Report on Spanish Territorial Claims and on French Sentiments Regarding American Navigation of the Mississippi River, 17 August 1786
Report on Spanish Territorial Claims and on French Sentiments
Regarding American Navigation of the Mississippi River
Office for Foreign Affairs 17th. August 1786
The Secretary of the United States for the Department of Foreign Affairs in obedience to the Order of Congress directing him to state to them without Delay the territorial Claims of Spain on the east Side of the Mississippi, and the Sentiments of France touching our Right to navigate that River,1
Reports—2
That the time allotted for this Report must necessarily render it concise and summary.—
It is well known that Spain claims the two Floridas, and contends that West Florida extends higher up the River Mississippi than is admitted by our Treaty with Britain, but how much higher exactly, your Secretary is uninformed, and has Reason to think that Spain has not yet made up her own mind on that Point.
Spain also claims certain Posts & Places on the Mississippi of which she divested the English during the War, but how far they mean to stretch their Claims over the adjacent Country, the Negotiations between Mr. Gardoqui and your Secretary have not as yet extended so minutely to that Point, as to enable him to determine.3
On the 26th. [28th] Day of April 1782 your Secretary who was then at Madrid wrote a Letter to the Secretary for foreign Affairs of which the following is an Extract.—
[Here Jay embedded an extract of his letter to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of 28 April 1782 in which he included an article from the Madrid Gazette of 12 March 1782. See JJSP, 2: 764–65.]
This is the only circumstance or transaction which your Secretary recollects to have heard while in Spain which induced him to suppose that his Catholic Majesty wished to acquire any Lands East of the Mississippi except the Floridas—neither Count de Florida Blanca, nor Mr. Gardoqui who was ^then^ employed, nor Mr. Del Campo ever hinted to your Secretary that a Cession of any Territory4 was expected or desired of the United States. All that was then insisted upon was, our quitting all Claim to the Navigation of the Mississippi below our Territories.5
When your Secretary came to Paris in the year 1782, Count Aranda the Spanish Ambassador there appeared to have far other Ideas on the Subject. Your Secretary’s Conferences with him being detailed in his Letter of the 17th. Novemr. 1782, it does not appear necessary to repeat them here, nor to extract more from that Letter than merely to observe, that the Count did mark a Line on a map as, and for a proper Line of Boundary between Spain and the United States, in that western Country. That same Map is now in the Possession of the Secretary of Congress.6
Although your Secretary has not yet obtained from Mr. Gardoqui an exact and explicit specification of the Spanish Claims, yet he has good Reason to believe that they fall very far short of those suggested by Count Aranda.7
Your Secretary thinks he should not omit inserting in this Report the following extracts from a Correspondence on these subjects between the Marquis de la Fayette and Count de Florida Blanca, Vizt.—
From the Marquis de la Fayette to the Count de Florida Blanca, dated Madrid, 19 February 1783.8
“Sir
Having had the honor to confer with your Excellency on the Objects relative to the United States, and being soon to repair to the american Congress, I wish to be fully impressed with the result of our Conversations. Instead of the indifference, and even of the divisions which another Nation would be glad to foresee, I am happy to have it in my power to inform the United States of your good dispositions. It is to you, Sir, I am indebted for this advantage, and in order to make it compleat and to make myself certain that I forget nothing, give me leave to submit to your Excellency the report which I intend to lay before Congress.—
His catholic Majesty desires that a lasting Confidence and harmony may subsist between him & the United States, and he is determined on his part to do every thing that will be necessary to keep it up. The american Chargé des Affaires is at this moment received as such, and your Excellency is going to treat of the interests of the two Nations. As you wish to shew Mr. Jay every kind of regard, you wait only till the Count de Aranda shall have notified your dispositions to him, to present Mr. Carmichael to his Majesty.—
