John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Recipient="Oswald, Richard"
sorted by: date (ascending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-03-02-0040

From John Jay to Richard Oswald, 10 September 1782

To Richard Oswald

[Paris, 10 September 1782]
Dt. of a proposed Letter to Mr Oswald

Sir

It is with Regret that we find ourselves obliged by our Duty to the ^our^ Country to object to entering with You into negociations for Peace on the plan proposed—one Nation can treat with another Nation only on Terms of Equality, and it can not be expected that we should be the first and only Servants of Congress ^who^ would admit Doubts of their Independence.1

The Tenor of your Commission affords Matter for a Variety of Objections which your good Sense will save us the Necessity of enumerating. The Journals of Congress present to you unequivocal and uniform Evidence of the Sentiments and Resolutions of Congress on the Subject, and their positive Instructions to us to speake the same Language—2

The Manner of removing these Obstacles is obvious, and in our Opinion no less consistent with the Dignity than the Interest of G. Britain— If the Parliament meant to enable the King to conclude a Peace with us on Terms of Independence, they necessarily meant to enable him to do it in a Manner compatible with his Dignity, and consequently that he should previously regard us in a point of View that would render it proper for him to negociate with us— What this point of View is, you need not be informed—

We also take the Liberty of submitting to your Consideration how far his Majesty’s now declining to take this Step, would comport with the assurances lately given on that Subject; and whether Hesitation and Delay would not tend to lessen the Confidence which those assurances were calculated to inspire—3

As to referring an acknowledgmt. of our Independence to the first article of a Treaty, permit us to remark, that this implies that we are not to be considered in that Light until after the Conclusion of it ^the Treaty^, and our agreeing to it ^acquiescing^, would be to admit the propriety of our being considered in another Light during that Interval— Had this Circumstance been attended to, we presume that the Court of Great Britain would not have pressed a Measure which certainly is not delicate, and which cannot be reconciled with the recd. Ideas of national Honor.

You may rest assured Sir of our Disposition to peace on reasonable Terms, and of our Readiness to enter Seriously into Negociations for it, as soon as we shall have an opportunity of doing it in the only Manner in which it is possible for one Nation to treat with another vizt. on an equal footing. Had your Commission been in the usual form, we might have proceeded,4 and as we can percieve no legal ^or other^ objection to this, or some other such like Expedient, it is to be wished that his Majesty will not permit an Obstacle so very unimportant to Great Britain, but so essential & insuperable with Respect to us, to delay the Reestablishmt. of peace, especially as in Case the Business could be but once begun, the Confidence we repose have in your Candor and Integrity would probably render the settling all our Articles, only the Work of a few Hours—5

Dft, MiU-C: Shelburne, 71: 91–92 (EJ: 5402). Enclosure in Oswald to Shelburne, 11 Sept. 1782, ALS, MiU-C: Shelburne, 71: 85–89, printed in Giunta, Emerging Nation description begins Mary A. Giunta et al., eds., The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780–1789 (3 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1996) description ends , 1: 576–78. Endorsed in Oswald’s hand: “ . . . Scroll of a Letter / proposed to be wrote / by Mr Jay to Mr Oswald—/ Which with some difficulty / I got out of his hands, after / it had been settled with his / Friends, that it was not proper / to go before any public Board. / &ca. / 10th Septr. 1782”. Added endorsement by a clerk: “In Mr. Oswald’s of 11th. / Sepr. 1782.” C, CSmH (EJ: 3485). LbkCs, embedded in JJ to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 17 Nov. 1782, below, DNA: PCC, item 110, 2: 168–70; NNC: JJ Lbk. 1, and CSmH.

1That is, on the basis of Oswald’s previous instructions and without explicit acknowledgment of American independence. See “John Jay Proposes Altering Richard Oswald’s Commission” (editorial note) on pp. 108–10.

2See Instructions of the Continental Congress to the Ministers Plenipotentiary to Negotiate a Treaty of Peace, 15 June 1781, JJSP, 2 description begins Elizabeth M. Nuxoll et al., eds., The Selected Papers of John Jay, Volume 2, 1780–82 (Charlottesville, Va., 2012) description ends : 469–71. See also the extracts from the journals of Congress shown to Oswald and forwarded in Oswald’s letter to Townshend of 10 Sept., below, and also included in JJ’s draft letter to Vergennes, c. 11 Sept. 1782, below.

3A reference to Townshend’s authorization to Grenville to acknowledge American independence “in the first instance,” described in “The Status of the Peacemaking on John Jay’s Arrival in Paris”(editorial note) on pp. 1–7; and to the instructions given to Carleton and Digby of 25 June 1782, a copy of which JJ embedded in his letter to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of 17 Nov. 1782, below.

4For Vergennes’s views on the “manner” of the commission, see JJ to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 17 Nov. 1782, below.

5For JJ’s reluctance to deliver this letter to Oswald, see Oswald to Townshend, 10 Sept., below.

Index Entries