§1. Enemies in the 18th Century-87-98.pdf

Topic 4. The Special Relationship: Love and Loathing 7 Winston Churchill visited the United States as a British war correspondent in 1900. The aim of the young Englishman aim was to travel throughout the country and narrate his experience of the Boer War in South Africa. The person who in...

Topic 4. The Special Relationship: Love and Loathing 7 Winston Churchill visited the United States as a British war correspondent in 1900. The aim of the young Englishman aim was to travel throughout the country and narrate his experience of the Boer War in South Africa. The person who introduced Churchill at the Waldorf Astoria on December 12, 1900 was none other than the American writer, Mark Twain. No fan of 234 either Britain’s imperial war in South Africa or America’s against Spain at about the same time (in the Philippines), the writer spoke of the links between the two countries: “We have always been kin: kin in blood, kin in religion, kin in representative government, kin in ideals, kin just and lofty purposes; and now we are kin in sin, the harmony is complete, the blend is perfect, like Mr. Churchill himself, whom I now have the honor to present to you”. One hundred years later, and in the aftermath of a joint invasion of Iraq, the American President, George W. Bush, and the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, spoke in a similar vein at a Camp David press conference in July 2007. The president said that the ties between Britain and America represented his country’s “most important bilateral relationship … primarily because we think the same, we believe in freedom and justice as fundamentals of life”. Britain’s new prime minister developed a similar line of reasoning, speaking of “shared values … the belief in the dignity of the individual, the freedom and liberty that we can bring to the world”. Four different periods stand out in “the special relationship”. §1. Enemies in the 18 Century th The American Revolutionary War, or War of Independence (1775-1783) left indelible marks on the relationship between the United States and Great Britain. The tension can be measured in terms of (A) resentment towards the British colonial power along with (B) gratitude towards (+admiration) the French. A. Resentment Towards the British It is trite to say the War of American Independence was first and foremost a war of decolonization. President Barack Obama emphasized this feature in his Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, precisely to reach out towards – and show his empathy with – Islam. In his pledge to fight crude stereotypes of Muslims, and his plea against stereotyping of Americans, he recalled the ideals of the republic in which Arabs had placed such hope because it stood against colonialism. “We were born out of revolution against an empire”, he reminded his worldwide audience. Forsaking a detailed account of the War of American Independence, several important events that led to the waking of the Revolution in the American colonies deserve to be developed so as to understand the breaking-off, and subsequent estranged relationship between the United States and Britain. As with many revolutions, an increase in the price of commodities served 234 On this encounter, cf. Ron Powers, Mark Twain. A Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005), pp. 604- 605. 87  what does its by-product, molasses mean? as the tipping-point. In the case of the American colonies, it was first sugar (molasses) and then tea that focused animosity. Sugar (or more precisely its by-product, molasses, a liquid that comes from the processing of the sugar-beet or sugar cane) was an essential element in the economies of the colonists. As it is, the British West Indies could not produce the amount of molasses needed by the colonists to make rum. At the same time, England imposed a substantial – six pence – duty on molasses purchased from outside Britain’s island economies (Molasses Act of 1733). This duty had been set prohibitively high to prevent trade with the French sugar islands. The outcome of this situation (need and greed) was to induce the colonists to engage in smuggling, a practice that faced little opposition. Most customs appointees lived in England, delegating their power to collect duties to poorly paid colonial deputies who either did not do their work or who were easy to bribe. At first, the British let do. Progressively, however, they considered that two tougher measures had to be taken. First, the British undertook a major crackdown against smuggling through the enforcement of so-called “writs of assistance”. By way of definition, these writs amounted to general search warrants, enabling customs officials to search for smuggled goods over a period of time that was virtually limitless: writs expired six months after the death of the king. Upon the death of writs : King George II in October 1760, all writs of assistance were set to expire on April 25, 1761. décrets Naturally, a new set of writs would be issued under the new king. This was a particularly galling perspective for the colonists. In addition to their longevity (being semi-permanent), a writ holder could assign them to another. Searchers could operate at will during the day and they could search anywhere (shops, ships, homes, warehouses) without specifying what was suspected and never incurring liability for possible damages. In a word, writs of assistance put anyone who possessed them above the law. Writ holders were entirely unaccountable. Within weeks of learning of George II’s death, a group of 63 colonial merchants in Massachusetts, represented by James Otis Jr. (1725-1783) and his assistant Oxenbridge Thatcher challenged the legality of issuing new writs. The claim was introduced before the Superior Court of Massachusetts, located in Boston, and the trial took place on February 24, 