|
|
| & etc |
FEEDBACK
(C)1998-2012
All Rights Reserved.
Site last updated
13 January, 2012
|
|
|
| John Tyler and the slave trade
by John Tyler
FROM THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF JOHN TYLER
SPECIAL SESSION MESSAGE.
WASHINGTON, June 1, 1841...
I shall also at the proper season invite your attention to the
statutory enactments for the suppression of the slave trade, which may
require to be rendered more efficient in their provisions. There is
reason to believe that the traffic is on the increase. Whether such
increase is to be ascribed to the abolition of slave labor in the
British possessions in our vicinity and an attendant diminution in the
supply of those articles which enter into the general consumption of
the world, thereby augmenting the demand from other quarters, and thus
calling for additional labor, it were needless to inquire. The highest
considerations of public honor as well as the strongest promptings of
humanity require a resort to the most vigorous efforts to suppress the
trade.
WASHINGTON, January 19, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate herewith a report* from the Secretary of
State, with accompanying papers, in answer to their resolution of the
11th instant.
JOHN TYLER.
*Transmitting correspondence relative to the action of the authorities of Nassau, New Providence, in the imprisonment of slaves charged with mutiny and murder, the refusal to surrender them to the United States consul for trial in the United States, and the liberation of slaves, all of said slaves being a part of the cargo of the United States brig Creole.
JANUARY 27, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report* of the Secretary of War, in answer to
the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 9th August, 1841.
JOHN TYLER.
*Relating to the origin of the Seminole war, slaves captured during said war by United States troops, etc.
WASHINGTON, February 28, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I have the honor to submit copies of the correspondence* and other
documents called for by the resolution of the House of Representatives
of the 2d February.
I am not informed of the existence of any official opinion of the late
Judge Johnson on the unconstitutionality of the act or acts of the State
of South Carolina upon the subject referred to in the resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
*Relating to an act of the legislature of South Carolina providing for the imprisonment of free negroes found on board vessels entering any of the ports of that State, complaints of the British Government relative to the operation of said act, etc.
WASHINGTON, June 20, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
A resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant has
been communicated to me, requesting, "so far as may be compatible with
the public interest, a copy of the quintuple treaty between the five
powers of Europe for the suppression of the African slave trade, and
also copies of any remonstrance or protest addressed by Lewis Cass,
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States
at the Court of France, to that Government, against the ratification
by France of the said treaty, and of all correspondence between
the Governments of the United States and of France, and of all
communications from the said Lewis Cass to his own Government and
from this Government to him relating thereto."
In answer to this request I have to say that the treaty mentioned
therein has not been officially communicated to the Government of the
United States, and no authentic copy of it, therefore, can be furnished.
In regard to the other papers requested, although it is my hope and
expectation that it will be proper and convenient at an early day to lay
them before Congress, together with others connected with the same
subjects, yet in my opinion a communication of them to the House of
Representatives at this time would not be compatible with the public
interest.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 11, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the satisfaction to communicate to the Senate the results of
the negotiations recently had in this city with the British minister,
special and extraordinary.
These results comprise—
First. A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the
territories of the United States and the possessions of Her Britannic
Majesty in North America, for the suppression of the African slave
trade, and the surrender of criminals fugitive from justice in certain
cases.
Second. A correspondence on the subject of the interference of the
colonial authorities of the British West Indies with American merchant
vessels driven by stress of weather or carried by violence into the
ports of those colonies.
Third. A correspondence upon the subject of the attack and destruction
of the steamboat Caroline.
Fourth. A correspondence on the subject of impressment.
If this treaty shall receive the approbation of the Senate, it will
terminate a difference respecting boundary which has long subsisted
between the two Governments, has been the subject of several ineffectual
attempts at settlement, and has sometimes led to great irritation, not
without danger of disturbing the existing peace. Both the United States
and the States more immediately concerned have entertained no doubt of
the validity of the American title to all the territory which has been
in dispute, but that title was controverted and the Government of the
United States had agreed to make the dispute a subject of arbitration.
One arbitration had been actually had, but had failed to settle the
controversy, and it was found at the commencement of last year that a
correspondence had been in progress between the two Governments for a
joint commission, with an ultimate reference to an umpire or arbitrator
with authority to make a final decision. That correspondence, however,
had been retarded by various occurrences, and had come to no definite
result when the special mission of Lord Ashburton was announced. This
movement on the part of England afforded in the judgment of the
Executive a favorable opportunity for making an attempt to settle this
long-existing controversy by some agreement or treaty without further
reference to arbitration.
It seemed entirely proper that if this purpose were entertained
consultation should be had with the authorities of the States of
Maine and Massachusetts. Letters, therefore, of which copies are
herewith communicated, were addressed to the governors of those States,
suggesting that commissioners should be appointed by each of them,
respectively, to repair to this city and confer with the authorities
of this Government on a line by agreement or compromise, with its
equivalents and compensations. This suggestion was met by both States
in a spirit of candor and patriotism and promptly complied with.
Four commissioners on the part of Maine and three on the part of
Massachusetts, all persons of distinction and high character, were duly
appointed and commissioned and lost no time in presenting themselves at
the seat of the Government of the United States. These commissioners
have been in correspondence with this Government during the period of
the discussions; have enjoyed its confidence and freest communications;
have aided the general object with their counsel and advice, and in the
end have unanimously signified their assent to the line proposed in the
treaty.
