Their independence being thus clearly, unconditionally, and solemnly acknowledged by this commission, passed under the great seal of the kingdom, as a preliminary to any negotiation, and in full compliance with the foregoing resolution, the negotiations were then, and not before, opened, and have by the blessing of God, been brought to a happy conclusion. Their independence being once acknowledged, is it not irrevocable in its nature? If in the moment the British Commissioner entered into negotiation with the Commissioners of the United States, in virtue of his last commission, any neutral power had declared it would consider and treat them in every respect, as sovereign and independent States, and would protect the lawful commerce of its subjects with them, would this have been a violation of the laws of neutrality? If not, much less could the King of Great Britain pretend it would be so, after the conclusion of the preliminary treaty with them, after that treaty has become absolute, by the conclusion of the preliminary treaty between his Most Christian Majesty and himself, after a cessation of hostilities has been proclaimed by them, and also by the Commissioners of the United States, and finally, after the Parliament of Great Britain has solemnly engaged to observe and maintain those treaties, which puts an end to the question, if it was ever seriously made, upon the authority of the King, to make such a treaty with the United States.
In conformity with sentiments of this kind, we have seen that the Queen of Portugal, a member of the neutral confederation, and a Sovereign in the strictest amity with the King of Great Britain, has by an edict opened the ports of her kingdom to the vessels of the United States, and promised them the enjoyment of the same hospitality and favor, which the vessels of other nations there enjoy. In all probability the King of Denmark has adopted a similar line of conduct towards the United States.
Answer.
II. "When these arrangements shall be completed, and the definitive treaty be concluded, if you shall produce new letters of credence, bearing date since the King of Great Britain has acknowledged the independence of America, her Imperial Majesty will be very willing to receive you as the Minister of America. But it would be incompatible with that exact neutrality, which she has hitherto observed, to receive you while your letter of credence bears date before that time."
Reply.
This objection seems deeply to affect the rights and interests of the United States. The United Colonies, on the 4th of July, 1776, erected themselves into an Independent Sovereign Power. Great Britain, notwithstanding, kept up her claim of sovereignty over them, without having any in fact. The war was continued on the one part, to maintain the actual possession of sovereignty, and on the other, to regain that sovereignty which had been lost. Despairing of success, Great Britain acknowledges, but does not grant, the independence of the United States. The United States have not, therefore, acquired the rights of sovereignty, in consequence of this acknowledgment of their independence. Their independence must necessarily have existed prior to the acknowledgment of it by the King of Great Britain. At what period then can the commencement of it be fixed, if not at the time when they declared themselves independent? Have they not from the moment of the declaration of their independence, been constantly in the actual possession and full exercise of their sovereignty? Not to meddle with the matter of right, the fact is beyond all question. The undersigned thinks, therefore, it is incompatible for him to propose to the United States to revoke his present letter of credence, because it bears date prior to the acknowledgment of their independence by the King of Great Britain, and to grant him another bearing date since that time, for the following among other reasons.
1st. Because it would be to propose to the United States, in effect, to strike off near seven years of their existence, as free, sovereign, and independent States.
2dly. Because their compliance with it would amount to a confession on their part, that they owed their existence, as a free nation, to the acknowledgment of their independence by the King of Great Britain.
3dly. Because it would go to annul all their acts of sovereignty prior to that period, and among others, the important ones of their treaties with his Most Christian Majesty, and with the United Provinces of the Low Countries, as well as their commissions granted to their Ministers at the Court of Madrid, and other Courts, and such treaties as they have already made, or shall make in virtue thereof.
4thly. Because it would be repugnant to a resolution contained in their declaration of independence, viz. "that as free and sovereign States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things, which independent States may of right do."