To George Washington from Charleston, S.C., Citizens, 22 July 1795
From Charleston, S.C., Citizens
Charleston, South Carolina [July 22nd 1795]1
Sir
With the freedom of men who are sensible of their own rights; but with the sincere deference which true Republicans must ever pay to the constitution which themselves have framed, to the laws which themselves have authorized, and to the Chief Magistrate of their own choice; and with all that Reverence and Affection which Americans justly owe to the man who has most eminently distinguished himself by his important services, his incorruptible integrity and the wisdom of his Councils; we venture to express to you the painful apprehensions and Alarm which have been excited in our minds by the perusal of the Treaty now pending betwixt the United States and his Britannic Majesty. Having considered it with the most careful attention, we are confirmed in our fears that the Ratification of it would prove ruinous or highly injurious to the best interests of our Country.2 Having not had time to go into a lengthy detail of all the objections to which we think the Treaty lyable, we have contented ourselves with stating a few only of those which have most forcibly impressed themselves on our feelings, and this Statement put into the form of a Report we transmit to you, with a full persuasion that you will give it that weight and consideration which the reasons on which it is founded may justly merit.3 Confident as we are that our fellow Citizens in other parts of the Union, impelled by sensations similar to our own and actuated by motives purely Patriotic, will, with equal respect to your Station and to your person, come forward with like Representations, we conjure you to suspend for a short time at least the Ratification of this instrument, that the General sense of the Community, if they should think proper to express it, may be known on so interesting a measure. The pleasing conviction with which your undeviating conduct has ever inspired us of the Rectitude of your mind, will not permit us to doubt but that you will rejoice to avail yourself of the light which from every source may be thrown on an obscure and intricate subject, and that, if the Arguments offered by us or by any of the rest of your fellow Citizens shall appear to be substantially founded, and conclusively to evince the injurious tendency of this Treaty, you will altogether with-hold, that assent which would intail it’s evils on your Country. As we are convinced that in all your Public conduct you have acted and ever will act with a purity of intention which must ensure the approbation of your own conscience, so it is our ardent wish that on all occasions it may also be with that happy conformity to the General sentiments of your Constituents that will preserve to you, and, if possible, increase the Universal Affection which it is your peculiar Glory and happiness to possess.4 In behalf of the Citizens Present
Jno. Mathews—Chairman
ADS, DLC:GW; DS, DLC:GW.
John Mathews (Mathewes; 1744–1802), chairman of the meeting, was a former South Carolina governor and speaker in the state legislature.
This was the first of many public meetings about the Jay Treaty held in South Carolina during July and August. The citizens of Christ Church Parish, Charleston District, held a general meeting on 24 July and adopted a resolution that they “highly approve of the Conduct of their Fellow-Citizens in Charleston, in opposing the impending Treaty … and do most heartily concur in the Report of their Committee on that subject.” They sent their sentiments to Mathews, who forwarded them to GW (ADS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).
Individuals who lived in “Camden, and its vicinity” met on 21 and 25 July before reaching a unanimous approval of several resolutions against the Jay Treaty, including a statement: “That the aforesaid Treaty st[r]ikes us in every point of View, with astonishment and indignation—It appears to us mean, slavish, and obscure; no ways equally binding; but conferring all the advantages on the one Side, and imposing all restraints on the other; Degrading to the dignity of an Independant Republic, and insulting to the Honor and spirit of a brave and free People. And that we think it not only infamous in these respects, but utterly incompatible with our just claims Rights and Interests.” The meeting concluded with a resolution to have their sentiments printed so that “our Ideas of the Treaty, and our opinion of its Author, Supporters and abettors may be made Known” (DS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).
On 3 Aug. citizens of St. George’s Parish, Dorchester, assembled to receive a committee report about the treaty which contended: “it is derogatory to the honor and interest of the United States of America.” Dorchester residents agreed with the proceedings in Charleston and considered the objections approved at that meeting “so solid, and so conclusive against the ratification of the Treaty, it is hoped, and expected, that they will carry sufficient weight with them to induce the President to with-hold his assent to it.” Dorchester residents then ordered a copy of the proceedings sent to Mathews, for him to forward to GW (DS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).
On 8 Aug. “a very numerous meeting” of individuals of the upper part of St. John’s Parish met at the “Forty five mile House,” also known as Barnet’s Tavern. They resolved that the Jay Treaty “does not contain that reciprocity, which ought to be the Basis of all contracts; that the concessions made to Great Britain, and the restrictions on our Commerce, are disgracefull and ruinous, and such as ought Never to be acceded to by Freemen.” Attendees ordered the proceedings of their meeting published and sent to Mathews, for him to forward to GW (DS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).
