Title: From James Madison to Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe, 2 March 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Livingston, Robert R.,Monroe, James

Gentlemen,Department of State March 2d 1803
You will herewith receive a Commission and letters of Credence, one of you as Minister Plenipotentiary, the other as Minister Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, to treat with the Government of the French Republic, on the Subject of the Mississipi, and the Territories Eastward thereof, and without the limits of the United States. The object in view is to procure by just and satisfactory arrangements, a Cession to the United States, of New Orleans, and of West and East Florida, or as much thereof as the actual proprietor can be prevailed on to part with.
The French Republic is understood to have become the proprietor by a Cession from Spain in the Year  of New Orleans, as part of Louisiana, if not of the Floridas also. If the Floridas should not have been then included in the Cession, it is not improbable that they will have been since added to it.
It is foreseen that you may have considerable difficulty in overcoming the repugnance and the prejudices of the French Government against a transfer to the United States of so important a part of the acquisition. The apparent solicitude and exertions amidst many embarrassing circumstances, to carry into effect the Cession made to the French Republic, the reserve so long used on this subject by the French Government in its communications with the Minister of the United States at Paris, and the declaration finally made by the French Minister of foreign Relations, that it was meant to take possession, before any overtures from the United States would be discussed, shew the importance which is attached to the Territories in question. On the other hand, as the United States have the Strongest motives of interest, and of a pacific policy, to seek by just means the establishment of the Mississipi, down to its mouth as their boundary, so there are considerations which urge on france a concurrence in so natural and so convenient an arrangement.
Notwithstanding the circumstances which have been thought to indicate in the French Government designs of unjust encroachment, and even direct hostility on the United States, it is scarcely possible, to reconcile a policy of that sort, with any motives which can be presumed to sway either the Government or the Nation. To say nothing of the assurances given both by the French Minister at Paris, and by the Spanish Minister at Madrid, that the Cession by Spain to France was understood to carry with it all the conditions stipulated by the former to the United States, the manifest tendency of hostile measures against the United States, to connect their Councils and their Colossal growth with the great and formidable rival of France, can neither escape her discernment, nor be disregarded by her prudence; and might alone be expected to produce very different views in her Government.
On the supposition that the French Government does not mean to force, or to court war with the United States; but on the contrary, that it sees the interest which France has in cultivating their neutrality and amity, the dangers to so desirable a relation between the two Countries which lurk under a neighbourhood modified as is that of Spain at present, must have great weight in recommending the change which you will have to propose. These dangers have been always sufficiently evident; and have moreover been repeatedly suggested by collisions between the stipulated rights or reasonable expectations of the United States, and the Spanish jurisdiction at New Orleans. But they have been brought more strikingly into view by the late proceeding of the Intendant at that place. The sensibility and unanimity in our nation which have appeared on this occasion, must convince France, that friendship and peace with us must be precarious until the Mississipi shall be made the boundary between the United States and Louisiana; and consequently render the present moment favorable to the object with which you are charged.
The time chosen for this experiment is pointed out also by other important considerations: The instability of the peace of Europe, the attitude taken by Great Britain, the languishing state of the French finances, and the absolute necessity of either abandoning the West India Islands or of sending thither large armaments at great expence all contribute at the present crisis to prepare in the French Government a disposition to listen to an arrangement which will at once dry up one source of foreign controversy, and furnish some aid in struggling with internal embarrassments. It is to be added that the overtures committed to you coincide in great measure with the ideas of the person thro’ whom the letter from the President of April 30th. 1802 was conveyed to Mr. Livingston, and who is presumed to have gained some insight into the present sentiments of the French cabinet.
Among the considerations which have led the French Government into the project of regaining from Spain the Province of Louisiana, and which you may find it necessary to meet in your discussions, the following suggests themselves as highly probable.
1st. A jealousy of the Atlantic States as leaning to a coalition with Great Britain not consistent with neutrality & amity towards France; and a belief that by holding the key to the commerce of the Mississipi, she will be able to command the interests and attachments of the Western portion of the United States; and thereby either controul the Atlantic portion also; or if that cannot be done, to seduce the former into a separate Government, and a close alliance with herself.
In each of these particulars the calculation is founded in error.
It is not true that the Atlantic States lean towards any connection with Great Britain inconsistent with their amicable relations to France. Their dispositions and their interests equally prescribe to them amity and impartiality to both of those Nations. If a departure from this simple and salutary line of policy should take place, the causes of it will be found in the unjust or unfriendly conduct experienced from one or other of them. In general it may be remarked, that there are as many points on which the interests and views of the United States and of Great Britain may not be thought to coincide as can be discovered in relation to France. If less harmony and confidence should therefore prevail between France and the United States than may be maintained between Great Britain and the United States, the difference will lie not in the want of motives drawn from the mutual advantage of the two Nations; but in the want of favorable dispositions in the Governments of one or other of them. That the blame in this respect will not justly fall on the Government of the United States, is sufficiently demonstrated by the Mission and the objects with which you are now charged.
The French Government is not less mistaken if it supposes that the Western part of the United States can be withdrawn from their present union with the Atlantic part, into a separate Government closely allied with France.
Our Western fellow Citizens are bound to the union not only by the ties of kindred and affection which for a long time will derive strength from the stream of emigration peopling that region; but by two considerations which flow from clear and essential interests.
One of these considerations is the passage thro’ the Atlantic ports of the foreign Merchandize consumed by the Western Inhabitants, and the payments thence made to a Treasury in which they would lose their participation by erecting a separate Government. The bulky productions of the Western Country may continue to pass down the Mississipi; but the difficulties of the ascending Navigation of that river, however free it may be made, will cause the imports for consumption to pass through the Atlantic States. This is the course thro’ which they are now received; nor will the impost to which they will be subject change the course, even if the passage up the Mississipi should be duty free. It will not equal the difference in the freight thro’ the latter channel. It is true that mechanical and other improvements in the navigation of the Mississipi may lessen the labour and expence of ascending the stream; but it is not in the least probable, that savings of this sort will keep pace with the improvements in Canals and Roads, by which the present course of imports will be favored. Let it be added that the loss of the contributions thus made to a foreign Treasury would be accompanied with the necessity of providing by less convenient revenues for the expence of a separate Government, and of the defensive precautions required by the change of situation.
The other of these considerations results from the insecurity to which the trade from the Mississipi would be exposed, by such a revolution in the Western part of the United States. A connection of the Western People as a separate State with France, implies a connection between the Atlantic States and Great Britain. It is found from long experience, that France and Great Britain are nearly half their time at War. The case would be the same with their allies. During nearly one half the time, therefore, the trade of the Western Country from the Mississipi, would have no protection but that of France, and would suffer all the interruptions which Nations having the command of the sea could inflict on it.