1761. Heated arguments turning on the legal basis for the writs went both ways. On the British side, acting for the customs officials’ use of writs of assistance, Jeremiah Gridley argued that necessities of state justified limitations on traditional English rights. For Gridley, “It is true that the common privileges of Englishmen are taken away in this Case, but even their privileges are not so in case of crime and fine. ‘Tis the necessity of the Case and the benefit of the Revenue that justifies this Writ. Is not the Revenue the sole support of Fleets & Armies abroad, and Ministers at home ? without which the Nation could neither be preserved from the Invasion of her foes, nor the tumults of her own Subjects. Is not this I say infinitely more important, that the imprisonment of thieves, or even Murderers ? yet in these Cases ‘tis agreed Houses may be broken open”. Speaking for the colonists, James Otis supplied a particularly brilliant rebuttal (according to John Adams, he spoke like a “flame of fire”). Otis referred to an individual’s God-given natural rights, English precedents, and a series of constitutional actions that had taken place in England over time, starting with the Magna Carta, which secured the rights of individuals against abusive search and seizure. James Otis condemned the writs of assistance in the following terms, “It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book. […] Every one with this writ may be a tyrant in a legal manner… Now one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s 88 essayer de voir un résumé de cette partie house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege”. Otis delivered his arguments for over four hours. With great enthusiasm, John Adams later described the effect of Otis’s oratory on the public who attended the trial: “Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance… Then and there, the child Independence was born. In fifteen years, i.e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood and declared himself free”. The tangible outcome of the Writs of Assistance Trial of 1761 was nevertheless a partial disappointment. Whilst recognizing that there were “no foundations for such a writ”, the Court deferred the verdict until a legal opinion could be obtained from England. There, the legal authority to issue the writs was upheld. Having said as much, no customs officials subsequently used writs of assistance. More importantly, the Writs of Assistance Trial bore long-term consequences. Besides representing the first major judicial confrontation over the extent and limits of English authority over colonial affairs (setting the ideological foundations of the American Revolution: see John Adams’s remarks above), the case helped lay the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which banned abusive search and seizure. The second measure taken by the British to counter the prohibitive duties imposed by the Molasses Act of 1733 was to cut the six pence duty in half. This sharp reduction came in the so-called Sugar Act of 1764, enacted under the leadership of George Grenville (1712-1770), who then served as England’s First Lord of the Treasury (in effect prime minister) in the mid- 1760s. For Grenville, the reduction would reduce the temptation to smuggle or to bribe the customs officers. Interestingly, Grenville also – for the very first time – referred to the adoption of duties to raise revenues in the colonies. The explicit aim was no longer to regulate trade but to cover the costs of empire (among which the stationing of 10,000 troops in the colonies). Grenville resorted to this problem by first extending the scope of the Sugar Act to imports of foreign textiles, wines, coffee, and indigo. This added source of revenue would go “toward defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations”. Grenville also sought the establishment of an imperial stamp 235 duty. In effect, this duty, which had been imposed in England for years, meant that a wide 236 range of printed matter and legal documents, such as wills and conveyances, liquor licenses and customs clearances, newspapers and college diplomas could be required, to be valid, to carry a stamp, for which the party involved would have to pay the government from three pence to £6. The process was cheap, dependable, and an easy source of revenue. Without ever consulting any colonial leaders, Grenville proposed, and carried, a resolution in the House of Commons to establish the stamp duty on the colonies. Facing scant opposition, his proposal easily passed the Commons by a vote of 205 to 49 and resulted in the adoption, on March 22, 1765, of the “Stamp Act”. The requirement would enter into effect on November 1, 1765. A series of fatal errors would nevertheless ensue from this enactment, and most notably a misjudgment of the colonists’ reaction to taxation by a distant parliament in which they were not represented. So-called “taxation without representation” was all the more galling that the colonists regarded themselves as retaining the rights of Englishmen, and precisely, Englishmen had obtained in 1689 the hard-for-fought right of the people to be taxed only with their consent or that of their representatives. In short, the rights of the Glorious Revolution were given to one category of Englishmen, and denied to another. “The power of the purse […] had enabled the seventeenth-century Parliaments to wrest a free constitution from 235 Cf. George Brown Tindall, America. A Narrative History, Vol. I, op. cit., at 174. 236 Not to be confused with a postage stamp. 89 tyrannous rulers; to relinquish that power was to risk, or rather to ensure a return to slavery”. 