Nevertheless, Marshall directed our Minister at the Court of St. James to renew the negotiations. In a state paper which, in ability, dignity, and eloquence, suggests his famous Jonathan Robins speech and equals his memorial to Talleyrand, he examines the vital subjects of impressment, contraband, and the rights of neutral commerce.
It was a difficult situation that confronted the American Secretary of State. He had to meet and if possible modify the offensive, determined, and wholly unjust British position by a statement of principles based on fundamental right; and by an assertion of America's just place in the world.
The spirit of Marshall's protest to the British Government is that America is an independent nation, a separate and distinct political entity, with equal rights, power, and dignity with all other nations[1165]—a conception then in its weak infancy even in America and, apparently, not entertained by Great Britain or France. These Powers seemed to regard America, not as a sovereign nation, but as a sort of subordinate state, to be used as they saw fit for their plans and purposes.
But, asserts Marshall, "the United States do not hold themselves in any degree responsible to France or to Britain for their negotiations with the one or the other of these Powers, but are ready to make amicable and reasonable explanations with either.... An exact neutrality ... between the belligerent Powers" is the "object of the American Government.... Separated far from Europe, we mean not to mingle in their quarrels.... We have avoided and we shall continue to avoid any ... connections not compatible with the neutrality we profess.... The aggressions, sometimes of one and sometimes of another belligerent power have forced us to contemplate and prepare for war as a probable event.... But this is a situation of necessity, not of choice." France had compelled us to resort to force against her, but in doing so "our preference for peace was manifest"; and now that France makes friendly advances, "America meets those overtures, and, in doing so, only adheres to her pacific system."
Marshall lays down those principles of international conduct which have become the traditional American policy. Reviewing our course during the war between France and Great Britain, he says: "When the combination against France was most formidable, when, if ever, it was dangerous to acknowledge her new Government" and maintain friendly relations with the new Republic, "the American Government openly declared its determination to adhere to that state of impartial neutrality which it has ever since sought to maintain; nor did the clouds which, for a time, lowered over the fortunes of the [French] Republic, in any degree shake this resolution. When victory changed sides and France, in turn, threatened those who did not arrange themselves under her banners, America, pursuing with undeviating step the same steady course," nevertheless made a treaty with Great Britain; "nor could either threats or artifices prevent its ratification."
"At no period of the war," Marshall reminds the British Government, "has France occupied such elevated ground as at the very point of time when America armed to resist her: triumphant and victorious everywhere, she had dictated a peace to her enemies on the continent and had refused one to Britain." On the other hand, "in the reverse of her fortune, when defeated both in Italy and on the Rhine, in danger of losing Holland, before the victory of Massena had changed the face of the last campaign, and before Russia had receded from the coalition against her, the present negotiation [between America and France] was resolved on. During this pendency," says Marshall, "the state of the war has changed, but the conduct of the United States" has not.
"Our terms remain the same: we still pursue peace. We still embrace it, if it can be obtained without violating our national honor or our national faith; but we will reject without hesitation all propositions which may compromit the one or the other."
All this, he declares, "shows how steadily it [the American Government] pursues its system [Neutrality and peace] without regarding the dangers from the one side or the other, to which the pursuit may be exposed. The present negotiation with France is a part of this system, and ought, therefore, to excite in Great Britain no feelings unfriendly to the United States."
Marshall then takes up the British position as to contraband of war. He declares that even under the law of nations, "neutrals have a right to carry on their usual commerce; belligerents have a right to prevent them from supplying the enemy with instruments of war." But the eighteenth article of the treaty itself covered the matter in express terms, and specifically enumerated certain things as contraband and also "generally whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels." Yet Great Britain had ruthlessly seized and condemned American vessels regardless of the treaty—had actually plundered American ships of farming material upon the pretense that these articles might, by some remote possibility, be used "to equip vessels." The British contention erased the word "directly"[1166] from the express terms of the treaty. "This construction we deem alike unfriendly and unjust," he says. Such "garbling a compact ... is to substitute another agreement for that of the parties...."
"It would swell the list of contraband to" suit British convenience, contrary to "the laws and usages of nations.... It would prohibit ... articles ... necessary for the ordinary occupations of men in peace" and require "a surrender, on the part of the United States, of rights in themselves unquestionable, and the exercise of which is essential to themselves.... A construction so absurd and so odious ought to be rejected."[1167]