Michigan under the British.

British territory, 1763.

But the boundary question grew more important day by day as the colonists of both countries pushed their way farther inland. Finally the settlement could be made only by force of arms; the French and Indian War began for the possession of the Valley of the Ohio, but it closed in 1763 by giving to England all the territory east of the Mississippi,1 except a bit of land at the mouth of that river-the region of the Great Lakes a part of the British possessions. The government of Great Britain seems not to have cared much for this western region, however, now that France could no longer lay claim to it, and its fur trade was secured to herself.2 Not only was no provision made for the government of the western country but it was recognized as Indian territory and settlement therein was forbidden by the proclamation which established in the newly acquired territory, "four distinct and separate governments, styled and called by the names of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Granada.”3 But the region was too well known, too largely inhabited to be left to the Indians. Soon after the fall of Montreal, Rogers had planted the British standard at Detroit1 and other adventurers soon penetrated the forbidden ground. Pennsylvania was too near and Virginia had already pushed her explorations too far to be kept back by a simple proclamation; the people of these and the other colonies made treaties with the Indians and formed companies for the settlement of lands so obtained, and even ventured to make settlements beyond their treaty bounds. Again and again, these adventurous settlers petitioned the Lords of Trade to extend the limits of Quebec so as to give to them some benefits of a system of government. Nor were they alone in these petitions. They were joined by the French who, when it was still New France, had settled along the Mississippi in the Illinois country and, by the proclamation of the King, had been cut off from all protection of an organized government. These petitions were finally granted, the British government consented to extend the Province of Quebec to the Mississippi; Michigan was again included within the borders of an organized province. For ten years the British government had striven to keep a large portion of this country as Indian territory, but at last the utter futility of these efforts was recognized and the famous "Quebec Act" of 1774 admitted most of this Indian territory into the Province of Quebec.

1 "Treaty of Paris," article IV, Annual Register, 1758, pp. 1-2; 1762, pp. 55-60, 235, etc. Hart, “Epoch Maps," No. 5. Map of "British Dominions in North America," 1763, Annual Register, 1763.. 2 Hinsdale, "The Old Northwest," pp. 122-124.

8

3 "Calendar of Home Office," 1760-1765, p. 304. Annual Register, 1763, pp. 18, 20, 209. Winsor, "Narrative and Critical History of America," Vol. VI, p. 687. Mills, Map No. 5.

4 Winsor,

"Narrative and Critical History of America," Vol. VI, Chap. IX. Campbell, "History of Michigan," p. 109.

5 Mills, p. 20. Winsor, Vol. VI, Chap. IX.

6 Mills, pp. 32, 64.

7 Ibid, pp. 28, 41, 56, 59, 187. Hart, "Epoch Maps," No. 5. Annual Register 1774, pp. 239-240. 8 Notes 5, 6 and 7 this page.

Michigan under the

1783.

But this tardy Act failed of its purpose. The settlers of the west as well as of the east revolted from its obnoxious condiUnited States, tions. It became one of the immediate causes of the Revolutionary War1 which resulted in converting the colonies into "These United States" with boundaries limited only by the Mississippi on the west, Florida on the south and the St. Lawrence and the middle of the Great Lakes on the north.2

Struggle for the territory, 1779-1783.

It was not without a struggle that this vast territory was secured for this new Nation. In demanding it our ministers had to meet not only the natural opposition of England, but the jealous resistance of France and Spain combined. To us of Michigan this struggle for territory, carried on so quietly at Paris for two years, is as important as the Revolutionary War itself. For, had the division of territory been settled according to the desire of France and Spain, this would have been Indian or Canadian territory; had it been divided as England wished, the result would have been the same; had it been divided according to the first proposition of Congress, some of us would now be subjects of Her Majesty, and not citizens of the United States.