237 Furthermore, the duty offended just about every profession in the colonies, lawyers and merchants alike, thereby provoking near-unanimous resistance. The problem was that Westminster had committed itself to an assertion of its right to tax the colonists. It would now prove difficult, if not impossible for this proud institution to come back on its decision and avoid humiliation. Within a matter of months, the colonists began a series of acts of resistance against the Stamp Act. This took the form of mass meetings, bonfires, and the destruction of stamp offices. It also entailed written protests – manifestoes written by Patrick Henry or James Otis that condemned “taxation without representation”. With these protests came the birth of the “Sons of Liberty” who vigorously fanned resistance and superseded the regular imperial administrations. Stamps were not distributed or, amusingly, skulls and crossbones appeared 238 in the corner where stamps belonged. After the Sugar Act, a movement had begun to boycott British goods. Now the adoption of non-importation agreements became a universal device of pressure on British merchants. Sage and sassafras took the place of tea. Homespun garments became the fashion as symbols of colonial defiance. In addition to the turmoil, a conference of delegates of the colonies met to discuss further measures of resistance. The tangible outcome of the so-called “Stamp Act Congress”, that gathered in New York on October 7, 1765, was seemingly minor. In the first place, the delegates acknowledged that the colonies owed “due subordination” to Westminster. They then went on to draw a distinction “… between the necessary exercise of Parliamentary jurisdiction in general Acts, for the amendment of the Common Law and the regulation of trade and commerce throughout the whole empire, and the exercise of that jurisdiction by imposing taxes on the colonies”. In short, the delegates drew a distinction to the effect that Westminster had powers to legislate for the regulation of the empire on the one hand, but had no right to levy taxes on the other. For all its worth, the Stamp Congress was important in that it constituted the first national gathering of the colonists that would later lead to a continental legislature. In the words of a South Carolina delegate, Christopher Gadsen (1724-1805) : “we should all endeavour to stand upon the broad and common ground of those natural and inherent rights that we all feel and know, as men and as descendants of Englishmen, we have a right to … There ought to be no New England men, no New Yorker etc. known on the continent, but all of us Americans”. 239 In practical terms, Grenville was dismissed and replaced by the Marquis of Rockingham (July 1765). Within months, the Stamp Act was repealed (March 18, 1766) – a formidable 240 humiliation to a proud British Parliament (which adopted a so-called Declaratory Act to 237 Hugh Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States (London: Penguin Books, 1985), at 118. 238 The expression “Sons of Liberty” comes from a statement made by Colonel Isaac Barré (1726-1802) an Irish soldier and politician who served with the British army (Barré had most notably served at Québec with General James Wolfe during the Seven Years’ War). Barré considered that British agents sent out to the colonies had “caused the blood of these sons of liberty to recoil within them”. Cf. George Brown Tindall, America. A Narrative History, Vol. I (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1984), p. 174. The “Sons of Liberty” met underneath “liberty trees” (in Boston, a great elm on Hanover Square). They erected “liberty poles” topped by the Phrygian liberty cap, the ancient Roman pileus which was presented to freed slaves. 239 Hugh Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States (London: Penguin Books, 1985), at 134. 240 Grenville was dismissed not because of the colonial turmoil but because his ministry had fallen out with George III over the distribution of offices. 90 assuage hurt feelings and reassert its authority ). In part, the repeal came from the fact that 241 Rockingham’s faction comprised people who openly sympathized with the colonists’ views : Rockingham himself, Isaac Barré, Edmund Burke.... In part, the repeal came from the fear that war with the colonies would entail a renewal of war with France and Spain. Townshend Acts (1767) Battles of Lexington and Concord. Different myths and legends surround the separation of the American colonies from the British crown. A most notable myth – the one that American schoolchildren still learn – is “Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride” of 1775 to warn the patriot troops at Lexington and Concord that the British (“the redcoats”) were coming. It constituted a crucial mission at the start of 242 the American War of Independence and transformed Paul Revere into “one of the icons of American identity”. 243 The greatest pamphlet-writer of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine (1737-1809), was born in Thetford, Norfolk (England). His early life as a corset-maker and school teacher was largely unmarked by politics. At the age of thirty-seven, Paine had a chance meeting with Benjamin Franklin in London and was persuaded to immigrate to the American colonies in November 1774, just as American revolutionaries were having heated debates about whether to break with Britain. Two years later, he wrote Common Sense (January 1776), the most historically important pamphlet in American history. It earned him the title of “The Father of the American Revolution”. In a few pages, Paine put the case for democracy, against the monarchy, and for American independence from British rule. Its clear thinking and exciting language quickly united American feelings against England. Paine seemed to express what the readers themselves had been secretly thinking: “There is something absurd in supposing a continent (America) to be perpetually governed by an island (Britain)”, or “We have it in our power to begin to make the world over again” (a line that energized American