatever reason, be now actually obtained, had and received by the said merchants and others, in the ordinary course of justice, full and complete compensation for the same will be made by the British government to the said complainants. But it is distinctly understood, that this provision is not to extend to such losses or damages as have been occasioned by the manifest delay or negligence, or wilful omission of the claimant.

[Claims to be adjudicated by five commissioners, under like conditions to those stated in Art. VI.]

And whereas certain merchants and others his Majesty's subjects, complain, that in the course of the war they have sustained loss and damage, by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise, taken within the limits and jurisdiction of the states, and brought into the ports of the same, or taken by vessels originally armed in ports of the said states.

It is agreed that in all such cases where restitution shall not have been made agreeably to the tenor of the letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, dated at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, I793, a copy of which is annexed to this treaty the complaints of the parties shall be and hereby are referred to the commissioners to be appointed by virtue of this article, who are hereby authorized and required to proceed in the like manner relative to these as lo the other cases committed to them.

Neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor monies which they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever in any event of war or national differences be sequestered or confiscated. . .

It is agreed between his Majesty and the United States of America, that there shall be a reciprocal and entirely perfect liberty of navigation and commerce between their respective people, in the manner, under the limitations and on the conditions specified in the following articles:

[Art. XII., relating to trade with the West Indies, was suspended by the resolution of the Senate advising ratification, and the suspension was agreed to by Great Britain.]

His Majesty consents that the vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States of America, shall be admitted and hospitably received, in all the sea-ports and harbours of the British territories in the EastIndies. And that the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation or exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited. Provided only, that it shall not be lawful for them in any time of war between the British government and any other power or state whatever, to export from the said territories, without the special permission of the British government there, any military stores, or naval stores, or rice. The citizens of the United States shall pay for their vessels when admitted into the said ports no other or higher tonnageduty than shall be payable on British vessels when admitted into the ports of the United States. And they shall pay no other or higher duties or charges, on the importation or exportation of the cargoes of the said vessels, than shall be payable on the same articles when imported or exported in British vessels. But it is expressly agreed, that the vessels of the United States shall not carry any of the articles exported by them from the said British territories, to any port or place, except to some port or place in America, where the same shall be unladen, and such regulations shall be adopted by both parties, as shall from time to time be found necessary to enforce the due and faithful observance of this stipulation. It is also understood that the permission granted by this article, is not to extend to allow the vessels of the United States to carry on any part of the coasting-trade of the said British territories but vessels going with their original cargoes, or part thereof, from one port of discharge to another, are not to be considered as carrying on the coasting-trade. Neither is this article to be construed to allow the citizens of the said states to settle or reside within the said territories, or to go into the interior parts thereof, without the permission of the British government established there. And the citizens of the United States, whenever they arrive in any port or harbour in the said territories, or if they should be permitted in manner aforesaid, to go to any other place therein, shall always be subject to the laws, government, and jurisdiction of what nature established in such harbor, port or place, according as the same may be. The citizens of the United States may also touch for refreshment at the island of St. Helena, but subject in all respects to such regulations as the British government may from time to time establish there.

There shall be between all the dominions of his Majesty in Europe and the territories of the United States, a reciprocal and perfect liberty of commerce and navigation. The people and inhabitants of the two countries respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely, and without hindrance and molestation, to come with their ships and cargoes to the lands, countries, cities, ports, places and rivers, within the dominions and territories aforesaid, to enter into the same, to resort there, and to remain and reside there, without any limitation of time. Also to hire and possess houses and ware-houses for the purposes of their commerce, and generally the merchants and traders on each side, shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce but subject always as to what respects this article to the laws and statutes of the two countries respectively.