Ordinarily it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring together such
a variety of interests in a matter in itself difficult and perplexed,
but the efforts of the Government in attempting to accomplish this
desirable object have been seconded and sustained by a spirit of
accommodation and conciliation on the part of the States concerned,
to which much of the success of these efforts is to be ascribed.
Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeastern boundary,
so far as it respects the States of Maine and Massachusetts, is the
continuation of that line along the highlands to the northwesternmost
head of Connecticut River. Which of the sources of that stream is
entitled to this character has been matter of controversy and of some
interest to the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands
decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of the
Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hampshire. The line
agreed to in the present treaty follows the highlands to the head of
Halls Stream and thence down that river, embracing the whole claim of
New Hampshire and establishing her title to 100,000 acres of territory
more than she would have had by the decision of the King of the
Netherlands.
By the treaty of 1783 the line is to proceed down the Connecticut
River to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, and thence west by
that parallel till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent examinations
having ascertained that the line heretofore received as the true line of
latitude between those points was erroneous, and that the correction of
this error would not only leave on the British side a considerable tract
of territory heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and
New York, but also Rouses Point, the site of a military work of the
United States, it has been regarded as an object of importance not only
to establish the rights and jurisdiction of those States up to the line
to which they have been considered to extend, but also to comprehend
Rouses Point within the territory of the United States. The
relinquishment by the British Government of all the territory south of
the line heretofore considered to be the true line has been obtained,
and the consideration for this relinquishment is to inure by the
provisions of the treaty to the States of Maine and Massachusetts.
The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. Croix to the St.
Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachusetts are concerned, is fixed by
their own consent and for considerations satisfactory to them, the chief
of these considerations being the privilege of transporting the lumber
and agricultural products grown and raised in Maine on the waters of the
St. Johns and its tributaries down that river to the ocean free from
imposition or disability. The importance of this privilege, perpetual
in its terms, to a country covered at present by pine forests of great
value, and much of it capable hereafter of agricultural improvement, is
not a matter upon which the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be
divided.
So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures all that she
requires, and New York and Vermont are quieted to the extent of their
claim and occupation. The difference which would be made in the northern
boundary of these two States by correcting the parallel of latitude may
be seen on Tanner's maps (1836), new atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9.
From the intersection of the forty-fifth degree of north latitude
with the St. Lawrence and along that river and the lakes to the water
communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior the line was
definitively agreed on by the commissioners of the two Governments
under the sixth article of the treaty of Ghent; but between this
last-mentioned point and the Lake of the Woods the commissioners acting
under the seventh article of that treaty found several matters of
disagreement, and therefore made no joint report to their respective
Governments. The first of these was Sugar Island, or St. Georges Island,
lying in St. Marys River, or the water communication between Lakes Huron
and Superior. By the present treaty this island is embraced in the
territories of the United States. Both from soil and position it is
regarded as of much value.
Another matter of difference was the manner of extending the line from
the point at which the commissioners arrived, north of Isle Royale,
in Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods. The British commissioner
insisted on proceeding to Fond du Lac, at the southwest angle of the
lake, and thence by the river St. Louis to the Rainy Lake. The American
commissioner supposed the true course to be to proceed by way of the Dog
River. Attempts were made to compromise this difference, but without
success. The details of these proceedings are found at length in the
printed separate reports of the commissioners.
From the imperfect knowledge of this remote country at the date of
the treaty of peace, some of the descriptions in that treaty do not
harmonize with its natural features as now ascertained. "Long Lake" is
nowhere to be found under that name. There is reason for supposing,
however, that the sheet of water intended by that name is the estuary
at the mouth of Pigeon River. The present treaty therefore adopts that
estuary and river, and afterwards pursues the usual route across the
height of land by the various portages and small lakes till the line
reaches Rainy Lake, from which the commissioners agreed on the extension
of it to its termination in the northwest angle of the Lake of the
Woods. The region of country on and near the shore of the lake between
Pigeon River on the north and Fond du Lac and the river St. Louis on
the south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is thus
included within the United States. It embraces a territory of 4,000,000
acres northward of the claim set up by the British commissioner under
the treaty of Ghent. From the height of land at the head of Pigeon River
westerly to the Rainy Lake the country is understood to be of little
value, being described by surveyors and marked on the map as a region
of rock and water.
From the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, which is found to be
in latitude 45° 23' 55" north, existing treaties require the line to be
run due south to its intersection with the forty-fifth parallel, and
thence along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains.
After sundry informal communications with the British minister upon the
subject of the claims of the two countries to territory west of the
Rocky Mountains, so little probability was found to exist of coming
to any agreement on that subject at present that it was not thought
expedient to make it one of the subjects of formal negotiation to be
entered upon between this Government and the British minister as part
of his duties under his special mission.
By the treaty of 1783 the line of division along the rivers and lakes
from the place where the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude strikes
the St. Lawrence to the outlet of Lake Superior is invariably to be
drawn through the middle of such waters, and not through the middle of
their main channels. Such a line, if extended according to the literal
terms of the treaty, would, it is obvious, occasionally intersect
islands. The manner in which the commissioners of the two Governments
dealt with this difficult subject may be seen in their reports. But
where the line thus following the middle of the river or water course
did not meet with islands, yet it was liable sometimes to leave the only
practicable navigable channel altogether on one side. The treaty made no
provision for the common use of the waters by the citizens and subjects
of both countries.