resistance to British rule and inspired countless revolutions and reform movements ever since). According to the English author, Christopher Hitchens, “Paine directly anticipates Thomas Jefferson’s wording of the later Declaration of Independence, with its pursuit of happiness [and] its itemization of a long train of abuses and usurpations attributed to King George III. The 244 pamphlet proved an immense bestseller (before the days of J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, or Jackie Collins…). More than 120,000 copies were sold in the first three months. Given that 241 Notwithstanding the repeal of the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act stated that Parliament had an absolute right and power to do whatever it liked with the colonies whenever it chose. The Declaratory Act provided, “The said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right out to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain… the King’s majesty by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever”. 242 Paul Revere was already well-known by the time of his midnight ride. For years, he was active in the group that called itself the “Sons of Liberty” (founded in 1765 and active in forcing Stamp Distributors throughout the colonies to resign). He most notably served as a vital link between the American revolutionaries and the working class (craftsmen and shopkeepers, dissatisfied with British taxes). Revere himself was a silversmith, portrayed as such by John Singleton Copley (1738-1815) in a famous painting visible in the Museum of Fine Arts, in Boston. 243 Cf. Robert Hughes, American Visions. The Epic History of Art in America (London: The Harvill Press, 1997) at p. 86. 244 Cf. Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Paine’s ‘Rights of Man’ (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007). 91 America had only two million free citizens at the time, this is roughly the equivalent of an American author selling 15 million books in three months today. Paine’s Common Sense also altered history. In January 1776, only one third of the delegates to the Continental Congress were in favor of declaring independence from Britain. Paine’s pamphlet changed this state of affairs within a matter of months. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence soon followed. Between 1776 and 1783, Paine issued a series of thirteen pamphlets, called The Crisis. The Crisis I appeared the day after the American leader, General George Washington, was defeated in the Battle of Long Island. It contains one the most famous passages in all of Paine’s writings: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from service of his community… Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered”. The pamphlets gathered in The Crisis were designed to lift the spirits of America’s supporters of independence in difficult times. It is noteworthy that Thomas Paine was the only Englishman quoted in Barack Obama’s inauguration speech of January 2009. The President’s intent was similar to that of Thomas Paine, though this time the difficulty lay in economic recession rather than in a revolutionary war. “Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive … that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]”, said Obama at his inauguration speech, taking his words from Crisis No 1. B. Gratitude and Admiration for the French The French left a strong imprint on the early fate of America. Paradoxically, it befell Louis XVI, “last leaf on the dry stem of the old regime, to attach the monarchy’s faith and fortunes to the struggles of the backwoods rebels against authority and royalty, the very props that supported Louis on the throne”. France’s role in the War of Independence was both 245 spontaneous and pro-active. At first, young nobles in France flocked to the American colonies voluntarily, out of sheer boredom, only too content to escape the stifling atmosphere of Versailles and serve under the command of the Marquis de Lafayette (1757-1834). Along with a quest for manly and romantic adventure in the American colonies, the occasion was given to strike a blow at the English in revenge for the disasters of the Seven Years’ War (with, most notably, the loss of Canada). Over time, the French State would take a greater, pro-active interest in the American War of Independence. Count Vergennes (1717-1787), the French King’s hard-driving Minister for Foreign Affairs, not only wished to avenge the disasters of the Seven Years’ War but he nurtured the conviction that it was in France’s interest to diminish the power of Britain: its economy would be significantly crippled without the thirteen colonies. Eventually, these considerations would induce the French to supply financial aid, fighting men, and armaments. With hindsight, a striking feature behind these endeavors is that help sometimes came from unsuspected quarters : thus with Beaumarchais who, besides writing plays (The Barber of Seville, The Marriage of Figaro…), took an active 245 Cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute (New York: Ballantine Books, 1988), at 184. Having said as much, it would be incorrect to state that Louis XVI professed much sympathy for the American rebels. Not without humor, he is alleged to have remarked to his brother-in-law, Joseph II, on several occasions, “I am a royalist by my trade, you know”. 92 part in the American War of Independence. In 1776, Beaumarchais established a commercial 246 enterprise (Roderigue Hortalez and Company), supported by the French and Spanish crowns (each country giving one million livres) which secretly funded the American Revolution, supplying the rebels with muskets, cannons, cannon balls, gunpowder, bombs, mortars, tents and clothing. Most of the Continental Army’s powder in the first years of the War of Independence came, precisely, from Beaumarchais’s company. 