It is agreed that no other or higher duties shall be paid by the ships or merchandise of the one party in the ports of the other, than such as are paid by the like vessels or merchandise of all other nations. Nor shall any other or higher duty be imposed in one country on the importation of any articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the other, than are or shall be payable on the importation of the like articles being of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country Nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the exportation or importation of any articles to or from the territories of the two parties respectively, which shall not equally extend to all other nations. But the British government reserves to itself the right of imposing on American vessels entering into the British ports in Europe, a tonnage duty equal to that which shall be payable by British vessels in the ports of America: And also such duty as may be adequate to countervail the difference of duty now payable on the importation of European and Asiatic goods, when imported into the United States in British or in American vessels.

The two parties agree to treat for the more exact equalization of the duties on the respective navigation of their subjects and people, in such manner as may be most beneficial to the two countries. In the interval it is agreed, that the United States will not impose any new or additional tonnage duties ore British vessels, nor increase the now subsisting difference between the duties payable on the importation of any articles in British or in American vessels.

[Provides for the appointment of consuls.]

It is agreed, that in all cases where vessels shall be captured or detained on just suspicion of having on board enemy's property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contraband of war the said vessel shall be brought to the nearest or most convenient port and if any property of an enemy should be found on board such vessel, that part only which belongs to the enemy shall be made prize, and the vessel shall be at liberty to proceed with the remainder without any impediment.

In order to regulate what is in future to be esteemed contraband of war, it is agreed, that under the said denomination shall
be comprised all arms and implements sewing for the purposes of war, by land or sea, such as cannon, muskets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenades, carcasses, saucisses, carriages for cannon, musket rests, bandoliers, gun-powder, match, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, headpieces, cuirasses, halberts, lances, javelins, horsefurniture, holsters, belts, and generally all other implements of war as also timber for ship-building, tar or rosin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels, unwrought iron and fir planks only excepted and all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects of confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to an enemy.

And whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases in which alone provisions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as such, renders it expedient to provide against the inconveniences and misunderstandings which might thence arise: It is further agreed, that whenever any such articles so becoming contraband, according to the existing laws of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the same shall not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified and the captors, or in their default, the government under whose authority they act, shall pay to the masters or owners of such vessels, the full value of all such articles, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, together with the freight, and also the demurrage incident to such detention.
And whereas it frequently happens that vessels sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the same is either besieged, blockaded or invested it is agreed, that every vessel so circumstanced, may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless after notice she shall again attempt to enter but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she may think proper Nor shall any vessel or goods of either party, that may have entered into such port or place, before the same was besieged, blockaded, or invested by the other, and be found therein after the reduction or surrender of such place, be liable to confiscation, but shall be restored to the owners or proprietors thereof.

And that more abundant care may be taken for the security of the respective subjects and citizens of the contracting parties, and to prevent their suffering injuries by the men of war, or privateers of either party, all commanders of ships of war and privateers, and all others the said subjects and citizens, shall forbear doing any damage to those of the other party, or committing any outrage against them, and if they act to the contrary, they shall be punished, and shall also be bound in their persons and estates to make satisfaction and reparation for all damages, and the interest thereof, of whatever nature the said damages may be.

ARTICLE XXI
It is likewise agreed, that the subjects and citizens of the two nations, shall not do any acts of hostility or violence against each other, nor accept commissions or instructions so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies to the other party nor shall the enemies of one of the parties be permitted to invite, or endeavor to enlist in their military service, any of the subjects or citizens of the other party and the laws against all such offenses and aggressions shall be punctually executed. And if any subject or citizen of the said parties respectively, shall accept any foreign commission, or letters of marque, for arming any vessel to act as a privateer against the other party, and be taken by the other party, it is hereby declared to be lawful for the said party, to treat and punish the said subject or citizen, having such commission or letters of marque, as a pirate.

It is expressly stipulated, that neither of the said contracting parties will order or authorize any acts of reprisal against the other, on complaints of injuries or damages, until the said party shall first have presented to the other a statement thereof, verified by competent proof and evidence, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the same shall either have been refused or un reasonably delayed.

