John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Recipient="Jay, John" AND Period="Confederation Period"
sorted by: author
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-04-02-0291

To John Jay from John Adams, 30 November 1787

From John Adams

Grosvenor Square Nov. 30. 1787

Dear Sir

I do myself the Honour to inclose the Kings speech at the Opening of Parliament as it has been transmitted to me from the Marquis of Carmarthen: and the Morning Chronicle of the 28, which contains, not the debates for there were none, but the Panegyricks upon it. I have long Seen Sir, in Silent astonishment and Grief the negligent and imprudent Conduct of a deceased French Minister of foreign Affairs, in his negotiations & Intercourse in Holland: the dispicable History of a Mailbois, the unmeaning or ill meaning Intrigues of Raineval, the Rhingrave, not to mention others equally disgusting at Paris, with a Minister, whom you know:1 When I first however Suspected that the Dutch Patriots and their confidential Agents, had Surrendered themselves to female Intrigues I had a thousand Apprehensions, that they would finally meet with that Ruin which you perfectly well know would have been the devoted Fate of the United States if they had Submitted to Mr Deans System of De Mailbois’s and De Coudrais, ten years ago.2 Let me entreat Gentle men to compare what remains upon the Records or Files of Congress at that Period with what happened before and at the Peace, with what has taken Place in Holland, and thank Heaven for their Providential Escapes.

There are many worthy Characters now Exiles from Holland and Refugees in Germany, the Austrian Netherlands and France for whom I have many years entertained an Esteem and affection whose melancholly Situation is truly deplorable. These however, have ever appeared to me to be too inattentive to the Sense of the common People in their own Country, too little acquainted with the Nature of Government, and too confidently dependant on the Support of France. The Debate orations in Parliament upon the speech inclosed are however more extraordinary than any thing that has occured. The Interposition of Prussia in the Affairs of Holland cannot be justified upon the Principles of the Law of Nations; and if Truth and Justice are not lost out of the World will be marked by the impartial, both in the present and future Ages with severe Censure. But the Speeches of Mr Fox and Mr Pitt appear to me to have Set every Tie that can bind Mankind, every Principle which ought to be held Sacred at open Defiance. it is openly avowed by both, that a Treaty of Alliance is in Agitation between England and Holland at this moment when a Treaty recently made between France and Holland is in full force, and when there is no Pretence of a Violation of it. Is not this a most outragious Insult, in the Face of the whole World, for the Debates in Parliament are known to be published all over Europe upon the Law of Nations, upon the Faith of Treaties, and national Honour. Is it the Intention of the Speech and of the Addresses which will echo it back to the Throne, to force the House of Bourbon into a War? To me, it Seems manifest.—If France should bear it patiently, what are we to think? The Fermentation in that Kingdom, occasioned by the Ruin brought upon it, by that Administration of whose Merits you have long since formed an accurate Judgment, and by the exertions to obtain provincial and national assemblies threatens much Confusion. It is not possible to foresee, what the Effect will be. I own myself afraid that the Patriots in France will prove as Unskillful and Unsuccessful Asserters of a free Government as those in Holland have been. a tedious Relaxation if not the most Serious divisions are to be apprehended. If however the House of Bourbon is unable to assert her Dignity upon this Occasion, I am clearly convinced that the Pride and Arrogance of England will rise so high, as to demand the Demolition of Cherbourg,3 and attempt to Sever South America from Spain. nor will this be all: She will demand the Annihilation of Several Articles at least of the Treaties between France and the United States of America. Nor will they Stop here. if they can bind Holland in their Shackles, and France by her internal distractions is unable to interfere, She will make War immediately against Us. they are at present both at Court, and in the Nation at large much more respectful to me, and much more tender of the United States than they Ever have been before. but depend upon it, this will not last.—They will aim at recovering back the Western Lands at taking away our Fisheries and at the total Ruin of our Navigation at least.

The United States of America, therefore, had never more Reason to be upon their Guard: to compleat their Constitution of Government: to Unite as one Man to meet with Courage and Constancy, the severe Tryal which in all probability they will be called to undergo in a very few years.

