Talk:Jay Treaty

message: Should this be merged with Jay's Treaty? older≠wiser 01:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Why exactly were the citizens angry at Jay?
:As far as I can tell, noone has bothered to answer this question. Septentrionalis 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Angry at Jay?

message: What was the problem with the article in the treaty concerning Caribbean Trade?
--65.139.115.30 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jay Treaty 

message: *Support as nom. Septentrionalis 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It would help if Rjensen would pay more attention to the sources he cites. Elkins and McKitrick do outline a "more positive view" of the treaty and its instructions, on page 396; they then immediately acknowledge "one big difficulty": the positive view requires a general process of cooperation between the two parties. In this view, the particular terms are less important than the process of cooperation; terms can always be revised. They then write, with visible regret, that there is little indication that the British had the necessary  intention to cooperate. Septentrionalis 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Rjensen persists in ascribing to Elkins and McKitrick a view of the treaty which they suggest but find unsupported. This is inaccurate; and the inclusion of the view, without the other negative views they themselves note, is tendentious. This is not the work of a serious editor. Septentrionalis 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pmanderson seems  to know more about the Jay treaty than all the experts who are quoted. That is very poor editing and not allowed OR. Rjensen 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen's omissions from Elkins and McKitirick are misreprewsentation. Septentrionalis 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pmanderson simply misreads E&M who are correctly quoted. they say the treaty was a success. They refer to the Jeffersonian objections which are covered in the article. Rjensen 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen quoted E and M selectively and omits large parts of their content. Their final judgment is that the treaty did the minimum necessary.  Septentrionalis 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "negative view" of course is that of Jefferson. It was widely held in the 1790s and is fully represented in the article.  Note that Perkins has by far the fullest treatment and he is quoted more than Elkins and McKitrick.  Are there historians in recent decades who are negative on the treaty. Pmanderson has not found so he should remove his misleading POV flag. Rjensen 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course there are. The difficulty is to find one that isn't. To pick one at random, Bernard Weisberger: America Afire (2000), p. 151. "The final draft, signed on November 19, was heavily loaded in England's favor. [Fur posts]...[mixed commissions]. What Jay gave up for these points, however, was considerable..."  Septentrionalis 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is that the negative and positive view address different things, which is why Ellis can be quoted on both sides. (Jefferson is, btw, more negative than the negative view; neither Weisberger nor Bemis thought the treaty should  have been rejected. Weisberger  does make a point that Jay could have gotten slightly better terms than he did; as the Senate demonstrated, the British would have yielded on cotton.) The negative view also tends to exculpate Jay: he got the necessary conditions, and he did almost as well as anyone could with his negotiating position. Septentrionalis 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ellis says "the consensus reached by most historians who have studied the subject is that Jay's treaty was a shrewd bargain for the United States." [Founding Brothers 136] Rjensen 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An evaluation for which he cites no examples, and which omits "the specific terms of the treaty were decidedly one-sided in England’s favor" (from the same page). It is expressly and repeatedly contradicted by E & M (Such a view has to a great degree persisted ever since. and historians have tended to treat ... the Jay Treaty - that is, equivocally.) snd they themselves, although they find the positive view worth discussing, do not endorse it.Septentrionalis 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now added a paragraph which represents what E & M and Ellis actually say, and their respective views of their fellow historians. Septentrionalis 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elkins and McKitrick