Residents of St. James Parish in Goose Creek also gathered on 8 Aug., and four days later so did residents of St. James Parish in Santee. Both groups considered the treaty “derogatory” to U.S. “honor.” They stated their approval of the actions and decision taken in Charleston and sent their resolutions to Mathews, who apparently forwarded the proceedings to GW (ADS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).
Citizens of Laurens County gathered at their courthouse on 12 Aug. and selected a five-member committee to report on the treaty one week later. Attendees also resolved that the committee “draw up an Address to Major Butler, approving his conduct with respect to S[aid] Treaty; as also to testify their resolution to support him in this and every laudable action.” When the meeting convened on 19 Aug., Laurens County residents unanimously approved the committee report, which considered the treaty “on the one side … arrogant and dictatorial, and on the other, pusilanimous and submissive.” They also unanimously approved several resolutions including the statement: “The preamble is an open declaration, that the merits of the Complaints and pretentions of the contracting parties, shall not be taken into consideration.”
Participants held that “the 1st Article of the Treaty abrogates laws of the different States, and makes provision for the return of persons, who were banished only for crimes of the deepest dye; a sight of whom will open the wounds which time had kindly Cuat[e]rized.”
They claimed that “The 2d article has done for the enemies of the United States what neither a seven years War, nor eleven years peace could accomplish; it gives them protection in our Bosom, while they continue to demonstrate the most inveterate hatred, both against our Citizens and our Government.”
As for Article X, it relinquished “what the United States most indubitably ought to retain; and … cedes the only possible present means of restraining that wanton Nation in her unbounded insults, which she has (since first capable) offered to all Nations—It is also an undue restraint on the powers of Congress, constitutionally committed to them, by the people of the United States, and ought never to be abridged by Treaty.”
Participants considered Article XVII “a formal acknowledgment, that Britain is the legitamate Legislature of the Marine World; that the Orders of her admiralty shall be considered as the Law of Nations.” Moreover, Articles XX and XXI “create doubts, what construction the British mean, in future, to give to the word Pirate—Should an American be robbed of property, by a British privateer or Ship of War, on the high Seas; would he be permitted to expatriate himself, take a Commission under some power at war with his Britannic Majesty, in order to make reprisals? or if he did, might he not, by this Treaty, be taken, tried and suffer as a pirate? when he is pursuing the only mode in his Power, in order to Obtain Restitution for unmerited injuries; and which his Country, by this Treaty, has refused to redress? If he may be thus taken and suffer, we think it unjust, while the barbarous practice of privateering is carried to such unheard of lengths ⟨by that wanton Nation; at the same time, the United States allowing, nay even compelling persons emigrating to this Country,⟩ to expatriate themselves before they can become citizens of these states.”
The citizens concluded, “that if said Treaty should be ratified; The United States, so far as it respects their commercial situation, is far worse than Colonial.” They approved of the meeting at Charleston and ordered that a copy of their proceedings be sent to Mathews with a request that he inform GW of them (DS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW). The text in angle brackets, where the document is obscured by tape, is taken from the letter book. A note written on the letter-book copy states: “The foregoing Resolutions &ca were sent under a blank cover, by (as is supposed) Jno. Matthews Esqr—No notice has been taken of them.”
Residents of Fairfield County met on 21 Aug. at the Court House in Winnsboro. They “Unanimously Agreed that the Said Treaty does not Contain Mutual and Reciprocal Advantages to these United States in proportion to the Many Concessions made to Great Britain.” The participants appointed a committee to prepare an address to GW. When the committee presented the address, the citizens “Unanimously” approved it and ordered chairman John Pearson to send it to the president “without loss of time.” They also endorsed the Charleston meeting for its “Manly” opposition to the Jay Treaty (DS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:) That same day, Pearson sent the address to GW with a cover letter stating that the Fairfield citizens “Are Unanimously of Opinion that the said Treaty does not Contain Mutual Advantages to these States, in any manner proportionate to the many Concessions made to Great Britain.
“And if Ratified great Evils will Result. Therefore your Memori[a]list[s] Humbly Pray that your Excellency will not Ratify the Said Treaty. Sign’d in Behalf of All Present Say Five Hundred & upwards” (ALS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW).
Other South Carolina addresses came from Georgetown, 31 July, and Columbia, 4 Aug. (for these, see Timothy Pickering to GW, 9 Sept., n.2), and from the Cheraws District, 15 Aug. (DLC:GW).
