Rayneval’s Memoir on the Boundaries between Spain and the United States, 6 September 1782
Rayneval’s Memoir on the Boundaries
between Spain and the United States
[Paris, 6 September 1782]
Ideé
Sur la manière de déterminer et fixer les limites entre l’Espagne et les Etats-unis du côté de l’Ohio et vers le Mississipi
Il est question entre l’Espagne et les Etats-unis de l’Amerique Septentrionale de régler les limites respectives vers l’Ohio et le Mississipi. Les Américains prétendent que leur Domaine s’étend jusqu’au Mississipi et l’Espagne soutient le contraire.
Il est évident que les Américains ne peuvent emprunter que de l’Angre. le droit qu’ils prétendent avoir de s’étendre jusqu’au Mississipi. Ainsi pour déterminer ce droit il convenient d’examiner ce qu’a pensé et fait à cet égard la Cour de Londres.
On sait qu’avant le Traité de Paris la France possédoit la Louisiane et le Canada, et qu’Elle a regardé les peuples Sauvages Situés à l’Est du Mississipi ou comme indépendants ou comme étant sous sa protection.
Cette prétension n’a causé aucune querelle; L’Angre. n’a imaginé d’en faire que pour les terreins situés vers la source de l’Ohio dans la partie où Elle a donné à ce fleuve le nom d’Allegany.
Il s’est ensuivi de là une discution de limites entre les Cours de Versailles et de Londres: mais il seroit superflu d’ensuivre les détails, il sufit d’observer qu’en 1755 l’Angre. a proposé la délimitation suivante. Elle est parti du point où la rivière des Boeufs se jette dans l’Ohio à l’endroit appellé Venango; Elle a remonté cette Rivière vers le Lac Erié jusqu’à la distance de 20 lieües; et reprenant au dt. endroit de Venango; Elle a tiré une ligne droite jusqu’aux dernières montagnes de la Virginie qui ont leur versant à l’ocean. Quant aux peuplades sauvages situés entre la ligne qui vient d’être indiquée et le Mississipi le Ministère Anglois les regarde comme indépendantes. Il resulte de là que d’après les propositions mêmes de la Cour de Londres, présque tout le cours de l’Ohio apartenoit à la France, et que les contrées situées à l’oüest des montagnes étoient regardées comme n’aiant rien de commun avec les Colonies.
Lorsqu’en 1761. on négocia la paix, la France offrit à l’Angre. la cession du Canada. Il fût question de regler les limites de cette Colonie, et celles de la Louisiane. La France prétendit que présque tout le cours de l’Ohio faisoit partie de La Louisiane, et la Cour de Londres pour prouver que ce Fleuve apartenoit au Canada produisit plusieurs pièces probantes, entr’autres la Carte que M. de Vaudreuil remit au Commandant Anglois en abandonnant le Canada. Le Ministère de Londres soutint en même tems qu’une partie de ces Sauvages Situés à l’Est du Mississipi etoit indépendante, l’autre sous sa protection et qu’Elle en avoit acheté une partie des 5. Nations Iroquoises. Les malheurs de la France couperent court à cette discution: le Traité de Paris assigna le Mississipi pour limites entre les possessions de la France et celles de la grande Bretagne.
Voions les dispositions que la Cour de Londres a faites en conséquence du Traité de Paris.
Si Elle eût regardé les vastes Terreins situés à l’Est du Mississipi comme faisant partie de ses anciennes Colonies, Elle l’auroit déclaré, et auroit fait des dispositions en conséquence. Loin de là, le Roi d’Angre. dans une proclamation du mois d’Octobre 1763. fait connoître d’une manière précise et positive que les Terreins en question sont situés entre le Mississipi et les anciens établissements Anglois. Il est donc de la dernière évidence que la Cour de Londre Elle-même, lorsqu’Elle étoit encore Souveraine des 13. Colonies, ne regardoit pas les terreins susmentionnés comme faisant partie de ces mêmes Colonies, et il resulte de là de la manière la plus démonstrative, qu’Elles n’ont aujourd-hui aucun droit Sur ces terreins; pour soutenir le contraire il faudroit détruire tous les principes du droit, de la nature et des gens.