It will be the more impossible for France to draw the Western Country under her influence, by conciliatory regulations of the trade thro’ the Mississipi; because regulations which would be regarded by her as liberal, and claiming returns of gratitude, would be viewed on the other side as falling short of justice. If this should not be at first the case, it soon would be so. The Western people believe, as do their Atlantic brethren, that they have a natural and indefeasible right to trade freely thro’ the Mississipi. They are conscious of their power to enfor[c]e this right against any Nation whatever. With these ideas in their minds, it is evident that France will not be able to excite either a sense of favor, or of fear, that would establish an ascendency over them. On the contrary, it is more than probable, that the different views of their respective rights, would quickly lead to disappointments and disgusts on both sides, and thence to collisions and controversies fatal to the harmony of the two Nations. To guard against these consequences, is a primary motive with the United States, in wishing the arrangement proposed. As France has equal reason to guard against them, she ought to feel an equal motive to concur in the arrangement.
2d. The advancement of the commerce of France by an establishment on the Mississipi, has doubtless great weight with her Government in espousing this project.
The commerce thro’ the Mississipi will consist 1st. of that of the United States 2d. of that of the adjacent Territories to be acquired by France.
The first is now and must for ages continue the principal commerce. As far as the faculties of France will enable her to share in it, the article to be proposed to her on the part of the United States, on that subject promises every advantage she can desire. It is a fair calculation that under the proposed arrangement, her Commercial opportunities would be extended rather than diminished; inasmuch as our present right of deposit gives her the same competitors as she would then have, and the effect of the more rapid settlement of the Western Country consequent on that arrangement would proportionally augment the mass of Commerce to be shared by her. The other portion of Commerce, with the exception of the Island of New Orleans and the contiguous ports of West Florida, depends on the Territory Westward of the Mississipi. With respect to this portion, it will be little affected by the cession desired by the United States. The footing proposed for her commerce on the shore to be ceded, gives it every advantage she could reasonably wish, during a period within which she will be able to provide every requisite establishment, on the right shore; which according to the best information, possesses the same facilities for such establishments as are found on the Island of New Orleans itself. These circumstances essentially distinguish the situation of the French Commerce in the Mississipi after a Cession of New Orleans to the United States, from the situation of the Commerce of the United States, without such a Cession; their right of deposit being so much more circumscribed and their Territory on the Mississipi not reaching low enough for a Commercial establishment on the shore, within their present limits.
There remains to be considered, the commerce of the ports in the Floridas. With respect to this branch, the advantages which will be secured to France by the proposed arrangement ought to be satisfactory. She will here also derive a greater share from the increase, which will be given by a more rapid settlement of a fertile Territory, to the exports and imports thro’ those ports, than she would obtain from any restrictive use she could make of those ports as her own property. But this is not all. The United States have a just claim to the use of the Rivers which pass from their Territories thro’ the Floridas. They found their claim on like principles with those which supported their claim to the use of the Mississipi. If the length of these Rivers be not in the same proportion with that of the Mississipi, the difference is balanced by the circumstance that both banks in the former case belong to the United States.
With a view to permanent harmony between the two Nations, a Cession of the Floridas, is particularly to be desired, as obviating serious controversies that might otherwise grow even out of the regulations however liberal in the opinion of France, which she may establish at the Mouths of those rivers. One of the Rivers, the Mobille, is said to be at present navigable for 400 Miles above the 31° of Latitude, and the navigation may no doubt be opened still further. On all of them the Country within the boundary of the United States, tho’ otherwise between that and the sea, is fertile. Settlements on it are beginning; and the people have already called on the Government to procure the proper outlets to foreign Markets. The President accordingly, gave some time ago, the proper instructions to the Minister of the United States at Madrid. In fact, our free communicat[i]on with the Sea, thro’ those channels is so natural, so reasonable, and so essential, that eventually it must take place, and in prudence therefore ought to be amicably and effectually adjusted without delay.
3. A further object with France may be, to form a Colonial establishment having a convenient relation to her West India Islands and forming an independent Source of supplies for them.
This object ought to weigh but little against the Cession we wish to obtain for two reasons: 1st. because the Country which the Cession will leave in her hands on the right side of the Mississipi, is capable of employing more than all the faculties she can spare for such an object, and of yielding all the supplies, which she could expect or wish from such an establishment: 2d. because in times of general peace, she will be sure, of receiving whatever supplies her Islands may want, from the United States; and even thro’ the Mississippi if more convenient to her; because in times of peace with the United States tho’ of War with Great Britain, the same sources will be open to her, whilst her own would be interrupted; and, because in case of War with the United States, which is not likely to happen without a concurrent war with Great Britain (the only case in which she could need a distinct fund of supplies) the entire command of the Sea, and of the trade thro’ the Mississipi, would be against her and would cut off the source in question. She would consequently never need the aid of her new Colony, but when she could make little or no use of it.
There may be other objects with France in the projected acquisition; but they are probably such as would be either satisfied by a reservation to herself of the Country on the right side of the Mississipi, or are of too subordinate a character to prevail against the plan of adjustment we have in view; in case other difficulties in the way of it can be overcome. The principles and outlines of this plan are as follows viz:
I.
France cedes to the United States, for ever, the territory East of the River Mississippi, comprehending the two Floridas, the Island of New Orleans and the Islands lying to the North and East of that channel of the said River, which is commonly called the South-pass, together with all such other Islands as appertain to either West or East Florida; France reserving to herself all her territory on the West side of the Mississippi.
II.
The boundary between the territory, ceded and reserved by France, shall be a continuation of that already defined above the thirty first degree of North Latitude, viz. the middle of the channel or bed of the River, thro’ the said South Pass to the sea. The navigation of the River Mississippi in its whole breadth from its source to the Ocean, and in all its passages to and from the same shall be equally free and common to citizens of the United States and of the French Republic.
III.
The vessels and citizens of the French Republic may exercise commerce to and at such places on their respective shores below the said thirty first degree of North Latitude as may be allowed for that use by the parties to their respective citizens and vessels. And it is agreed that no other nation shall be allowed to exercise commerce to or at the same or any other places on either shore, below the said thirty first degree of Latitude. For the term of ten years to be computed from the exchange of the ratifications hereof, the citizens, vessels and merchandizes of the United States and of France shall be subject to no other duties on their respective shores below the said thirty first degree of latitude than are imposed on their own citizens vessels and merchandizes. No duty whatever shall, after the expiration of ten years, be laid on articles the growth or manufacture of the United States or of the ceded territory exported thro’ the Mississippi in French vessels; so long as such articles so exported in vessels of the United States shall be exempt from duty: nor shall French vessels exporting such articles, ever afterwards be subject to pay a higher duty than vessels of the United States.
IV.
The citizens of France may, for the term of ten years, deposit their effects at New Orleans and at such other places on the ceded shore of the Mississippi, as are allowed for the commerce of the United States, without paying any other duty than a fair price for the hire of stores.

