Great Britain-Deportation of Slaves. E. of State, dated at tannic Majesty, for the purpose of demanding the restoration of all public or private property, and Extract of a letter from Mr. Adams to the Secretary particularly of all slaves who have been taken from the United States after the ratification of the treaty, in contravention (as your Government conceives) of the first article. LONDON, June 23, 1815. I further observed that the British Admiral sta tioned in the Chesapeake had declined restoring slaves that he had taken, under a construction of the first article of the treaty which the Government of the United States considered erroneous, and which I presumed this Government would likewise so consider; that a reference to the original draught of the British projet, and to an alteration proposed by us and assented to by the British Plenipotentiaries, would immediately show the incorrectness of this construction. He said he thought it would be best to refer this matter to the gentlemen who were authorized to confer with us on the subject of a treaty of commerce. He asked me if Mr. Clay and Mr. Gallatin had communicated to me what had passed between them and this Government on that head. Had I felt myself authorized or qualified to enter into a discussion of the several topics your letter embraces, it would, in the first place, have been my duty to call upon you to produce the authority under which you have come to these islands on a mission of this public nature; for I presume, as you state your appointment to be by the President of the United States, that the letter you put into my hand when I had the pleasure of seeing you the day before yesterday, (and which, if I recollect right, was signed "Pinckney," who you informed me was a Major General in the service of the United States,) is not the only authority you are in possession of. However, sir, it is quite unnecessary to take this preliminary step, for the subject of your letter appearing to me more properly to belong to our respective Gov-I said they had. After inquiring whether I was ernments to discuss, than to the officers, military or naval, of either, the regular channel through which to make any applications of the nature of those alluded to in it I should suppose would be the British Minister resident in the United States. Be this, however, as it may, I consider it entirely out of my province to enter into either negotiation or discussion with you on them; and the more so, from having learned, since you called upon me, that the subject of your mission to these islands had been fully discussed between Rear Extract of a letter from Mr. Adams to the Secretary Admiral Cockburn (before he left the coast of Florida) and Commissioners appointed by the Government of the United States; and that all persons then in possession of the British, who could possibly be considered as coming within the most liberal construction of the treaty, had been restored; and that the rear admiral's conduct and decisions had been fully approved by the late Commander-in-Chief, Sir Alexander Cochrane, at Cumberland island. I shall not fail to transmit your letter to my Government; and it might, at the same time, be satisfactory for a copy of the authority under which you have come to these islands to accompany it, should you think proper to furnish me with one. joined in that commission, he said that the same person had been appointed to treat with us who had concluded with us the Treaty at Ghent, and that Mr. Robinson, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had been added to them. They had already had some conferences with Messrs. Clay and Gallatin, and their powers were now made out and ready for them to proceed in the negotiation. of State, dated at LONDON, August 15, 1815. SIR The departure of Mr. Bagot having been some time delayed, and the private accounts from actual continuance of Indian hostilities on the the United States received here indicating the Mississippi and Missouri, I have thought it my duty, by an official communication to this Government, to press for the surrender of Michilimackbe claimed for the value of the slaves carried away inac, and to apprize them that payment would in contravention of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent. I have the honor to enclose, herewith, a copy of my letter to Lord Castlereagh on this occasion. I had mentioned to him the subject of the slaves in my first interview, and he had then expressed an intention to refer it to the Commissioners with whom we were then negotiating the commercial convention; but they received no instructions relative to it, and considered their powleagues were authorized conjointly with me to ers as limited to the objects upon which my col I need scarcely observe that it will be a loss of time your waiting here for the documents alluded to in the last paragraph but one of your letter, or visiting any other British islands or settlements for the purposes set forth in your said letter; for I can venture to assure you that there is not any authority at either competent to deliver up persons who, during the late war, placed themselves under the protection of the British flag, or prop Extract from Mr. Adams's letter to Lord Castlereagh, erty which may have been captured during the continuance of hostilities. I am, sir, &c. THOMAS SPALDING, Esq. treat. dated AUGUST 9, 1815. MY LORD: In two several conferences with your Lordship, I have had the honor of mentioning the refusal of His Majesty's naval commanders, who, at the restoration of peace between the United States Great Britain-Deportation of Slaves. and Great Britain, were