It has happened, therefore, in a few instances that the use of the river
in particular places would be greatly diminished to one party or the
other if in fact there was not a choice in the use of channels and
passages. Thus at the Long Sault, in the St. Lawrence—a dangerous
passage, practicable only for boats—the only safe run is between the
Long Sault Islands and Barnharts Island (all which belong to the United
States) on one side and the American shore on the other. On the other
hand, by far the best passage for vessels of any depth of water from
Lake Erie into the Detroit River is between Bois Blanc, a British
island, and the Canadian shore. So again, there are several channels or
passages, of different degrees of facility and usefulness, between the
several islands in the river St. Clair at or near its entry into the
lake of that name. In these three cases the treaty provides that all the
several passages and channels shall be free and open to the use of the
citizens and subjects of both parties.
The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries for the
suppression of the African slave trade and the complaints made to this
Government within the last three or four years, many of them but too
well founded, of the visitation, seizure, and detention of American
vessels on that coast by British cruisers could not but form a delicate
and highly important part of the negotiations which have now been held.
The early and prominent part which the Government of the United States
has taken for the abolition of this unlawful and inhuman traffic is well
known. By the tenth article of the treaty of Ghent it is declared that
the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity
and justice, and that both His Majesty and the United States are
desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition;
and it is thereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use
their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. The
Government of the United States has by law declared the African slave
trade piracy, and at its suggestion other nations have made similar
enactments. It has not been wanting in honest and zealous efforts, made
in conformity with the wishes of the whole country, to accomplish the
entire abolition of the traffic in slaves upon the African coast, but
these efforts and those of other countries directed to the same end have
proved to a considerable degree unsuccessful. Treaties are known to have
been entered into some years ago between England and France by which the
former power, which usually maintains a large naval force on the African
station, was authorized to seize and bring in for adjudication vessels
found engaged in the slave trade under the French flag.
It is known that in December last a treaty was signed in London by the
representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria having
for its professed object a strong and united effort of the five
powers to put an end to the traffic. This treaty was not officially
communicated to the Government of the United States, but its provisions
and stipulations are supposed to be accurately known to the public.
It is understood to be not yet ratified on the part of France.
No application or request has been made to this Government to become
party to this treaty, but the course it might take in regard to it has
excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe, as the
principle upon which it is founded and the stipulations which it
contains have caused warm animadversions and great political excitement.
In my message at the commencement of the present session of Congress
I endeavored to state the principles which this Government supports
respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of
maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing
obligations should be fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent with
the honor and dignity of the country that it should execute its own laws
and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own power.
The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one nation
by the cruisers of another for any purpose except those known and
acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or
regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is far
better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity or any motive
for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant vessel by an
armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of
national honor as well as to affect the interests of individuals. It has
been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accordance with the
stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the same time as removing
all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the
American flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law
of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate.
The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation,
or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply
that each of the two Governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa
a sufficient squadron to enforce separately and respectively the laws,
rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the
slave trade.
Another consideration of great importance has recommended this mode of
fulfilling the duties and obligations of the country. Our commerce along
the western coast of Africa is extensive, and supposed to be increasing.
There is reason to think that in many cases those engaged in it have met
with interruptions and annoyances caused by the jealousy and instigation
of rivals engaged in the same trade. Many complaints on this subject
have reached the Government. A respectable naval force on the coast is
the natural resort and security against further occurrences of this
kind.
The surrender to justice of persons who, having committed high crimes,
seek an asylum in the territories of a neighboring nation would seem to
be an act due to the cause of general justice and properly belonging to
the present state of civilization and intercourse. The British Provinces
of North America are separated from the States of the Union by a line of
several thousand miles, and along portions of this line the amount of
population on either side is quite considerable, while the passage of
the boundary is always easy.
Offenders against the law on the one side transfer themselves to the
other. Sometimes, with great difficulty, they are brought to justice,
but very often they wholly escape. A consciousness of immunity from the
power of avoiding justice in this way instigates the unprincipled and
reckless to the commission of offenses, and the peace and good
neighborhood of the border are consequently often disturbed.
In the case of offenders fleeing from Canada into the United States,
the governors of States are often applied to for their surrender, and
questions of a very embarrassing nature arise from these applications.
It has been thought highly important, therefore, to provide for the
whole case by a proper treaty stipulation. The article on the subject
in the proposed treaty is carefully confined to such offenses as all
mankind agree to regard as heinous and destructive of the security of
life and property. In this careful and specific enumeration of crimes
the object has been to exclude all political offenses or criminal
charges arising from wars or intestine commotions. Treason, misprision
of treason, libels, desertion from military service, and other offenses
of similar character are excluded.
And lest some unforeseen inconvenience or unexpected abuse should arise
from the stipulation rendering its continuance in the opinion of one or
both of the parties not longer desirable, it is left in the power of
either to put an end to it at will.
The destruction of the steamboat Caroline at Schlosser four or five
years ago occasioned no small degree of excitement at the time, and
became the subject of correspondence between the two Governments. That
correspondence, having been suspended for a considerable period, was
renewed in the spring of the last year, but no satisfactory result
having been arrived at, it was thought proper, though the occurrence
had ceased to be fresh and recent, not to omit attention to it
on the present occasion. It has only been so far discussed in the
correspondence now submitted as it was accomplished by a violation of
the territory of the United States. The letter of the British minister,
while he attempts to justify that violation upon the ground of a
pressing and overruling necessity, admitting, nevertheless, that
even if justifiable an apology was due for it, and accompanying this
acknowledgment with assurances of the sacred regard of his Government
for the inviolability of national territory, has seemed to me sufficient
to warrant forbearance from any further remonstrance against what took
place as an aggression on the soil and territory of the country. On the
subject of the interference of the British authorities in the West
Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the correspondence which
has taken place, showing the grounds taken by this Government and the
engagements entered into by the British minister, will be found such as
to satisfy the just expectation of the people of the United States.