V.
In the ports and commerce of West and East Florida, France shall never be on a worse footing than the most favoured nation; and for the term of ten years, her vessels and merchandize shall be subject therein to no higher duties than are paid by those of the United States. Articles of the growth and manufacture of the United States and of the ceded territory, exported in French vessels from any port in West or East Florida, shall be exempt from duty as long as vessels of the United States shall enjoy this exemption.
Art. VI.
The United States, in consideration of the cession of territory made by this treaty shall pay to France thirty (see cypher) millions of livres tournois, in the manner following, viz. They shall pay  millions of livres tournois immediately on the exchange of the ratifications hereof: they shall assume, in such order of priority as the Government of the United States may approve, the payment of claims, which have been or may be acknowledged by the French Republic to be due to American citizens, or so much thereof as with the payment to be made on the exchange of ratifications will not exceed the sum of  and in case a balance should remain due after such payment and assumption, the same shall be paid at the end of one year from the final liquidation of the claims hereby assumed, which shall be payable in three equal annual payments, the first of which is to take place one year after the exchange of ratifications; they shall bear interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum from the dates of such intended payments, until they shall be discharged. All the above mentioned payments shall be made at the Treasury of the United States, and at the rate of one dollar and ten cents for every six livres tournois.
VII.
To incorporate the inhabitants of the hereby ceded territory with the citizens of the United States on an equal footing, being a provision, which cannot now be made, it is to be expected, from the character and policy of the United States, that such incorporation will take place without unnecessary delay. In the mean time, they shall be secure in their persons and property, and in the free enjoyment of their religion.
Observations on the plan.
1st. As the Cession to be made by France in this case must rest on the Cession made to her by Spain, it might be proper that Spain should be a party to the transaction. The objections however to delay require that nothing more be asked on our part, than either an exhibition and recital of the Treaty between France and Spain; or an engagement on the part of France, that the accession of Spain will be given. Nor will it be advisable to insist even on this much, if attended with difficulty or delay, unless there be ground to suppose that Spain will contest the validity of the transaction.
2d   The plan takes for granted also that the Treaty of 1795 between the United States and Spain is to lose none of its force in behalf of the former, by any transactions whatever between the latter and France. No change it is evident, will be, or can be admitted to be produced in that Treaty or in the arrangements carried into effect under it, further than it may be superceded by stipulations between the United States and France, who will stand in the place of Spain. It will not be amiss to insist on an express recognition of this by France as an effectual bar against pretexts of any sort not compatible with the stipulations of Spain.
3   The first of the articles proposed, in defining the Cession refers to the South pass of the Mississippi, and to the Islands North and East of that channel. As this is the most navigable of the several channels, as well as the most direct course to the sea, it is expected that it will not be objected to. It is of the greater importance to make it the boundary, because several Islands will be thereby acquired, one of which is said to command this channel, and to be already fortified. The article expressly includes also the Islands appertaining to the Floridas. To this there can be no objection. The Islands within six leagues of the shore are the subject of a British proclamation in the year 1763 subsequent to the Cession of the Floridas to Great Britain by France, which is not known to have been ever called in question by either France or Spain.
The 2d Article requires no particular observations. Art 3d is one whose import may be expected to undergo the severest scrutiny. The modification to be desired is that, which, whilst it provides for the interest of the United States will be acceptable to France, and will give no just ground of complaint, and the least of discontent to Great Britain.
The present form of the article ought and probably will be satisfactory to France; first because it secures to her all the commercial advantages in the river which she can well desire; secondly, because it leaves her free to contest the mere navigation of the river by Great Britain, without the consent of France.
The article also, in its present form violates no right of Great Britain, nor can she reasonably expect of the United States that they will contend beyond their obligation for her interest at the expence of their own. As far as Great Britain can claim the use of the river under her treaties with us, or by virtue of contiguous territory, the silence of the Article on that subject leaves the claim unaffected. As far again, as she is entitled under the treaty of 1794 to the use of our bank of the Mississippi above the 31st. degree of North latitude, her title will be equally entire. The article stipulates against her only in its exclusion of her commerce from the bank to be ceded below our present limits. To this she cannot of right object 1st because the territory not belonging to the United States at the date of our Treaty with her is not included in its stipulations 2d because the privileges to be enjoyed by France are for a consideration which Great Britain has not given and cannot give; 3dly because the exclusion in this case, being a condition on which the Territory will be ceded and accepted, the right to communicate the privilege to Great Britain will never have been vested in the United States.
But altho’ these reasons fully justify the article in its relation to Great Britain, it will be advisable before it be proposed, to feel the pulse of the French Government with respect to a stipulation that each of the parties may without the consent of the other, admit whomsoever it pleases to navigate the river and trade with their respective Shores, on the same terms, as in other parts of France and the United States; and as far as the disposition of that Government will concur, to vary the proposition accordingly. It is not probable that this concurrence will be given; but the trial to obtain it, will not only manifest a friendly regard to the Wishes of Great Britain, and if successful furnish a future price for privileges within her grant; but is a just attention to the interests of our Western fellow citizens, whose commerce will not otherwise be on an equal footing with that of the Atlantic States.
