Inligting

Jays -verdrag - Geskiedenis


1795 Jays -verdrag

Met 'n oorlog tussen Frankryk en Engeland, het die Verenigde State voortdurend geraak deur die optrede van die een of ander kant. Die Britse poging om Frankryk en sy kolonies te blokkeer, was besonder swaar vir die Verenigde State, wat dikwels gelei het tot die beslaglegging van Amerikaanse vaartuie. Vroeg in 1794 het Britse optrede amper gelei tot 'n Amerikaanse oorlogsverklaring teen die Britte. In plaas daarvan is besluit om John Jay as 'n spesiale gesant te stuur om 'n ooreenkoms met die Britte te onderhandel oor die betwiste kwessies. Jay het meer as vier maande met die Britte onderhandel, gewoonlik met die Britse minister van buitelandse sake, Grenville.

Jay kon baie van die doelwitte van sy onderhandelinge bereik, hoewel nie almal nie. Een van die gebiede waarop hy nie baie sukses kon behaal nie, was om Brittanje te oortuig om sy beleid ten opsigte van neutrale skeepsvaart te verander. Hy kon die Britte nie laat ophou om voedsel as smokkel te definieer nie, hoewel hulle wel ingestem het om te betaal vir voedsel waarop beslag gelê is. Jay kon die Britte nie instem om enige vergoeding te betaal vir die wegvoer van slawe tydens die Revolusionêre Oorlog nie, maar hy het nie 'n groot poging aangewend nie.

Hy het wel 'n ooreenkoms van die Britte bereik om hulle te onttrek uit die pos in die Stille Oseaan wat hulle na die Revolusionêre Oorlog beklee het. Boonop is gesamentlike kommissies ingestel om grensgeskille te besleg, asook om te besluit oor vergoeding vir Amerikaanse goedere wat onwettig deur Britse skepe beslag gelê is. Uiteindelik het die ooreenkoms gevra vir handelsvryheid tussen die Verenigde en Groot -Brittanje, en kon handel met die Brits -Wes -Indië toegelaat word. Slegs kleiner Amerikaanse skepe mag egter handel dryf. Daarbenewens was daar 'n verbod op die heruitvoer van sekere goedere uit die Verenigde State.

Namate die woord van die ooreenkoms die VSA begin bereik het, het teenstanders van enige ooreenkoms met Groot-Brittanje die verdrag begin aanval as 'n uitverkoop. Die volledige teks van die ooreenkoms bereik Washington eers op 7 Maart 1795. Washington besluit om die teks geheim te hou totdat hy dit in Junie aan die Senaat voorgehou het. Hy het dit op 8 Junie aangebied. Van 8 tot 26 Junie het die senaat, wat bestaan ​​uit 20 federaliste en 10 republikeine, oor die verdrag gedebatteer. Hulle het onmiddellik die klousule wat handel met die Britse Wes -Indiese Eilande beperk, geskrap. Na intense debat en sterk opposisie van die Republikeine, is die verdrag egter 20 tot 10 goedgekeur.
Washington huiwer om die gewysigde verdrag te onderteken, beide uit praktiese en grondwetlike oorwegings. Kan hy 'n verdrag onderteken wat deur die Senaat gewysig is? Watter regsgevolge het dit gehad? Intussen het die Republikeine in die hele land betogings teen die verdrag gehou. Toe Washington hoor dat die Franse minister betrokke was by die minister van buitelandse sake teen die verdrag, het hy die dokument onmiddellik onderteken.

Washington se ondertekening van die verdrag het 'n paar van die hartstogte wat die verdrag bewerkstellig het, kalmeer. Tog het die opposisie voortgegaan. In die volgende kongres; die Huis van Verteenwoordigers, oorheers deur die Republikeine, eis dat die president 'n volledige verslag van Jay se missie en onderhandelinge gee. Washington het geweier en beweer dat die aard van buitelandse onderhandelinge 'n sekere mate van geheimhouding vereis. Daarbenewens het Washington beweer dat 'n verdrag wat die president onderteken het na die bekragtiging van die senaat, die wet van die land is, en dat die huis geen reg het om dit te hersien of teë te staan ​​nie. 'N Toenemende steun vir die verdrag in die land namate welvaart toeneem, tesame met die voortgesette gewildheid van Washington om die Republikeine te dwing om hul opposisie te laat vaar.

>

Jay -verdrag

'N Belangrike federalistiese figuur tydens die vroeë dae van die Amerikaanse republiek, John Jay, was ook 'n hegte politieke bondgenoot van George Washington.

Formeel getiteld die "Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America", maar meer algemeen bekend as die Jay -verdrag, is die dokument amptelik bekragtig deur president George Washington in Augustus 1795. Debatte oor die verdrag het Washington veroorsaak om 'n vaste protokol op te stel rakende die proses om 'n grondwetlike verdrag op te stel. Sy reaksie op die openbare herrie oor die verdrag het ook gehelp om die rol van die uitvoerende gesag in die vorming van die openbare sentiment te bepaal.

Teen die lente van 1794 was Amerika op die rand van oorlog met Engeland. Burgers beweer dat die Britse regering verset het om sy hawens vir Amerikaanse skepe oop te maak, inmeng met neutrale skeepsregte om sy oorlog met Frankryk te beveg, en die dele van die Vredesverdrag van 1783 wat die Amerikaanse rewolusie beëindig het, te skend. Te midde van geskreeu van federaliste en republikeine wat wissel van onderhandelinge, verdedigingsmaatreëls en kommersiële nie-omgang, het president Washington gekies om hoofregter John Jay van die Hooggeregshof aan te wys as 'n spesiale gesant om geskille tussen die twee nasies te onderhandel. Jay se 'missie', het Washington aangekondig, toon aan Amerika 'onwilligheid teen vyandigheid'. 1

Die verdrag wat Jay onderhandel het met die Britse minister van buitelandse sake, William Wyndham Grenville, bevoordeel Engeland se ekonomiese en militêre mag. Jay besef dat Amerika min bedingingsopsies het en teken 'n ooreenkoms op 19 November 1794. Byna vier maande vertraag voordat Washington 'n afskrif ontvang het. Toe die verdrag op 7 Maart 1795 aankom, het die kongres verdaag en opstelle van spekulatiewe koerante het die publiek opgewonde gemaak.

Die bepalings van die verdrag bly egter geheim terwyl die Senaat op 8 Junie 1795 in 'n spesiale sitting byeenkom. Min lede hou van die inhoud van die verdrag, maar die meeste maak veral beswaar teen artikel XII, wat kommersiële toegang tot die Brits -Wes -Indië uitsluitlik beperk het tot skepe van sewentig ton of minder. Die Senaat keur die verdrag noukeurig goed, onderhewig aan opskorting van artikel XII en 'n heronderhandeling van die afdeling. Volgens Edmund Randolph, minister van buitelandse sake in Washington, was 'n 'gekwalifiseerde bekragtiging' 'n nuwe ontwikkeling in die diplomatieke geskiedenis. 2 Washington het egter tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat gedeeltelike goedkeuring finale toestemming impliseer.