The impressment of seamen from merchant vessels of this country by
British cruisers, although not practiced in time of peace, and therefore
not at present a productive cause of difference and irritation, has,
nevertheless, hitherto been so prominent a topic of controversy and is
so likely to bring on renewed contentions at the first breaking out of a
European war that it has been thought the part of wisdom now to take it
into serious and earnest consideration. The letter from the Secretary of
State to the British minister explains the ground which the Government
has assumed and the principles which it means to uphold. For the defense
of these grounds and the maintenance of these principles the most
perfect reliance is placed on the intelligence of the American people
and on their firmness and patriotism in whatever touches the honor of
the country or its great and essential interests.
JOHN TYLER.
SECOND ANNUAL MESSAGE.
I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the happy change in the aspect
of our foreign affairs since my last annual message. Causes of complaint
at that time existed between the United States and Great Britain which,
attended by irritating circumstances, threatened most seriously the
public peace. The difficulty of adjusting amicably the questions at
issue between the two countries was in no small degree augmented by the
lapse of time since they had their origin. The opinions entertained by
the Executive on several of the leading topics in dispute were frankly
set forth in the message at the opening of your late session. The
appointment of a special minister by Great Britain to the United States
with power to negotiate upon most of the points of difference indicated
a desire on her part amicably to adjust them, and that minister was met
by the Executive in the same spirit which had dictated his mission.
The treaty consequent thereon having been duly ratified by the two
Governments, a copy, together with the correspondence which accompanied
it, is herewith communicated. I trust that whilst you may see in it
nothing objectionable, it may be the means of preserving for an
indefinite period the amicable relations happily existing between the
two Governments. The question of peace or war between the United States
and Great Britain is a question of the deepest interest, not only to
themselves, but to the civilized world, since it is scarcely possible
that a war could exist between them without endangering the peace of
Christendom. The immediate effect of the treaty upon ourselves will be
felt in the security afforded to mercantile enterprise, which, no longer
apprehensive of interruption, adventures its speculations in the most
distant seas, and, freighted with the diversified productions of every
land, returns to bless our own. There is nothing in the treaty which in
the slightest degree compromits the honor or dignity of either nation.
Next to the settlement of the boundary line, which must always be a
matter of difficulty between states as between individuals, the question
which seemed to threaten the greatest embarrassment was that connected
with the African slave trade.
By the tenth article of the treaty of Ghent it was expressly declared
that—
Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles
of humanity and justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United
States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire
abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties
shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.
In the enforcement of the laws and treaty stipulations of Great Britain
a practice had threatened to grow up on the part of its cruisers of
subjecting to visitation ships sailing under the American flag, which,
while it seriously involved our maritime rights, would subject to
vexation a branch of our trade which was daily increasing, and which
required the fostering care of Government. And although Lord Aberdeen
in his correspondence with the American envoys at London expressly
disclaimed all right to detain an American ship on the high seas, even
if found with a cargo of slaves on board, and restricted the British
pretension to a mere claim to visit and inquire, yet it could not well
be discerned by the Executive of the United States how such visit and
inquiry could be made without detention on the voyage and consequent
interruption to the trade. It was regarded as the right of search
presented only in a new form and expressed in different words, and
I therefore felt it to be my duty distinctly to declare in my annual
message to Congress that no such concession could be made, and that the
United States had both the will and the ability to enforce their own
laws and to protect their flag from being used for purposes wholly
forbidden by those laws and obnoxious to the moral censure of the world.
Taking the message as his letter of instructions, our then minister at
Paris felt himself required to assume the same ground in a remonstrance
which he felt it to be his duty to present to Mr. Guizôt, and through
him to the King of the French, against what has been called the
"quintuple treaty;" and his conduct in this respect met with the
approval of this Government. In close conformity with these views the
eighth article of the treaty was framed, which provides "that each
nation shall keep afloat in the African seas a force not less than
80 guns, to act separately and apart, under instructions from their
respective Governments, and for the enforcement of their respective laws
and obligations." From this it will be seen that the ground assumed
in the message has been fully maintained at the same time that the
stipulations of the treaty of Ghent are to be carried out in good faith
by the two countries, and that all pretense is removed for interference
with our commerce for any purpose whatever by a foreign government.
While, therefore, the United States have been standing up for the
freedom of the seas, they have not thought proper to make that a pretext
for avoiding a fulfillment of their treaty stipulations or a ground
for giving countenance to a trade reprobated by our laws. A similar
arrangement by the other great powers could not fail to sweep from the
ocean the slave trade without the interpolation of any new principle
into the maritime code. We may be permitted to hope that the example
thus set will be followed by some if not all of them. We thereby also
afford suitable protection to the fair trader in those seas, thus
fulfilling at the same time the dictates of a sound policy and complying
with the claims of justice and humanity.