Should France not only refuse any such change in the Article, but insist on a recognition of her right to exclude all nations other than the United States from navigating the Mississippi; it may be observed to her, that a positive stipulation to that effect might subject us to the charge of intermeddling with and prejudging questions existing merely between her and Great Britain; that the silence of the Article is sufficient; that as Great Britain never asserted a claim on this subject against Spain, it is not to be presumed that she will assert it against France on her taking the place of Spain; that if the claim should be asserted, the treaties between the United States and Great Britain will have no connection with it, the United States having in those treaties given their separate consent only to the use of the river by Great Britain, leaving her to seek whatever other consent may be necessary.
If, notwithstanding such expostulations as these, France shall inflexibly insist on an express recognition to the above effect, it will be better to acquiesce in it, than to lose the opportunity of fixing an arrangement in other respects satisfactory; taking care to put the recognition into a form not inconsistent with our treaties with Great Britain, or with an explanatory article that may not improbably be desired by her.
In truth it must be admitted, that France as holding one bank, may exclude from the use of the river any nation not more connected with it, by territory than Great Britain is understood to be. As a river where both its banks are owned by one nation, belongs exclusively to that nation; it is clear that when the territory on one side is owned by one nation, and on the other side by another nation, the river belongs equally to both, in exclusion of all others. There are two modes by which an equal right may be exercised; the one by a negative in each on the use of the river, by any other nation execept [sic] the joint proprietor; the other by allowing each to grant the use of the river to other nations without the consent of the joint proprietor. The latter mode would be preferable to the United States. But if it be found absolutely inadmissible to France, the former must in point of expediency, since it may in point of right, be admitted by the United States. Great Britain will have the less reason to be dissatisfied on this account, as she has never asserted against Spain, a right of entering and navigating the Mississippi, nor has either she or the United States ever founded on the treaties between them, a claim to the interposition of the other party in any respect; altho’ the river has been constantly shut against Great Britain from the year 1783 to the present moment, and was not opened to the United States, until 1795 the year of their treaty with Spain.
It is possible also that France may refuse to the United States, the same commercial use of her shores, as she will require for herself on these ceded to the United States. In this case it will be better to relinquish a reciprocity than to frustrate the negotiation. If the United States held in their own right, the shore to be ceded to them, the commercial use of it allowed to France, would render a reciprocal use of her shore, by the United States, an indispensible condition. But as France may if she chuses, reserve to herself the commercial use of the ceded shore as a condition of the cession, the claim of the United States to the like use of her shore, would not be supported by the principle of reciprocity, and may therefore without violating that principle, be waved in the transaction.
The article limits to ten years the equality of French citizens, vessels and Merchandizes, with those of the United States. Should a longer period be insisted on, it may be yielded. The limitation may even be struct [sic] out, if made essential by France, but a limitation in this case is so desirable, that it is to be particularly pressed, and the shorter the period the better.
Art IV—The right of deposit provided for in this article, will accommodate the commerce of France to and from her own side of the river, until an emporium shall be established on that side, which it is well known will admit of a convenient one. The right is limitted to ten years, because such an establishment may within that period be formed by her. Should a longer period be required, it may be allowed; especially as the use of such a deposit, would probably fall within the general regulations of our commerce there. At the same time, as it will be better that it should rest on our own regulations, than on a stipulation, it will be proper to insert a limitation of time, if France can be induced to acquiesce in it.
Art V. This article makes a reasonable provision for the commerce of France in the ports of West and East Florida. If the limitation to ten years, of its being on the same footing with that of the United States, should form an insuperable objection, the term may be enlarged. But it is much to be wished that the privilege may not in this case be made perpetual.
Art VI The pecuniary consideration, to be offered for the territories in question, is stated in article VI. You will of course favor the United States as much as possible, both in the amount and modifications of the payments. There is some reason to believe, that the gross sum, expressed in the article, has occurred to the French Government, and is as much as will be finally insisted on. It is possible that less may be accepted, and the negotiation ought to be adapted to that supposition. Should a greater sum be made an ultimatum on the part of France, the President has made up his mind to go as far as fifty millions of livres tournois, rather than lose the main object. Every struggle however is to be made against such an augmentation of the price, that will consist with an ultimate acquiescence in it.
The payment to be made immediately on the exchange of ratifications is left blank; because it cannot be foreseen either what the gross sum or the assumed debts will be; or how far a reduction of the gross sum may be influenced by the anticipated payments provided for by the act of Congress herewith communicated and by the authorization of the President and Secretary of the Treasury endorsed thereon. This provision has been made with a view to enable you to take advantage of the urgency of the French government for money, which may be such as to overcome their repugnance to part with what we want, and to induce them to part with it on lower terms, in case a payment can be made before the exchange of ratifications. The letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of State, of which a copy is herewith enclosed, will explain the manner in which this advance of the ten millions of livres, or so much thereof as may be necessary, will be raised most conveniently for the United States. It only remains here to point out the condition or event on which the advance may be made. It will be essential, that the Convention be ratified by the French Government, before any such advance be made; and it may be further required, in addition to the stipulation to transfer possession of the ceded territory as soon as possible, that the orders for the purpose, from the competent source, be actually and immediately put into your hands. It will be proper also to provide for the repayment of the advance, in the event of a refusal of the United States to ratify the Convention.
It is apprehended that the French Government will feel no repugnance to our designating the classes of claims and debts, which, embracing more equitable considerations than the rest, we may believe entitled to a priority of payment. It is probable therefore that the clause of the VI article, referring it to our discretion may be safely insisted upon. We think the following classification such as ought to be adopted by ourselves:

1st. Claims under the fourth article of the Convention of Septr. 1800.
2nd. Forced contracts or sales imposed upon our citizens by French authorities; and
3rd. Voluntary contracts, which have been suffered to remain unfulfilled by them.
Where our citizens have become creditors of the French Government, in consequence of agencies or appointments derived from it, the United States are under no particular obligation to patronise their claims, and therefore no sacrifice of any sort, in their behalf ought to be made in the arrangement. As far as this class of claimants can be embraced, without embarrassing the negotiation, or influencing in any respect the demands or expectations of the French Government, it will not be improper to admit them into the provision. It is not probable however, that such a deduction from the sum ultimately to be received by the French government will be permitted, without some equivalent accommodation to its interests, at the expense of the United States.
The claims of Mr. Beaumarchais and several other French individuals on our government, founded upon antiquated or irrelevant grounds, altho’ they may be attempted to be included in this negotiation, have no connection with it. The American Government is distinguished for its just regard to the rights of Foreigners, and does not require those of individuals to become subjects of treaty in order to be admitted. Besides, their discussion involves a variety of minute topics, with which you may fairly declare yourselves to be unacquainted. Should it appear, however, in the course of the negotiation, that so much stress is laid on this point, that without some accommodation, your success will be endangered, it will be allowable to bind the United States for the payment of one million of livres tournois to the representatives of Beaumarchais, heretofore deducted from his accounts against them; the French government declaring the same never to have been advanced to him on account of the United States.
Art. VII is suggested by the respect due to the rights of the people inhabiting the ceded territory, and by the delay which may be found in constituting them a regular and integral portion of the union. A full respect for their rights might require their consent to the Act of Cession; and if the French Government should be disposed to concur in any proper mode of obtaining it, the provision would be honorable to both nations. There is no doubt that the inhabitants would readily agree to the proposed transfer of their allegiance.
It is hoped that the idea of a guarantee of the country reserved to France, may not be brought into the negotiation. Should France propose such a stipulation it will be expedient to evade it if possible, as more likely to be a source of disagreeable questions, between the parties concerning the actual casus fœderis, than of real advantage to France. It is not in the least probable that Louisiana, in the hands of that nation, will be attacked by any other, whilst it is in the relations to the United States, on which the guarantee would be founded; whereas nothing is more probable than some difference of opinion as to the circumstances and the degree of danger necessary to put the stipulation in force. There will be the less reason in the demand of such an article, as the United States would set little value on a guarantee of any part of their territory, and consequently there would be no just reciprocity in it. Should France notwithstanding these considerations, make a guarantee an essential point, it will be better to accede to it, than to abandon the object of the negotiation; mitigating the evil as much as possible, by requiring for the casus fœderis a great and manifest danger threatened to the territory guaranteed, and by substituting for an indefinite succour, or even a definite succour in military force, a fixed sum of money, payable at the Treasury of the United States. It is difficult to name the precise sum which is in no posture of the business to be exceeded, but it can scarcely be presumed that more than about two million dollars, to be paid annually during the existence of the danger, will be insisted on. Should it be unavoidable to stipulate troops in place of money, it will be prudent to settle the details with as much precision as possible, that there may be no room for controversy either with France or with her enemy, on the fulfilment of the stipulation.
The instructions thus far given suppose that France may be willing to cede to the United States, the whole of the Island of New Orleans and both the Floridas. As she may be inclined to dispose of a part or parts, and of such only, it is proper for you to know that the Floridas together are estimated at ¼ the value of the whole Island of New Orleans, and East Florida at ½ that of West Florida.
In case of a partial Cession, it is expected, that the regulations of every other kind, so far as they are onerous to the United States, will be more favourably modified.
Should France refuse to cede the whole of the Island, as large a portion as she can be prevailed on to part with, may be accepted; should no considerable portion of it be attainable, it will still be of vast importance to get a jurisdiction over space enough for a large commercial town and its appurtenances, on the banks of the river, and as little remote from the Mouth of the river as may be. A right to chuse the place, would be better than a designation of it in the Treaty. Should it be impossible to procure a complete jurisdiction over any convenient spot whatever, it will only remain to explain and improve the present right of deposit, by adding thereto the express privilege of holding real estate for commercial purposes, of providing hospitals, of having Consuls residing there, and other Agents who may be authorized to authenticate and deliver all documents requisite for Vessels belonging to and engaged in the trade of the United States to and from the place of deposit. The United States cannot remain satisfied, nor the Western people be kept patient under the restrictions which the existing Treaty with Spain authorizes.
Should a Cession of the Floridas not be attainable your attention will also be due to the establishment of suitable deposits at the mouths of the Rivers passing from the United States thro’ the Floridas, as well as of the free navigation of those rivers by Citizens of the United States. What has been above suggested in relation to the Mississipi and the deposit on its banks is applicable to the other rivers: and additional hints relative to them all may be derived from the letter of which a copy is enclosed, from the Consul at New Orleans.
It has been long manifest, that whilst the injuries to the United States so frequently occurring from the Colonial Officers scattered over our hemisphere and in our neighborhood can only be repaired by a resort to their respective Governments in Europe, that it will be impossible to guard against the most serious inconveniences. The late events at New Orleans strongly manifest the necessity of placing a power somewhere nearer to us, capable of correcting and controuling the mischievous proceedings of such Officers towards our Citizens, without which a few individuals not always among the wisest or best of men may at any time threaten the good understanding of the two Nations. The distance between the United States and the old Continent, and the mortifying delays of explanations and negotiations across the Atlantic on emergencies in our neighborhood render such a provision indispensable, and it cannot be long before all the Governments of Europe having American Colonies must see the necessity of making it. This object therefore will likewise claim your special attention.
It only remains to suggest, that considering the possibility of some intermediate violences between Citizens of the United States, and the French or Spaniards in consequence of the interruption of our right of deposit, and the probability that considerable damages will have been occasioned by that measure to Citizens of the United States, it will be proper that indemnification in the latter case be provided for, and that in the former, it shall not be taken on either side as a ground or pretext for hostilities.
These instructions, tho as full as they could be conveniently made, will necessarily leave much to your discretion. For the proper exercise of it, the President relies on your information, your judgment, and your fidelity to the rights, the interests and the dignity of your Country. With great Respect and Consideration, I have the Honor to be, Gentlemen, Your Obedt huble. servant,
James Madison

