From John Jay to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Robert R. Livingston), 18 September 1782
To the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Robert R. Livingston)
Paris 18th. September 1782.
Dear Sir,
I send you herewith enclosed a Copy of a Translation of an important Letter*.1 The Original in French I have not seen, and at present is not accessible to me, though I shall endeavor to get a Copy of it, in Order the better to decide on the Correctness of the Translation. I am not at Liberty to mention the manner in which this Paper came to my Hands.2 To me it appears of Importance that it should, for the present, be kept a profound Secret, though I do not see how that is to be done, if communicated to the Congress at large, among whom there always have been, and always will be, some unguarded Members. I think, however, as I thought before, that your Commissioners here should be left at Liberty to pursue the Sentiments of their Country, and such of their own as may correspond with those of their Country.3
I am persuaded (and you shall know my Reasons for it) that this Court chuses to postpone an acknowledgment of our Independence by Britain, to the Conclusion of a general Peace, in order to keep us under their Direction until not only their and our Objects are attained, but also until Spain shall be gratified in her Demands to exclude every body from the Gulph, &c.— We ought not to let France know that we have such Ideas, while they think us free from Suspicion they will be more open, and we should make no other use of this Discovery than to put us on our Guard. Count de Vergennes would have us treat with Mr: Oswald, though his Commission calls us Colonies and authorizes him to treat with any Description of Men &c: In my opinion we can only treat as an independent Nation, and on an equal Footing.— I am at present engaged in preparing a State of Objections in a Letter to him,4 so that I have not Time to write very particularly to you. The Spanish Embassador presses me to proceed, but keeps back his Powers.5 I tell him that an Exchange of Copies of our Commissions, is a necessary, and usual previous Step— This Court, as well as Spain, will dispute our Extension to the Mississippi. You see how necessary Prudence and entire Circumspection will be on your Side, and if possible Secrecy. I ought to add that Doctor Franklin does not see the Conduct of this Court in the Light I do,6 & that he believes they mean nothing in their Proceedings but what is friendly, fair and honorable.— Facts and future events must determine which of us is mistaken. As soon as I can possibly have Time and Health to give you Details, you shall have them.— Let us be honest and grateful to France, but let us think for ourselves.7 With great Regard & Esteem, I am, &c
(Signed) John Jay
LbkCs, with copies of enclosed letter from Barbé-Marbois to Vergennes of 13 Mar. 1782, DNA: PCC, item 110, 2: 263–65 (EJ: 4241); NNC: JJ Lbk. 1; and CSmH.
1. Marginal note: “* see Page (265.)” referring to Barbé-Marbois to Vergennes of 13 Mar. 1782, opposing the American claim to the fisheries, DNA: PCC, item 110, 2: 265–66b; copy of translation, MHi: Adams (EJ: 6407); , 1: 313–16.
2. A copy of Barbé-Marbois’s encoded letter had been intercepted by the British. On its authenticity and authorship, see , 220; , 325; and , 85–86. Ridley, who saw the letter on 16 Sept., six days after JJ received it, remarked that BF “affects not to see the drift” of it and believed that Barbé-Marbois’s views had not been encouraged by Vergennes. See 107–8.
3. A reference to the controversial instructions of Congress to its peace commissioners of 15 June 1781, : 469–71, which obliged the American commissioners to “undertake nothing in the Negotiations for Peace or Truce” without France’s “Knowledge and Concurrence; and ultimately to govern yourselves by their Advice and Opinion.”
4. See JJ to Vergennes, c. 11 Sept. 1782, above.
5. See JJ to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 17 Nov. 1782, below.
6. The passage of time did not change BF’s mind about French intentions. In a letter written to RRL on 22 July 1783, he commented: “with respect to myself, neither the Letter from M. Marbois handed to us thro’ the British negociators, (a suspicious channel) nor the conversations respecting the fishery, the boundaries, royalists, &ca, recommending moderation in our demands, are of weight sufficient in my mind to fix an opinion that this court wished to restrain us in obtaining any degree of advantage we could prevail on our enemies to accord, since those discourses are fairly resolvable by supposing a very natural apprehension that we, relying too much on the ability of France to continue the war in our favor and supply us constantly with money, might insist on more advantages than the English would be willing to grant, and thereby lose the opportunity of making peace so necessary to all our friends.” , 6: 581. See also his letter to Samuel Cooper of 26 Dec. 1782, , 38: 503–4. For BF’s position on the need to alter Oswald’s commission, see the editorial note “John Jay Proposes Altering Richard Oswald’s Commission” on pp. 109–10.
Henry Laurens also believed the commissioners had “done wrong” in violating their instructions to confide in the French, and considered Barbé-Marbois’s letter suspect. JA, however, agreed with JJ. See
, 6: 581; and , 14: 140–42, 348, 492–96.7. In his reply to JJ of 4 Jan. 1783, below, RRL expressed alarm that only a duplicate copy of this letter had arrived and that it was not encoded. JJ had enclosed it and its enclosure in his letter of 13 Oct. 1782, carried by the Danaé, on which see John Jay’s Diary of the Peacemaking, 12–29 Oct. 1782, below.
The dispatches reached Congress on 23 Dec., and were read the next day. Madison reported that the present letter “expressed great jealousy of the French Govt.,” and “produced much indignation agst. the author of the intercepted letter [Barbé-Marbois] and visible emotions in some agst. France.” He excused France on grounds that her “situation . . . is & has been extremely perplexing,” and “required her to favor Spain,” whom she had drawn into the war, “at least to a certain degree, at the expence of America.” If America were wise, he concluded, she would see that she was “with respect to her great interests, more in danger of being seduced by Britain than sacrificed by France.”
Concerns about American obligations to France and about JJ’s attitude toward it were amplified on the arrival of the preliminary articles and dispatches detailing how they had been negotiated. See the editorial notes “Tensions between Allies over the Peace Negotiations” and “Congress Debates the Commissioners’ Conduct” on pp. 300–302, 334–40; , 23: 870–74; , 5: 436–39, 441–50, 466–69.