John Quincy Adams.

Writings of John Quincy Adams (Volume 9) online

. (page 40 of 42)
Online LibraryJohn Quincy AdamsWritings of John Quincy Adams (Volume 9) → online text (page 40 of 42)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ici son ingenlur en chef avec les fonds pour faire construite
la chaloupe pour naviguer entre St. Petersbourg et Cron-
stadt. II ne doute pas qu'il pouvera la faire achever dans le
courant de I'an 1815.

Son associe, le Sieur Livingston, etant mort depuls la lettre
que j'eus I'honneur d'addresser a Votre Excellence sur ce
sujet. Monsieur Fulton sollicite I'edit en son nom seul a lieu
ses heritiers, executeurs testamentalres ou ayant causes.

Je dois ajouter en explication ulterleure de motif qui
prive Monsieur Fulton de I'avantage de venir en personne
presenter sa requete que dans la situation actuelle des


Etats Unis la navigation interieure etant devenue d'autant
plus importante que celle de la Cote est sujette a des ob-
structions extraordinaires Monsieur Fulton est maintenant
employe a la construction de trelze des chaloupes de son
invention a la fois destines a naviguer sur dIfFerentes rivieres
dans les Etats Unis.

Ce qui j 'aural done encore a solllciter de Votre Excellence
en faveur de M. Fulton sera de savoir si d'apres les formes
et les usages du gouvernement 11 me seralt possible d'obtenir
I'edit pour le privilege au nom de M.. Fulton et sans que sa
presence soit exige. II s'entend que je me chargeral de tous
les frais pour I'expedition de I'edit dans les bureaux ou
autres d'usage en parells cas. Je crols qu'Il ne pent etre
necessaire d'assurer Votre Excellence qu'en m'offrant a
ceci je n'y al d'interet ou de motifs personnels que ceux
d'obllger mon compatrlote Monsieur Fulton, d'encourager
le progres des arts, et s'il m'est permis de le dire de contrlbuer
a I'lntroduction dans cet vaste Empire d'une invention qui
si I'evenement repond a mes voeux ainsi qu'a I'experience
de ma patrle sera pour le commerce des sujets de S. M.
Imperlale d'une tres grande utillte publlque.

J'ai I'honneur d'etre avec la plus haute consideration,
Monsieur le Comte, Votre tres humble et tres obeissant

St. Petersbourg le 7. (19) Aout, 1813.



No. 117. [James Monroe]

St. Petersburg, 28th August, 181 3.

• ••••••

You will learn by the dispatches of the joint mission ^
that this government has determined to renew the proposal of
the mediation to the British ministry. The proposal to take
this step was suggested to the Emperor by Count Romanzoff
in a dispatch sent before the arrival of Mr. Gallatin and Mr.
Bayard. You will have found it indicated in my No. 113
26 June. In answer to that dispatch the Emperor approved
of the Count's idea and ordered him to proceed according
to his own views. By a conversation which I lately had with
the Count I conclude that the intimations given by the
British minister to Count Lieven, the report of which was
received by the Chancellor between the 15th and 22nd of
June, were merely inoihcial and verbal, for he expressly
told me that the British government had not refused the
mediation, and that there had been no official communica-
tion from them on the subject since that in answer to the
first proposal of the mediation; it was made early last winter
and merely expressed doubts whether a mediation could be
successful owing to certain new pretensions which they *

alleged the American government had advanced. The
aversion of the British government to a?iy mediation be- f

tween them and the United States lies deeper than they
will be ready to avow. You will have other evidence of it
besides the ofHcial answers to the Russian proposals. The

' The first, dated 17/29 August, is in Writings of Gallatin, I. 569.


