The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, Vol. 03
History
The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, Vol. 03
United States -- Foreign relations -- 1775-1783; United States -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783 -- Sources
I received yours of the 15th instant this day. I must take the
earliest opportunity of setting you right in one mistake, which runs
through your whole letter, and which to you, under that mistake, must
be a very delicate point. You seem to apprehend that America has been
stated in the proposition to Lord North, as "disposed to enter into a
separate treaty with Great Britain;" but you meet the condition, viz.
in the words immediately following, "_and that their allies were
disposed to consent to it_." There cannot possibly be any supposition
of treachery to allies, in any proposition to which they may
_consent_. A separate treaty, with the _consent_ of the allies of
America, was the proposition communicated to me by Mr Alexander, and
which I laid before the Minister, and which I reported back again to
Mr Alexander in writing, when I showed him the paper entitled
"Conciliatory Propositions," which I took care to reduce to writing,
with a view of avoiding mistakes; therefore, I have not
_misunderstood_ Mr Alexander. I have since seen Mr A. many times, and
he has always stated one and the same proposition, viz. that America
was disposed to enter into a separate treaty, because their _allies
were disposed to consent that they should_; therefore there cannot
exist a suspicion of treachery. It occurred to me once while I was
writing, to bar against that misconstruction, but having specified the
_consent of the allies of America_ in the same sentence, I could not
conceive such a misconstruction to have been possible.
You have mistaken another point greatly. You say, "a truce for _ten_
years." There is not in the bill any such disposition or thought; on
the contrary, it is specified in the enclosed paper that it is kept
_indefinite_, for the sole purpose of avoiding the suspicion which you
have suggested. The truce may be for twenty, or fifty, or one hundred
years; in my opinion the longer the better. But in any case, what I
mean now to state is the _indefinite_ term in the bill. The articles
of intercourse are only proposed for ten years certain, just to strew
the way with inviting and conciliatory facilities, in the hope that _a
little time given for cooling_ would confirm a perpetual peace. If I
were permitted to be the mediator, I should certainly propose the
truce for twenty years; but if no more than ten years could be
obtained, I would certainly not refuse such a ground of pacification
and treaty. I refer you to several of my letters two or three years
ago, for the justification of my sentiments on that head.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account