'N Ongemagtigde afskrif van die verdrag verskyn in die Aurora Algemene adverteerder, 'n Republikeinse koerant, op 29 Junie. 'n Werveling van grootliks negatiewe openbare reaksie op die verdrag het gevolg. Onluste en openbare vreugdevure van die Britse vlag, die verdrag en beelde van Jay het plaasgevind. Opstelleurs het hul opinies in die openbare koerante uitgespreek. Inwoners van die stad en die provinsie het hul menings na Washington gestuur.

Die president beskryf die reaksies op die verdrag as soortgelyk aan "teen 'n gekke hond ........... Washington het Alexander Hamilton en die federalistiese ondersteuners van die verdrag aangemoedig om hul standpunte landwyd te versprei en die 'gif' van sy teenstanders teen te werk. 3 Washington verkies om advies van kundige mans, eerder as om voorskrifte te gee van groepe sonder grondwetlike gesag. Sy reaksie op die versoekskrif van die Boston Selectmen en soortgelyke briewe beklemtoon herhaaldelik die konstitusionele prerogatief van die uitvoerende gesag in die proses om 'n verdrag te maak.

'N Ander komplikasie het in Julie 1795 ontstaan ​​toe berigte verskyn het dat die Britse regering 'n nuwe raadsbevel goedgekeur het oor neutrale vaartuie wat bepalings vir Frans-beheerde hawens bevat. Middel Augustus het Washington die Jay-verdrag onvoorwaardelik bekragtig te midde van kommer oor die impak van protespogings, hoe die Franse voordeel kan trek uit sulke negatiewe reaksies, en nuus oor Randolph se moontlike intrige met die Franse regering. Washington het die verdrag nie as 'gunstig' geag nie, maar was van mening dat bekragtiging veel beter was as 'ongeskonde' toestande. 4

Protes teen verdrag het tot 1796 voortgeduur, insluitend 'n poging van die Huis van Verteenwoordigers om Washington te dwing om dokumente in te dien wat verband hou met die verdrag. Washington weier en dring daarop aan dat die Huis geen grondwetlike gesag het om verdragte te bepaal nie. Openbare sentiment het geleidelik Washington begin loof vir sy leierskap tydens die krisis. In Mei 1796 spreek Washington die hoop uit dat sy bekragtiging van die Jay -verdrag Amerika vrede en tyd sal gee om 'n welvarende en magtige nasie te word. 5

Carol Ebel, Ph.D.
Assistent -redakteur, The Papers of George Washington

Jeanne en David Heidler, skrywers van Washington's Circle, bespreek die historiese betekenis van die Jay -verdrag.

Notas:
1. The Papers of George Washington, Presidentsreeks, red. Theodore J. Crackel (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 15: 608.

2. Aantekeninge van Edmund Randolph, c. 25 Junie 1795, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress.

3. "George Washington aan Alexander Hamilton, 29 Julie 1795," Alexander Hamilton -vraestelle, Library of Congress.

4. "George Washington aan Edmund Randolph, 22 Julie 1795," Briefboek #30, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress.

5. "George Washington aan Charles Carroll, 1 Mei 1796," The Writings of George Washington (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1931).

Bibliografie:
Combs, Jerald A. Die Jay -verdrag: Politieke slagveld van die stigters. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.

The Papers of George Washington, Presidentsreeks, Vols. 15 en 16, uitg. Theodore J. Crackel. Charlottesville, Va: University of Virginia Press, 2009, 2011.

Elkins, Stanley en Eric McKitrick. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Estes, Todd, "The Art of Presidential Leadership: George Washington and the Jay Treaty." Die Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 109 (2001):127-158.

Estes, Todd, Die debat oor die Jay -verdrag, openbare mening en die evaluering van die vroeë Amerikaanse politieke kultuur. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006.


Inleiding

Jay & rsquos -verdrag, amptelik getiteld & ldquoTreaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation, tussen His Britannic Majesty en The United States of America, en rdquo is onderhandel deur hoofregter John Jay van die Hooggeregshof en onderteken tussen die Verenigde State en Groot -Brittanje op 19 November 1794. Spanning tussen die twee lande het toegeneem sedert die einde van die Revolusionêre Oorlog oor Britse militêre poste wat steeds in die noordwestelike gebied van Amerika geleë is en Britse inmenging met Amerikaanse handel en skeepvaart. Jay het slegs gedeeltelik daarin geslaag om Brittanje te laat voldoen aan die Amerikaanse eise en die opposisie teen die verdrag in die Verenigde State was intens. Alhoewel president George Washington teleurgesteld was oor die bepalings van die verdrag en rsquos, was hy van mening dat dit die beste hoop was om oorlog met Groot -Brittanje af te weer en dit aan die senaat voorgelê vir goedkeuring. Jay & rsquos-verdrag het die senaat op 24 Junie 1795 met 'n stemming van 20 tot 10 goedgekeur, presies die tweederdes wat nodig is vir goedkeuring.


Jays -verdrag - Geskiedenis

Die "Jay -verdrag" is in 1797 deur die kongres bekragtig. John Jay het hierdie verdrag met Groot -Brittanje beding. Ingevolge Jay's -verdrag het die Britte ingestem om gebiede in die Noordwestelike gebied te verlaat wat hulle vroeër moes terugstuur, ingevolge die Verdrag van Parys. Hierdie verdrag het die Britte egter nie verplig om Amerikaanse neutrale regte na te kom nie. Ondanks die feit dat Jay se verdrag baie ongewild was, is dit deur die senaat bekragtig: 20-10. Die Verenigde State het die volgende vyftien jaar baie baat by die verdrag.

Met 'n oorlog tussen Frankryk en Engeland, het die Verenigde State voortdurend geraak deur die optrede van die een of ander kant. Die Britse poging om Frankryk en sy kolonies te blokkeer, was besonder swaar vir die Verenigde State, wat dikwels gelei het tot die beslaglegging van Amerikaanse vaartuie. Vroeg in 1794 het Britse optrede amper gelei tot 'n Amerikaanse oorlogsverklaring teen die Britte. In plaas daarvan is besluit om John Jay as 'n spesiale gesant te stuur om 'n ooreenkoms met die Britte te onderhandel oor die betwiste kwessies. Jay het meer as vier maande met die Britte onderhandel, gewoonlik met die Britse minister van buitelandse sake, Grenville.

Jay kon baie van die doelwitte van sy onderhandelinge bereik, hoewel nie almal nie. Een van die gebiede waarop hy nie baie sukses kon behaal nie, was om Brittanje te oortuig om sy beleid ten opsigte van neutrale skeepsvaart te verander. Hy kon die Britte nie laat ophou om voedsel as smokkel te definieer nie, hoewel hulle wel ingestem het om te betaal vir voedsel waarop beslag gelê is. Jay kon die Britte nie instem om enige vergoeding te betaal vir die wegvoer van slawe tydens die Revolusionêre Oorlog nie, maar hy het nie 'n groot poging aangewend nie.