Chancellor asked me in the recent conversation to which
I allude (It was on the 19th instant) whether, if England
should propose to transfer our negotiation from this place
to London, we should have any objection to going there. I
said that was a question which I could not answer without
consulting my colleagues. That I could express only my
Individual opinion. There were two alternatives upon which
England might propose that we should go to London. One
was to treat more conveniently, but still under the Emperor's
mediation; the other, to treat directly and without mediation.
As to the first I supposed our powers would authorize us to
go, and the only objection I saw to it was that we must
thereby lose the benefit of his. Count RomanzofF's, friendly
assistance and conciliatory disposition. But to go for the
purpose of treating without mediation we had no powers.
He said that his only object was to anticipate what might
be proposed by England, and to have an answer ready, If
such a proposition should come from her. It had occurred
to him that we might have separate and other powers to
treat directly and without any mediation. I said we had
none to treat for peace. That the extraordinary mission was
sent on the proposition made by the Emperor. His media-
tion was accepted with the same frankness as it had been
offered. The President of the United States probably con-
sidered that it would not be very respectful to the Emperor
to suppose that his mediation would be rejected by his ally,
engaged with him in a common cause, or to furnish us with
powers to treat on such a contingency. To have sent us
with powers to treat without the mediation might, besides,
have had the appearance of suing for peace, and have
been so taken by the British government. This was an at-
titude which, sincerely as the American government desired
peace, neither the condition of their affairs could require,


nor the spirit of their nation would brook. The Count re-
pHed, then he could only insist upon having the negotiation
here, and he had great hopes the British government upon
reconsideration would not only accept the mediation, but
eventually be perfectly satisfied that the affair had taken this

Lord Walpole has arrived on the continent and has been
to the Emperor's headquarters. He Is daily expected here
where he is to reside as secretary of the embassy and minis-
ter plenipotentiary during the ambassador's absence. It
is not improbable that the views of the British government
concerning our mission may be further disclosed through

I am, etc


St. Petersburg, 3 September, 1813.
Dear Sir:

This day thirty years ago you signed a definitive treaty of
peace between the United States of America and Great
Britain, and here am I authorized together with two others
of our fellow citizens to perform the same service, but with
little prospect of a like successful issue. The British govern-
ment shows great disinclination to treat with the United
States under a mediation. They have not yet formally
rejected that of the Emperor of Russia, and since the arrival
of our two envoys this government has renewed the pro-
posal, to which an evasive answer had been in the first
Instance returned. Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Bayard are waiting
for the ultimate answer from England; they will probably
be under the necessity of passing from London before the



1st of November, and by that time the waters will be locked
up until June.

InofRcial and indirect hints have been communicated to
us that the British government are willing to treat with us
directly, and without the intervention of a mediator. But
for this we must be invested with new powers; for our govern-
ment had so little expectation that England would spurn the
good offices of her close ally that no provision was made for
the contingency.

The English ministerial gazettes have avowed as one
objection to the Russian mediation, that Russia must be
supposed to be partial in favor of the principles of the armed
neutrality. But a peace between America and Britain
may be made without reference to any of the principles of
the armed neutrality. Another and more decisive objection
they allege is, that England ought never to submit the dis-
cussion of her maritime rights to ariy mediation.

The reasoning has from other sources been presented to
us in a different form. We have been told that as the only
point between the two nations upon which the war now
hinges is impressment, it is a question concerning the relative
rights and duties of sovereign and subject. That it is a
question which never can arise between any two nations
besides England and America. That it is a sort of family
quarrel with which other nations can have no concern, and
in- which their interference can be productive of no good
result. That the tendency of a mediation would be to com-
plicate the controversy, to entangle it in the snarl of general
European politics, and to make it an engine for French
intrigue to work upon, to scatter abroad still more abund-
antly than ever the seeds of discord and confusion.