WASHINGTON, January 9, 1843.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have received a resolution of the Senate of the 27th of December, in
the following terms:
Resolved, That the President be requested to inform the Senate, if
compatible with the public interest, whether the quintuple treaty
for the suppression of the slave trade has been communicated to the
Government of the United States in any form whatever, and, if so, by
whom, for what purpose, and what answer may have been returned to such
communication. Also to communicate to the Senate all the information
which may have been received by the Government of the United States
going to show that the "course which this Government might take in
relation to said treaty has excited no small degree of attention and
discussion in Europe." Also to inform the Senate how far the "warm
animadversions" and the "great political excitement" which this
treaty has caused in Europe have any application or reference to the
United States. Also to inform the Senate what danger there was that
"the laws and the obligations" of the United States in relation to
the suppression of the slave trade would be "executed by others," if
we did not "remove the pretext and motive for violating our flag and
executing our laws" by entering into the stipulations for the African
squadron and the remonstrating embassies which are contained in the
eighth and ninth articles of the late British treaty. Also that the
President be requested to communicate to the Senate all the
correspondence with our ministers abroad relating to the foregoing
points of inquiry. Also that the President be requested to communicate
to the Senate all such information upon the negotiation of the African
squadron articles as will show the origin of such articles and the
history and progress of their formation.
I informed the Senate, in the message transmitting the treaty with
England of the 9th of August last, that no application or request had
been made to this Government to become a party to the quintuple treaty.
Agents of the Government abroad, regarding the signature of that treaty
as a political occurrence of some importance, obtained, unofficially,
copies of it, and transmitted those copies to the Department of State,
as other intelligence is communicated for the information of the
Government. The treaty has not been communicated to the Government of
the United States from any other quarter, in any other manner, or for
any other purpose.
The next request expressed in the resolution is in these words:
Also to communicate to the Senate all the information which may have
been received by the Government of the United States going to show that
the "course which this Government might take in relation to said treaty
has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe." Also
to inform the Senate how far the "warm animadversions" and the "great
political excitement" which this treaty has caused in Europe have any
application or reference to the United States.
The words quoted in this part of the resolution appear to be taken from
my message above mentioned. In that communication I said:
No application or request has been made to this Government to become
a party to this treaty, but the course it might take in regard to it
has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe, as
the principle upon which it is founded and the stipulations which it
contains have caused warm animadversions and great political
excitement.
In my message at the commencement of the present session of Congress
I endeavored to state the principles which this Government supports
respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of
maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing
obligations should be fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent
with the honor and dignity of the country that it should execute its
own laws and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own
power. The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one
nation by the cruisers of another for any purposes except those known
and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or
regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is
far better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity or any
motive for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant
vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to
touch the point of national honor as well as to affect the interests
of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in
accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the
same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating
the immunities of the American flag upon the seas as they exist and
are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now
submitted to the Senate.
The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation,
or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply
that each of the two Governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a
sufficient squadron to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws,
rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the
slave trade.
These opinions were expressed by me officially upon the occasion of
making to the Senate a communication of very great importance. It is not
perceived how the accuracy of this general statement can be doubted by
those who are acquainted with the debates of public bodies in Europe,
the productions of the press, and the other modes by which public
opinion is manifested in an enlightened age. It is not to be supposed
that excited attention to public and national transactions or general
political discussions in Europe on subjects open to all the world are
known only in consequence of private information communicated to the
Government, and feeling a strong persuasion that it would be improper in
the Executive to go into any discussion or argument upon such a subject
with the Senate, I have no further remarks to make upon this part of the
inquiry.
The third inquiry is:
What danger there was that "the laws and the obligations" of the United
States in relation to the suppression of the slave trade would be
"executed by others" if we do not "remove the pretext and motive for
violating our flag and executing our laws."
I have already quoted from the message the entire paragraph to a part of
which this portion of the inquiry is supposed to refer.
As to the danger there was that the laws and the obligations of the
United States in relation to the suppression of the slave trade would
be executed by others if we did not remove the pretext and motive for
violating our flag and provide for executing our laws, I might say that
this depends upon notorious facts and occurrences, of which the evidence
has been in various forms before the country and all the branches of the
Government.
When I came to occupy the Executive chair I could not be ignorant
of the numerous complaints which had been made on account of alleged
interruptions of American vessels engaged in lawful commerce on the
coast of Africa by British cruisers on the ground of their being engaged
in the slave trade. I could not be ignorant, at the same time, of the
well-grounded suspicions which pervaded the country that some American
vessels were engaged in that odious and unlawful traffic. There were two
dangers, then, to be guarded against—the one, that this traffic would
continue to be carried on in American ships, and perhaps much increased,
unless some new and vigorous effort should be made for its suppression;
the other, that acquiescence in the capture of American vessels,
notorious slave dealers, by British cruisers might give countenance to
seizures and detentions of vessels lawfully employed on light or
groundless suspicions. And cases had arisen under the administration of
those who preceded me well calculated to show the extent and magnitude
of this latter danger; and believing that very serious consequences
might in time grow out of the obvious tendency and progress of things,
I felt it to be my duty to arrest that progress, to rescue the immunity
of the American flag from the danger which hung over it, and to do this
by recommending such a provision for the execution of our own laws as
should remove all pretense for the interference of others.
Among the occurrences to which I have alluded, it may be useful to
particularize one case.
The schooner Catharine, an American vessel owned by citizens of the
United States, was seized on the coast of Africa by the British cruiser
called the Dolphin and brought into the port of New York in the summer
of 1839. Upon being brought into port, Benjamin F. Butler, esq.,
district attorney of the United States for the southern district of
New York, appeared in the district court of the United States for that
district and in the name and behalf of the United States libeled the
schooner, her apparel and furniture, for a violation of the several acts
of Congress passed for the suppression of the slave trade. The schooner
being arrested by the usual process in such cases and possession taken
of her from the hands of the British captors by officers of the United
States, the cause proceeded, and by a decree of the circuit court in
December, 1840, a forfeiture was pronounced. From this decree an appeal
was taken, which is now pending in the Supreme Court of the United
States.