stationed on the American coast, to restore the slaves taken by them from their owners in the United States during the war, [ and then in their possession, notwithstanding the stipulation in the first article of the Treaty of Ghent that such slaves should not be carried away. Presuming that you are in possession of the correspondence on this subject which has passed between the Secretary of State of the United States and Mr. Baker, it will be unnecessary for me to repeat the demonstration that the carrying away of these slaves is incompatible with the terms of the treaty. But as a reference to the documents of the negotiation at Ghent may serve to elucidate the intentions of the contracting parties, I am induced to present them to your consideration, in hopes that the Minister of His Majesty, now about to depart for the United States, may be authorized to direct the restitution of the slaves conformably to the treaty, or to provide for the payment of the value of those carried away contrary to that stiplution, which, in the event of their not being restored, I am instructed by my Government to claim. The first projet of the Treaty at Ghent was offered by the American Plenipotentiaries, and that part of the first article relating to slaves was therein expressed in the following manner: "All territory, places, and possessions, without exception, taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any other public property; or any slaves or other private property. The projet was returned by the British Plenipotentiaries with the proposal of several alterations, and, among the rest, in this part of the first article, which they proposed should be so changed as to read thus: "All territory, places and possessions, without exception, belonging to either party, and taken by the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property, or any slaves or other private property, originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty." It will be observed, that in this proposal, the words "originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the ratifications of this treaty," operated as a modification of the article as originally proposed in the American projet. Instead of stipulating that no property, public or private, artillery or slaves, should be carried away, they limited the prohibition of removal to all such property as had been originally captured in the forts and places, and should remain there at the exchange of the ratifications. They included within the limitation private as well as public property; and had the article been assented to in this form by the American Plenipotentiaries, and ratified by their Government, it would have warranted the construc 6 tion which the British commanders have given to the article as it was ultimately agreed to, and which it cannot admit; for, by a reference to the protocol of conference held on the 1st of December, 1814, there will be found among the alterations to the amended projet, proposed by the American Plenipotentiaries, the following: "Transpose alterations consisting of the words originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty,' after the words public property." "Agreed to by the British Plenipotentiaries." It thus appears that the American Plenipotentiaries admitted, with regard to artillery and public property, the limitation which was proposed by the British projet, but that they did not assent to it with regard to slaves and private property; that, on the contrary, they asked such a transposition of the words of limitation as would leave them applicable only to artillery and public property, and would except slaves and private property from their operation altogether; that the British Plenipotentiaries and Government, by this proposed transposition of the words, had full notice of the views of the other contracting party, in adhering to the generality of the prohibition to carry away slaves and private property, while acquiescing in a limitation with respect to artillery and public property. With this notice, the British Government agreed to the transposition of the words; and accordingly, that part of the article as ratified by both Governments now stands thus: "All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, excepting only the island hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property, originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty; or any slaves or other private property." From this view of the stipulation, as originally proposed at the negotiation at Ghent, as subsequently modified by the proposals of the respective Plenipotentiaries, and as finally agreed to by both the contracting parties, I trust it will remain evident, that, in evacuating all places within the jurisdiction of the United States, and in departing from their waters, the British commanders were bound not to carry away any slaves, or other private property of the citizens of the United States, which had been taken on their shores. Had the construction of the article itself been in any degree equivocal, this statement of the manner in which it was drawn up would have sufficed to solve every doubt of its meaning. It would also show that the British Plenipotentiaries were not unaware of its purport, as understood by those of the United States, and as I am instructed to urge its execution. LORD CASTLEREAGH. J. Q. ADAMS. Great Britain-Deportation of Slaves. Extract of a letter from Mr. Adams to the Secretary agreed to with regard to public property, would of State, dated AUGUST 22, 1815. Referring, then, to the contents of my letter of the 9th instant to Lord Castlereagh, which