Such being its importance then, it is interesting to us to study somewhat at length the details of this struggle for territory, though the study must, at best, be unsatisfactory in its results, as there is so little record of the discussions which took place over the boundary line during the negotiations of 1782-3. Indeed, when Henry Clay, as Secretary of State, was asked to place before the House of Representatives the documents relating to the negotiations on the boundary question, he reported that there appeared to have been no written discussion of the matter. Since 1828, however, the publication of the works of Franklin, Adams, and Jay, the researches of Bancroft among the French archives, and still later, the purchase of copies of the "Peace Manuscripts" by our Government, have shown that there is some written evidence left from which we may gather a few ideas of the nature and effects of the discussions on boundaries, and some knowledge of the limits to which the United States might have been confined had she sent less wise and patriotic men or less able diplomats to make the Treaty of Peace.

First then as to the position of France and Spain in this contest for territory. France could, of course, assert no claim to territory; but she did claim, as Spain did, that the country of the Great Lakes was either a dependency of Canada or the property of the Indians. France and Spain were also agreed that under no circumstances could the United States lay any claim whatever to the country lying between the Alle

1 "Declaration of Independence."

2 "Treaty," 1783, article II.

3 State Papers, "Foreign Relations," Vol. VI, p. 866.

ghanies and the Mississippi.1 But the French minister said that region belonged to "free and independent nations of Indians" while the Spanish minister asserted that the country belonged to Spain by right of her "Conquest of West Florida and certain posts on the Mississippi and Illinois." This difference of opinion regarding the extent of Spanish claims was not insurmountable, however, for in his memoir upon the subject Count de Rayneval adds, "But the future may bring forth new circumstances, and this reflection leads one to suppose, that it would be of use that the court of Madrid and the United States should make an eventual arrangement," and then he proposed a "conciliatory line" which would confine the United States to the east of the Alleghanies to be sure, but would make that Government and Spain joint guardians of an Indian territory which was to embrace the region between Florida and the Ohio river. Spain must have agreed to this line for the French and Spanish seem to have worked together harmoniously from this time. France apparently did not wait until the result of the war became evident before she thought of checking the ambition of her ally. In 1778 Vergennes writes to Count Montmorin:

Why France and Spain wished to

limit the

5

"We do not wish-far from it-that the new Republic should remain the only mistress of all that immense continent..... it is important United States. that the English should remain masters of Canada and Nova Scotia; they will keep alive the jealousy of this nation which might otherwise turn somewhere else, and will make it feel the need of sureties, allies and protectors."

And again he writes:

"But you may assure him (the minister of the King of Spain) that it is not on our part he will meet with difficulties with regard to the preservation and guaranteeing of Canada and Nova Scotia to England.

"If these two vast provinces remain in England's power, and Spain gets back the part of Western Florida which suits her, a restraint will be put on the Americans greater than is needful to prevent them from becoming enterprising and troublesome neighbors.""

The French were wiser than the English and knew full well that, to retain the "back country" for the Indians, other than legal bounds must be put upon the new Republic. The reasons then, for the desire on the part of France to limit the United States, were, 1st, the fear of troublesome neighbors; 2d, the wish to conciliate Spain whose territories she

1"Memoir of Rayneval." Spark's "Diplomatic Correspondence," Vol. VIII, pp. 150, 156. Winsor, Vol. VII, pp. 126-128. Letter of Vergennes to Luzerne, quoted by Jay, "Address," p. 157. Lecky, "History of England in the 18th Century," Vol. IV, p. 276.

2 Spark's "Diplomatic Correspondence," Vol. VIII, p. 158.

3 Spark's" Diplomatic Correspondence," Vol. VIII, p. 150, et seq.

4 Spark's "Diplomatic Correspondence," Vol. VIII, p. 159.

5 Map, Hinsdale's "Old Northwest," p. 180. "Life of Shelburne," Vol. III, p. 170. Winsor, "Narrative and Critical History of America," Vol. VII, p. 148. American State Papers, "Foreign Relations," Vol. I, p. 572.

6 Jay's "Address," pp. 1-2, 158. Appendix C.