The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, Vol. 06
History
The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, Vol. 06
United States -- Foreign relations -- 1775-1783; United States -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783 -- Sources
I am in my own mind apprehensive, though I devoutly wish I may be
mistaken, that the British Court in their answer to the articles, will
adhere to their two preliminaries. It is very convenient for the
English to hold up the idea of peace; it serves them to relieve their
credit at certain times when it is in distress; it serves to
disconcert the projects of the neutral powers to their disadvantage;
it enables their friends in the United Provinces, to keep the Dutch
nation in that state of division, sloth and inactivity, from which
they derive so much plunder, with so much safety. But I cannot
persuade myself, that the English will soberly think of peace, while
they have any military force in the United States, and can preserve a
gleam of hope of conquering or regaining America. While this hope
remains, no depredations on their commerce, no loss of dominions in
the East or West Indies, will induce them to make peace; because they
think, that with America reunited to them they could easily regain
whatever they may now lose. This opinion of theirs may be extravagant
and enthusiastical, and they would not find it so easy to recover
their losses; but they certainly entertain it, and while it remains, I
fear they will not make peace.
Yet it seems they have negotiated themselves into a delicate
situation. If they should obstinately adhere to their two
preliminaries, against the advice of the two Imperial Courts, this
might seriously affect their reputation, if they have any, for
moderation and for pacific dispositions, not only in those Courts, but
in all the Courts and countries of Europe, and they would not easily
answer it to their own subjects, who are weary of the war. Peace is so
desirable an object, that humanity, as well as policy, demands of
every nation at war a serious attention to every proposition, which
seems to have a tendency to it, although there may be grounds to
suspect, that the first proposer of it was not sincere. I think, that
no power can judge the United States unreasonable in not agreeing to
the _statu quo_, or the armistice. But perhaps I have not been
sufficiently explicit upon another point.
The proposal of a separate treaty between the British Minister and the
Representative of the United States, seems to be a benevolent
invention to avoid several difficulties; among others, first, that
England may be allowed to save her national pride, to think and to
say, that the independence of America was agreed to voluntarily, and
was not dictated to her by France and Spain; secondly, to avoid the
previous acknowledgment of American independence, and the previous
ascertaining the title and character of the American Representative,
which the Imperial Courts may think would be a partiality inconsistent
with the character of mediators, and even of neutrals, especially as
England has uniformly considered any such step as a hostility against
them; though I know not upon what law of nations, or of reason.
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