The ships of war of each of the contracting parties shall, at all times, be hospitably received in the ports of the other, their officers and crews paying due respect to the laws and government of the country. And his Majesty consents, that in case an American vessel should, by stress of weather, danger from enemies or other misfortune, be reduced to the necessity of seeking shelter in any of his Majesty's ports, into which such vessel could not in ordinary cases claim to be admitted, she shall, on manifesting that necessity to the satisfaction of the government of the place, be hospitably received and be permitted to refit, and to purchase at the market price, such necessaries as she may stand in need of, conformably to such orders and regulations as the government of the place, having respect to the circumstances of each case, shall prescribe. She shall not be allowed to break bulk or unload her cargo, unless the same should be bona fide necessary to her being refitted. Nor shall be permitted to sell any part of her cargo, unless so much only as may be necessary to defray her expences, and then not without the express permission of the government of the place. Nor shall she be obliged to pay any duties whatever, except only on such articles as she may be permitted to sell for the purpose aforesaid.

It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers (not being subjects or citizens of either of the said parties) who have commissions from any other prince or state in enmity with either nation, to arm their ships in the ports of either of the said parties, nor to sell what they have taken, nor in any other manner to exchange the same nor shall they be allowed to purchase more provisions, than shall be necessary for their going to the nearest port of that prince or state from whom they obtained their commissions.

It shall be lawful for the ships of war and privateers belonging to the said parties respectively, to carry whithersoever they please,
the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any fee to the officers of the admiralty, or to any judges whatever nor shall the said prizes when they arrive at, and enter the ports of the said parties, be detained or seized, neither shall the searchers or other officers of those places visit such prizes, (except for the purpose of preventing the carrying of any part of the cargo thereof on shore in any manner contrary to the established laws of revenue, navigation or commerce) nor shall such officers take cognizance of the validity of such prizes but they shall be at liberty to hoist sail, and depart as speedily as may be, and carry their said prizes to the place mentioned in their commissions or patents, which the commanders of the said ships of war or privateers shall be obliged to show. No shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as have made a prize upon the subjects or citizens of either of the said parties but if forced by stress of weather, or the dangers of the sea, to enter therein, particular care shall be taken to hasten their departure, and to cause them to retire as soon as possible. Nothing in this treaty contained shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public treaties with other sovereigns or states. But the two parties agree, that while they continue in amity, neither of them will in future make any treaty that shall be inconsistent with this or the preceding article.
Neither of the said parties shall permit the ships or goods belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other, to be taken within cannon-shot of the coast, nor in any of the bays, ports, or rivers of their territories, by ships of war, or others having commission from any prince, republic, or state whatever.

If at any time a rupture should take place, (which God forbid) between his Majesty and the United States, the merchants and others of each of the two nations, residing in the dominions of the other, shall have the privilege of remaining and continuing their trade, so long as they behave peaceably, and commit no offense against the laws and in case their conduct should render them suspected, and the respective governments should think proper to order them to remove, the term of twelve months front the publication of the order shall be allowed them for that purpose, to remove with their families, effects and property but this favour shall not be extended to those who shall act contrary to the established laws . . . such rupture shall not be deemed to exist, while negotiations for accommodating differences shall be depending, nor until the respective ambassadors or ministers, if such there shall be, shall be recalled, or sent home on account of such differences.

[Provides for the extradition of persons charged with murder or forgery.]

It is agreed, that the first ten articles of this treaty shall be permanent, and that the subsequent articles, except the twelfth, shall be limited in their duration to twelve years, to be computed from the day on which the ratifications of this treaty shall be exchanged. .


FURTHER READING

Combs, Jerald. The Jay Treaty: Political Background of the Founding Fathers. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970.

Flexner, James. George Washington: Anguish and Farewell, 1793 – 1799. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972.

Freeman, Douglas Southall. George Washington, A Biography, completed by J.A. Carroll and M.W. Ashworth. 7 vols. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1948 – 1957. Abridgement by Richard Harwell, New York: Scribner's Sons, 1968.

Reuter, Frank. Trials and Triumphs: George Washington's Foreign Policy. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1983.