Les Principes que viennent d’être établis sont aplicables à l’Espagne comme aux Etats-unis: Cette puissance ne peut pas étendre sa propriété au delà de ce qu’Elle a conquis: Or on Sait qu’Elle n’a pas dépassé le Fort de Natches, Situé vers le 31eme. dégré de latitude; ainsi ses droits se bornent à ce dégré: ce qui est audelà est, ou indépendant ou appartenant à l’Angre., ni l’Espagne ni les Américains n’ont rien à y prétendre: le futur Traité de paix pourra seul régler les droits respectifs.
La conséquence de tout ce qui vient d’être dit est que ni l’Espagne ni les Etats-unis n’ont aucun droit de Souveraineté Sur les Sauvages dont il est question, et que la transaction qu’ils feroient sur ce Pays seroient sans objet.
Mais l’avenir peut amener de nouvelles circonstances; et cette réflexion porte á croire qu’il seroit utile que la Cour de Madrid et les Etats-unis fissent un arrangement éventüel.
Cette arrangement pourroit être fait de la manière suivante. On tireroit une ligne droite depuis l’angle Oriental du Golfe du Mexique qui fait la Section entre les deux florides jusqu’au Fort Toulouze situé dans le Pais des Alibamous; delà on remonteroit la Rivière de Loueshatchi depuis l’embouchure de laquelle on tireroit une ligne droite jusqu’au Fort où Comptoir Quenassée; depuis ce dernier endroit on suivroit le cours de la Rivière Euphasée jusqu’à l’endroit où Elle se jette dans celle de Cheraques: on suivroit le cours du cette dernière jusqu’à l’endroit où elle reçoit celle de Pelisippi; on suivroit celle-ci jusqu’à sa source, d’où l’on tireroit une ligne droite jusqu’à l’endroit où elle reçoit celle de Pelisippi; on suivroit celle-ci jusqu’à sa source, d’où l’on tireroit une ligne droite jusqu’à la Riviere de Cumberland, dont on suivroit le cours jusqu’à son embouchure dans L’Ohio. Les Sauvages à l’oüest de la ligne qui vient d’être indiquée seroient libres sous la protection de l’Espagne; ceux situés à l’Est seroient libres et sous la protection des Etats-unis, ou bien les Américains s’arrangeroient avec Eux comme ils l’entendroient, le commerce seroit libre avec les uns et les autres.
En jettant les yeux sur la Carte on verra que l’Espagne perdroit présque tout le cours de L’Ohio, et que les établissements que les Americains peuvent avoir sur cette Riviere demeureroient intactes, et même qu’ils auroient une espace très-etendüe pour en former de nouveaux.
Quant au cours et à la navigation du Mississipi, ils suivent le sort de la propriété; ils apartiendront donc à la Nation à qui appartiendront les deux rives. Si donc par le futur traité de paix l’Espagne conserve la floride Occidentale, Elle sera seule propriétaire du cours du Mississipi depuis le 31. dégré de latitude jusqu’à l’embouchure de ce Fleuve: quel que soit le sort de ce qui est audelà de ce point vers le Nord, les Etats-unis n’y sauroient prétendre, faute d’être maitres de l’une ou de lautre rive du fleuve.
Pour ce qui est des terreins situés au Nord de L’Ohio, il y a lieu de présumer que l’Espagne n’y formera aucune prétention; leur sort devra être réglé avec la Cour de Londres.
[Translation]
Idea
On the manner of determining and fixing the Limits between Spain and the United States on the Ohio and the Mississippi1
The Question between Spain and the United States of North America is, how to regulate their respective Limits toward the Ohio and the Mississippi. The Americans pretend that their Dominion extends as far as the Mississippi, and Spain maintains the contrary.
It is evident that the Americans can only borrow from England the right they pretend to have to extend as far as the Mississippi—therefore, to determine this Right, it is proper to examine what the Court of London has thought and done on this Head.
It is known that before the Treaty of Paris, France possessed Louisiana and Canada, and that she considered the Savage People situated to the East of the Mississippi, either as independent, or as under her Protection.
This pretension caused no dispute— England never thought of making any except as to the Lands situated towards the Source2 of the Ohio, in that Part where she had given the name of Alleghany to that River.
A Discussion about Limits at that Time took Place between the Courts of Versailles and London, but it would be superfluous to follow the particulars; it will suffice to observe that England proposed in 17553 the following Boundary. It set out from the Point where the River de Boeuf falls into the Ohio, at the Place called Venango, it went up this River towards Lake Erie as far as 20 Leagues, and setting off again from the same Place, Venango, a right Line was drawn as far as the last Mountains of Virginia, which descend towards the Ocean. As to the savage Tribes situated between the aforesaid line & the Mississippi, the English minister considers them as independent; from whence it follows, that, according to the very Propositions of the Court of London, almost the whole course of the Ohio belonged to France, and that the Countries situated to the westward of the Mountains, were considered as having nothing in common with the Colonies.