With respect to the limits, His catholic Majesty has adopted those that are determined by the preliminaries of the 30th. of November between the United States and the Court of London. The fear of raising an object of dissention, is the only objection the King has to the free navigation of the river Mississippi. The Virginia tobacco, the naval stores, may furnish matter for reciprocal Conventions in the Treaty, and by means of the productions of America, arrangements might be made useful to her Finances. When I had the honor to speak to you in favor of a diminution of the duties on cod fish, you have answered that it would be necessary to give to France a similar advantage, and that by virtue of former treaties, the English might set up pretensions to the same. But you ^will^ do in every respect all that will be in your Power to satisfy America.—9
I would with very great pleasure enter into every detail in which I foresee a connection between Spain & the United States, but I am not to be concerned in this happy work, the Ministers of the United States, and the one whom you are going to send thither, are to make it their business, and I content myself with reminding you of the general ideas you have given me,—a word from you will satisfy me that I have not forgot any thing. The dispositions of his catholic Majesty, and the candour of your Excellency will leave no pretence for misrepresentations. The alliance of the house of Bourbon with the United States is founded on reciprocal interest; it will still acquire greater strength from the confidence which your Excellency wishes to establish.—
Such, Sir, are the conclusions which I have drawn from our conferences, and the account which I intend to give to Congress without having any mission for that purpose. I am acquainted with the sentiments of Congress, and I am convinced they will set a just value upon your dispositions. In permitting me to acquaint them with what I have seen, you lay a claim to my personal gratitude; I join the assurance of it to that of the respect with which I have the honor to be &c.—”
From the Count de Florida Blanca to the Marquis de la Fayette, dated 22d. February 1783.—
“Sir
I cannot comply better with your desire, than by asking your leave to give you here my answer. You have perfectly well understood whatever I have had the honor to communicate to you with respect to our dispositions towards the United States. I shall only add that altho’ it is his Majesty’s intentions to abide for the present by the limits established by the Treaty of the 30th. of Novr. 1782, between the English and the Americans, the King intends to inform himself particularly whether it can be in any ways inconvenient or prejudicial to settle that affair amicably with the United States. I have the honor to be, &c.”
“On receiving the answer of the Count de Florida Blanca, I desired an explanation respecting the addition that relates to the limits. I was answered, that it was a fixed principle to abide by the limits, established by the Treaty between the English and Americans, that his remark related only to mere unimportant details, which he wished to receive from the Spanish Commandants, which would be amicably regulated and would by no means oppose the general principle. I asked him before the Ambassador of France whether he would give me his word of honor for it, he answered me he would, and that I might engage it to the United States.—”
Madrid 22d. February 1783. (Signed) La Fayette-”10
Your Secretary shewed these Extracts to Mr. Gardoqui. He wrote to his Minister about them and has since told your Secretary that the Marquis misunderstood the Count.11 From these and similar facts and circumstances your Secretary is led to believe that, all other matters being first settled, Spain may be prevailed upon to confine these improper claims within a small Compass, for as she has not yet delineated them by Meets and Bounds, she may diminish them without hurting her Pride.—
As to the Sentiments of France touching our right to navigate the Mississippi, your Secretary began at an early period to believe and still thinks that the Court of France will not admit it.—
He well recollects that Mr. Gerard while at Philadelphia treated it as being ill founded, and promoted measures for a Dereliction of it.—
He finds among the communications made by the Chevalier De la Luzerne, one reported by a Comee. of Congress in January 1780 which in his Opinion merits Consideration—vizt.
“The Committee appointed to receive the Communications from the Minister Plenipotentiary of France report, that on their second Conference with him, he communicated to them—
That his most Christian Majesty being uninformed of the appointment of a Minister Plenipotentiary to treat of an Alliance between the United States & his Catholic Majesty, signified to his Minister Plenipotentiary to these United States, that he wishes most ardently for such an Alliance, and in order to make the way thereto more easy commanded him to communicate to Congress certain articles which his Catholic Majesty deems of great importance to the interests of his Crown, and on which it is highly necessary that these United States explain themselves with precision & with such moderation as may consist with their essential Rights.—