247 Besides a piecemeal – often secret – approach, French-American relations would warm up with the signing of two treaties, both signed on February 6, 1778. By the first treaty, a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, France recognized the United States and offered trade concessions, including important privileges to American shipping. Under the second treaty, both agreed what was first, that if France entered the war, both countries would fight until American independence the first treaty? was won; second, that neither would conclude a “truce or peace” without “the formal consent of the other first obtained”; and third, that each guaranteed the other’s possessions in America “from the present time and forever against all other powers”. France further bound herself to seek neither Canada nor other British possessions on the mainland of North America. Doubtless the Frenchman who played the foremost part in the American of Independence was the Marquis de Lafayette. Legend has it that while he was commissioned in a regiment stationed at Metz in 1776, he happened to meet the Duke of Gloucester, brother of King George III. Both are alleged to have spoken about the Declaration of Independence and other events that had then occurred in the United States. If true, the encounter may have flared up 248 Lafayette’s interest in the promises contained in the Declaration of Independence. Doubtless, the phrase according to which “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” could not have fallen on deaf ears in late eighteenth century France. Whatever the case may be, Lafayette crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the spring of 1777 and offered his services to Congress. There, his charm and wit won Washington’s friendship and a congressional appointment as Major General. A principal issue at the time was to secure command of the coasts and freedom of the seas. Without naval power, Americans would never win the war. A French fleet was dispatched to 249 Newport, Rhode Island in 1780. On board the vessels was a small army of 5,700 men and an aged general: Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau (1725-1807). Unfortunately, Rochambeau’s fleet could do little more than wait in Newport because of a British blockade of the port (under the command of Admiral Arbuthnot). Meanwhile, appalling news came from the south. In May 1780, the city of Charleston, South Carolina fell to the British, with the capture of 5,000 American soldiers and several ships. Three months later, in August, the British, under the command of General Lord Cornwallis thrashed American rebels in Camden, South Carolina (taking 800 lives and 1,000 prisoners). With these victories in his favor, Cornwallis quickly proceeded northwards toward Virginia. There lay the Chesapeake Bay, “the place, in Cornwallis’ opinion, to cut off the richer resources of the South from the North and achieve the decisive stroke to end the war. ‘A successful battle may give us America’ was his favorite 246 Beaumarchais was involved in a wide range of occupations : watchmaking, music, espionage, pamphleteering, transatlantic trade… 247 Cf. George Brown Tindall, America. A Narrative History, Vol. I (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1984), p. 216. In his undertakings, Beaumarchais also dealt with America’s first foreign diplomat, Silas Deane (1737-1789), then serving as commissioner in France. 248 Cf. Marquis de Lafayette website at http://www.marquisdelafayette.net/. 249 For extended discussion, cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., pp. 186-191. 93  dictum”. The Chesapeake Bay, stretching for 200 miles across the Atlantic to Maryland and 250 New Jersey, bore considerable strategic value. With its numerous ports and estuaries, it offered precious doorways to Europe. British control of this area would deprive the rebellion of the region’s resources and its trade with Europe (tobacco and cotton financed the rebels’ purchase of arms and ammunition). Washington was all but discouraged, if not close to despair by the British military upswing. A conference was convened in Hartford, 251 upswing Connecticut on September 20-22, 1780, between General Washington and General = increase Rochambeau to agree on a plan of campaign. Differences of opinion soon surged between the two men. Washington was in favor of conducting an attack upon New York (held by the British with 13,000 men and a fleet that was largely superior to that of the French). The French, by contrast, thought an attack on New York was ill advised and premature. Instead, they favored a campaign in the Chesapeake Bay. There, they believed, they could enclose Cornwallis and his army, virtually squeezing the British off from escape at sea and thus from help from New York and from overseas supply. Washington submitted himself to the views of the French, whilst fearing a long, overland march (500 miles) and the summer heat of Virginia (to say nothing of its swamps, snakes and mosquitoes). 