Hy het wel 'n ooreenkoms van die Britte bereik om hulle te onttrek uit die pos in die Noordwestelike gebied wat hulle na die Revolusionêre Oorlog beklee het. Boonop is gesamentlike kommissies ingestel om grensgeskille te besleg, asook om te besluit oor vergoeding vir Amerikaanse goedere wat onwettig deur Britse skepe beslag gelê is. Uiteindelik het die ooreenkoms gevra vir handelsvryheid tussen die Verenigde en Groot -Brittanje, en kon handel met die Brits -Wes -Indië toegelaat word. Slegs kleiner Amerikaanse skepe mag egter handel dryf. Boonop was daar 'n verbod op die heruitvoer van sekere goedere uit die Verenigde State.

Namate die woord van die ooreenkoms die VSA begin bereik het, het teenstanders van enige ooreenkoms met Groot-Brittanje die verdrag begin aanval as 'n uitverkoop. Die volledige teks van die ooreenkoms bereik Washington eers op 7 Maart 1795. Washington besluit om die teks geheim te hou totdat hy dit in Junie aan die Senaat voorgehou het. Hy het dit op 8 Junie aangebied. Van 8 tot 26 Junie het die senaat, wat bestaan ​​uit 20 federaliste en 10 republikeine, oor die verdrag gedebatteer. Hulle het onmiddellik die klousule wat handel dryf met die Britse Wes -Indiese Eilande beperk. Na intense debat en sterk opposisie van die Republikeine, is die verdrag egter 20 tot 10 goedgekeur.
Washington huiwer om die gewysigde verdrag te onderteken, beide uit praktiese en grondwetlike oorwegings. Kan hy 'n verdrag onderteken wat deur die Senaat gewysig is? Watter regsgevolge het dit gehad? Intussen het die Republikeine in die hele land betogings teen die verdrag gehou. Toe Washington hoor dat die Franse minister betrokke was by die minister van buitelandse sake teen die verdrag, het hy die dokument onmiddellik onderteken.

Washington se ondertekening van die verdrag het 'n paar van die hartstogte wat die verdrag bewerkstellig het, kalmeer. Tog het die opposisie voortgegaan. In die volgende kongres het die Huis van Verteenwoordigers, oorheers deur die Republikeine, geëis dat die president 'n volledige verslag van Jay se missie en onderhandelinge gee. Washington het geweier en beweer dat die aard van buitelandse onderhandelinge 'n sekere mate van geheimhouding vereis. Daarbenewens het Washington beweer dat 'n verdrag wat die president onderteken het na die bekragtiging van die senaat, die wet van die land is, en dat die huis geen reg het om dit te hersien of teë te staan ​​nie. 'N Toenemende steun vir die verdrag in die land namate welvaart toeneem, tesame met die voortgesette gewildheid van Washington om die Republikeine te dwing om hul opposisie te laat vaar.


Jay ’s Verdrag: Geskiedenis & Betekenis

As hierdie land twintig jaar langer in stilte bewaar word, kan dit 'n regverdige rede vir enige mag bied, ongeag die gewildheid, rykdom en hulpbronne in daardie tyd, wat George Washington in reaksie op betogers gesê het die Jay -verdrag. 1 Opmerking van Washington was oor die oproer in die publiek na die bekendmaking van inligting oor die status van die onenigheid met Groot -Brittanje.

Die mense is pas ingelig oor die inhoud van die Jay -verdrag: 1) Brittanje het ingestem om die bontposte in Amerika op te gee grondgebied, 2) Brittanje het ook ingestem om die kwessies van betwiste grense, die skade wat die Amerikaanse skeepvaart aangerig het, en die skuld aan Britse handelaars aan arbitrasie voor te lê. Alhoewel die mense nie van hierdie terme gehou het nie, het Washington dit ondersteun om ons te verhoed dat ons oorlog toe gaan. Washington het sy eerste stap gemaak deur 'n afgevaardigde na Engeland te stuur, en verder deur die kongres op te staan ​​om hierdie verdrag te bekragtig. Hy bewys weer sy groot morele moed vir die welsyn van sy land.

Hoewel Washington self nie die verdrag geskryf het nie, verdien hy alle eer om dit in die eerste plek te begin. Die tye het moeilik geraak met die Britte, en volgens Hamilton was die Britte 'n belangrike deel van ons ekonomie. Hy het gesê dat die belasting op invoer 'n groot deel van die geld verskaf het om ons buitelandse, binnelandse en staatskuld af te betaal. iets moes gedoen word. Washington het geweet dat die spanning tussen Amerika en Engeland uitgedun moes word, en daarom besluit hy om 'n spesiale gesant te stuur. Die persoon wat vir die pos gekies is, was hoofregter van die Hooggeregshof, John Jay. John Jay het baie ervaring in hierdie departement omdat hy die voormalige minister van buitelandse sake was onder die ou Konfederasie. Sy doel was om vrede tussen die twee lande te maak. Hy was onder die opdrag om geen verbintenis te maak in stryd met die verdrae met Frankryk nie. Gelukkig het Washington dit reggekry, anders het ons baba -land moontlik nooit gegroei tot wat dit vandag is nie. Dit blyk ongetwyfeld een van die gewaagde bewegings van Washington te wees om sy land te help.

'N Ander kragtige stap is deur Washington bewys toe hy die Senaat oorreed het om die verdrag te bekragtig. Die Jay -verdrag is op 19 November 1794 onderteken, maar is eers sewe maande later deur die senaat bekragtig. President George Washington se ondertekening van die Jay -verdrag het ondenkbare kritiek op sy karakter en beleid uitgelok en die fokus van die debat oor die verdrag verander. om sy naam op die spel te plaas om hierdie verdrag te bekragtig. Die Republikeine in die Huis het probeer om die verdrag te blokkeer deur die krediet vir die toepassing van die bepalings daarvan te ontken. Die huisversoek vir die papiere wat verband hou met die Jay ’s -verdrag is deur Washington geweier omdat die toestemming van die twee huise nie nodig was om 'n verdrag geldig te maak nie en vanweë die noodsaaklikheid om die grense wat deur die Grondwet vasgestel is, te handhaaf. 8221 4 Weereens, die mense is gelukkig om 'n aanhoudende leier te hê wat krediet verdien om ons land te red.

Die prominente persoon wat al die eer verdien om ons land van jongs af aan te koester, is ongetwyfeld George Washington. Die aanvaarding van die Jay -verdrag het 'n belangrike rol gespeel om die jong land ekonomies te laat ontwikkel en uiteindelik oorlog met Brittanje te voorkom. Die tweede invloedryke stap wat hy gemaak het, was om hierdie verdrag te laat bekragtig. Hy het aangevoer dat die land hom nie hoef te betrek in 'n oorlog met 'n land wat negentig persent van sy invoer besit nie. Washington moes hiervoor veg met sy reputasie en selfs sy lewe. Dit was die visioene van George Washington. Soos die jare aangestap het weens George Washington, kon die Verenigde State en Groot -Brittanje hul geskille vreedsaam besleg. Hierdeur volg hulle die presedent van arbitrasie wat in die Jay ’s -verdrag gevestig is, en bewys hulle aan die wêreld een manier om oorloë te vermy. 5


Jays -verdrag - Geskiedenis

Graan was die waardevolste kontantoes vir baie Amerikaanse boere. In die Weste was dit gewoonlik winsgewender om graan aan 'n plaaslike distilleerdery vir alkoholproduksie te verkoop as om dit oor die Appalachiërs na die oostelike markte te stuur. Hamilton se whiskybelasting het dus 'n spesiale las op Westerse boere gelê. Dit lyk asof dit die jong republiek in twee verdeel - geografies tussen die Ooste en die Weste, ekonomies tussen handelaars en boere en kultureel tussen stede en die platteland.

