CHAPTER XII

THE JAY TREATY

THE relations of the United States with Great Britain during Washington's administrations were delicate and at times critical. The treaty of 1783 was not conclusive. It left several important questions unsettled, and some of its essential provisions, as we have previously noted, were being violated. The government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation was able neither to fulfil its own treaty obligations nor to compel Great Britain to fulfil hers. Many grievances were thus allowed to go by default. In the meantime, the relations between the two countries were becoming more and more strained; the government of the United States had been perceptibly strengthened since 1789, and the necessity for a new treaty became obvious.

The outbreak of the war between France and Great Britain in 1793 aggravated the difficulty. In addition to the non-fulfilment of her treaty obligations, Great Britain began an unpardonable series of aggressions upon American commerce. France offended in a similar manner, though not to so great an extent. Both countries insisted that provisions were "contraband of war," and hence liable to seizure. This doctrine worked a great hardship upon American vessels loaded with grain, which was the leading export. The United States held that only military and naval supplies were "contraband of war," and that vessels carrying provisions should not be molested. France and Great Britain also held that after notice of the blockade of a port was given,

vessels bound for that port were liable to seizure anywhere upon the high seas. The United States insisted that in such a case the blockade must be actual and not on paper. Again, France and Great Britain insisted upon the enforcement of the "Rule of 1756," which provided that when trade with colonies was prohibited in time of peace it should not be carried on by neutrals in time of war. This proposition was also denied by Americans, who declared that Great Britain should not interfere with their trade with the French and Spanish colonies. France and Great Britain also insisted that ships containing goods which were the property of the enemy were liable to capture. The American position was that "free ships make free goods," and that a neutral vessel was not liable to seizure under such circumstances. Both France and Great Britain began their depredations upon American commerce upon the above pretexts, and our trade suffered greatly. American merchant ships were being seized constantly and were safe nowhere. With each new seizure indignation ran higher. Feeling against Great Britain was especially intense, as her cruisers were more numerous than those of France, and hence effected more captures. In addition to this, she insisted upon the odious practice of "impressment." American vessels were stopped upon the high seas and searched for seamen of British birth. If such were found, they were seized and impressed into the British service. Naturalization rights were disregarded, and in many instances native-born Americans were pressed into the service of Great Britain. This practice added national humiliation to national injury, and stirred the government and the people to action. On September 16, 1793, Jefferson called the attention of Congress to this state of affairs, and advised retaliation. The national humiliation of impressment and the commercial losses incident to capture had well-nigh exhausted the patience of the people. The New England fishermen and ship owners wanted war declared against Great Britain, and so did the French clubs. Opposition to England was fundamental

in their political creed. Many, too, were incensed at the actions of France. Her offences against our commerce were different in degree, but not in kind. Even Jefferson was no longer the ardent advocate of French principles which he once was. Since the usurpations of Napoleon Bonaparte, his attitude toward France had been radically changed. "As for France and England," he wrote, "with all their prominence in science, one is a den of robbers, and the other of pirates."

The important question now was: Should the United States declare war against Great Britain, or France, or both; or should an effort be made to bring about a peaceful adjustment of the difficulty? Washington's voice and influence were for peace. "Peace," he declared, "ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal before the last resource, which has so often been the scourge of nations, and cannot fail to check the advancing prosperity of the United States, is contemplated." He was right. "War would have been justifiable, but the great interest of the nation was peace." War at that time would have been equivalent to national suicide. The United States was in no sense prepared for such a contest with either France or Great Britain. She had no army or navy, and her resources were exceedingly slender. Then, too, there was a conspicuous lack of national unity. She could not have presented a united or enthusiastic opposition to either country.

On March 26, 1794, an embargo for thirty days was laid prohibiting the departure of vessels from American ports, and on April 17th a resolution of non-intercourse with Great Britain was introduced in Congress. The country was trembling on the verge of war, when Washington declared his intention of appointing John Jay an envoy extraordinary to Great Britain to make one more attempt at a peaceful settlement of the difficulties.

In such a critical state of affairs as this, it was essential that the negotiator be selected with great care. Mr. Thomas Pinckney, United States minister at London at the time,

although a man of good ability, was a French sympathizer, and hence not eligible. Hamilton was Washington's first choice for the mission, but it was readily seen that his enemies were too numerous and too vindictive. James Monroe warned Washington against his appointment, and the probability is that it would not have been confirmed if made. Hamilton proposed Chief Justice John Jay, and Washington acquiesced. Jay was appointed on the 16th of April, 1794, and confirmed by the Senate, after three days of angry debate, "by a great majority," as Jay put it in a letter to his wife. "Mr. Burr," he continued, "was among the few who opposed it." In spite of this appointment, the nonintercourse bill aimed at Great Britain was passed by the House of Representatives, and was defeated in the Senate only by the casting vote of the vice-president, John Adams. Jay had had experience in diplomatic affairs, and was a man of the highest character and most spotless integrity. His appointment, nevertheless, was vigorously assailed. The Francomaniacs were opposed to the Federalists and to Great Britain on general principles. It was said that the office was incompatible with the one which Jay held at the time of his appointment; that he was monarchical in tendency and a lover of Great Britain; and that he was not alert in regard to the navigation of the Mississippi. Jay clearly saw the unpopularity which would of necessity follow, but thought it to be his duty to accept the mission. He said the appointment was "not to be desired, but to be submitted to." John Adams thought the main opposition to Jay was due to the fact that he might be successful in the undertaking and become a candidate for the presidency to the exclusion of Jefferson. His biographer, George Pellew, also remarks, in concluding his discussion of the mission to Great Britain: "He had at least done his duty, though by so doing he very possibly lost the Presidency of the United States." It is very plain that he did his duty, but not at all clear that he lost the presidency thereby. He probably could not have displaced Adams in the fall of 1796, and