252 More bad news befell Washington. Alarming intelligence came of Admiral Rodney’s arrival in New York with a fleet of thirty-one ships. The news and its ensuing increase in British naval power put a sudden end to the Hartford Conference. The American and French generals’ hastened back to their commands, fearing an immediate attack on the French. All the while, the generals joined in a dispatch, requesting the French government further assistance, both in money and men (+10,000). The answer to the request of the generals at Hartford came months later, on March 9, 1781. Their demands were not agreed to. 253 Washington’s disappointment could not have been greater. The American army, he wrote, had suffered “calamitous distress” and their patience was “nearly exhausted”. He added, “We are at the end of our tether, and now or never our deliverance must come”. Rochambeau came to 254 a similar bleak assessment in a letter dated June 11, 1781: “Je ne vous cache pas que les Américains sont au bout de leurs ressources”. It was time to send a fresh voice to Versailles 255 to argue the cause of the rebels and obtain tangible aid from the French. The envoy 256 appointed was a young colonel – John Laurens – who had already accomplished several secret missions for General Washington and who now served as his secretary. Forthright in his manner, Laurens asked Vergennes for a loan of 25 million livres in cash, supplies of arms, ammunition, clothing, equipment and tents. Laurens added that failure to comply with his requests would lead France to losing all her past efforts in favor of America. He furthered his bold demands in such a manner as to horrify Benjamin Franklin himself. Laurens said to Vergennes that “the sword which I wear in defense of France as well as my own country”, 250 Ibid, at 193. 251 In addition to these military misfortunes, Congress had little or no finance to wage the war and Washington sustained a personal blow in the treason of Benedict Arnold. 252 The swamps and unhealthy climate of the South, in addition to the unsanitary conditions of men living in military groups, led the South to be rife with fever. According to Barbara Tuchman, “[e]ight out of ten deaths in the 18 century were ascribed to fever”, in Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., p. th 195. 253 For extended discussion, cf. James Breck Perkins, France in the American Revolution (1911), at 328. 254 Cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., p. 213. 255 Letter of June 11, 1781, addressed to l’Amiral de Grasse : cf. Jean-Jacques Antier, L’amiral de Grasse (Paris: Editions Maritimes & d’Outre-Mer, 1971), p. 55. 256 Benjamin Franklin then served as the rebels’ congressional commissioner in France. Barbara Tuchman dismisses Franklin’s role in France at the time as verging on the non-existent : “Engrossed in the female charms and admiration of Paris, Franklin as envoy had acquired more aid than tangible aid”, in Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., p. 213. 94 unless the help were forthcoming, “I may be compelled to draw against France as a British subject”. With or without Laurens’ threats, Vergennes and Necker (the French Minister of 257 Finance) partially acquiesced to the requests. The French committed their sea power in a major effort to resolve the War of Independence. Matching word with act, Louis XVI issued orders to l’Amiral François de Grasse (1722-1788) to proceed to America with a fleet of ships, supplies and men and cooperate with the generals of the Revolution in whatever military action they planned. De Grasse made off from Brest in the spring of 1781, en route 258 to the Caribbean, before sailing for the Chesapeake. He was coming with 28 ships and 3,000 soldiers. With naval superiority swinging in favor of the rebels’ cause, Washington and Congress now started envisaging the Chesapeake Bay option with increased interest. what is it? On the British side, events were also crystallizing along the Chesapeake Bay. The location had the advantage of providing a naval base more central to the colonies than southern Charleston. What’s more, New York was not a good port because of the bar at Sandy Hook. As it is, General Cornwallis had two sites to choose from before settling with his troops on the Bay. The first was Portsmouth, located at the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay. The second was Yorktown, further up north, located near Williamsburg, the capital of Virginia. Fearing the unhealthy climate of Portsmouth and its shallow waters, Cornwallis chose Yorktown. It was an unfortunate mistake for the British, now locked in a vulnerable position. A small window of opportunity opened for the rebels. Marching down from the north, Washington and Rochambeau set about their campaign at the Chesapeake, where they would meet de Grasse, sailing up from the Caribbean and sealing off the Bay. This combination of land forces with naval power would deal the “decisive stroke” and make an end of Cornwallis. Total allied forces numbered 16,000 men, double the size of Cornwallis’s army. Yorktown soon fell under siege, with no prospect of relief. The first American guns opened fire on October 9. One week later, with mounting casualties and men falling sick with fever, Cornwallis envisaged an escape from Yorktown. A heavy storm brought the plan to naught. 259 He could but only capitulate. Washington and Cornwallis signed and accepted the terms of unconditional surrender on October 19. Legend has it that in their surrender march between French and American lines, the British marched to the tune of a ballad called “When the World Turned Upside Down”. 260 “If buttercups buzzed after the bee; If boats were on land, Churches on sea; If ponies rode men, And grass ate the cow; If cats should be chased, Into holes by the mouse; If mammas sold their babies, To gypsies for half a crown; 257 Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., p. 214. 258 For Barbara Tuchman, this appointment by Louis XVI was “the most positive act of his reign”, in Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., p. 215. 259 For extended discussion, cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., p. 283 : “Nature, so often a careless arbiter of the addled affairs of men, did the job”. 260 On the legendary character of this episode, cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., pp. 288- 289. 