In die weste van Pennsylvania in die herfs van 1791 het sestien mans, vermom in vroueklere, 'n tollenaar met die naam Robert Johnson aangerand. Hulle het hom geteer en geveder, en die plaaslike adjunkbeamptes wat geregtigheid soek, het soortgelyke lotgevalle ontmoet. Hulle is beroof en geslaan, geslaan en geslaan, geteer en geveder, en vasgemaak en vir dood agtergelaat. Die rebelleboere het ook ander protesmetodes van die Revolusie en Shays 'Rebellion aangeneem, plaaslike petisies geskryf en vryheidspale opgerig. In die volgende twee jaar het belastinginvorderings in die streek afgeneem.

Toe, in Julie 1794, val groepe gewapende boere federale marshalle en tollenaars aan, en verbrand ten minste twee tollenaars se huise. Aan die einde van die maand het 'n gewapende mag van ongeveer 7 000, onder leiding van die radikale advokaat David Bradford, die Amerikaanse pos beroof en ongeveer agt kilometer oos van Pittsburgh versamel. President Washington het vinnig gereageer.

Eerstens het Washington 'n komitee van drie vooraanstaande Pennsylvaniërs gestuur om met die rebelle te vergader en 'n vreedsame besluit te probeer bewerkstellig. Intussen het hy 'n leër van dertienduisend militante in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, versamel. Op 19 September word Washington die enigste sittende president wat troepe in die veld gelei het, alhoewel hy die leër vinnig aan bevel van Henry Lee, 'n revolusionêre held en die huidige goewerneur van Virginia, oorgegee het.

Toe die federale leër weswaarts beweeg, het die boere versprei. In die hoop om 'n dramatiese vertoning van die federale gesag te maak, het Alexander Hamilton toesig gehou oor die arrestasie en verhoor van 'n aantal rebelle. Baie is vrygelaat weens 'n gebrek aan bewyse, en die meeste van die wat oorgebly het, waaronder twee mans wat weens verraad ter dood veroordeel is, is gou deur die president begenadig. Die Whiskey Rebellion het getoon dat die federale regering interne onrus kon onderdruk. Maar dit het ook bewys dat sommige burgers, veral arm westerlinge, dit as hul vyand beskou.

Ongeveer dieselfde tyd het 'n ander nasionale kwessie ook hewige protesopwekking veroorsaak. Saam met sy visie op 'n sterk nasionale finansiële stelsel, het Hamilton ook 'n visie gehad van 'n Amerika wat besig was met buitelandse handel. In sy gedagtes beteken dit dat 'n vriendskaplike verhouding met veral een nasie aangegaan moet word: Groot -Brittanje.

Amerika se verhouding met Brittanje sedert die einde van die rewolusie was gespanne, deels as gevolg van oorlogvoering tussen die Britte en die Franse. Hul vlootoorlog bedreig Amerikaanse skeepvaart. Die mees indrukwekkende en ontroerende vir Amerikaanse burgers was die "indruk" van beslag gelê op Amerikaanse matrose in die magtige vloot van Brittanje, wat die Amerikaanse handel riskant en duur gemaak het - om nie te praat van vernederend nie. President Washington was egter bewus van Amerikaanse swakheid en was vasbeslote om nie kant te kies nie. In April 1793 verklaar hy amptelik dat die Verenigde State neutraal sal bly. Met sy seën vaar Hamilton se politieke bondgenoot John Jay, wat tans as hoofregter van die Hooggeregshof gedien het, na Londen om 'n verdrag te beding wat Brittanje en die Verenigde State tevrede sou stel.

Jefferson en Madison was sterk gekant teen hierdie onderhandelinge. Hulle het Brittanje wantrou en wou hê dat Amerika eerder Frankryk sou bevoordeel. Die Franse het onlangs hul eie monargie omvergewerp, en Republikeine het gedink dat die Verenigde State bly sou wees om die vriendskap van 'n nuwe revolusionêre staat te hê. Hulle vermoed ook dat 'n verdrag met Brittanje noordelike handelaars en vervaardigers bo die landbou -suide sou bevoordeel.

In November 1794, ondanks hul bedenkinge, onderteken John Jay 'n 'verdrag van liefde, handel en navigasie' met die Britte. Jay's -verdrag, soos dit algemeen genoem is, het Brittanje verplig om sy militêre posisies in die noordwestelike gebied (veral Fort Detroit, Fort Mackinac en Fort Niagara) teen 1796 te laat vaar. Brittanje het ook ingestem om Amerikaanse handelaars vir hul verliese te vergoed. Die Verenigde State, in ruil daarvoor, het ingestem om Brittanje as sy mees gewaardeerde handelsvennoot te behandel, wat beteken het dat hulle stilswyend Brittanje ondersteun in sy huidige konflik met Frankryk. Ongelukkig het Jay nie daarin geslaag om die indruk te beëindig nie.

Vir Federaliste was hierdie verdrag 'n belangrike prestasie. Jay's -verdrag het die Verenigde State, 'n relatief swak mag, die vermoë gegee om amptelik neutraal te bly in Europese oorloë, en dit het die Amerikaanse welvaart behou deur handel te beskerm. Vir die Republikeine van Jefferson was die verdrag egter 'n bewys van federalistiese verraad. Die federaliste het 'n monargie teen 'n republiek geskaar, en hulle het Britse invloed in Amerikaanse aangeleenthede ondergaan sonder om die indruk te beëindig. In die kongres het die debat oor die verdrag die federaliste en Republikeine van tydelike faksies in twee afsonderlike (hoewel steeds losweg georganiseerde) politieke partye verander.


Wat was die XYZ -saak?

Dit klink miskien na iets uit “Sesame Street ”, maar die XYZ -saak was eintlik 'n diplomatieke voorval tussen Frankryk en Amerika aan die einde van die 18de eeu wat gelei het tot 'n swart oorlog.

In 1793 het Frankryk oorlog gevoer met Groot -Brittanje, terwyl Amerika neutraal gebly het. Laat die volgende jaar het die Verenigde State en Brittanje die Jay -verdrag onderteken, wat verskeie jare lange probleme tussen die twee nasies opgelos het. Die Franse was woedend oor die Jay ’s -verdrag, omdat hulle geglo het dat dit vroeëre verdrae tussen die Verenigde State en Frankryk oortree het, en het 'n aansienlike aantal Amerikaanse handelskepe in beslag geneem. Toe president George Washington in 1796 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as die Amerikaanse minister na Frankryk stuur, het die regering daar geweier om hom te ontvang. Nadat John Adams in 1797 president geword het, het hy later dieselfde jaar 'n afvaardiging van drie lede na Parys gestuur om die vrede tussen die twee lande te herstel. Sodra die diplomate en Pinckney saam met John Marshall en Elbridge Gerry in die buiteland gekom het, het hulle probeer om die Franse minister van buitelandse sake, Charles de Talleyrand, te ontmoet. In plaas daarvan het hy hulle uitgestel en uiteindelik drie agente aan die Amerikaanse kommissarisse laat weet dat hy hom eers 'n groot omkoopgeld moes betaal en onder meer voorwaardes aan Frankryk sou gee. Pinckney se veronderstelde reaksie was: “No! Geen! Nie 'n sespen nie! ”