he had seen, I told him (Lord Liverpool) that, having expected Mr. Bagot was on the eve of his departure, I had been anxious that he might go provided with instructions which might give satisfaction to the Government of the United States with regard to the execution of two very important stipulations in the Treaty of Ghent. He said that, as to the surrender of Michilimackinac, there could be no sort of difficulty. The orders for its evacuation had been long since given. It was merely the want of barracks for their troops that had occasioned a momentary delay, and he had no doubt that the fort had been before this delivered up. There never had been for a moment the intention, on the part of the British Government, to retain any place which they had stipulated to restore. But, with respect to the slaves, they certainly construed very differently from the American Government the stipulations relating to them. They thought that it applied only to the slaves in the forts and places which, having been taken during the war, were to be restored at the peace. I said that, independent of the construction of the sentence which so strongly marked the distinction between the artillery and public property, and slaves and private property, the process by which the article had been drawn up, demonstrated, beyond all question, that a distinction between them was intended and understood by both parties. The first projet of the treaty had been presented by us. This had been required, and even insisted upon by the British Plenipotentiaries. The article was, therefore, drawn up by us, and our intention certainly was to secure the restoration both of the public and private property, including slaves, which had been in any manner captured on shore during the war. The projet was returned to us with a limitation upon the restoration of the property, whether public or private, to such as had been in the places when captured, and should remain there at the time of the evacuation. We assented to this so far as regards artillery and public property, which, by the usages of war, is liable to be taken and removed, but not with regard to private property and slaves, which we thought should, at all events, be restored, because they ought never to have been taken. We, therefore, proposed the transposition of the words, as stated in my letter to Lord Castlereagh. The construction upon which the British commanders have carried away the slaves would annul the whole effect of the transposition of the words. Artillery and public property had, of course, been found, and could, therefore, be restored almost or quite exclusively in the forts or places occupied by troops. But there was not, perhaps, a slave to carry away in all those which were occupied by the British when the treaty was concluded; and to confine the stipulation relating to slaves within the same limits as those reduce them to a dead letter. He said that perhaps the British Plenipotentiaries had agreed to the transposition of the words there at Ghent, without referring to the Government here; and that, although the intention of the parties might be developed by reference to the course of the negotiations, yet the ultimate construction must be upon the words of the treaty as they stood. He would see Mr. Goulburn, and inquire of him how they understood this transposition; but certainly, for himself, (and he could speak for the whole Government here,) he had considered them only as promising not to carry away slaves from the places which were occupied by their forces, and which they were to evacuate. There were, perhaps, few or no slaves in the places then occupied by them, but there was a probability, at the time when the treaty was signed, that New Orleans and other parts of the Southern States might be in their possession at the time of the exchange of the ratifications. If they had understood the words to imply that persons who, from whatever motive, had taken refuge under the protection of the British forces, should be delivered up to those who, to say the least, must feel unkindly towards them, and might treat them harshly, they would have objected to it. Something else (he could not say what) would have been proposed. I said I had referred to the progress of the negotiation and the protocol of conferences, only as confirming what I thought the evident purport of the words of the treaty. To speak in perfect candor, I would not undertake to say that the British Plenipotentiaries had taken a view of the subject different from that of their Government; but certainly we had drawn up the article without any anticipation that New Orleans or other Southern ports, not then in their possession, would, at the ratification of the treaty, be occupied by them. Our intentions were to provide that no slaves should be carried away. We had no thought of disguising or concealing those intentions. Had the British Plenipotentiaries asked of us an explanation of our proposal to transpose the words, we should certainly have given it; we evidently had an object in making the proposal, and we thought the words themselves fully disclosed it. Our object was the restoration of all property, including slaves, which, by the usages of war among civilized nations, ought not to have been taken. All private property on shore was of that description. It was entitled, by the laws of war, to exemption from capture. Slaves were private property. Lord Liverpool said that he thought they could not be considered precisely under the general denomination of private property; a table or a chair, for instance, might be taken and restored without changing its