message: Three paragraphs; three points.
#There is a negative view of Jay and his instructions, which is still widely held. 
#*Compare also p 663: At best, historians have tended to treat the Convention of 1800 rather as they have the Jay Treaty - that is, equivocally.
#There is also a positive future-oriented view.
#This positive view, however, requires that the British have negotiated in the same spirit, for which there is little evidence; and in fact they were simply interested in getting the Americans off their list of problems.
#* Compare p. 402. in which "both versions" require "a set of assumptions [which] almost certainly amounts to a distortion": that the British had a "central and pressing concern" with America.     
In short, many historians have held the negative view [and it can easily be cited since E & M too]; and E and M think the positive view is probably wrong, because it implies that the British cared about America, whereas "they would have been just as glad" for them to "require no particular attention".   To omit their first paragraph is tendentious; to omit their last is inaccuracy. Septentrionalis 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "negative view" of course is that of Jefferson. It was widely held in the 1790s and is fully represented in the article.  Note that Perkins has by far the fullest treatment and he is quoted more than Elkins and McKitrick.  Are there historians in recent decades who are negative on the treaty. Pmanderson has not found so he should remove his misleading POV flag. Rjensen 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course there are. The difficulty is to find one that isn't. To pick one at random, Bernard Weisberger: America Afire (2000), p. 151. "The final draft, signed on November 19, was heavily loaded in England's favor. [Fur posts]...[mixed commissions]. What Jay gave up for these points, however, was considerable..."  Septentrionalis 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is that the negative and positive view address different things, which is why Ellis can be quoted on both sides. (Jefferson is, btw, more negative than the negative view; neither Weisberger nor Bemis thought the treaty should  have been rejected. Weisberger  does make a point that Jay could have gotten slightly better terms than he did; as the Senate demonstrated, the British would have yielded on cotton.) The negative view also tends to exculpate Jay: he got the necessary conditions, and he did almost as well as anyone could with his negotiating position. Septentrionalis 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ellis says "the consensus reached by most historians who have studied the subject is that Jay's treaty was a shrewd bargain for the United States." [Founding Brothers 136] Rjensen 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An evaluation for which he cites no examples, and which omits "the specific terms of the treaty were decidedly one-sided in England’s favor" (from the same page). It is expressly and repeatedly contradicted by E & M (Such a view has to a great degree persisted ever since. and historians have tended to treat ... the Jay Treaty - that is, equivocally.) snd they themselves, although they find the positive view worth discussing, do not endorse it.Septentrionalis 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now added a paragraph which represents what E & M and Ellis actually say, and their respective views of their fellow historians. Septentrionalis 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: It is a little known fact that Canadian Status Indians that can prove 50% Aboriginal blood (a letter from the band council or an Aboriginal government is necessary as is a long-form birth certificate showing both parents) can cross the American border and obtain a Green Card http://www.lss.bc.ca/assets/resources/pubs_a/aplbc.pdf (see page 73). This is a right afforded by the Jay Treaty. 24.69.165.255 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights of American Indians / Canadian Status Indians 

message: Wondering if it is misleading to refer, as Canada, the territories to the north of the United States. Pertinent to the entire time that the treaty was in force, the United States bordered on the British North American colonies of Upper Canada, Lower Canada and New Brunswick.
obtained the primary American requirements: British withdrawal from the posts that they occupied in the Northwest Territory of the United States, which they had promised to abandon in 1783. Wartime debts and the US-British North America boundary were sent to arbitration — 
Article III of the Jay Treaty declared the right of aboriginal peoples (people indigenous to British North America and/or the US) as well as to US and British citizens in colonies to the north to trade and travel between there and the United States.
GBC (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the right path is to make the first reference "British North America (now known as Canada)", then subsequent references should be to "British North America", except for any discussion of the current status of the treaty. The U.S. Department of State still listed the treaty in their "Treaties in Force" publication the last time I checked a year or so ago. The current artical has lost all information about how most of the treaty has been superceeded and only the bit about aboriginal peoples having freedom to cross the boarder remains in effect. Ferritecore (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea. Note that minor portions of the treaty remain, but the main parts were explictly for 10 years only and were not renewed in 1805 because Jefferson rejected Monroe's treaty that Britain had signed.Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada or "British North America"? 

message: Why is this article in Wikiproject Indiana? Indiana was admitted to the Union in December, 1816, well after this treaty.  --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Indiana? 

message: "with strong support from President George Washington,"
this is incorrect. As Hugh Brogan suggests in "The Pelican History of the United States of America"
"a treaty which President Washington himself accepted only with the greatest reluctance. It was four months before he could bring himself accepted only with the greatest reluctance. It was four months before he could bring himself to submit it to the Senate, which very nearly rejected it; and then it was two months before he could bring himself to it (August 1795). The country was bitterly divided: as one Federalist had rightly predicted, 'the success of Mr Jay will secure peace abroad, and kindle war at home'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.238.250 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the latest scholarship by Estes (2001) shows GW kept his peace until late July--and then told his cabinet he would sign it and allowing the Federalists to build their grass roots campaign for the treaty around GW's prestige. Estes saus that proved decisive in securing the two thirds vote needed  Rjensen (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Washington 

message: Notes section, item 19 link to American Foreign Relations site may have been right at some point but links now to an E-N page with no info on Jay Treaty.  I searched from the main page of the site and a corrected link would be: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Arbitration-Mediation-and-Conciliation-Jay-s-treaty-and-the-treaty-of-ghent.html
GretchenRPH (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014 