Toe die Franse eis oor die Franse eise kom, veroorsaak dit opskudding en vra vir oorlog. Nadat sommige lede van die kongres gevra het om die diplomate ’ -verslae te sien oor wat in Frankryk gebeur het, het Adams hulle die name van die Franse agente oorhandig, vervang met die letters X, Y en Z, dus die naam XYZ Affair. Die kongres het daarna verskeie verdedigingsmaatreëls goedgekeur, waaronder die oprigting van die Departement van die Vloot en die bou van oorlogskepe. Toe, in Julie 1798, het dit Amerikaanse skepe gemagtig om Franse vaartuie aan te val en 'n swart oorlogsoorlog geloods waarna die kwasi-oorlog verwys is. Die vyandelikhede is besleg met die Konvensie van 1800, ook bekend as die Verdrag van Mortefontaine, wat in 1801 bekragtig is.


Jays -verdrag - Geskiedenis

Daar sal 'n vaste, onaantasbare en universele vrede wees en 'n ware en opregte vriendskap tussen sy Britanniese Majesteit, sy erfgename en opvolgers, en die Verenigde State van Amerika en tussen hul onderskeie lande, gebiede, stede, dorpe en mense van elke graad, sonder uitsondering van persone of plekke.

Sy Majesteit sal al sy troepe en garnisoene onttrek van alle poste en plekke binne die grenslyne wat die vredesverdrag aan die Verenigde State opgedra het. Hierdie ontruiming vind plaas op of voor. . . [Junie I, 1796,]. . .: Die Verenigde State, na goeddunke, uitbreiding van hul nedersettings tot enige deel binne die genoemde grenslyn, behalwe binne die gebied of jurisdiksie van een van die genoemde poste. Alle setlaars en handelaars, binne die gebied of jurisdiksie van die genoemde poste, sal ongemaklik al hul besittings van elke aard geniet en daarin beskerm word. Hulle het die volle vryheid om daar te bly, of om die gevolge daarvan geheel of gedeeltelik te verwyder, en dit is hulle ook vry om hul grond, huise of eiendomme te verkoop, of die eiendom daarvan te behou, na goeddunke soos van hulle wat binne die genoemde grenslyne sal bly woon, sal nie verplig wees om burgers van die Verenigde State te word nie, of om 'n eed van trou aan die regering af te lê, maar hulle is vry om dit te doen as hulle goed dink , en hulle moet hul verkiesing maak en verklaar binne een jaar na die ontruiming. En alle persone wat daar sal voortgaan na die verstryking van die genoemde jaar, sonder om hul voorneme te verklaar om onderdane van sy Britanniese Majesteit te bly, word beskou as verkies om burgers van die Verenigde State te word.

Daar word ooreengekom dat dit te alle tye gratis sal wees vir onderdane van sy majesteit, en vir die burgers van die Verenigde State, en ook vir die Indiane wat aan weerskante van die genoemde grenslyn woon, vrylik om te land en na binnelandse seevaart te gaan en terug te plaas. , na die onderskeie gebiede en lande van die twee partye, op die kontinent van Amerika (slegs die land binne die grense van die Hudson's Bay Company), en om al die mere, riviere en waters daarvan te navigeer, en om vrylik handel te dryf en handel met mekaar. Maar dit word verstaan ​​dat hierdie artikel nie betrekking het op die toelating van vaartuie van die Verenigde State in die hawens, hawens, baaie of spruite van genoemde gebiede van sy majesteit nie, en ook nie in dele van die riviere in die genoemde gebiede van sy majesteit soos is tussen die monding daarvan en die hoogste ingangshaven uit die see, behalwe in klein vaartuie wat trouens tussen Montreal en Quebec handel, ingevolge die regulasies wat daargestel word om die moontlikheid van bedrog in hierdie opsig te voorkom. Ook nie tot die toelating van Britse vaartuie uit die see in die riviere van die Verenigde State nie, verby die hoogste toegangspoort vir buitelandse vaartuie uit die see. Die rivier die Mississippi sal egter, volgens die vredesverdrag, heeltemal oop wees vir beide partye en daar word verder ooreengekom dat alle hawens en plekke aan die oostelike kant, waartoe ook al die partye behoort, vrylik na en deur albei partye gebruik, net so ruim soos enige van die Atlantiese hawens of plekke van die Verenigde State, of een van die hawens of plekke van sy Majesteit in Groot -Brittanje.

Alle goedere en handelsware waarvan die invoer na die gebiede van sy majesteit in Amerika nie heeltemal verbied is nie, mag vir die doeleindes van handel vryelik op dieselfde wyse deur die burgers van die Verenigde State en sodanige goedere ingedra word en handelsware is onderhewig aan geen hoër of ander heffings as wat die onderdane van sy Majesteit sou betaal op die invoer daarvan uit Europa na die genoemde gebiede nie. En op soortgelyke wyse kan alle goedere en handelsware waarvan die invoer in die Verenigde State nie heeltemal verbied word nie, vir handelsdoeleindes op dieselfde wyse deur die onderdane van sy majesteit, en sodanige goedere en merchandise shall be subject to no higher or other duties, than would be payable by the citizens of the United States on the importation of the same in American vessels into the Atlantic ports of the said states. And all goods not prohibited to be exported from the said territories respectively, may in like manner be carried out of the same by the two parties respectively, paying duty as aforesaid.

No duty of entry shall ever be levied by either party on peltries brought by land, or inland navigation into the said territories respectively, nor shall the Indians passing or repassing with their own proper goods and effects of whatever nature, pay for the same any impost or duty whatever. But goods in bales, or other large packages, unusual among Indians, shall not be considered as goods belonging bona fide to Indians.

No higher or other tolls or rates of ferriage than what are or shall be payable by natives, shall be demanded on either side and no duties shall be payable on any goods which shall merely be carried over any of the portages or carrying-places on either side, for the purpose of being immediately reembarked and carried to some other place or places. But as by this stipulation it is only meant to secure to each party a free passage across the portages on both sides: it is agreed, that this exemption from duty shall extend only to such goods as are carried in the usual and direct road across the portage, and are not attempted to be in any manner sold or exchanged during their passage across the same. . . .

Whereas it is uncertain whether the river Mississippi extends so far to the northward, as to be intersected by a line to be drawn due west from the Lake of the Woods, in the manner mentioned in the treaty of peace between his Majesty and the United States: it is agreed, that measures shall be taken in concert between his Majesty's government in America and the government of the United States, for making a joint survey of the said river from one degree of latitude below the falls of St. Anthony, to the principal source or sources of the said river, and also of the parts adjacent thereto and that if on the result of such survey, it should appear that the said river, would not be intersected by such a line as is above mentioned, the two parties will thereupon proceed by amicable negociation, to regulate the boundary line in that quarter, as well as all other points to be adjusted between the said parties, according to justice and mutual convenience, and in conformity to the intent of the said treaty.