condition, but a living and human being was entitled to other considerations. I replied that the treaty had marked no such distinction; the words implicitly recognised slaves as private property in the article alluded to "slaves or other private property." Not that I meant to deny the princi Great Britain-Deportation of Slaves. to Mr. Baker, or the statement of the proof with regard to the meaning of the article, resulting from the manner in which it had been drawn up and agreed to. The substance of what he said was, that, in agreeing to the article as it stands, they had not been aware that it would bind them to restore the slaves whom their officers had enticed away by promises of freedom. ple assumed by him: most certainly a living, sentient being, and still more a human being, was to be regarded in a different light from the inanimate matter of which other private property might consist. And if, on the ground of that difference, the British Plenipotentiaries had objected to restore the one while consenting to restore the other, we should readily have discussed the subject; we might have accepted or objected The case of these slaves, carried away from to the proposal they would have made. But Cumberland, seems not even to admit of the diswhat could that proposal have been? Upon tinction to which Mr. Baker and Lord Liverpool what ground could Great Britain have refused resorted: yet the prospect of obtaining either resto restore them? Was it because they had been toration or indemnity appears to be not more seduced away from their masters by the promises favorable in this case than many others of the of British officers? But had they taken New same class. If there were any probability that Orleans, or any other Southern city, would not this Government would admit the principle of all the slaves in it have had as much claim to making indemnity, it would become necessary for the benefit of such promises as the fugitives from me to remark that the list of slaves transmitted their masters elsewhere? How, then, could the to me, and of which I have sent to Lord Castleplace, if it had been taken, have been evacuated reagh a copy, is not an authenticated document; according to the treaty, without carrying away it is, itself, merely a copy of a paper, under the any slaves, if the pledge of such promises was to simple signature of two persons, one of them an protect them from being restored to their owners? officer in the service of the United States, and It was true, proclamations inviting slaves to de- the other apparently a private individual. It can sert from their masters, had been issued by Brit- scarcely be expected that the British Governish officers. We considered them as deviations ment, or, indeed, any other, would grant a large from the usages of war. We believed that the sum of indemnities upon evidence of this descripBritish Government itself would, when the hos- tion. Neither could I feel myself prepared to tile passions arising from the state of war should bargain for the value of these slaves, according subside, consider them in the same light; that to a general conjectural estimate of their value. Great Britain would then be willing to restore I have made the offer, under the full conviction the property, or to indemnify the sufferers by its that it will not be accepted. But if indemnity loss. If she felt bound to make good the prom- should ever be consented by this Government to ises of her officers to the slaves, she might still be made, the claims are of a nature to be settled be willing to do an act of justice by compen- only by a Board of Commissioners, authorized to sating the owners of the slaves for the property scrutinize, in judicial forms, the evidence in supwhich had been irregularly taken from them. port of them. I have also thought it would give Without entering into a discussion which might a further sanction to the claim, to advance it have been at once unprofitable and irritating, she while offering still to this Government the altermight consider this engagement only as a prom-native of restoring the slaves themselves. ise to pay to the owners of the slaves the value of those of them which might be carried away. Lord Liverpool manifested no dissatisfaction at these remarks, nor did he attempt to justify the proclamation to which I particularly alluded. LONDON, September 5, 1815. In compliance with your instructions, I have this day addressed Lord Castlereagh, claiming payment from the British Government for the slaves carried away from Cumberland island and the adjoining waters, after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, and in contravention to one of the express stipulations of that treaty. My preceding despatches, Nos. 9 and 10, will have informed you of the steps I had taken by an official letter to Lord Castlereagh, and by a personal interview with the Earl of Liverpool, in relation to this subject, previous to the receipt of your last instructions. The letter to Lord Castlereagh has hitherto remained unanswered, and Lord Liverpool made no attempt to answer either the reasoning of your letter on the subject I Mr. Adams to Lord Castlereagh. LONDON, Sept. 5, 1815. MY LORD: In the letter which I had the honor of addressing to your lordship on the 9th of August last, I stated that I had been instructed by my Government to claim the payment of the value of the slaves carried away from the United States by the British naval commanders stationed on the American coast, notwithstanding the express stipulation to the contrary in the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, in the event that such slaves should not