   RC, two copies (DLC: Monroe Papers; and NHi: Livingston Papers); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6); partial Tr (MHi: Adams Family Papers). Both RCs are in the handwriting of clerks and signed by JM. First RC docketed by Monroe. Italicized words are those encoded in the State Department code JM sent to Monroe on 28 Feb. 1803 and decoded here by the editors. Partial Tr consists of the first two paragraphs. For surviving enclosures, see nn. 12 and 17.

   Date altered from 31 Jan. on both RCs.

   Monroe’s letter of credence as minister plenipotentiary to France, dated 1 Mar. 1803, was offered for sale in Stan. V. Henkels Catalogue No. 832 (1899), item 324.

   Left blank in all copies. The date was 1800 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:255 n. 1).

   See Livingston to JM, 1 Sept. 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 3:536).

   JM referred to Pierre Samuel DuPont de Nemours. For Jefferson’s 30 Apr. 1802 letter to Livingston, see JM to Livingston, 1 May 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 3:177–78 and n. 1).

   Left blank in all copies.

   Left blank in all copies.

   George III’s 7 Oct. 1763 proclamation establishing administrative districts for the territories Great Britain acquired by the 1763 Treaty of Paris included “all Islands within Six Leagues of the Coast, from the River Apalachicola to Lake Pontchartrain” within the territory of West Florida (Robert L. Gold, Borderland Empires in Transition: The Triple-Nation Transfer of Florida [Carbondale and Edwardsville, Ill., 1969], pp. 118–19).

   Article 3 of the Jay treaty allowed Great Britain and the U.S. access to “all the ports and places” on the eastern side of the Mississippi “to whichsoever of the parties belonging” (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:247).

   The comments on article 6 were apparently added later, as in both RCs they are written on separate sheets in Wagner’s hand and were probably inserted after the vote in Congress on the $2 million appropriation (see JM to Monroe, 28 Feb. 1803, and n. 2).