When peace was negociated in 1761, France offered to make a Cession of Canada to England. The Regulation of the Limits of this Colony and Louisiana was in Question. France pretended that almost the whole Course of the Ohio made a Part of Louisiana, and the Court of London to prove that this River belonged to Canada, produced several authentic Papers, among others, the Chart which M. Vaudreuil delivered to the English Commandant when he abandoned Canada. The Minister of London maintained at the same Time, that a Part of the savages situated to the Eastward of the Mississippi were independent, another part under its Protection, and that England had purchased a part from the five Iriquois Nations. The Misfortunes of France cut these Discussions short; the treaty of Paris assigned the Mississippi for the Boundary between the possessions of France and Great Britain.4
Let us see the Dispositions which the Court of London has made in consequence of the Treaty of Paris.
If they had considered the vast Territories situated to the eastward of the Mississippi as forming part of their ancient Colonies, they would have declared so, and have made their Dispositions accordingly. So far from any such Thing, the King of England in a Proclamation of the Month of October 1763, declares, in a precise and positive manner, that the Lands in Question are situated between the Mississippi and the ancient English Establishments. It is, therefore, clearly evident that the Court of London itself, when it was as yet Sovereign of the thirteen Colonies, did not consider the aforementioned Lands as forming part of these same Colonies; and it results from this in the most demonstrative manner, that they have not at this Time any Right over these Lands. To maintain the contrary, every Principle of the laws of Nature and Nations must be subverted.
The principles just established are as applicable to Spain as to the United States. This Power cannot extend its Claims beyond the Bounds of its Conquests. She cannot, therefore, pass beyond the Natchez, situated towards the 31st degree of latitude—her Rights are, therefore, confined to this Degree, what is beyond is either independent or belonging to England, neither Spain nor the Americans can have any Pretensions thereto. The future Treaty of Peace can alone regulate the respective Rights.
The consequence of all that has been said is, that neither Spain nor the United States has the least Right of sovereignty over the Savages in Question, and that the Transactions they may carry on as to this Country would be to no Purpose.
But the future may bring forth new Circumstances, and this Reflection leads one to suppose that it would be of use that the Court of Madrid and the United States should make an eventual Arrangement.
This arrangement may be made in the following manner. A right Line should be drawn from the Eastern Angle of the Gulf of Mexico, which makes the Section between the two Floridas, to Fort Toulouse, situated in the Country of the Alibamons;5 from thence the River Loneshatchi should be ascended, from the mouth of which a right Line should be drawn to the Fort or Factory Quenassé; from this last Place the Course of the River Euphasèe is to be followed till it joins the Cherokee; the Course of this last River is to be pursued to the Place where it receives the Pelisippi, this last to be followed to its source, from whence a right Line is to be drawn to Cumberland River, whose course is to be followed until it falls into the Ohio. The Savages to the westward of the Line described should be free under the Protection of Spain, those to the eastward should be free and under the Protection of the United States; or, rather, the Americans may make such Arrangements with them as is most convenient to themselves.6 The trade should be free to both Parties.
By looking over the Chart we shall find that Spain would lose almost the whole Course of the Ohio, and that the Establishments which the Americans may have on this River would remain untouched, and that even a very extensive Space remains to form new ones.