The controversy as between the two nations does not in-
volve any question of the relative rights and duties of sover-


eign and subject. Admitting the British king's right to
impress his subjects in all the extent he can claim, the ques-
tion remains whether he can exercise the right out of his
own jurisdiction. This question does not touch the right
either of sovereign or subject, and this is precisely the ques-
tion between Britain and America. It is a question, there-
fore, which in point of principle concerns all other nations as
much as it does the two belligerents. It is whether the
British king can inforce the municipal law of England on
board of the ships of all other nations in the jurisdiction
which is common to them all. That it is exclusively a con-
test between the United States and England is directly at
variance with the pretence so often and so loudly urged, that
impressment from foreign ships on the high seas has been
practised by immemorial usage. It is indeed true that no
such immemorial usage ever existed, and that as American
ships were the only foreign vessels on board of which the
British officers did impress, it is not likely ever to be a specific
cause of war between any other two nations. But the
correct inference from this would be, that it is a subject pe-
culiarly suitable for a mediation, the mediator having no in-
terest of his own to bias him on either side, and both parties
being therefore more sure of his impartiality. Even if it
were true that the rights of sovereign and subject were im-
plicated in the contest, how would they be implicated.'*
Britain fights for the right of the sovereign, and America
for the duty of the sovereign. Britain fights for the claim
to the service of the subject, and America for the claim of
the subject to protection. In referring the question to the
mediation of the Emperor of Russia, were it possible to
suppose him susceptible of a bias which way would it be.^
Could the most absolute sovereign in Europe be supposed
to favor any claim of the subject to exemption from the duty


of service? If we disputed the British king's right to the
service of his subjects, we might now naturally object to the
mediation of any sovereign, because it would be a question
upon which the partialities of all sovereigns must be against
us; and least of all could we have reason to expect favor from
the autocrat of Russia, within whose dominions Magna
Carta and the Habeas Corpus act have no force. But
England could have no occasion for distributing a mediation,
of which she must know that the whole interest of the medi-
ator would be on her side.

The fear of complicating the maritime question between
Britain and America with the general politics of Europe is
just and rational on the part of England. But it ought to
operate upon her as a warning to her to settle her differ-
ences with America upon liberal principles. The dread
of French intrigue by the mediation of a prince at deadly
war with France can have no foundation. No nation ever
more steadily and more earnestly pursued any one course
of policy than America has sought to avoid all entanglement
with European politics; but if England will persist in having
a war with America, she must not expect that America will
always be willing to fight her single handed. She will
eventually find it for her interest to make a common cause
with the enemies of England wherever they are to be found,
and how far that may make her subservient to the views
of France, she will consider for herself without asking the
advice of England.

There are probably other motives besides those that are
acknowledged which indispose the British government to
the mediation, and which must protract the war, if they do
not ultimately defeat the negotiation for peace. The war
on the European continent has again broken out, and the
coalition against France is more formidable than it ever has


been since the year 1793. On the south she is already con-
tending for her own frontiers. In the north Russia, Austria,
Sweden, Prussia, and a great part of Germany are combined
against her. Two of her most famous generals are in the
field under the banners of her enemies, and a third at the
moment when hostilities were renewed deserted to them.
There is no doubt but at this moment a battle has already
been fought upon which the issue of the campaign will
depend, and in that the destinies of the European world
are involved. The symptoms of weakness and of rottenness
in the French force are so great and so numerous, that ac-
cording to every rational anticipation she must sink in the
struggle. The coalesced powers have not yet declared their
views on the terms upon which they would agree to a peace.
I am etc.


No. 118. [James Monroe]

St. Petersburg, 8 September, 1813.

• ••••••

It is a circumstance to be regretted and which appears to
be not undeserving of the attention of the government that
all the accounts relative to American affairs published
on the continent of Europe come through the medium of
English gazettes. In the present situation of things the
public opinion in Europe inclines but too much of itself
in favor of England, upon whose financial resources the
great struggle of the present moment so essentially de-
pends. What representations of American concerns the