   The enclosed copy of the act authorizing the payment of $2 million has not been found, but a later copy, in the hand of Thomas Sumter, Jr. (DLC: Monroe Papers), includes copies of JM’s endorsement of 28 Feb. certifying the accuracy of the copy, Jefferson’s endorsement of the same date authorizing Gallatin to “take all proper and necessary measures” for placing the $2 million at the disposal of Monroe and Livingston, and Gallatin’s endorsement of 1 Mar. authorizing the envoys to draw bills of exchange on the U.S. treasury or to procure advances of up to $2 million and pledging the faith of the U.S. for punctual repayment. An appended note by Sumter certifies it as a true copy of the original sent by Monroe at London to Livingston at Paris on 10 Aug. 1803. The act is printed in U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:202.

   Gallatin to JM, 28 Feb. 1803.

   Article 4 of the Convention of 1800 provided for the restoration of, or payment for, property seized but not condemned at the time of the signing or seized between the signing and ratification of the convention (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:459–62).

   Casus fœderis: “In international law. The particular event or situation contemplated by the treaty” (Black’s Law Dictionary [5th ed.], p. 198).

   Wagner interlined “See cypher” here in both RCs.

   Miscoded “thirty” in the second RC.

   Daniel Clark to JM, 22 June 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 3:330–31).


Title: To James Madison from Charles Pinckney, 2 March 1803
From: Pinckney, Charles
To: Madison, James

(Private)
Dear SirMarch 2 1803 In Madrid
I wrote you a few days since & now do so again to inclose you Duplicates of some of my public Letters. It is proper for me to say in the Business of the Conduct of the Intendant of New Orleans Mr Cevallos the secretary of state behaved with the utmost politeness & dispatch. I am now endeavouring to have the remaining twenty days Quarantine taken off & am hopeful to succeed. I must however repeat to You that the least report from America concerning the Yellow fever occasions incredible Consternation in Spain (as in Andulusia alone in 1800 they lost upwards of 100,000 in one summer) & the same in France & Italy in the ports of which they were constantly lamenting to me the great Damage & inconvenience that must arise to the United States from what they termed “her continued Yellow fevers in the summer.” At present they have a fresh alarm on account of the Yellow fever which report says the family of Madam LeClerc has brought to Paris. I trust some mode will be adopted to lessen the inconveniences arising from these reports as they respect our ports & commerce & I shall endeavour to come to some arrangement with Mr: Cevallos. In the interim You can give me Your own Opinions on the subject. I have had some conversations lately with Mr Cevallos on the subject of the french Condemnations & as from Your Dispatch of the 25 October & 22d of December I find there are some doubts whether the Convention will be ratified without including the french captures & condemnations I am waiting for your instructions to see whether I am to “alter my mode” of talking to them as I have hitherto always pursued your instructions in this respect & spoken & written with the greatest moderation. I am still of Opinion it is the best mode & most likely to gain in the End what we wish. I would by no means have the Government submit to intentional insults, but really for the last five or six months the Spanish Government have been moving so much about to different places & so occupied with their double marriages & Views of their Mediterrenean Coasts & harbours & the Voyages of their relations the royal families of Etruria & Naples & with their Establishments that I find they have not only neglected some of our applications but those of all the Ministers here. I expect to see the Prince of Peace to morrow or next day on the subject of Your Letter of the 11 May & shall write you again very fully & confidentially by Mr Wells an American Gentleman I expect to leave this very shortly for the United States. Please present me always affectionately & respectfully to the President & Believe me Dear Sir With affectionate regard & obliged Yours Truly
Charles Pinckney
My Compliments & respects to Mrs: Madison & be so good as to say if you recieved my Letters for my Daughter from Rome & Nap⟨les.⟩

   RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 3:215–16.


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 2 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

2 March 1803. “The Danish claim is referrd to Morris, Tracy and Jackson, and I suspect will be lost if not explaind by you to some of our friends.”

   RC (DLC). 1 p. Dated “Wednesday.” Date here assigned on the basis of internal evidence.

   On 2 Mar. Gouverneur Morris, Uriah Tracy, and James Jackson were constituted a Senate committee to report on the act allowing restitution to the owners of the Hendrick (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 7th Cong., 2d sess., 265).


Title: To James Madison from Vincent Gray, 2 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Gray, Vincent
To: Madison, James

2 March 1803, Havana. “A few days past” a report, “to which some credit was attached,” circulated that U.S. troops were marching to seize New Orleans. Gave Someruelos “every official information” on the subject up to Monroe’s appointment, accompanied by a note, a copy of which is enclosed, so that “such a report at such an interesting moment” might not prejudice American interests at Havana. The new order respecting strangers has been vigorously enforced, and “some French Merchants of great respectability have been arrested and imprisoned.” The reason for such “pointed conduct” toward the French is that “some of the officers lately here landed and sold some of the cape Negroes, which on discovery were siezed, imprisoned and sent back to the cape.” All those concerned in the purchase and sale were ordered from the island immediately. “Such conduct on the part of the officers visiting this Port, hath given this Government so much uneasiness that they have appointed Dn. Francisco Arango, Judge of the Court of Appeals,… to repair immedeately to the cape in order that such measures may be there adopted, as will in future prevent a similar conduct on the part of the French officers, visiting this Island.” The affair has caused the French to lose influence with the government and caused Someruelos to “cast some slight reflection” on the French government and the conduct of its citizens in an official note of 1 Mar. to General Noailles. This drew a reply from Noailles that “may be the cause of leading His Excellency and this Government, into a dispute with the French Republic.” All the French ships but one have departed for Cap Français. That one is strictly guarded by boats placed nearby “to prevent her from Smuggling.” As a report of pirates being off the coast of Cuba may have reached the U.S. and caused a rise in insurance rates, encloses an account thereof [not found] and is satisfied JM will think, as he does, that no “such pirates have been on this coast.” “I also send you a new Calendar lately published here [not found], and the only complete one of the kind ever before permitted; in order that you may, in case of Documents being presented to your Department, from this Island, ascertain whether they are legalized by the proper authorities: I also flatter my self that from the situation of the Island in our Neighbourhood that you will find much interesting matter in it.” Adds in a postscript that he has been charged with the care and settlement of American claims amounting to almost $300,000. Fears they cannot be closed within twelve months. Offers to continue acting as public agent during that time “as it may facilitate the liquidation of the claims” under his charge.