message: Even by the standards of WP, this article is one of the most nakedly biased and US-Centric pages I’ve come across for some time. It consists of a series of extremely questionable statements, almost exclusively without adequate references. It’s as if written by someone from their half –remembered school history lessons, and unless we get some consensus on this pretty quickly and insert some balance, I’m going to remove a lot of it. 
As usual when editors discuss the Jay Treaty, it states that Britain failed to vacate the forts. As usual, no mention that this was because America reneged on Articles 4 and 6 of the Paris Treaty and that its state courts impeded the collection of debts owed the British and upheld the confiscation of Loyalist estates, despite an explicit promise not to do so. I have changed this, please don’t revert it.
The article also states that the Royal Navy captured ‘hundreds’ of American merchant ships prior to the treaty. Further down it gives a figure of 250. I would like to see proof of this highly dubious, unsourced claim. In many cases what the RN was actually doing was intercepting cargos of grain under the right of Angary since there was a famine going on. As such it was basically compulsory purchasing the cargoes, hence the arbitration to agree a proper figure. If the 250 figure is accurate then fine, but we need a reliable source. It states also that the British were ‘funding’ American Indian attacks on settlers in the Northwest. Again, where is the source for this? Britain did not ‘explicitly cede’ the Ohio territory. What it did was accept - under extreme pressure from Franklin who wanted the whole of Canada as well – that the Ohio territory was within the borders of the United States. This is very different, since there was no reason why the Indian tribes could not exist within US borders the same as the Amish, Mormon and Puritan communities did, and did not mean Britain accepted the right of Americans to push the Indians off their land and take it. Clearly they had a lot of faith in the patriots to keep their word, but it was not until the Presidency of Andrew Jackson that the US government definitely declared that there would be no independent Indian states within US borders. And of course the ‘Indian attacks’ were people trying to defend their freedom, liberty & way of life, something that was fine for Americans to do in 1775 but clearly not applicable to Native Americans. And as usual no mention that the ‘American sailors’ were generally ex-British sailors. Finally, where it says that ‘American merchants wanted the British West Indies to be reopened to American trade’, this implies that it was yet another villainous British measure done to spite the Americans, whereas it was simply a result of independence; they were not British citizens anymore, so not automatically entitled to trade there.--Godwhale (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: textbooks say about 300 US ships were captured.  and ; however "over 250" is stated in  Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraordinarily biased

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jay Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422211236/http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/first_nations_canada.asp to http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/first_nations_canada.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article text makes it look like Jay was negotiating with himself. Would it be too much to ask if some mention in the text could be made of who he was negotiating with? DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negotiators 

message: I have removed the following hidden text that has remained unactioned in the article since 2016:
:following hidden because it is incomprehensible: ; preferring to view the British not as future-oriented, but, having had no indication that the United States required attention, wishing to take it off the long list of issues that did
Cheers! BD2412 T 04:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden text removed 

message: The United States and Britain signed a new agreement in 1794 that was dubbed the Jay Treaty after American negotiator Chief Justice John Jay.  The treaty's objectives were "friendship, commerce, and navigation."  The Jay Treaty's Article III granted free passage across borders to British subjects, residents of the United States, and "the Indians dwelling on either side of the boundary line."  When crossing the border, Indians were also exempt from paying duty and taxes on their "own proper goods". 
Following the War of 1812, Britain and the United States agreed to reinstate the pre-war rights of the Indian Nations in the Treaty of Ghent, which was signed in 1815.  But in Upper and Lower Canada, the laws enacting these rights were allowed to expire in the 1820s, and they haven't been renewed since.  Rather, for many years, it was both Canada's and the United States' informal policy to permit unfettered border crossings by Native Americans without levying customs taxes.
The United States modified its immigration restrictions in the 1920s, partly as a result of the Indian Defence League's initiatives and Paul Diabo's Kahnawake Mohawk court challenge.  Since then, those who were born in Canada and have at least 50% Aboriginal ancestry are not subject to immigration restrictions and are able to enter, reside, and work in the country without fear of deportation.  But the US has never followed through on its pledges to allow duty-free transportation of "proper goods."
In Canada, the legal system is undergoing fast development.  The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Louis Francis case of 1956 that both the Treaty of Ghent and the Jay Treaty were not treaties with Indian Nations; that the Jay Treaty was not incorporated into Canadian law because it had not been ratified by legislation; and that although Article IX of the Treaty of Ghent was a self-implementing peace treaty, it did not automatically go into effect because it only "promised" to restore the rights of Indian Nations.  The Crown "engages...forthwith to restore the rights" of Indians to what they were prior to the War of 1812, according to Article IX.
Border Crossing
When you cross the border with intent to live or work in the U.S., you should be prepared to prove that you have at least 50% Aboriginal blood.  Different U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) ports of entry, or border crossings, may ask for different kinds of documentation.  Some ask for more; some for less.  At the border, you may be asked for any or all of the following documents:
* A letter from your band office stating that you have at least 50% Aboriginal blood (also referred to as blood quantum).  For information on how to contact your band office, see Appendix.
* Your Certificate of Indian Status Card (the card with the red stripe along the top).
* Your long form birth certificate.  For information on how to get your long form birth certificate, see Appendix.
* A photo ID.
* If you are Haudenosaunee, your Red I.D. Card.
* If you are Inuit, an Inuit enrollment card from one of the regional Inuit lands claim agreements.
You do NOT need a green card, also known as an Alien Registration Card or Form I-551, in order to live or work in the United States.  This is your right as a Canadian-born First Nation.  Onkwehonwe87 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jay Treaty & Canada