That the Articles are
1st. A precise and invariable western Boundary to the United States.—
2. The exclusive Navigation of the river Missisippi.
3. The possession of the Floridas.
4. The lands on the left or eastern side of the river Mississippi.—
That on the first article, it is the idea of the cabinet of Madrid that the United States extend to the westward no farther than Settlements were permitted by the royal Proclamation bearing date the 12 day of 1763.—
On the second, that the United States do not consider themselves as having any right to navigate the river Mississippi, no territory belonging to them being situated thereon.—
On the third, that it is probable the King of Spain will conquer the Floridas during the course of the present War, and in such Event every cause of dispute relative thereto between Spain & these United States ought to be removed.—
On the fourth, that the lands lying on the east side of the Mississippi whereon the settlements were prohibited by the aforesaid Proclamation are possessions of the Crown of Great Britain and proper Objects against which the Arms of Spain may be employed for the purpose of making a permanent Conquest for the Spanish Crown. That such conquest may probably be made during the present War. That therefore it would be advisable to restrain the southern States from making any settlements or conquests in those Territories.—
That the Council of Madrid consider the United States as having no Claims to those Territories, either as not having had possession of them before the present war, or not having any foundation for a Claim in the right of the Sovereign of Great Britain, whose dominion they have abjured.—13
That his most Christian Majesty united to the Catholic King by blood and by the strictest Alliances, and united with these States in treaties of Alliance, and feeling towards them dispositions of the most perfect friendship is exceedingly desirous of conciliating between his Catholic Majesty and these United States the most happy and lasting Friendship. That the United States may repose the utmost confidence in his good Will to their interests, and in the justice and liberality of his catholic Majesty; and that he cannot deem the revolution which has set up the Independence of these United States as past all danger of unfavorable Events, until his Catholic Majesty and the said states shall be established on those terms of Confidence and Amity, which are the objects of his most Christian Majesty’s very earnest wishes.”14—
That in 1782 at Paris your Secretary received and transmitted to Congress a Memoir of Monsieur de Rayneval the first Secretary of Count de Vergennes on the subject of our western Claims. That Paper was not official—the following is a Translation of it.—
[Here Jay embedded a translation of Rayneval’s Memoir on Spain and the United States of 6 September 1782. See JJSP, 3: 102–7]
Your Secretary also thinks that the sentiments of the Court of France on the Subject in question may be gathered from a Conference between him and their Ambassador’s Secretary, who called upon him by the Ambassador’s direction, at Madrid on the 11th. day of Septemr. 1780—The particulars of which are contained in his Letter of 6th. November—the following is an Extract from it—
[Here Jay embedded an extract from his letter to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of 6 November 1780. See JJSP, 2: 335–36]
These Facts and Papers in the Opinion of your Secretary afford much Evidence of the Sentiments entertained by the Court of France respecting our right to navigate the Mississippi, prior to and at the time of the Peace.—
Whether they have adopted new Opinions on that Point your Secretary cannot decide—He has however no Reason to believe that has been the Case, for he can perceive no Reason why such an Alteration in their Sentiments should have taken place. On the contrary it seems from Mr. Jefferson’s letter of the 23d. May last15 that the Minister is not ready to admit all our Claims as ascertained by the Treaty of Peace to be within their Guarantee. He intimated that all our Limits were not fixed, and your Secretary thinks that the Minister could have meant to allude only to our western Limits and Claims. Britain disputes no boundaries with us unless perhaps part of our Eastern—and those Disputes had not yet been brought before the french Court—but Spain still adheres to Pretentions of which France had been long and well informed and therefore your Secretary supposes the Minister then had those in View.—16
Your Secretary sincerely wishes that the Event may not confirm his Opinion, and that the Court of France may clearly admit all our Claims and particularly that to navigate the Mississippi to be well founded, and to be within the Terms, Intent & meaning of the Guarantee.—17 All which is submitted to the Wisdom of Congress.—
John Jay
DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 2: 217–38 (EJ: 3915). Endorsed by CT: “Report of Secretary / for foreign Affairs / in pursuance of the / Order of Congress of / 10 Aug. 1786 / Read. 22 Aug. 1786.” LbkCs, DNA: PCC, item 124, 2: 220–44 (EJ: 4579); DNA: PCC, item 125, 58–79 (EJ: 3710); NNC: JJ Lbks. 3 and 7; E, TxAuHRH (EJ: 2684); 30: 537–52.
1. See CT to JJ, 10 Aug. 1786, LbkCs, , 2: 421 (EJ: 2015); DNA: PCC, item 125, 56 (EJ: 3708); 7: 177–78.
2. This proceeding, in the writing of Benjamin Bankson, is entered only in DNA: PCC, item 5, Secret Journal, Foreign.
3. On Floridablanca’s willingness to make some concessions on boundaries if the United States agreed to cede navigation of the Mississippi, see the editorial note “Negotiations with Gardoqui Reach an Impasse,” above.