It is true that in another case, that of the Tigris, of like general
character, soon after arising, the then Secretary of State, on the 1st
of March, 1841, informed Mr. Fox, the British minister, that "however
strong and unchangeable may be the determination of this Government to
punish any citizens of the United States who violate the laws against
the African slave trade, it will not permit the exercise of any
authority by foreign armed vessels in the execution of those laws."
But it is evident that this general declaration did not relieve the
subject from its difficulties. Vessels of the United States found
engaged in the African slave trade are guilty of piracy under the acts
of Congress. It is difficult to say that such vessels can claim any
interference of the Government in their behalf, into whosesoever hands
they may happen to fall, any more than vessels which should turn general
pirates. Notorious African slave traders can not claim the protection of
the American character, inasmuch as they are acting in direct violation
of the laws of their country and stand denounced by those laws as
pirates. In case of the seizure of such a vessel by a foreign cruiser,
and of her being brought into a port of the United States, what is to
be done with her? Shall she be libeled, prosecuted, and condemned as if
arrested by a cruiser of the United States? If this is to be done, it
is clear that the agency of a foreign power has been instrumental in
executing the laws of the United States. Or, on the other hand, is the
vessel, with all her offenses flagrant upon her, to be released on
account of the agency by which she was seized, discharged of all
penalties, and left at liberty to renew her illegal and nefarious
traffic?
It appeared to me that the best, if not the only, mode of avoiding these
and other difficulties was by adopting such a provision as is contained
in the late treaty with England.
The Senate asks me for the reasons for entering into the stipulations
for the "remonstrating embassies" contained in the late treaty. Surely
there is no stipulation in the treaty for any "remonstrating embassies,"
or any other embassies, nor any reference or allusion to any such thing.
In this respect all that the treaty provides is in the ninth article and
is in these words:
The parties to this treaty agree that they will unite in all becoming
representations and remonstrances with any and all powers within whose
dominions such markets [for African slaves] are allowed to exist, and
that they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of
closing such markets effectually, at once and forever.
It always gives me sincere pleasure to communicate to both Houses of
Congress anything in my power which may aid them in the discharge of
their high duties and which the public interest does not require to
be withheld. In transmitting the late treaty to the Senate everything
was caused to accompany it which it was supposed could enlighten the
judgment of the Senate upon its various provisions. The views of the
Executive, in agreeing to the eighth and ninth articles, were fully
expressed, and pending the discussion in the Senate every call for
further information was promptly complied with, and nothing kept back
which the Senate desired. Upon this information and upon its own
knowledge of the subject the Senate made up and pronounced its judgment
upon its own high responsibility, and as the result of that judgment the
treaty was ratified, as the Journal shows, by a vote of 39 to 9. The
treaty has thus become the law of the land by the express advice of the
Senate, given in the most solemn manner known to its proceedings. The
fourth request is—
That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate all the
correspondence with our ministers abroad relating to the foregoing
points of inquiry.
If this branch of the resolution were more definite, some parts of
it might perhaps be met without prejudice to the public interest
by extracts from the correspondence referred to. At a future day a
communication may be expected to be made as broad and general as a
proper regard to these interests will admit, but at present I deem any
such communication not to be consistent with the public interest.
The fifth and last is—
That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate all such
information upon the negotiation of the African squadron articles as
will show the origin of such articles and the history and progress of
their formation.
These articles were proposed to the British minister by the Secretary
of State under my express sanction and were acceded to by him and have
since been ratified by both Governments. I might without disrespect
speak of the novelty of inquiring by the Senate into the history and
progress of articles of a treaty through a negotiation which has
terminated, and as the result of which these articles have become the
law of the land by the constitutional advice of the Senate itself. But
I repeat that those articles had their origin in a desire on the part of
the Government of the United States to fulfill its obligations, entered
into by the treaty of Ghent, to do its utmost for the suppression of
the African slave trade, and to accomplish this object by such means as
should not lead to the interruption of the lawful commerce of the United
States or any derogation from the dignity and immunity of their flag.
And I have the satisfaction to believe that both the Executive, in
negotiating the treaty of which these articles form part, and the
Senate, in advising to its ratification, have effected an object
important to the Government and satisfactory to the people.
In conclusion I hope I may be permitted to observe that I have, out of a
profound respect for the Senate, been induced to make this communication
in answer to inquiries some of which at least are believed to be without
precedent in the history of the relations between that body and the
executive department. These inquiries were particularly unexpected to
me at the present moment. As I had been so fortunate as to find my own
views of the expediency of ratifying the late treaty with England
confirmed by a vote of somewhat more than four-fifths of the Senators
present, I have hitherto flattered myself that the motives which
influenced my conduct had been fully appreciated by those who advised
and approved it, and that if a necessity should ever arise for any
special explanation or defense in regard to those motives it could
scarcely be in that assembly itself.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, February 27, 1843.
To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 22d instant, requesting me to communicate to the House "whatever
correspondence or communication may have been received from the British
Government respecting the President's construction of the late British
treaty concluded at Washington as it concerns an alleged right to visit
American vessels," I herewith transmit a report made to me by the
Secretary of State.