French public journals may contain I am not informed,
but I apprehend even they are for the most part copied from
the English papers. The misrepresentations of the English
accounts are spread all over Europe and there Is much In-
dustry used In the circulation of them. Translations of the
British Regent's declaration of 9 January, 1813, were sent
from the foreign office, and were published here In the Rus-
sian, German and French languages in the gazettes which
have an official sanction. In the German and Russian
gazette they were even Introduced by a remark that this
declaration contained a correct statement of the origin of
the differences between the United States and Great Britain.
I thought it my duty to take notice of this to the Chancellor,
and as a demonstration how incorrect the view of the subject
in the British declaration was, I requested of him to permit
the publication In the same papers of the President's message
and the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations upon
which the declaration of war was founded. He promised
me that they should be published in the translations that
I should furnish. I accordingly procured French, German
and Russian translations of those papers to be made, and
they were to have been published just at the time when the
account came of the appointment of the extraordinary mis-
sion to negotiate under the Emperor's mediation. As the
Chancellor then suggested a wish that the publication might
be postponed I consented to it under his renewed promise
that It should only be postponed. I believe those two
most important documents have not been published any-
where on this continent, while the Regent's declaration has
been circulated and distributed probably In every language
of Europe.



St. Petersburg, 9 September, 1813.

I had the pleasure of writing you on the 31st of last month
by the opportunity of a Russian courier; since then I have
received your favor of 13 August enclosing Cobbett's re-
marks on the question concerning naturalized citizens taken

The spirit of the Courier is probably higher toned than the
British ministers will countenance by their practice. Dur-
ing the War of our Revolution the ministry and even Parlia-
ment actually did on the principle of allegiance what the
Courier now threatens us with. While they treated us as
public enemies on the field and on the ocean, they actually
passed laws to punish us as traitors and pirates when taken
prisoners. On this principle they kept Mr. Laurens in the
Tower as a state prisoner. It was on this principle that they
attempted to palliate the numberless acts of barbarity which
they indulged themselves in against it during the whole
course of that war. Rebels, they said, were not entitled to
the benefits of the law of nations. They get nothing by it
now but a renewal of the same disgrace if they adopt the
advice of the Courier. Cobbett's observations on the sub-
ject are judicious and remarkably moderate. But as his
opinions are likely to have very little weight, they will
do well to consult those of one whose voice and pen were
as unavailing then as those of Cobbett are now, but of whom
they are now used to speak and think with reverence. I
mean Edmund Burke. His letter to the sheriffs of Bristol
contains views of this question which British statesmen
might now consult with great advantage to themselves.


The application of the principle of allegiance was then uni-
versal to all the Americans; it can now be applied only to
our naturalized citizens, and to them cannot be applied
without the grossest inconsistency and inhumanity.

Cobbett has mentioned the case of Prince Eugene, but
there are two instances now which would have been more
signally applicable to his argument — the Crown Prince of
Sweden and General Moreau. It is possible that lazvyers
may adduce distinctions absolving those two ofRcers from
the duties of allegiance to the present Ruler of France^ and
warranting them in the act of commanding armies against
those of France. But these distinctions could only operate
as exceptions to the general principle of allegiance, and the
exception which would justify Moreau, would equally
justify many of the naturalized American citizens who may
be taken in arms against Britain. It is admitted even by
the common lawyers that allegiance may be alienated by the
consent of the sovereign to whom it is due, and upon every
principle of justice banishment must be considered as alien-
ating the right of allegiance. When the sovereign, whether
by way of commutation for other punishment, or from what-
ever motive, compels his subject to depart from his terri-
tories and go into those of another state, he forces him to
change his allegiance, and makes him amenable to the laws
of his new sovereign. Most of the Irish exiles are substanti-
ally, if not formally, in this predicament. To claim from
them the duties of allegiance after having cast them out from
all the rights of protection, would be neither just, nor con-
sistent, nor even common law.

It is the misfortune of America to present to great num-
bers of British subjects a country more capable of making
them happy than that in which they were born. The adopted
parent is more kind and affectionate than the natural mother.


America uses no blandishment to entice away the children
of other nations. She naturalizes no seamen, merely for serv-
ing two years on board her ships. There Is not a country In
Europe whose conditions of naturalization are so rigorous
as those of the United States. But Britain is now waging
against us this cruel war, because her subjects prefer America
for their country rather than her their native land. Cobbett
has touched lightly upon this topic, but I believe it is the
deepest root of the war.