4. Here the text from DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 2: 221 ends. The missing text is supplied from LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 124, 2: 224–25.
5. For JJ’s conversations with Floridablanca, Gardoqui, and Campo, see 2: 107–8, 233, 235.
6. On the map, see 3: 32–36.
7. On Spanish boundary concessions, see JJ’s report of 11 Apr. 1787, below.
8. The text resumes from DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 2: 222.
9. On the reciprocal trade provisions Gardoqui offered in the course of his negotiations, see JJ’s report of 3 Aug., above.
10. Although Congress had not appointed Lafayette to negotiate on its behalf with the Spanish, Lafayette considered himself free to do so if he thought he could advance the fortunes of his adopted country. In Madrid in February 1783, he discussed boundaries and navigation of the Mississippi with Floridablanca and other Spanish ministers. Floridablanca equivocated about American claims, but promised Lafayette that he would appoint a minister or chargé d’affaires to the United States and to negotiate a reciprocal trade agreement, commitments he fulfilled in the Gardoqui mission. See 3 318–22.
When Lafayette returned to the United States in the fall of 1784, he continued to involve himself in American affairs, and was urged to do so by JM, described by Gardoqui as a “creature of France.” Gardoqui also reported that he had been advised by his trusted friend, Henry Lee, that he had a powerful enemy, a distinguished French military officer. See 1: 518–19. After conferring with GW, who believed that opening the river before the westerners were securely tied to the Atlantic states might turn them into “Spaniards,” Lafayette informed Vergennes that substantial immigration to the Ohio region was slowing American manufacturing and shipping, and that there were projects to connect the Potomac, Susquehanna, and Ohio Rivers by canal. These, he said, would give French manufactures preferential access to trade in the Illinois region. JM exerted himself to counter GW’s arguments and to convince Lafayette that it was imperative for Americans to have use of the river.
Back in France in the spring of 1785, Lafayette assured JM and Patrick Henry that he was “pestering” his government with his prophesies regarding the river. He told GW that he had urged the newly appointed French ambassador to Spain to convince the Spaniards to at least make New Orleans a free port. He advised William Carmichael that the only rational and advantageous course for Spain to take was to open the river to American trade. His activities may have contributed to the Virginians’ sense that France would agree to intervene with regard to the American claims. See 8: 113–14, 251–53; 5: 244, 286, 301–2, 305–6, 337–38; 8: 245–46; , 2: 450, 504.
11. In dispatches of August 1785, June 1786, and May 1787, Gardoqui reported that JJ had raised the issue of the commitments Lafayette believed he had obtained from Floridablanca. See the editorial note “Negotiations with Gardoqui Reach an Impasse,” above; and 1: 139, 140, 519.
12. Space left blank in text. This refers to George III’s Royal Proclamation of 7 Oct. 1763, which set the boundaries of settlement for the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies.
13. On the complications created by the Anglo-American and Anglo-Spanish peace treaties, see the editorial note “Interfering Claims to the Mississippi River,” above.
14. See 16: 87–89, 114–16; La Luzerne to Vergennes, 11 Feb. 1780, in 1: 27–33, and 2: 386–90. In the debate at the Virginia ratifying convention of 13 June 1788, Monroe acknowledged French pressure to concede navigation of the river to Spain. See : 10: 1231.
15. See TJ to JJ, 23 May 1786, above.
16. See ibid.
17. Despite the pressure France had applied on Congress to waive its claim to free navigation of the Mississippi and evidence that French participation in the war had been primarily motivated by its desire to diminish Britain’s power and situate the United States as a client state, on which see 16: 154–59; 3: 225–55; and the editorial note “The Franco-American Consular Convention,” above, some southern delegates continued to depend on French support. By the time of the Virginia ratifying convention, however, Federalist delegates questioned the value of the French territorial guarantee. George Nicholas asked “If dependence be put upon it, why did they not put us in possession [of the navigation] and enable us to derive benefits from it?” Edmund Randolph mocked Patrick Henry for supposing that France would do “everything for us!” and asked whether this “pretended security” enabled Americans to make use of the river. 10: 1252, 1253.