I have also thought proper to communicate copies of Lord Aberdeen's
letter of the 20th December, 1841, to Mr. Everett, Mr. Everett's letter
of the 23d December in reply thereto, and extracts from several letters
of Mr. Everett to the Secretary of State.
I can not forego the expression of my regret at the apparent purport of
a part of Lord Aberdeen's dispatch to Mr. Fox. I had cherished the hope
that all possibility of misunderstanding as to the true construction of
the eighth article of the treaty lately concluded between Great Britain
and the United States was precluded by the plain and well-weighed
language in which it is expressed. The desire of both Governments is to
put an end as speedily as possible to the slave trade, and that desire,
I need scarcely add, is as strongly and as sincerely felt by the United
States as it can be by Great Britain. Yet it must not be forgotten
that the trade, though now universally reprobated, was up to a late
period prosecuted by all who chose to engage in it, and there were
unfortunately but very few Christian powers whose subjects were not
permitted, and even encouraged, to share in the profits of what was
regarded as a perfectly legitimate commerce. It originated at a period
long before the United States had become independent and was carried on
within our borders in opposition to the most earnest remonstrances and
expostulations of some of the colonies in which it was most actively
prosecuted. Those engaged in it were as little liable to inquiry or
interruption as any others. Its character, thus fixed by common consent
and general practice, could only be changed by the positive assent of
each and every nation, expressed either in the form of municipal law
or conventional arrangement. The United States led the way in efforts
to suppress it. They claimed no right to dictate to others, but they
resolved, without waiting for the cooperation of other powers, to
prohibit it to their own citizens and to visit its perpetration by them
with condign punishment. I may safely affirm that it never occurred
to this Government that any new maritime right accrued to it from the
position it had thus assumed in regard to the slave trade. If before our
laws for its suppression the flag of every nation might traverse the
ocean unquestioned by our cruisers, this freedom was not, in our
opinion, in the least abridged by our municipal legislation.
Any other doctrine, it is plain, would subject to an arbitrary and
ever-varying system of maritime police, adopted at will by the great
naval power for the time being, the trade of the world in any places
or in any articles which such power might see fit to prohibit to its
own subjects or citizens. A principle of this kind could scarcely be
acknowledged without subjecting commerce to the risk of constant and
harassing vexations.
The attempt to justify such a pretension from the right to visit and
detain ships upon reasonable suspicion of piracy would deservedly be
exposed to universal condemnation, since it would be an attempt to
convert an established rule of maritime law, incorporated as a principle
into the international code by the consent of all nations, into a rule
and principle adopted by a single nation and enforced only by its
assumed authority. To seize and detain a ship upon suspicion of piracy,
with probable cause and in good faith, affords no just ground either for
complaint on the part of the nation whose flag she bears or claim of
indemnity on the part of the owner. The universal law sanctions and the
common good requires the existence of such a rule. The right under such
circumstances not only to visit and detain but to search a ship is a
perfect right and involves neither responsibility nor indemnity. But,
with this single exception, no nation has in time of peace any authority
to detain the ships of another upon the high seas on any pretext
whatever beyond the limits of her territorial jurisdiction. And such,
I am happy to find, is substantially the doctrine of Great Britain
herself in her most recent official declarations, and even in those now
communicated to the House. These declarations may well lead us to doubt
whether the apparent difference between the two Governments is not
rather one of definition than of principle. Not only is the right of
search, properly so called, disclaimed by Great Britain, but even that
of mere visit and inquiry is asserted with qualifications inconsistent
with the idea of a perfect right.
In the dispatch of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett of the 20th of December,
1841, as also in that just received by the British minister in this
country made to Mr. Fox, his lordship declares that if in spite of
all the precaution which shall be used to prevent such occurrences an
American ship, by reason of any visit or detention by a British cruiser,
"should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt and ample
remuneration;" and in order to make more manifest her intentions in this
respect, Lord Aberdeen in the dispatch of the 20th December makes known
to Mr. Everett the nature of the instructions given to the British
cruisers. These are such as, if faithfully observed, would enable the
British Government to approximate the standard of a fair indemnity.
That Government has in several cases fulfilled her promises in this
particular by making adequate reparation for damage done to our
commerce. It seems obvious to remark that a right which is only to be
exercised under such restrictions and precautions and risk, in case of
any assignable damage to be followed by the consequences of a trespass,
can scarcely be considered anything more than a privilege asked for and
either conceded or withheld on the usual principles of international
comity.
The principles laid down in Lord Aberdeen's dispatches and the
assurances of indemnity therein held out, although the utmost reliance
was placed on the good faith of the British Government, were not
regarded by the Executive as a sufficient security against the abuses
which Lord Aberdeen admitted might arise in even the most cautious and
moderate exercise of their new maritime police, and therefore in my
message at the opening of the last session I set forth the views
entertained by the Executive on this subject, and substantially affirmed
both our inclination and ability to enforce our own laws, protect our
flag from abuse, and acquit ourselves of all our duties and obligations
on the high seas. In view of these assertions the treaty of Washington
was negotiated, and upon consultation with the British negotiator as to
the quantum of force necessary to be employed in order to attain these
objects, the result to which the most deliberate estimate led was
embodied in the eighth article of the treaty.
Such were my views at the time of negotiating that treaty, and such, in
my opinion, is its plain and fair interpretation. I regarded the eighth
article as removing all possible pretext on the ground of mere necessity
to visit and detain our ships upon the African coast because of any
alleged abuse of our flag by slave traders of other nations. We had
taken upon ourselves the burden of preventing any such abuse by
stipulating to furnish an armed force regarded by both the high
contracting parties as sufficient to accomplish that object.