Insights Into the Jay Treaty of 1794: Summary and Significance

The British occupancy loomed over the American soil even after America attained Independence in 1776 moreover, the French were at loggerheads with Britain, and there hung an impending atmosphere of war. Hence, to negotiate historic terms with the British, America signed the Jay Treaty in 1794. This Historyplex post explains the significance and summary of this monumental treaty.

The British occupancy loomed over the American soil even after America attained Independence in 1776 moreover, the French were at loggerheads with Britain, and there hung an impending atmosphere of war. Hence, to negotiate historic terms with the British, America signed the Jay Treaty in 1794. This Historyplex post explains the significance and summary of this monumental treaty.

Advocate of Peace

John Jay who played a pivotal role as a political negotiator for the Jay Treaty (the treaty is named in his honor) was also among the chief negotiators for the Treaty of Paris 1783, which declared America’s Independence.

American foreign policies with Britain were on a verge of deterioration, and the Revolution in France was heating up the political scenario in the early 1790s. America postulated the need to negotiate both commercial and territorial events with the two European powers. Several resolute issues left enervated at the end of the American Revolution determined that the United States must talk terms with Britain in order to avoid further dispute. The unstable state of the nation’s economy and its restricted means of implementing its supremacy by use of military force put the United States in a mortifying situation of not being able to maintain itself in the field of international diplomacy.

With political exasperation, President George Washington dispatched Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to England to negotiate a peaceful closure on trade and political peace, which led to the Treaty of Jay of 1794. Given below are its salient features:

Historical Background

Despite the historic signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, both the British and Americans persisted to transgress its guidelines and terms in a host of ways.

Through the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, the western border of the United States had been laid down at the eastern shores of the Mississippi River. Nevertheless, ten years after American independence, British troops were still invading parts of the Ohio Valley. Outstanding liabilities owed to the United States by the British and delineated in the treaty had gone unpaid. American ships were banished from ports under British command, and by 1794, British ships were confiscating American vessels merchandising in the French West Indies on the bases that such trade breached the British Orders in Council that forbade neutral nations from trading with French ports.

British exports oversupplied U.S. markets, while American exports were barred by British trade limitations and tariff duties. The British occupancy of northern forts as well as perennial Native American onslaughts in these areas highly upset the Americans. To make matters worse, Britain started coercing American sailors, and seized naval and military supplies wreaked the two nations to the threshold of war in the later half of 1700s.

Britain was already caught in a war with France and Britain, and under these circumstances, Britain spurned America’s view that as a neutral state, it was able to trade freely with all economical parties. Britain confiscated hundreds of American neutral ships, and Sir Guy Carleton, Baron Dorchester, the governor-general of Canada, made a combative speech to western Indians connoting that they would soon be able to reclaim their lands in the Great Lakes region from the United States.

Regrettably, the Navigation Acts that had once nurtured and promoted American cargo ships to British ports now prohibited the new nation to trade freely with British monomania. Moreover, under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress had no power of revenue enhancement. With confined means of growing revenue, the U.S. debt grew dramatically. The standing Continental Army was quickly dissolved. By 1785, the ships of the Continental Navy had all been sold or given away, and the naval force of the United States, with the exclusion of a small number of revenue cutters, ceased to subsist.

Opposition of Treaty

The treaty was majorly opposed by Democratic-Republicans, who dreaded that the Federalist Party was trying to achieve its own personal agendas by tighter economic ties with Britain. The Democrats also feared this was a ploy to undercut republicanism by tying United States pursuits to the British monarchy.

The Federalists, on the other hand, favored this treaty as it reinforced economic ties with Britain and accorded on arbitration methods to settle pre-war liabilities and claims of seized American merchant ships.

Leading the opposition from the Republic front were two future presidents: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both the leaders their patrons neither liked the political or economic scheme of England. Their European favorite was France, despite that country’s radical over indulgences. They also feared that the treaty would give too many grants to the British. President George Washington himself was not convinced over the treaty, but in response to the best of public welfare and averting another war with Britain appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay as a peace envoy to England.

