Suppose the British should now send away, not only the negroes, but all other property, and all the public records in their possession belonging to us, on the pretence above stated: should we not justly accuse them with breaking faith? Is this not already done in the case of the negroes who have been carried away, though founded upon a very different principle, a doubtful construction of the treaty, not a denial of its immediate operation?
In fine, Is it our interest to advance this doctrine, and to countenance the position, that nothing is binding till the definitive treaty, when there are examples of years intervening between the preliminary and definitive treaties?
Sir Guy Carleton, in his correspondence, has appeared to consider the treaty as immediately obligatory: and it has been the policy which I have pursued, to promote the same idea.
I am not, indeed, apprehensive of a renewal of the war, for peace is necessary to Great Britain. I think it also most probable, her disposition to conciliate this country will outweigh the resentments which a breach of our engagements is calculated to inspire. But with a treaty which has exceeded the hopes of the most sanguine; which, in the articles of boundary and the fisheries, is even better than we asked; circumstanced, too, as this country is, with respect to the means of making war; I think it the height of imprudence to run any risk. Great Britain, without recommencing hostilities, may evade parts of the treaty. She may keep possession of the frontier posts; she may obstruct the free enjoyment of the fisheries; she may be indisposed to such extensive concessions, in matters of commerce, as it is our interest to aim at. In all this she would find no opposition from any foreign power: and we are not in a condition to oblige her to any thing. If we imagine that France, obviously embarrassed herself, in her finances, would renew the war to oblige Great Britain to the restoration of frontier posts; or to a compliance with the stipulations respecting the fisheries (especially after a manifest breach of the treaty on our part); we speculate much at random. Observations might be made on the last article, which would prove, that it is not the policy of France to support our interest there. Are we prepared, for the mere gratification of our resentments, to put those great national objects to the hazard; to leave our western frontier in a state of insecurity; to relinquish the fur trade; and to abridge our pretensions to the fisheries? Do we think national character so light a thing, as to be willing to sacrifice the public faith to individual animosity?
Let the case be fairly stated: Great Britain and America, two independent nations, at war. The former in possession of considerable posts and districts of territory, belonging to the latter; and also of the means of obstructing certain commercial advantages in which it is deeply interested.
But it is not uncommon, in treaties of peace, for the uti possidetis to take place. Great Britain, however, in the present instance, stipulates to restore all our posts and territories in her possession. She even adds an extent, not within our original claims, more than a compensation for a small part ceded in another quarter. She agrees to re-admit us to a participation in the fisheries. What equivalent do we give for this? Congress are to recommend the restoration of property to those who have adhered to her; and expressly engage, that no future injury shall be done them, in person, liberty, or property. This is the sole condition, on our part, where there is not an immediate reciprocity (the recovery of debts, and liberation of prisoners, being mutual; the former, indeed, only declaring what the rights of private faith, which all civilized nations hold sacred, would have declared without it), and stands as the single equivalent for all the restitutions and concessions to be made by Great Britain. Will it be honest in us to violate this condition, or will it be prudent to put it in competition with all the important matters to be performed on the other side?
Will foreign nations be willing to undertake any thing with us, or for us, when they find that the nature of our governments will allow no dependence to be placed upon our engagements? I have omitted saying any thing of the impolicy of inducing, by our severity, a great number of useful citizens, whose situations do not make them a proper object of resentment, to abandon the country, to form settlements that will hereafter become our rivals, animated with a hatred to us, which will descend to their posterity. Nothing, however, can be more unwise than to contribute, as we are doing, to people the shores and wilderness of Nova Scotia; a colony which, by its position, will become a competitor with us, among other things, in that branch of commerce on which our navigation and navy will essentially depend: I mean the fisheries; in which, I have no doubt, the State of New-York will, hereafter, have a considerable share.
To your Excellency I freely deliver my sentiments, because I am persuaded you cannot be a stranger to the force of these considerations. I fear not even to hazard them to the justice and good sense of those whom I have the honor to represent. I esteem it my duty to do it, because the question is important to the interests of the State, in its relation to the United States.
Those who consult only their passions, might choose to construe what I say, as too favorable to a set of men who have been the enemies of the public liberty: but those for whose esteem I am most concerned, will acquit me of any personal considerations; and will perceive that I only urge the cause of national honor, safety, and advantage. We have assumed an independent station: we ought to feel, and to act, in a manner consistent with the dignity of that station.
I anxiously wish to see every prudent measure taken to prevent those combinations which will certainly disgrace us, if they do not involve us in other calamities. Whatever distinctions are judged necessary to be made, in the cases of those persons who have been in opposition to the common cause, let them be made by legal authority, on a fair construction of the treaty, consistent with national faith and national honor.