be restored to their owners. The enclosed is a copy of a list of seven hundred and two slaves taken in the State of Georgia by the forces under the command of Rear Ådmiral Cockburn, and carried away after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace from Cumberland island, or the waters adjacent to the same, which has been transmitted to me by the Secre tary of State of the United States, with a new instruction to claim the indemnity justly due to the owners, to the full value of each slave. Should His Majesty's Government now prefer to restore the slaves, who must yet be in their pos Great Britain-Deportation of Slaves. session or that of their officers, it is presumed to be still practicable; but their removal having been in contravention of the express stipulation of the treaty, it is to the faith of Great Britain, pledged by that stipulation, that the United States can alone recur for indemnification to the owners for the loss of their property, if the slaves are not restored. If it should be deemed expedient rather to make this compensation than to restore the slaves to their owners, I am authorized to enter into such arrangements as may be thought proper for ascertaining the amount of the indemnity to be made, and settling the manner in which it may be allowed. to hope it will meet with the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government. I am happy to avail myself of the occasion to renew to your lordship the assurance of my highest consideration. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. Copy of a note from Lord Bathurst to Mr. Adams. FOREIGN OFFICE, Oct. 9, 1815. Earl Bathurst presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honor to inform him that His Majesty's Government will cause immediate inquiry to be made in the case of the slaves carried away by the officer of the flag of truce, as represented in Mr. Adams's note of the 7th instant. Lord Bathurst requests Mr. Adams will accept the assurance of his high consideration. Copy of a letter from Mr. Adams to the Secretary of OCTOBER 31, 1815. SIR: I have the honor to enclose copies of two papers received from Lord Bathurst, relative to the taking and carrying away of slaves from the United States by the British naval commanders, in violation of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, and also by an abuse of the privileges al Copy of a letter from Mr. Adams to Lord Bathurst.lowed to a flag of truce. 25 CHARLES STREET, Westminster, October 7, 1815. I have the honor to be, &c., JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. dated FOREIGN OFFICE, Oct. 24, 1815. The undersigned, one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Adams's letter of the 7th instant, with the documents therein contained, relating to eleven slaves, the property of Raleigh W. Downman, an American, stated to have been received on board and carried off in a flag of truce sent by Captain Barrie (when senior officer in the command of the British flotilla up the Rappahannock) to procure the release of a surgeon's assistant who had been made prisoner. MY LORD: The documents of which I have Copy of a note from Lord Bathurst to Mr. Adams, now the honor of enclosing to your lordship copies, have been transmitted to me from the Government of the United States, with instructions to apply to that of His Majesty for the restitution of the slaves referred to in them, or for indemnity to their proprietor, Raleigh W. Downman, for the loss of them. In the cases which I have heretofore presented to the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and concerning which I am yet waiting for the honor of an answer, I have deemed it sufficient to state, in support of the documents furnished, the simple fact of the taking and carrying away of the slaves, and the appeal to the plain and explicit stipulation in the Treaty of Ghent, which has been thereby violated. But, in addition to these grounds of claim, it cannot escape your lordship's discernment, that in the present case there are circumstances which entitle it to peculiar regard, independent of the engagement in the treaty-these slaves having been taken and carried away by a British officer, while himself under the special and solemn protection of a flag of truce. The transaction, therefore, was in the nature of a breach of parole; marked not only with the exceptionable characters of depredation upon private property, but with the disregard of that sacred pledge of peace which is tacitly and universally understood to be given by the assumption of a flag of truce. To prescribe the restitution of property thus captured, no express stipulation could be necessary; yet the stipulation of the treaty applies likewise to the present claim in all its force. I am induced The undersigned has the honor to acquaint Mr. Adams, that Captain Barrie having been referred to, without loss of time, for such particulars as he might be enabled to give upon this subject, a statement to the following effect has been received from that officer, which the undersigned hastens to communicate to Mr. Adams. Captain Barrie has not any documents with him to which he can refer, but he feels confident that he may trust to his memory on this occasion. The letters marked A and B, transmitted by Mr. Adams, Captain Barrie believes to be copies of those which passed between the American commanding officer and himself. He is certain that he never received the letter marked D, a copy of which is transmitted in Mr. Adams's letter, and has no recollection of any slaves ever having been received on board any flag of truce during the time he was intrusted |