1. Enclosure A consists of copies of letters exchanged by Monroe and Luis de Onís between 14 Jan. and 21 Feb. 1817. In his 14 Jan. letter Monroe stated that he understood that Spain would cede no territory east of the Mississippi unless the United States ceded to Spain all of its claims to territory west of the Mississippi and that Onís would do no more than make a recommendation to this effect to his government. Monroe announced that he would not “prolong the negotiation on the subject of limits” and he asked if Onís would negotiate on “a convention to provide compensation for spoliations, and for the injury resulting to the United States, from the suppression of the deposite at New Orleans.” On 16 Jan. 1817 Onís responded that he was authorized to negotiate on “the indemnities due to the subjects and citizens of both nations, for the injuries they had suffered from the last war between his majesty and Great Britain” and also “to fix the respective limits to the satisfaction of both.” He further stated that the American offer to grant to Spain all land “between the Rio del Norte and the Colorado” in return for the United States receiving all Spanish territory east of the Mississippi was not a truly reciprocal one because it required Spain to relinquish “the property and possession which his majesty has of the territory in the province of Texas, which lies between the Colorado and the vicinity of Natchitoches.” Spain and the United States, he added, should agree on both the indemnities and the limits to which both were equally entitled. In his 25 Jan. 1817 reply Monroe declared the Spanish position to be “inadmissible” as it was “altogether inconsistent with the rights of the United States,” which “as far back as 1805, were fully discussed, as you readily admitted, in every circumstance, appertaining to, or connected with them.” He therefore repeated his request whether Spain was willing to negotiate on spoliations and the suppression of the deposit at New Orleans. On 10 Feb. 1817 Onís declared that interruptions in the communications between Spain and the United States as well as delays from other causes had prevented him from receiving the originals of his instructions and that until he received them, he could not say positively how far “his majesty would deprive himself of East Florida, and of the important port of Pensacola.” He continued to maintain that the two nations should “terminate” all their differences and that a convention confined to spoliations and the deposit at New Orleans could not accomplish that goal. Nevertheless, Onís suggested that these matters might be discussed in “a provisional arrangement of limits, without detaining us [to] fix them with exactitude.” On 20 Feb. 1817 Monroe concluded that Onís did not consider himself authorized to negotiate “on any one point” among the differences between the United States and Spain and that there would be no advantage in entering into discussions before Onís received his instructions.

2. Enclosure B consists of copies of letters exchanged by Onís and Monroe between 22 Feb. and 10 June 1816 concerning the grievances of the United States against Spain. In his 22 Feb. letter Onís maintained that these could have been settled had not relations between the two nations “been interrupted since the memorable epoch of 1808” and that the king of Spain, who had observed a “rigorous neutrality” in “the island of Cuba, East Florida, and his other possessions,” was not responsible for this delay. He pointed out that the affairs of Spain and the United States should have been “placed on the same footing they were before the interruption of the diplomatic relations” and that Spain should have received “that part of Florida” which had been occupied by American troops [in 1810]. He also refuted at length the argument of the United States that it had any claims to territory in West Florida and Texas by virtue of the Louisiana Purchase. Onís accordingly requested the punishment by law of those “turbulent and seditious individuals” who had armed themselves in the United States in order to carry “desolation, destruction and horrour into the frontier provinces of the crown of Spain,” specifically naming “Toledo, Bernardo, Gutierrez, Doctor Robinson and others” who had “perpetrated the horrible deeds at St. Antonio de Bexas” and assaulted New Mexico. Monroe denied any American responsibility in these matters, but Onís pointed out that the offenders had violated the neutrality laws of the United States and had taken refuge in American territory after they had been defeated by Spanish troops. He attached copies of intercepted letters from Toledo and other documentation by way of proof. The king of Spain expected that the president would have cut up “by the roots, these melancholy abuses,” and “shut the door against the continual, violent movements of these turbulent people, who, from the bosom of this republick, make war on a friendly and neighbouring power.” Onís also complained that vessels from Spain’s rebellious American colonies should not have been admitted into American ports. The United States had ended commercial relations “with the rebels of St. Domingo” at the request of France, and Spain was entitled to receive the same consideration. He suggested that since the American minister to Madrid [George W. Erving] had not yet left the United States, he be given “power and instructions to terminate the negotiations at Madrid.”

Monroe responded on 10 June 1816 to the effect that Erving had received instructions on these matters, and he hoped that Spain would “agree to such an arrangement as will be mutually advantageous and satisfactory to both nations.” He took exception to Onís’s denial that the United States had valid claims to Spanish territory by virtue of the 1800 treaty of San Ildefonso and the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, and he restated the American case under those treaties at length. He denied again that the United States had aided any parties who had invaded Spanish territory, and forwarded a 1 Mar. 1816 letter he had received from John Dick, the U.S. attorney for the district of Louisiana, as proof that no “band of insurgents, and incendiaries” had been raised and armed anywhere within the state of Louisiana. Dick admitted that arms might have been sent by sea from New Orleans to parts of New Spain, but he did not regard that commerce as illegal under American law. Moreover, Dick and other American authorities had taken steps under American law to preserve American neutrality with Spain and in 1815 had presented several individuals in court and detained several vessels for attempting to violate that neutrality.

3. Enclosure C consists of copies of the instructions and letters exchanged between Monroe, Erving, and Pedro Cevallos between 11 Mar. and 8 Oct. 1816. These included extracts from State Department instructions to Erving, dated 11 Mar. and 30 May 1816, directing him to negotiate with Spain on spoliations, the suppression of the deposit at New Orleans, and the refusal of Spain “to settle, on just principles, the boundaries of Louisiana.” Erving acknowledged these instructions on 29 Aug. 1816 and forwarded a copy of his 26 Aug. 1816 letter to Cevallos outlining the grievances the United States wished to settle. On 22 Sept. 1816 Erving reported to Monroe that Cevallos had not agreed to a meeting until 15 Sept. 1816, when the king assented to it “to gratify the President” (Cevallos to Erving, 15 Sept. 1816). Prior to 15 Sept. Cevallos had made “excuses” and claimed that instructions had already been sent to Onís on 10 June 1816, though Erving was uncertain whether these instructions included “full powers” to negotiate in ways that would have satisfied the United States. He accordingly wrote to Cevallos on 19 Sept. 1816 to seek clarification on these matters. Eight days later Erving informed Monroe that there was “now very little probability that I shall have occasion to use the ample documents with which I have been furnished.” He feared that Onís in Washington would be directed to answer any representations he might make in Madrid, concluding that “it is now perfectly evident that a principal motive with Mr. Cevallos in removing the negotiation to Washington, has been to get rid altogether of the weight and trouble of it here.”

In an 8 Oct. 1816 letter to Monroe, Erving provided further examples of how Cevallos evaded any negotiations, including his being “for several days, so wholly occupied with the marriage ceremonies [of the king] that not the least attention to any other kind of business could be expected.” Erving continued to press Cevallos for the reasons why he wanted the negotiations transferred to Washington, assuming either that Spain “sought to avoid or to delay an arrangement, or that it had some personal objection to myself.” Cevallos replied that the reasons “were what he had before assigned” and that Erving should not “imagine that either the king or himself had the least objection personal to me; on the contrary, it would give him, Mr. Cevallos, peculiar pleasure to settle the business with me, if it were possible for him to attend to it.” On 7 Oct. 1816 Erving received a note of the same date from Cevallos, stating that in response to Erving’s note of 19 Sept. 1816, the king would send “a full power” to “don Luis de Onis […] from the desire of sooner terminating the pending disputes, and that it is unconnected with any personal considerations.”