Whereas doubts have arisen what river was truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix, mentioned in the said treaty of peace, and forming a part of the boundary therein described that question shall be referred to the final decision of commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz. [Each party to choose one commissioner, and these two to choose a third. The commissioners to "decide what river is the river St. Croix, intended by the treaty," and the decision to be final.]

Whereas it is alledged by divers British merchants and others his Majesty's subjects, that debts, to a considerable amount, which were bona fide contracted before the peace, still remain owing to them by citizens or inhabitants of the United States, and that by the operation of various lawful impediments since the peace, not only the full recovery of the said debts has been delayed, but also the value and security thereof have been, in several instances, impaired and lessened, so that by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the British creditors cannot now obtain, and actually have and receive full and adequate compensation for the losses and damages which they have thereby sustained. It is agreed, that in all such cases, where full compensation for such losses and damages cannot, for whatever reason, be actually obtained, had and received by the said creditors in the ordinary course of justice, the United States will make full and complete compensation for the same to the said creditors: But it is distinctly understood, that this provision is to extend to such losses only as have been occasioned by the lawful impediments aforesaid, and is not to extend to losses occasioned by such insolvency of the debtors, or other causes as would equally have operated to produce such loss, if the said impediments had not existed nor to such losses or damages as have been occasioned by the manifest delay or negligence, or wilful omission of the claimant.
[Claims to be adjudicated by five commissioners, with powers and duties as herein prescribed. The awards of the commissioners to be final, "both as to the justice of the claim, and to the amount of-the sum to be paid to the creditor or claimant."]

Whereas complaints have been made by divers merchants and others, citizens of the United States, that during the course of the war in which his Majesty is now engaged, they have sustained considerable losses and damage, by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property, under colour of authority or commissions from his Majesty, and that from various circumstances belonging to the said cases, adequate compensation for the losses and damages so sustained cannot now be actually obtained, had and received by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings it is agreed, that in all such cases, where adequate compensation cannot, for whatever reason, be now actually obtained, had and received by the said merchants and others, in the ordinary course of justice, full and complete compensation for the same will be made by the British government to the said complainants. But it is distinctly understood, that this provision is not to extend to such losses or damages as have been occasioned by the manifest delay or negligence, or wilful omission of the claimant.

[Claims to be adjudicated by five commissioners, under like conditions to those stated in Art. VI.]

And whereas certain merchants and others his Majesty's subjects, complain, that in the course of the war they have sustained loss and damage, by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise, taken within the limits and jurisdiction of the states, and brought into the ports of the same, or taken by vessels originally armed in ports of the said states.

It is agreed that in all such cases where restitution shall not have been made agreeably to the tenor of the letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, dated at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, I793, a copy of which is annexed to this treaty the complaints of the parties shall be and hereby are referred to the commissioners to be appointed by virtue of this article, who are hereby authorized and required to proceed in the like manner relative to these as lo the other cases committed to them.

Neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor monies which they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever in any event of war or national differences be sequestered or confiscated. . .

It is agreed between his Majesty and the United States of America, that there shall be a reciprocal and entirely perfect liberty of navigation and commerce between their respective people, in the manner, under the limitations and on the conditions specified in the following articles:

[Art. XII., relating to trade with the West Indies, was suspended by the resolution of the Senate advising ratification, and the suspension was agreed to by Great Britain.]

His Majesty consents that the vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States of America, shall be admitted and hospitably received, in all the sea-ports and harbours of the British territories in the EastIndies. And that the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation or exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited. Provided only, that it shall not be lawful for them in any time of war between the British government and any other power or state whatever, to export from the said territories, without the special permission of the British government there, any military stores, or naval stores, or rice. The citizens of the United States shall pay for their vessels when admitted into the said ports no other or higher tonnageduty than shall be payable on British vessels when admitted into the ports of the United States. And they shall pay no other or higher duties or charges, on the importation or exportation of the cargoes of the said vessels, than shall be payable on the same articles when imported or exported in British vessels. But it is expressly agreed, that the vessels of the United States shall not carry any of the articles exported by them from the said British territories, to any port or place, except to some port or place in America, where the same shall be unladen, and such regulations shall be adopted by both parties, as shall from time to time be found necessary to enforce the due and faithful observance of this stipulation. It is also understood that the permission granted by this article, is not to extend to allow the vessels of the United States to carry on any part of the coasting-trade of the said British territories but vessels going with their original cargoes, or part thereof, from one port of discharge to another, are not to be considered as carrying on the coasting-trade. Neither is this article to be construed to allow the citizens of the said states to settle or reside within the said territories, or to go into the interior parts thereof, without the permission of the British government established there. And the citizens of the United States, whenever they arrive in any port or harbour in the said territories, or if they should be permitted in manner aforesaid, to go to any other place therein, shall always be subject to the laws, government, and jurisdiction of what nature established in such harbor, port or place, according as the same may be. The citizens of the United States may also touch for refreshment at the island of St. Helena, but subject in all respects to such regulations as the British government may from time to time establish there.

There shall be between all the dominions of his Majesty in Europe and the territories of the United States, a reciprocal and perfect liberty of commerce and navigation. The people and inhabitants of the two countries respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely, and without hindrance and molestation, to come with their ships and cargoes to the lands, countries, cities, ports, places and rivers, within the dominions and territories aforesaid, to enter into the same, to resort there, and to remain and reside there, without any limitation of time. Also to hire and possess houses and ware-houses for the purposes of their commerce, and generally the merchants and traders on each side, shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce but subject always as to what respects this article to the laws and statutes of the two countries respectively.

It is agreed that no other or higher duties shall be paid by the ships or merchandise of the one party in the ports of the other, than such as are paid by the like vessels or merchandise of all other nations. Nor shall any other or higher duty be imposed in one country on the importation of any articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the other, than are or shall be payable on the importation of the like articles being of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country Nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the exportation or importation of any articles to or from the territories of the two parties respectively, which shall not equally extend to all other nations. But the British government reserves to itself the right of imposing on American vessels entering into the British ports in Europe, a tonnage duty equal to that which shall be payable by British vessels in the ports of America: And also such duty as may be adequate to countervail the difference of duty now payable on the importation of European and Asiatic goods, when imported into the United States in British or in American vessels.

The two parties agree to treat for the more exact equalization of the duties on the respective navigation of their subjects and people, in such manner as may be most beneficial to the two countries. In the interval it is agreed, that the United States will not impose any new or additional tonnage duties ore British vessels, nor increase the now subsisting difference between the duties payable on the importation of any articles in British or in American vessels.

[Provides for the appointment of consuls.]

It is agreed, that in all cases where vessels shall be captured or detained on just suspicion of having on board enemy's property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contraband of war the said vessel shall be brought to the nearest or most convenient port and if any property of an enemy should be found on board such vessel, that part only which belongs to the enemy shall be made prize, and the vessel shall be at liberty to proceed with the remainder without any impediment.

In order to regulate what is in future to be esteemed contraband of war, it is agreed, that under the said denomination shall
be comprised all arms and implements sewing for the purposes of war, by land or sea, such as cannon, muskets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenades, carcasses, saucisses, carriages for cannon, musket rests, bandoliers, gun-powder, match, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, headpieces, cuirasses, halberts, lances, javelins, horsefurniture, holsters, belts, and generally all other implements of war as also timber for ship-building, tar or rosin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels, unwrought iron and fir planks only excepted and all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects of confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to an enemy.

And whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases in which alone provisions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as such, renders it expedient to provide against the inconveniences and misunderstandings which might thence arise: It is further agreed, that whenever any such articles so becoming contraband, according to the existing laws of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the same shall not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified and the captors, or in their default, the government under whose authority they act, shall pay to the masters or owners of such vessels, the full value of all such articles, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, together with the freight, and also the demurrage incident to such detention.
And whereas it frequently happens that vessels sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the same is either besieged, blockaded or invested it is agreed, that every vessel so circumstanced, may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, be confiscated, unless after notice she shall again attempt to enter but she shall be permitted to go to any other port or place she may think proper Nor shall any vessel or goods of either party, that may have entered into such port or place, before the same was besieged, blockaded, or invested by the other, and be found therein after the reduction or surrender of such place, be liable to confiscation, but shall be restored to the owners or proprietors thereof.

And that more abundant care may be taken for the security of the respective subjects and citizens of the contracting parties, and to prevent their suffering injuries by the men of war, or privateers of either party, all commanders of ships of war and privateers, and all others the said subjects and citizens, shall forbear doing any damage to those of the other party, or committing any outrage against them, and if they act to the contrary, they shall be punished, and shall also be bound in their persons and estates to make satisfaction and reparation for all damages, and the interest thereof, of whatever nature the said damages may be.

ARTICLE XXI
It is likewise agreed, that the subjects and citizens of the two nations, shall not do any acts of hostility or violence against each other, nor accept commissions or instructions so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies to the other party nor shall the enemies of one of the parties be permitted to invite, or endeavor to enlist in their military service, any of the subjects or citizens of the other party and the laws against all such offenses and aggressions shall be punctually executed. And if any subject or citizen of the said parties respectively, shall accept any foreign commission, or letters of marque, for arming any vessel to act as a privateer against the other party, and be taken by the other party, it is hereby declared to be lawful for the said party, to treat and punish the said subject or citizen, having such commission or letters of marque, as a pirate.

It is expressly stipulated, that neither of the said contracting parties will order or authorize any acts of reprisal against the other, on complaints of injuries or damages, until the said party shall first have presented to the other a statement thereof, verified by competent proof and evidence, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the same shall either have been refused or un reasonably delayed.

The ships of war of each of the contracting parties shall, at all times, be hospitably received in the ports of the other, their officers and crews paying due respect to the laws and government of the country. And his Majesty consents, that in case an American vessel should, by stress of weather, danger from enemies or other misfortune, be reduced to the necessity of seeking shelter in any of his Majesty's ports, into which such vessel could not in ordinary cases claim to be admitted, she shall, on manifesting that necessity to the satisfaction of the government of the place, be hospitably received and be permitted to refit, and to purchase at the market price, such necessaries as she may stand in need of, conformably to such orders and regulations as the government of the place, having respect to the circumstances of each case, shall prescribe. She shall not be allowed to break bulk or unload her cargo, unless the same should be bona fide necessary to her being refitted. Nor shall be permitted to sell any part of her cargo, unless so much only as may be necessary to defray her expences, and then not without the express permission of the government of the place. Nor shall she be obliged to pay any duties whatever, except only on such articles as she may be permitted to sell for the purpose aforesaid.

It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers (not being subjects or citizens of either of the said parties) who have commissions from any other prince or state in enmity with either nation, to arm their ships in the ports of either of the said parties, nor to sell what they have taken, nor in any other manner to exchange the same nor shall they be allowed to purchase more provisions, than shall be necessary for their going to the nearest port of that prince or state from whom they obtained their commissions.

It shall be lawful for the ships of war and privateers belonging to the said parties respectively, to carry whithersoever they please,
the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any fee to the officers of the admiralty, or to any judges whatever nor shall the said prizes when they arrive at, and enter the ports of the said parties, be detained or seized, neither shall the searchers or other officers of those places visit such prizes, (except for the purpose of preventing the carrying of any part of the cargo thereof on shore in any manner contrary to the established laws of revenue, navigation or commerce) nor shall such officers take cognizance of the validity of such prizes but they shall be at liberty to hoist sail, and depart as speedily as may be, and carry their said prizes to the place mentioned in their commissions or patents, which the commanders of the said ships of war or privateers shall be obliged to show. No shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as have made a prize upon the subjects or citizens of either of the said parties but if forced by stress of weather, or the dangers of the sea, to enter therein, particular care shall be taken to hasten their departure, and to cause them to retire as soon as possible. Nothing in this treaty contained shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public treaties with other sovereigns or states. But the two parties agree, that while they continue in amity, neither of them will in future make any treaty that shall be inconsistent with this or the preceding article.
Neither of the said parties shall permit the ships or goods belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other, to be taken within cannon-shot of the coast, nor in any of the bays, ports, or rivers of their territories, by ships of war, or others having commission from any prince, republic, or state whatever.

If at any time a rupture should take place, (which God forbid) between his Majesty and the United States, the merchants and others of each of the two nations, residing in the dominions of the other, shall have the privilege of remaining and continuing their trade, so long as they behave peaceably, and commit no offense against the laws and in case their conduct should render them suspected, and the respective governments should think proper to order them to remove, the term of twelve months front the publication of the order shall be allowed them for that purpose, to remove with their families, effects and property but this favour shall not be extended to those who shall act contrary to the established laws . . . such rupture shall not be deemed to exist, while negotiations for accommodating differences shall be depending, nor until the respective ambassadors or ministers, if such there shall be, shall be recalled, or sent home on account of such differences.

[Provides for the extradition of persons charged with murder or forgery.]

It is agreed, that the first ten articles of this treaty shall be permanent, and that the subsequent articles, except the twelfth, shall be limited in their duration to twelve years, to be computed from the day on which the ratifications of this treaty shall be exchanged. .


FURTHER READING

Combs, Jerald. The Jay Treaty: Political Background of the Founding Fathers. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970.

Flexner, James. George Washington: Anguish and Farewell, 1793 – 1799. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972.

Freeman, Douglas Southall. George Washington, A Biografie, completed by J.A. Carroll and M.W. Ashworth. 7 vols. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1948 – 1957. Abridgement by Richard Harwell, New York: Scribner's Sons, 1968.

Reuter, Frank. Trials and Triumphs: George Washington's Foreign Policy. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1983.


Insights Into the Jay Treaty of 1794: Summary and Significance

The British occupancy loomed over the American soil even after America attained Independence in 1776 moreover, the French were at loggerheads with Britain, and there hung an impending atmosphere of war. Hence, to negotiate historic terms with the British, America signed the Jay Treaty in 1794. This Historyplex post explains the significance and summary of this monumental treaty.

The British occupancy loomed over the American soil even after America attained Independence in 1776 moreover, the French were at loggerheads with Britain, and there hung an impending atmosphere of war. Hence, to negotiate historic terms with the British, America signed the Jay Treaty in 1794. This Historyplex post explains the significance and summary of this monumental treaty.

