ADDENDA.

WORDING OF THE TREATY OF GHENT.

In addition to the references cited on pages 18 and 30 as to the full text of the Treaty of Ghent reference may be given to volume compiled by Hunter Miller entitled: “Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America.” (See volume 2, pages 574-584.)

ENGLISH CRITICISM OF U. S. TITLE TO LOUISIANA.

The third and fourth paragraphs of the note of the British Commissioners to the American Commissioners at Ghent October 8, 1814, read as follows:

In adverting for this purpose to the acquisition of Louisiana, the undersigned must observe that the instrument by which the consent of His Catholic Majesty is alleged to have been given to the cession of it has never been made public. His Catholic Majesty was no party to the treaty by which the cession was made, and if any sanction has been subsequently obtained from him, it must have been, like other contemporaneous acts of that monarch, involuntary, and, as such, cannot alter the character of the transaction. The Marquis of Yrujo, the minister of His Catholic Majesty at Washington, in a letter addressed to the President of the United States, formally protested against the cession, and the right of France to make it; yet in the face of this protestation, so strongly evincing the decided opinion of Spain as to the illegality of the proceeding, the President of the United States ratified the treaty. Can it be contended that the annexation of Louisiana, under such circumstances, did not mark a spirit of territorial aggrandizement?

His Britannic Majesty did certainly express satisfaction when the American Government communicated the event that Louisiana, a valuable colony in the possession of France, with whom the war had just been renewed, instead of remaining in the hands of his enemy, had been ceded to the United States, at that time professing the most friendly disposition towards Great Britain, and an intention of providing for her interest in the acquisition. But the conditions under which France had acquired Louisiana from Spain were not communicated; the refusal of Spain to consent to its alienation was not known; the protest of her ambassador had not been made; and many other circumstances attending the transaction, on which it is now unnecessary to dilate, were, as there is good to believe, industriously concealed. (From American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume III, page 721.)

The reply of the American Commissioners is quoted on page 26 of this volume.

(Author’s note: From the foregoing we can better understand the refusal of the British Commissioners to discuss the northern boundary of Louisiana as proposed in American note of November 10. See page 26, this volume.)

THE UTI POSSIDETIS PROPOSAL.

The note of the British Commissioners, October 21, 1814, contained the following paragraph:

47

In regard to other boundaries, the American plenipotentiaries, in their note of August 24, appeared in some measure to object to the propositions then made by the undersigned, as not being on the basis of uti possidetis. The undersigned are willing to treat on that basis, subject to such modifications as mutual convenience may be found to require; and they trust that the American plenipotentiaries will show, by their ready acceptance of this basis, that they duly appreciate the moderation of His Majesty’s Government in so far consulting the honor and fair pretensions of the United States as, in the relative situation of the two countries, to authorize such a proposition. (From American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume III.)

(Author’s note: This is an adroit effort to put upon the Americans the initial suggestion of the Uti Possidetis. The Americans, after seeing the futility of any treaty agreement as to impressment and trade restriction, adhered steadily to the Status Quo Ante Bellum basis. They rejected the Uti Possidetis principle. It should be borne in mind that at the time of the above note the secret expedition against Louisiana, assembling in Nigril Bay, Jamaica, was nearing completion.)

TIME OF EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATY.

On November 10, 1814, the American Commissioners submitted a projet of a treaty containing in article one the statement that “All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall immediately cease,” and in article fifteen the statement that “This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both sides, and the respective ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding upon both parties, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at ______ in the space of ______ months from this day, or sooner if possible.”

On November 26 the British Commissioners returned the projet, altered to read that “All hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease after the exchange of ratifications as hereafter mentioned,” and that “This treaty, when the same shall have ratified on both sides, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be binding on both parties, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington with all practical despatch, in the space of ______ months from this day, or sooner if practicable.”

On November 30, 1814, the American Commissioners stated in a note to the British Commissioners:

The undersigned consent that the day of the exchange of the ratifications be substituted to that of the signature of the treaty as the time for the cessation of hostilities, and for regulating the periods after which prizes at sea shall be restored; it being understood that measures shall be adopted for a speedy exchange of ratifications. (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Volume III.)

(Author’s note: It will thus be seen that the British proposed the date of ratification as the time of the effectiveness of the treaty, and the cessation of hostilities, and that the Americans consented, thus carrying into the treaty the provision so uniformly overlooked by our historians.)

PASSAMAQUODDY ISLANDS.

(Author’s note: There was towards the end of the negotiations at Ghent much and voluminous correspondence, mainly on the part of the British, 48 concerning the question involved in the Passamaquoddy Islands situation; it was magnified, admittedly, out of proportion to the subject involved, especially in view of the fact that the final disposition of these fisheries was relegated to a civil commission to meet after peace. The British, while conceding the relative insignificance of the islands, maintained that a question of honor was involved which might “prove an insuperable bar to the conclusion of peace at the present time.” In reading the mass of British correspondence on the subject of these islands one is forced to the conclusion that there was an underlying purpose.)

AS TO WORDING IN MUTUAL RESTORATION CLAUSE.

The American projet of November 10 contained also the proposition that all territory, places, and possessions “taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored.”

The projet returned on November 26 by the British Commissioners was altered to read all territory, places, and possessions, “belonging to either party and taken by the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored.”

The protocol of a conference of the American and British Commissioners, held on December 1, contained the following statements:

At a conference held this day, the American plenipotentiaries proposed the following alterations in their projet, as amended by the British plenipotentiaries: 1st—In article I, strike out the alteration consisting of the words “belonging to,” and “taken by,” and preserve the original reading, viz: “taken by either party from the other.”

This alteration was objected to by the British plenipotentiaries, and, after some discussion, reserved by them for the consideration of their Government. (Ibid., pages 735, 742.)

(Author’s note: The American Commissioners stated in a note December 14, to the British Commissioners that they agreed to accept the British proposal to “omit the words originally offered by them,” provided that the Passamaquoddy Islands should alone be excepted from the mutual restoration of territory. See American State Papers, Volume III, pages 743, 744, for full text of note. Also for text of letter from British Commissioners to British Government as of December 13, see Photostat in Library of Congress from Public Record Office, London—Foreign Office 5, Vol. 102. Thus in the mutual restoration clause of the treaty the words “all places, points, and ‘possessions’ whatsoever,” went in, without the clarifying term as to “possessions” proposed by the British. Did the British Government deem the clarification essential? Evidence, too strong for disbelief, shows it did not. The secret expedition against Louisiana was then well on its way, and expected to be in possession of New Orleans any day, with the full set of civil officers, carried on Admiral Cochran’s fleet, installed and in control. Evidence has been given showing the anxiety of British officials, after the signing of the treaty, as to its ratification by President Madison. If the British plans against Louisiana had succeeded would President Madison have ratified the treaty? That is a fair question for College debate.)