I can give you no news from this quarter. We are In
expectation of the ultimate answer from England, but are
uncertain whether it will arrive In time or be of a nature to
admit the return of Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Bayard to the
United States the present year. I am, etc.


St. Petersburg, 21 September, 1813.
This day two months have elapsed since Mr. Gallatin and
Mr. Bayard arrived and delivered to me your favors of 5
and 23 April. Nothing later from you has yet come to hand.
Very shortly after their arrival the ship Hannibal^ belonging
to Mr. Astor, of New York, arrived at Gothenburg. This
vessel was furnished with a British license with a permis-
sion even to bring a cargo and to carry one back In return,
all In consideration of a passenger whom she conveyed to
Europe. The passenger was General Moreau. She sailed
from New York the 22nd of June, and he landed at Gothen-
burg the 25 July. One of his fellow passengers who had a
special charge to accompany him, wrote a letter to a friend
here, which I have heard read, expressing an opinion that
the voyage had been so short and prosperous by the particular


smiles of Providence upon the purpose for which he came.
From Gothenburg General Morcau crossed the Baltic and
landed at Stralsund, where he had an affecting Interview
with the Crown Prince of Sweden, another French general
now commanding an army against France. General Moreau
then proceeded to the Emperor Alexander's headquarters,
and arrived at Prague precisely at the moment when the
two Emperors of Russia and of Austria were meeting to
commence the campaign of the new coalition against Na-
poleon. This was the 15th of August. The i6th was the
day upon which the armistice was terminated, and on the
loth the Austrian declaration of war against France had been
delivered to the French ambassador at Prague. On the 17th
hostilities were to commence. General Moreau entered the
Russian service, and was appointed first aid-de-camp gen-
eral to the Emperor Alexander. On the 22d he wrote from
the Emperor's headquarters a letter which I have read.^ It
said that he had come to fight against Bonaparte, and that
he should do it without the slightest repugnance. That if
he contributed to the overthrow of Bonaparte, he should
have the thanks of France as well as of the rest of Europe.
That if the coalition had destroyed Robespierre, France
would have thanked them for it. That the banner is of
little consequence when a man succeeds. Three days after-
wards the allied Austrian, Russian, and Prussian main
army invaded Saxony from Bohemia, and on the 26th of
August they were at the gates of Dresden. On the 27th
Napoleon with 100,000 men went out from Dresden and
gave them battle. A cannon ball took both the feet of
General Moreau from under him, and shattered both his
legs so that on the same day he was obliged to undergo the
amputation of them both. The movement of the armies

* To Gallatin, printed in Writings of Gallatin, I. 562.


made It necessary to remove him In this condition to Top-
litz, where he died on the 2nd of this month, greatly regretted
by the sovereign to whom his services had just been devoted,
and at whose side he fell.

He was in arms against his native country. Although I
do not subscribe to the British doctrine of unalienable al-
legiance in the extent to which they wish to drive it in their
disputes and wars with us, I do consider that very great
and weighty causes are essential to justify a man for bearing
arms against his native country. That there were causes
sufficient for his justification is, to say the least, extremely
questionable. He probably was not formally bound in alle-
giance to Napoleon, and might perhaps have cause of com-
plaint against his native country. But from the time of his
first participation in the intrigues to restore the Bourbons
in 1795, and his accusation of Pichegru, with whom he had
been concerned in them, I have always considered him as a
man who thought success the only standard of virtue. This
is always the maxim of wavering unsteady characters.
It is a principle in itself so loose and unsettled that it almost
always finishes by betraying those who confide in it. Moreau
has often been heard to declare that he would never take
up arms against France. He had declined proposals pre-

Online LibraryJohn Quincy AdamsWritings of John Quincy Adams (Volume 9) → online text (page 40 of 42)