1. The date is taken from the DS. In a cover letter dated 22 July, Mathews enclosed the address, a report of the proceedings, and a printed report giving more details of the objections to the treaty (see n.3). He asked GW to “excuse my sending the printed report, as the Vessel is now waiting, and there is not time to have it written” (ALS, DLC:GW).
2. At a meeting held on 16 July at St. Michael’s Church, Charleston citizens “Resolved Unanimously, that an Election by Ballot be held at the Exchange, in the afternoon from the Hours of 3 to 7 OClock in the Evening and from 8 OClock tomorrow morning to 12 OClock at Noon to choose fifteen persons as a Committee to take into Consideration the impending Treaty … and to report their Sentiments thereon to a Meeting of the Citizens to be held in St Michaels Church on Wednesday next at 10 OClock in the Morning.” The participants then “recommended to the Inhabitants of the several Districts throughout the State, to form similar meetings on the same Subject, and to notify their Opinion thereon.” The meeting adjourned to Wednesday, 22 July, 10:00 A.M. at St Michael’s.
On the appointed day, at “a very Numerous Meeting of the Citizens,” Christopher Gadsden, chairman of the select committee, presented a report. Attendees discussed the document “Paragraph by Paragraph” and “after a Considerable time spent in debate … Resolved Unanimously in the affirmative.” The gathering then requested the select committee to present an address to the president “praying that he will not Ratify the said Treaty.” Gadsden proceeded to read a prepared document, and after a detailed discussion, the citizens unanimously gave their approval. They directed the chairman to send the address, the select committee report, and the proceedings of the meeting to the president “by Land and Water, with all possible expedition.”
The citizens further “Ordered that the Proceedings of the Meeting be printed and attested by the Secretary and that the Chairman do cause the same to be distributed in the Several Districts Counties and Parishes in this State” (DS, DLC:GW; ADS, in the hand of secretary John Sandford Dart, DLC:GW). For some of the speeches presented at the meeting, see City Gazette & Daily Advertiser (Charleston) 23 July, and Dunlap and Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), 28 July.
3. The printed report of the select committee states that “they have attentively considered the said treaty, and are of opinion, that it has not that reciprocity which ought to be the basis of all contracts—that it contains no provisions in favor of the United States, in any manner proportionate to the various concessions made to Great Britain, and restricts Congress in the exercise of its constitutional power of regulating trade, and making such discriminations in favor of other foreign nations, as may be most beneficial.
“From many well founded objections, your committee beg leave to select and submit the following:
“The first article, though usual in treaties, would be particularly mischievous in this, inasmuch as it permits the unconditional return to our country, of all persons who were proscribed during the late war, though their return is repugnant to our laws, and to the feelings of our injured fellow citizens, and though the state legislatures have already proceeded as far in re-admitting such persons, as they judged consistent with good faith or sound policy.
“The second article sanctions the continuance of an injury, which, in violation of the treaty of peace, has already existed eleven years: it either establishes a British colony within our limits, with peculiar privileges, or, in case the inhabitants of such colony choose to become citizens of the United States, it gives the privileges of citizens of these States to a number of men, who have been their most bitter and irreconcileable enemies; who, in conjunction with the savages, have lately waged war against us, and who, from their local situation in the vicinity of the Indian tribes, conveniently may, and from their disposition (as far as we can judge from their past conduct) would be inclined to join with them, in acting against us, on any favorable emergency.
“The third article gives to the British, what to them, with their capital, will be nearly equivalent to a monopoly of the trade with the Indians, and with our Western territories, and opens a door for smuggling on an extensive scale, to the great injury of our revenue.
“By the sixth article, the United States undertake to make good such losses on debts, to British creditors, as have been occasioned by legal impediments, to their recovery, created by any of the states, in violation (as is alledged) of the treaty of peace; although the first infraction of that treaty, was made on the part of Great-Britain, by carrying away from these states many thousands of negroes, and a considerable quantity of valuable property, whereby individuals were deprived of the means of discharging their debts—although the United States have incurred an immense expence in maintaining an army for the defence of their Northern and Western Territory; an expence actually occasioned in consequence of the detention of the western posts—and although no compensation is stipulated to be made to the citizens, whose negroes, and other property, have been illegally carried off; their right of recovery being passed over in silence. Thus the United States are compelled to make ample reparation, for the only infringement of the treaty, which is charged on any of their citizens; whilst neither the union, nor its citizens, have even a promise of compensation, for the many injuries sustained by violations of the said treaty, on the part of Great-Britain.
“This article, moreover, erects a tribunal, new and unknown to our constitution, inasmuch as it transfers the right of deciding on the claims of British creditors, from the courts and juries of America, to commissioners; a majority of whom may be British subjects, and by their decisions, tax the revenue of these states at pleasure.