95  If summer were spring And the other way round; Then all the world would be upside down”. The issue of American independence was settled. When news of the Yorktown disaster hit London, the House of Commons mutinied. Lord North exclaimed, “Oh God! It is all over”. His government fell, followed by a Whig ministry led by Rockingham, and after his death by Shelburne. The war, however, was not officially over, and American sovereignty was not yet legally recognized. It would take another two years and long-drawn-out negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, and Spain before many intricate matters would be settled. Much depended on the resolution of outstanding boundaries issues along with the Franco- Spanish alliance. Most notable was the issue of Gibralter that the Spanish wished to recover from Britain. The then American ambassador to Spain, John Jay, feared he was being 261 double-crossed by France. Jay suspected that the French might enter into a separate peace treaty with the British, enabling the latter to keep Gibralter in exchange for a concession to the Spanish to carry off land west of the Appalachians. Quite obviously, such a trade-off 262 would be a major obstacle to the growth of the United States. In fact, the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, gave the United States excellent terms. Not only did the British make peace and recognize American independence, they conceded generous boundaries to the new republic. Great Britain agreed to a Mississippi River boundary to the west. The British further granted Americans the “liberty” of fishing off Newfoundland and in the St. Lawrence Gulf, and the right to dry their catches on the unsettled coasts of Labrador, Nova Scotia, and the Magdalen Islands. Spain would not regain Gibraltar but it would regain Florida (along with the island of Minorca in the Mediterranean). As to France, it would regain Senegal in Africa and the island of Tobago in the West Indies, both of which she had lost in 1763. Gratitude and the American War of Independence aside, the American rebels also felt a degree of intellectual admiration for the French. The statement by which the French playwright Beaumarchais (1732-1799) derided the nobility for taking “the trouble to be born and nothing else”, gave fodder to the cause of the American rebels. Admiration was further enhanced when the French Revolution broke out in the summer of 1789. Thomas Paine, the author of The Common Sense and The Crisis (supra), wrote a famous defense of the French Revolution: The Rights of Man (1791-2). The book was written as a reply to Edmund Burke (1729-97), a conservative member of the English Parliament who challenged the legitimacy of the French Revolution in his Reflections on the French Revolution (1790). Burke defended tradition, property, and heredity, all of which, Paine contended, were promoted by the relationship between church and the monarchy. “It is not among the least of evils of the present existing government in all parts of Europe, that man, considered as man, is thrown back to a vast distance from his Maker, and the artificial chasm filled up by a succession of barriers, or sort of turnpike gates, through which he has to pass. I will quote Mr. Burke’s catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man and his Maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says: ‘We fear God – we look with awe to kings – with affection to parliaments – with duty to magistrates – with reverence 261 Spain’s price to join France and declare war on Great Britain in 1779 (one year after the French) was a French promise to help her recover Gibralter and Minorca. Gibralter had been annexed by Britain in 1713, in the War of Spanish Succession. Cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, The First Salute, op. cit., pp. 143-144. 262 On Jay’s suspicions and the final stages in the negotiation process, cf. George Brown Tindall, America. A Narrative History, Vol. I (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1984), p. 228. 96 to priests and nobility’. Mr. Burke has forgotten has forgotten to put in ‘chivalry’. He has also forgotten to put in Peter”. Suspicious of authority, Paine saw in the monarchy and the church a tightly knit relationship that suppressed human freedom, which was ordained by the laws of nature and behind which was, in Jefferson’s words, “Nature’s God”. Paine held governments “come out of the people” and can therefore be designed according to their wants and needs. Paine was not alone in his admiration for France. The American poet, Joel Barlow (1754-1812) went to France in 1788 where he became a supporter of the French Revolution, writing poems which attacked kings and aristocrats. He assisted Paine in the publication of The Age of Reason while Paine was imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. Blend of romanticism and revenge for the disasters of the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) → Americans fought with the British against the French. At the same time there is this “rapprochement” between France and US. As seen earlier, France and the thirteen American colonies had formally become allies in 1778 and the emerging United States benefited from critical military and financial support. With the French revolution, and war beginning with Britain in 1793, France’s Revolutionary Government looked to the United States for support. Factions within the cabinet of U.S. president George Washington envisaged a series of responses to the French Revolutionary wars. At one end, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton sought closer ties with Britain. At the opposite end, Thomas Jefferson promoted a pro-French policy based on the terms of the 1778 Treaty. In between, Washington sought to keep a position of neutrality between the European belligerents. Fearful of the repercussion of a war with Britain, Washington ultimately sided with the Secretary of the Treasury and Hamilton’s position carried the day. The French felt aggrieved when the United States passed the Jay Treaty in 1794-1795 (signed by President Washington on August 18, 1795). The Jay Treaty was both aimed at diffusing 263 tension between Britain and the United States (the Royal Navy had seized