As to the Course and Navigation of the Mississippi, they follow with the Property, and they will belong, therefore, to the Nation to which the two Banks belong. If then, by the future Treaty of Peace, Spain preserves West Florida, she alone will be proprietor of the Course of the Mississippi from the 31st Degree of Latitude to the Mouth of this River, whatever may be the Case with that Part which is beyond this Point to the North, the United States of America can have no pretensions to it, not being Masters of either Border of this river.7
As to what respects the lands situated to the northward of the Ohio, there is Reason to presume that Spain can form no Pretensions thereto. Their fate must be regulated with the Court of London.8
RC, undated, in French, NHi: Jay Papers. Endorsed by JJ: “Mr Rayneval’s Plan of a / conciliatory Line between / Spain & the United States / towards the Missisippi—/ 7 Septr: 1782 / Recd 7 Sepr 1782”. Dft (FC), in French, FrPMAE: CP-EU, 22: 200–204 (EJ: 5082), with notations that it was sent to JJ on 6 Sept. 1782, and to La Luzerne on 21 July 1783. C, in French, embedded in JJ to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 17 Nov. 1782, below. LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 110, 2: 185–91, with English translation in PCC, item 110, 3: 33–38 (EJ: 4237); LbkCs, in French with English translation, NNC: JJ Lbk. 1; and CSmH. C of translation embedded in JJ’s report of 17 Aug. 1786, DNA: PCC, item 81: 2: 229–35 (EJ: 3915); LbkCs, PCC, item 124, 2: 234–40 (EJ: 4579); PCC, item 125: 70–75; NNC: JJ Lbk. 3; , 31: 546–50. Translation taken from PCC, item 110 version, which was printed with minor variations in , 6: 25–27, and , 2: 393–98. , 31: 546–50, prints the translation as given in the 1786 report to Congress, with some minor errors as noted below. Printed in : 330–32 with a new translation prepared by the editors.
1. In his notes on negotiations with JJ of 19–30 Aug., above, Aranda notes that Rayneval fully supported his argument that the United States had no substantive claim to extend its boundaries to the Mississippi and records Rayneval’s promise to prepare a “relevant report” for which he had expressed gratitude. Rayneval was the brother of Conrad Alexandre Gérard, who, while serving as first French minister to the United States, had attempted to convince Congress that Spain’s claim to control the Mississippi and its right to conquer East Louisiana were indisputable. The arguments offered here restate the positions put forward by Gérard and La Luzerne in 1779 and 1780. See , 12: 72; , 16: 113–16, and 1: 27–33, 43–47, 49–51.
Samuel Flagg Bemis, commenting on the CP-EU text, states that this version, which he styles a “Compromise Memorandum,” is a distillation of a longer, “Historical Memorandum” composed by Rayneval during the ongoing discussions of boundaries between JJ and Aranda. He argues that variations in three French and Spanish archival copies of the memorandum show Rayneval’s “close co-operation with Aranda, . . . and were obviously designed to favor Spain as against the United States,” thus justifying JJ’s suspicions about French lack of support for American claims. Bemis also notes that the “Historical Memorandum” had proposed that Spain grant the United States navigation of the Mississippi and an entrepôt in exchange for American acceptance of the compromise boundaries, an idea that Aranda seemed to favor. 15–92, esp. 80–92.
2. Here, the translation inaccurately reads “South.” This error does not appear in the manuscript PCC translations.
3. For a discussion of Franco-British boundary negotiations, see Frank W. Brecher, Losing a Continent: France’s North American policy, 1753–1763 (Westport, Conn., 1998), 159–67, 198–99.
4. Rayneval’s determination to use British arrangements following the 1763 settlement as a basis for rejecting American claims to the lands east of the Mississippi mirrored Vergennes’s position. In his dispatch to La Luzerne on 14 Oct, the French Minister commented on “the extravagance of the Americans’ claims and views,” adding that “a confidential note” had been sent to JJ demonstrating what the limits of its boundaries ought to be, and stating that both the United States and Spain demanded “countries to which neither of them has acquired rights, and which it will be very nearly impossible to accord them.” See , 1: 616. For a discussion of Indians’ perspective on the 1763 settlement, see François Furstenberg, “The Significance of the Trans-Appalachian Frontier in Atlantic History,” 113, no. 3 (June 2008): 647–77.
5. For Vergennes’s comments on the line at this point, and for Rayneval’s comments on a boundary settlement, see Aranda’s Notes on Negotiations with John Jay, 19–30 Aug. 1782, above.
6. Rayneval’s proposed line is indicated on the map in : 271.
7. See map of the borders proposed during the peace negotiations on p. 36.
8. This statement by Rayneval disregards the capture of St. Joseph, Michigan, by a Spanishled force in February 1781 as described in an article published in the Gaceta de Madrid (Madrid Gazette) that JJ embedded in his letter to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of 28 Apr. 1782, : 764–65. For Vergennes’s endorsement of the boundary limitations suggested in this document, see his letter to La Luzerne of 14 Oct. 1782, , 1: 616. For his subsequent attempt to depict the ideas offered as only Rayneval’s personal opinion, see his letter to La Luzerne of 21 July 1783, , 1: 891.