“The seventh article makes restitution for the extensive spoliations lately committed on our commerce, remote, expensive, and uncertain; though justice, and the circumstances of our injured citizens demanded that it should have been immediate and complete; while, on the other hand, full compensation, on certain fixed principles, is stipulated to be made by the United States, for all property which has been taken by privateers, equipped in our ports, or which has been captured within our limits.
“The twelfth article gives us no other privilege than that of carrying in American vessels (not exceeding seventy tons burden) such articles of the growth, manufacture, or production of these states, as are not, and shall not be prohibited by Great Britain, from being carried to her West-India islands, and of bringing from thence, in such American vessels, such produce of those islands, as may be carried from thence to the Unites States in British vessels: In return for this privilege (which, restricted as it is, is of no value) we are made to surrender the right of exporting in our own vessels, to any part of the world, molasses, sugar, coffee, and cocoa, whether the productions of the British islands, or of any other place; whilst the British, and all other foreign powers, have a right to send those very articles, in their vessels, from our ports. We are precluded from exporting in our own vessels, not only foreign cotton, but the cotton of our own growth; although the privilege of exporting that article, from hence, in their own vessels, is given to the British. It precludes us from supplying our allies, the French, with several articles, which they consider as of prime necessity, and which, in the existing state of things, they cannot (without great risque and difficulty) obtain from their West-India islands, but through the medium of neutral powers, more particularly the United States. In fact, it has placed the commodities, above mentioned, on a footing far worse for us than if they were contraband of war; inasmuch as con[t]raband articles are only prohibited from being carried to powers at war: but these articles cannot, under the restrictions of the treaty, be carried by vessels of the United States, to any nation, either in time of war, or of peace.
“Although it is recommended, that a suspension of this article should precede the ratification of the treaty; yet it having been also recommended to the president to proceed, without delay, to further negociations with his Britannic majesty, on the subject of trade to his West India islands, and on the terms and conditions mentioned in this article, your committee have, therefore, thought proper to submit these observations on it.
“The seventeenth article, makes a formal recognition, of the right of Great Britain, to search American vessels, for property on board such vessels, suspected to belong to any power, with which she is at war: it authorizes her to carry into her ports, every American vessel, which the officers of her men of war, or of her privateers, may suspect to have such property on board; and engages to deliver up all such property, though of our friends and allies, which shall be on board: whereas France, and every nation, with which we have a treaty, have expressly declared, that free ships shall make free goods, and protect property on board of them, to whomsoever it may belong.
“By authorizing such searches, a general search warrant is given to British privateers. This article establishes principles as the law of nations, which justify many of the late spoliations committed by British vessels of war, on the commerce of these states; and of course authorize the repetition of such spoliation, which would be extremely detrimental to our commerce. The capture and detention of American, by British vessels, under the authority of this article, will put American seamen wholly in the power of the British; yet no provision is made to protect and secure them from being impressed into the British service, though daily experience evinces the necessity of requiring a clear and unequivocal stipulation for the protection and security of that valuable class of men.
“By the first section of the eighteenth article, all timber for ship building, tar, rosin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, cordage, and in general whatever may serve directly for the equipment of vessels (unwrought iron and fir planks only excepted) are declared to be contraband, and just objects of confiscation—whereas those articles, in all our other treaties, are expressly acknowledged not to be contraband but free. Thus America concedes to Great-Britain, what she has never conceded to any other power.
“With respect to the second section of the eighteenth article, an attempt is made to bring even provisions under the head of contraband. This, if effected, in conjunction with the preceeding clause, will comprehend, as contraband, almost all the important staples of these states. Such an extension of contraband must prove ruinous to our commerce especially as Great Britain affects to hold whole countries in a state of blockade.
“The twenty third, twenty fourth, and twenty fifth articles, have a tendency to embroil us with the French republic, and in the existing state of things, to make our sea port towns scenes of riot and bloodshed. These articles also tend to make a common cause between the United States and Great Britain, to oppress and distress our allies.
“Upon the whole, your committee apprehend that great evils would result to these States from this treaty, if ratified, they, therefore, recommend that an address be prepared, and presented to the President of the United States, praying that he will not ratify the said treaty” (DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW). The letter-book copy has 19 July, but the minutes of the Charleston meeting clearly state that the select committee was elected on that day and presented a report for approval on 22 July.
4. The letter-book copy states, “The same Answer was returned to this, as to the Selectmen of Boston, August 14th, 1795” (see GW to Boston Selectmen, 28 July, and Edmund Randolph to GW, 31 July, n.1).