American ships in the West Indies during Britain’s war with France) and restoring normal relations and commercial ties with Britain (the U.S. was granted “most favored nation” status). The Treaty was written and negotiated by Supreme Court Chief Justice (and Washington appointee), John Jay. The British themselves made minimal concessions. Apart from vacating North-Western posts, they gave up very little. Jefferson, Madison and other opponents feared the United States had gone too far and that the Treaty committed the U.S. to paying pre-revolutionary debts to English merchants. For the French, the Jay Treaty constituted a clear violation of the 264 1778 Treaty. The United States now appeared to be a satellite of Britain. For the French, “the time had come to finish with both. So while plans matured for an invasion of the British Isles 263 The Jay Treaty (or Jay’s Treaty) is officially known as the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty; and the United States of America”. The Treaty was signed by Britain’s Lord Grenville and King George III on November 19, 1794 in London. Because of the important concessions made to the British, President Washington accepted the Treaty with great reluctance, waiting four months before submitting it to the Senate. The Senate very nearly rejected the Treaty (it passed 20 – 20, exactly the two-thirds majority needed). Washington signed wished to avoid another war with America’s former colonial master. According to several historians, the fight against the Treaty marked beginning of the American party system, with Jefferson and Madison on the one hand, and Hamilton on the other (Washington demonstrating an attachment to maintaining friendly relations with England over revolutionary France). 264 The “commissions” provided for by the Jay Treaty in the event of a dispute gave an impetus to the principle of arbitration that many believe to be a direct inspiration for modern international arbitration (developed infra). 97 privateers were dispatched to wreck American maritime trade: over 300 merchantmen flying the Stars and Stripes were sunk or captured; and French diplomatic insolence brought the two countries to the very edge of war”. John Adams, who had become president in , sent three 265 U.S. ministers to Paris to negotiate a commercial agreement to protect U.S. shipping. The representatives met three French agents that were identified as X, Y, Z (in diplomatic correspondence) who solicited a bribe before the negotiations even started. The “XYZ affair” caused outrage in the United States. In order to stave off war between France and the United States, George Logan traveled to Paris where he successfully concluded a pact by which France ceased all detrimental action against U.S. merchant ships, but his action was considered treasonous in the United States when he got back home (thus the Logan Act of January 30, 1799). §2. Strangers in the 19 Century th A. Wars in Europe Three concrete issues remained in the way of normalized relations between Britain and the United States. The first concerned the payment of debts. The second concerned the thorny issue of impressment, and lastly, the third issue concerned freedom of the seas. With hindsight, it may be assumed that the Americans, and President Jefferson in particular, felt utmost gratitude towards the French in 1803. As a result of a treaty of cession between France and the United States, dated April 30, 1803, the United States more than doubled its territory (at the meager price of 60 million francs or circa $11.5 million ). In the process, the 266 so-called “Louisiana Purchase” both eliminated the French from further territorial holds on North America and enhanced prospects of seeing the United States extend one day from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. Indeed, almost immediately thereafter, President Jefferson entrusted two explorers – Meriwether Lewis and William Clark – to set out on a transcontinental journey, starting from St. Louis, and find a good route to the Pacific. Gratitude towards the French notwithstanding, the Napoleonic Wars of 1803-1815 added confusion in the relationship between Great Britain and the United States. On the one hand, America’s neutral flag in these wars served French interests as the United States was a refuge for French maritime commerce. On the other hand, Britain and the United States entertained strong commercial bonds which enhanced Britain’s war efforts. Whilst cultural ties induced most Americans to take sides with the British , provocations had the upper hand and put 267 grave strains on the relationship. One notable incident was that of the British frigate, the Leopold, that opened fire on an American frigate, the Chesapeake, in 1807. The British opened fire suspecting that the American vessel harbored British naval deserters (which it did). Numerous casualties were suffered on the American side (twenty-one in all), and the outcome was immense public indignation and the passing of a law in December 1807 which, 265 Hugh Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States of America, op. cit., p. 269. 266 In addition, the United States agreed to assume French debts owed to American citizens in the amount of 20 million francs or circa $3.5 million). The total price of the Louisiana Purchase amounted to some $15 million. Taking the acquisition to cover some 865,000 square miles, the purchase price would amount to approximately 8 cents and acre. The treaty of cession was ratified by the United States Senate in October 1803, by an overwhelming majority of 26 to 6. Interestingly, Jefferson faced a constitutional dilemma in the Louisiana Purchase. TINDALL, p. 330. 267 According to Hugh Brogan, “Mr. Jefferson, in particular, had no time for Corsican dictators”, in Hugh Brogan, The Penguin History of the United States (London: Penguin Books, 1985), at 259. 98