Denying as we did and do all color of right to exercise any such general
police over the flags of independent nations, we did not demand of Great
Britain any formal renunciation of her pretension; still less had we the
idea of yielding anything ourselves in that respect. We chose to make
a practical settlement of the question. This we owed to what we had
already done upon this subject. The honor of the country called for it;
the honor of its flag demanded that it should not be used by others to
cover an iniquitous traffic. This Government, I am very sure, has both
the inclination and the ability to do this; and if need be it will not
content itself with a fleet of eighty guns, but sooner than any foreign
government shall exercise the province of executing its laws and
fulfilling its obligations, the highest of which is to protect its flag
alike from abuse or insult, it would, I doubt not, put in requisition
for that purpose its whole naval power. The purpose of this Government
is faithfully to fulfill the treaty on its part, and it will not permit
itself to doubt that Great Britain will comply with it on hers. In this
way peace will best be preserved and the most amicable relations
maintained between the two countries.
JOHN TYLER.
THIRD ANNUAL MESSAGE.
I am happy to inform you that the cases which have from time to time
arisen of the detention of American vessels by British cruisers on the
coast of Africa under pretense of being engaged in the slave trade have
been placed in a fair train of adjustment. In the case of the William
and Francis full satisfaction will be allowed. In the cases of the
Tygris and Seamew the British Government admits that satisfaction
is due. In the case of the Jones the sum accruing from the sale
of that vessel and cargo will be paid to the owners, while I can not
but flatter myself that full indemnification will be allowed for all
damages sustained by the detention of the vessel; and in the case of the
Douglas Her Majesty's Government has expressed its determination to
make indemnification. Strong hopes are therefore entertained that most,
if not all, of these cases will be speedily adjusted. No new cases have
arisen since the ratification of the treaty of Washington, and it is
confidently anticipated that the slave trade, under the operation of
the eighth article of that treaty, will be altogether suppressed.
WASHINGTON, February 20, 1844.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate a report* from the Secretary of State, with
accompanying documents, in answer to their resolution of the 31st of
January last.
JOHN TYLER.
* Relating to slaves committing crimes and escaping from the United States to the British dominions since the ratification of the treaty of 1842, and the refusal of the British authorities to give them up, and to the construction which the British Government puts upon the article of said treaty relative to slaves committing crimes in the United States and taking refuge in the British dominions.
WASHINGTON, March 7, 1844.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit to the House of Representatives a report* from the Secretary
of State, with documents, containing the information requested by
their resolution of the 26th ultimo.
JOHN TYLER.
* Relating to the colony of Liberia, in Africa.
WASHINGTON, March 9, 1844.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 21st
ultimo, a report* from the Secretary of State, with accompanying
papers.
JOHN TYLER.
* Relating to the abuse of the United States flag in subservience to the African slave trade, and to the taking away of slaves the property of Portuguese subjects in vessels owned or employed by citizens of the United States.
WASHINGTON, May 18, 1844.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 3d of
January last, requesting the President of the United States "to cause to
be communicated to that House copies of all the instructions given to
the commanding officers of the squadron stipulated by the treaty with
Great Britain of 9th of August, 1842, to be kept on the coast of Africa
for the suppression of the slave trade," and also copies of the
"instructions given by the British Government to their squadron
stipulated by the same, if such instructions have been communicated to
this Government," I have to inform the House of Representatives that
in my opinion it would be incompatible with the public interests to
communicate to that body at this time copies of the instructions
referred to.
JOHN TYLER.
FOURTH ANNUAL MESSAGE.
It would have given me the highest gratification in this my last annual
communication to Congress to have been able to announce to you the
complete and entire settlement and adjustment of other matters in
difference between the United States and the Government of Her Britannic
Majesty, which were adverted to in a previous message. It is so
obviously the interest of both countries, in respect to the large
and valuable commerce which exists between them, that all causes
of complaint, however inconsiderable, should be with the greatest
promptitude removed that it must be regarded as cause of regret that any
unnecessary delays should be permitted to intervene. It is true that
in a pecuniary point of view the matters alluded to are altogether
insignificant in amount when compared with the ample resources of that
great nation, but they nevertheless, more particularly that limited
class which arise under seizures and detentions of American ships on the
coast of Africa upon the mistaken supposition indulged in at the time
the wrong was committed of their being engaged in the slave trade,
deeply affect the sensibilities of this Government and people. Great
Britain, having recognized her responsibility to repair all such wrongs
by her action in other cases, leaves nothing to be regretted upon the
subject as to all cases arising prior to the treaty of Washington than
the delay in making suitable reparation in such of them as fall plainly
within the principle of others which she has long since adjusted. The
injury inflicted by delays in the settlement of these claims falls with
severity upon the individual claimants and makes a strong appeal to her
magnanimity and sense of justice for a speedy settlement. Other matters
arising out of the construction of existing treaties also remain
unadjusted, and will continue to be urged upon her attention.
The operations of the squadron on the coast of Africa have been
conducted with all due attention to the object which led to its
origination, and I am happy to say that the officers and crews have
enjoyed the best possible health under the system adopted by the officer
in command. It is believed that the United States is the only nation
which has by its laws subjected to the punishment of death as pirates
those who may be engaged in the slave trade. A similar enactment on the
part of other nations would not fail to be attended by beneficial
results. |
|
| |