Jay himself was anti-French and had shown himself antipathetic to the French Revolution in lieu of all these situations, he accepted the offer.

Facts and Provisions of the Treaty

Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was a supporter of the treaty and hence, provided John Jay with specific guidelines to outline the treaty. He advocated a strong strategy that would both stabilize relations with Great Britain and vouched increased trade.

John Jay’s sole bargaining chip to clinch the deal was that the United States would join the Danish and the Swedish governments in defending their neutral status and defying British seizure of their goods by force of weaponry. But in a turn of events, Alexander Hamilton independently communicated with the British leadership that the United States had no aim of uniting in this neutral armament.

John Jay was favorably welcomed in England in June. The terms of the treaty were officially outlined by the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and strongly advocated and negotiated by John Jay. Negotiations put forth in front of the monarch empire proved to be an elephant task by a newly developed nation. The British chaffed over the terms, but finally John Jay clinched the deal by forgoing certain unfavorable factors like for e.g. cotton will not be exported from the United States and American economic trade with the British West Indies would be highly restrained. Outlining these key factors amicably, the officially titled ‘Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation’ or ‘Treaty of London’ or ‘Jay’s Treaty’ was signed by British Foreign Minister Lord Grenville and America’s Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay on November 19, 1794 in London.

Provisions of the treaty included (i) the British evacuation of the Northwestern posts by June 1, 1796, granting colonists the choice of becoming American or remaining British citizens, with guaranteed protection. (ii) It denoted peaceful settlement of the northwest and northeast boundaries and the questions of liabilities and recompenses to mixed charges (iii) it provided for unrestricted navigation of the Mississippi and liberal trade between the North American dominions of the two countries (iv) it granted equal exclusive rights to American and British vessels in Great Britain and the East Indies, but also gave access to British vessels to trade through American ports on terms of the ‘most-favored nation’.

These articles of the treaty proved economic to the United States, but the British also determined certain articles that once accepted, would annul components of the Treaty of Commerce and Amity with France signed in 1778. Most notable of these components was that the British insisted that supporters of England’s enemies must be prohibited to gird themselves or sell their awards in American ports, thus ultimately granting Britain additional rights.

All other prominent grievances like the Canadian-Maine boundary, compensation for pre-revolutionary debts, and British captures of American ships were to be adjudicated by arbitration. Other issues like damages for those Americans whose slaves were eradicated by Britain’s voiding armies was not permitted, protection of American sailors against coercing was not ensured, and rules regarding international maritime law were ignored.

The Aftermath

John Jay was welcomed back home with fierce opposition from the public as well as the Republicans violent protesters thronged the streets hanging and burning stuffed effigies of John Jay. Many of the politicians criticized the President for making the ratification of the bill impossible.

Alexander Hamilton was stoned while addressing in defense of the treaty. On June 8, 1795, President George Washington presented to the Senate, in a special session, all the documents related to the negotiation of Jay’s Treaty. After massive oppositions and a lengthy debate, the House passed a resolution by three votes, adjudging it and making the treaty effective.

The Annals of Congress records that the Senate authorized Jay’s Treaty by a vote of 20 to 10 on June 24, 1795, and with that, the British surrendered the forts and posts on the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, Jay’s Treaty required that the House of Representatives reserve funds for its execution. Opponents in the House sought to block the annexation bill, with the debate commencing on April 14, 1796. The annexation for the treaty was narrowly sanctioned by a vote of 51 to 48 on April 30, 1796.

Despite these drawbacks, President George Washington came to the conclusion that Jay’s Treaty was essential in order to avert a war with Great Britain. In a letter to Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, dated July 22, 1795, Washington wrote, “My opinion respecting the treaty, is the same now that it was: namely, not favorable to it, but that it is better to ratify it in the manner the Senate have advised (and with the reservation already mentioned), than to suffer matters to remain as they are, unsettled.”


Watch the video: QUEEN SALVACION LEGASPI IBINULGAR ANG DUTERTE AND CHRISTOPHER LAO TANDEM (January 2022).