Advocate of Peace

John Jay who played a pivotal role as a political negotiator for the Jay Treaty (the treaty is named in his honor) was also among the chief negotiators for the Treaty of Paris 1783, which declared America’s Independence.

American foreign policies with Britain were on a verge of deterioration, and the Revolution in France was heating up the political scenario in the early 1790s. America postulated the need to negotiate both commercial and territorial events with the two European powers. Several resolute issues left enervated at the end of the American Revolution determined that the United States must talk terms with Britain in order to avoid further dispute. The unstable state of the nation’s economy and its restricted means of implementing its supremacy by use of military force put the United States in a mortifying situation of not being able to maintain itself in the field of international diplomacy.

With political exasperation, President George Washington dispatched Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to England to negotiate a peaceful closure on trade and political peace, which led to the Treaty of Jay of 1794. Given below are its salient features:

Historiese agtergrond

Despite the historic signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, both the British and Americans persisted to transgress its guidelines and terms in a host of ways.

Through the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, the western border of the United States had been laid down at the eastern shores of the Mississippi River. Nevertheless, ten years after American independence, British troops were still invading parts of the Ohio Valley. Outstanding liabilities owed to the United States by the British and delineated in the treaty had gone unpaid. American ships were banished from ports under British command, and by 1794, British ships were confiscating American vessels merchandising in the French West Indies on the bases that such trade breached the British Orders in Council that forbade neutral nations from trading with French ports.

British exports oversupplied U.S. markets, while American exports were barred by British trade limitations and tariff duties. The British occupancy of northern forts as well as perennial Native American onslaughts in these areas highly upset the Americans. To make matters worse, Britain started coercing American sailors, and seized naval and military supplies wreaked the two nations to the threshold of war in the later half of 1700s.

Britain was already caught in a war with France and Britain, and under these circumstances, Britain spurned America’s view that as a neutral state, it was able to trade freely with all economical parties. Britain confiscated hundreds of American neutral ships, and Sir Guy Carleton, Baron Dorchester, the governor-general of Canada, made a combative speech to western Indians connoting that they would soon be able to reclaim their lands in the Great Lakes region from the United States.

Regrettably, the Navigation Acts that had once nurtured and promoted American cargo ships to British ports now prohibited the new nation to trade freely with British monomania. Moreover, under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress had no power of revenue enhancement. With confined means of growing revenue, the U.S. debt grew dramatically. The standing Continental Army was quickly dissolved. By 1785, the ships of the Continental Navy had all been sold or given away, and the naval force of the United States, with the exclusion of a small number of revenue cutters, ceased to subsist.

Opposition of Treaty

The treaty was majorly opposed by Democratic-Republicans, who dreaded that the Federalist Party was trying to achieve its own personal agendas by tighter economic ties with Britain. The Democrats also feared this was a ploy to undercut republicanism by tying United States pursuits to the British monarchy.

The Federalists, on the other hand, favored this treaty as it reinforced economic ties with Britain and accorded on arbitration methods to settle pre-war liabilities and claims of seized American merchant ships.

Leading the opposition from the Republic front were two future presidents: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both the leaders their patrons neither liked the political or economic scheme of England. Their European favorite was France, despite that country’s radical over indulgences. They also feared that the treaty would give too many grants to the British. President George Washington himself was not convinced over the treaty, but in response to the best of public welfare and averting another war with Britain appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay as a peace envoy to England.

Jay himself was anti-French and had shown himself antipathetic to the French Revolution in lieu of all these situations, he accepted the offer.

Facts and Provisions of the Treaty

Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was a supporter of the treaty and hence, provided John Jay with specific guidelines to outline the treaty. He advocated a strong strategy that would both stabilize relations with Great Britain and vouched increased trade.

John Jay’s sole bargaining chip to clinch the deal was that the United States would join the Danish and the Swedish governments in defending their neutral status and defying British seizure of their goods by force of weaponry. But in a turn of events, Alexander Hamilton independently communicated with the British leadership that the United States had no aim of uniting in this neutral armament.

John Jay was favorably welcomed in England in June. The terms of the treaty were officially outlined by the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and strongly advocated and negotiated by John Jay. Negotiations put forth in front of the monarch empire proved to be an elephant task by a newly developed nation. The British chaffed over the terms, but finally John Jay clinched the deal by forgoing certain unfavorable factors like for e.g. cotton will not be exported from the United States and American economic trade with the British West Indies would be highly restrained. Outlining these key factors amicably, the officially titled ‘Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation’ or ‘Treaty of London’ or ‘Jay’s Treaty’ was signed by British Foreign Minister Lord Grenville and America’s Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay on November 19, 1794 in London.

Provisions of the treaty included (i) the British evacuation of the Northwestern posts by June 1, 1796, granting colonists the choice of becoming American or remaining British citizens, with guaranteed protection. (ii) It denoted peaceful settlement of the northwest and northeast boundaries and the questions of liabilities and recompenses to mixed charges (iii) it provided for unrestricted navigation of the Mississippi and liberal trade between the North American dominions of the two countries (iv) it granted equal exclusive rights to American and British vessels in Great Britain and the East Indies, but also gave access to British vessels to trade through American ports on terms of the ‘most-favored nation’.

These articles of the treaty proved economic to the United States, but the British also determined certain articles that once accepted, would annul components of the Treaty of Commerce and Amity with France signed in 1778. Most notable of these components was that the British insisted that supporters of England’s enemies must be prohibited to gird themselves or sell their awards in American ports, thus ultimately granting Britain additional rights.

All other prominent grievances like the Canadian-Maine boundary, compensation for pre-revolutionary debts, and British captures of American ships were to be adjudicated by arbitration. Other issues like damages for those Americans whose slaves were eradicated by Britain’s voiding armies was not permitted, protection of American sailors against coercing was not ensured, and rules regarding international maritime law were ignored.

The Aftermath

John Jay was welcomed back home with fierce opposition from the public as well as the Republicans violent protesters thronged the streets hanging and burning stuffed effigies of John Jay. Many of the politicians criticized the President for making the ratification of the bill impossible.

Alexander Hamilton was stoned while addressing in defense of the treaty. On June 8, 1795, President George Washington presented to the Senate, in a special session, all the documents related to the negotiation of Jay’s Treaty. After massive oppositions and a lengthy debate, the House passed a resolution by three votes, adjudging it and making the treaty effective.

The Annals of Congress records that the Senate authorized Jay’s Treaty by a vote of 20 to 10 on June 24, 1795, and with that, the British surrendered the forts and posts on the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, Jay’s Treaty required that the House of Representatives reserve funds for its execution. Opponents in the House sought to block the annexation bill, with the debate commencing on April 14, 1796. The annexation for the treaty was narrowly sanctioned by a vote of 51 to 48 on April 30, 1796.

Despite these drawbacks, President George Washington came to the conclusion that Jay’s Treaty was essential in order to avert a war with Great Britain. In a letter to Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, dated July 22, 1795, Washington wrote, “My opinion respecting the treaty, is the same now that it was: namely, not favorable to it, but that it is better to ratify it in the manner the Senate have advised (and with the reservation already mentioned), than to suffer matters to remain as they are, unsettled.”


Kyk die video: Average White Band 1979 Live (Januarie 2022).