There is some room however to hope that Mr Pitt and Mr Fox are out running the Dutchmen in their Disposition for an alliance. The Friendship of France appears to me to be so necessary to the King of Prussia, that I cannot yet believe he will advise the Statholder, to follow the English Party so implicitly. The state of Europe at large is so confused, that there is not one Politician in the World, that I can hear of who pretends to forsee, what turn affairs may take. With great Respect I have the Honour to be, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble Servant

John Adams

Mr Jay Secretary of State.

ALS, DNA: PCC, item 84, 6: 575–78; LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 104, 6: 368–72; DC, description begins William A. Weaver, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the Signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10th September, 1783, to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789 (7 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1833–34) description ends 5: 345–49. Enclosures: Speech of George III, DNA: PCC, item 84, 6: 579–84; LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 104, 6: 373–76; printed, DC description begins William A. Weaver, ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the Signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10th September, 1783, to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789 (7 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1833–34) description ends : 5: 349–52. Morning Chronicle of 28 Nov. 1787, not found.

1JA is here criticizing the roles played by French foreign minister Vergennes; his premier commis, Gérard de Rayneval; military commander Yves-Marie Desmarets, comte de Maillebois (1715–91); Frederick III, rhinegrave of Salm Kryburg (1744–94); and Marie Antoinette in Dutch affairs.

In the conflicts between the Dutch and Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, Louis XVI and Vergennes initially supported their Dutch ally, and Maillebois was appointed commander of the army of the United Provinces and ordered to raise a corps of light troops. The situation was complicated by Marie Antoinette’s support for her brother Joseph II, and the desire to avoid armed conflict. After negotiations, the treaty of Fontainebleau was signed on 8 Nov. 1785, ending Maillebois’s mission. The French then signed a defensive treaty with the Dutch, but were in fact too weak to intervene in their defense. Upon the Prussian invasion of the United Provinces in 1787, power there switched from the pro-French and pro-American Patriot party to the pro-British Orangist party of the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange. For discussions of the activities of the individuals mentioned by JA and the confused state of Dutch–French relations at this time, see Munro Price, “The Dutch Affair and the Fall of the Ancien Régime, 1784–87,” Historical Journal 38, no. 4 (1995): 875–905; and Preserving the Monarchy: The Comte de Vergennes, 1775–1787 (Cambridge, 1995), 187–222.

2JA here refers to Silas Deane’s recruitment of French military engineer Philippe Charles Tronson du Coudray (1738–77), for service in the Continental army. Deane exceeded his authority when he promised du Coudray the rank of major general and command of the Continental army’s artillery and engineering corps; this promise, if implemented, would have meant du Coudray outranked American artillery chief Henry Knox, who, along with several other American officers, threatened to resign. Continental army protests about the high ranks promised to foreign officers alarmed Congress and contributed to Deane’s recall. Congress granted du Coudray the rank of major-general, but appointed him Inspector General of Ordnance and Military Manufactories rather than commander of the artillery; while serving, he drowned in September 1777 during a river crossing. Paul K. Walker, Engineers of Independence: A Documentary History of Army Engineers in the American Revolution, 1775–1783 (Washington, D.C., 1981), 8–17.

In a letter of 6 Feb. 1777, the commissioners at Paris had forwarded to the Committee of Secret Correspondence advice (not found) on the conduct of the war given them by Maillebois, which the Committee for Foreign Affairs acknowledged and praised on 2 May 1777. ALS, DNA: PCC, item 85, 16; C, DNA: PCC, item 79, 1: 53c; RDC, description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1889) description ends 2: 262, 314.

JA may also have been referring back to letters Deane wrote to the Committee of Secret Correspondence in November and December 1776, based on proposals by Baron de Kalb, to have Charles François, comte de Broglie, or other European officers, made commander in chief of the Continental Army. See RDC, description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1889) description ends 1: 391–96; 2: 191, 218–19.

3For the construction of a breakwater to provide a port on the English Channel capable of protecting French naval vessels, see Arthur Young, Travels during the Years 1787, 1788 and 1789 (London, 1792), 80–82.

Index Entries