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, CD, Havana, vol. 1). RC 4 pp. Docketed by Wagner as received 28 Mar. For surviving enclosure, see n. 1.

   Gray enclosed a copy of his 1 Mar. 1803 letter to Someruelos (1 p.) covering newspapers from the U.S. showing “the Friendly disposition of the Government of the United States” toward Spain. He promised to send Someruelos further information when he received it. On the verso of the enclosure is a note stating that an express arrived for Someruelos from New Orleans on 2 Mar. reporting that the port was again open to American trade. Gray also added that Americans in Havana had been given a fortnight to settle their business, as had British merchants “concerned in the African Trade,” although one had received an extension to forty days. He felt confident that the licenses of those who could prove to Someruelos’s satisfaction “that their presence is absolutely necessary here” would be renewed.

   See Gray to JM, 18 Feb. 1803, and n. 1.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Sumter, 3 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Sumter, Thomas
To: Madison, James

3 March 1803. “I find by a Conversation I have Just had with Mr. Leonard that he will accept of the place of Veice Consol [sic] to Barcelona.… His business appears urgent & his hopes Strong that the Executive Will Soon Gain farther Confidence in his Integrity, & ability. If it Should be agreable to Let him hear from you on this Subject, before it be Long, it will Lay him under the highest obligation.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, LAR, 1801–9, filed under “Leonard”). 1 p. Docketed by Jefferson.


Title: Chancery Court Decree in the Case between James Madison and William Madison and Others, 3 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Court of Chancery for the Richmond District
To:

3 March 1803, Richmond. “In the high Court of Chancery for the Richmond District Between James Madison Plaintiff and William Madison son and acting executor of James Madison deceased, Nelly Madison widow of the said James Madison, Isaac Hite and Nelly his wife, Thomas Macon and Sarah his wife, Robert H Rose and Frances Taylor his wife which said William, Nelly Hite, Sarah Macon and Frances Taylor Rose are children of the said James Madison, Nelly Conway Madison only child and heiress of Ambrose Madison deceased, and James Madison, William Madison, Polly Madison, Catlett Madison, Conway Madison, Nelly Madison, Kitty Madison, Frances Madison and Elizabeth Shepherd children of Francis Madison deceased and Alexander Shepherd husband to the said Elizabeth Defendents.” In the case, heard by consent of the parties on the will of James Madison, Sr., “the court, after attending to arguments of counsil, doth adjudge and decree, that the residuarie slaves and personal estate willed by the testator to his wife and all his children be divided among the wife and children who survived him, equalie, the bequest as to those who died before him being lapsed, so that to the portions, which, in the contrarie event they would have taken, such defendents as are their representatives cannot succede and the court doth appoint commissioners to make the division accordingly, directing them to report it to the court.”

   Ms (DLC). 1 p. Copy attested to by Peter Tinsley, clerk of the court. For the background to the suit, see William Madison to JM, 22 Sept. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:125 n. 1).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 4 March 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear SirNew York March 4. 1803.
I believe the ship is almost ready to sail, but that her detention to sunday will not expose me to any expence. We are ready to embark as soon as I receive my instructions. I left in yr. office the observations of Mr. Ellicot on our southern & western territory, having no time to read them at Georgetown & prefering to take every paper from yr. department in the same packet. I hope you found & will send them on to me, with the map of Mr. Gallatin with yr. dispatches. Excuse the trouble I give you with the enclosed & believe me sincerely yours.
Jas. Monroe

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers). Enclosure not identified.

   Monroe was probably referring to the “manuscript remarks” concerning the Mississippi region that Andrew Ellicott sent to Jefferson in 1801 (see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 2:269 and n. 1, 346). Ellicott apparently also sent at a later date the map which accompanied the remarks. On 27 Dec. 1802 he applied to Gallatin for payment for “the map, and observations that accompanied it, which I furnished last year.” Gallatin approved payment of $127, adding that “the work was done at the request of the Secretary and has been & continues to be of great utility” (DNA: RG 217, First Auditor’s Accounts, no. 14,064).


Title: To James Madison from William Bass, 4 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Bass, William
To: Madison, James

4 March 1803, Bordeaux. Encloses a list of entries and clearances between 1 July and 31 Dec. 1802 [not found], which would have been forwarded earlier but for William Lee’s illness. Lee has been too weak to write “for near two months” but “is now fast gathering Strength.” “The public mind is at present very much agitated with the uncertain State of Affairs between this Country and Great Britain.” Letters from Barlow, Skipwith, and others to Lee intimate that war is not far distant.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bordeaux, vol. 1). 2 pp. Bass was secretary at the American consulate in Bordeaux.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: From James Madison to Albert Gallatin, 5 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Gallatin, Albert

5 March 1803, Department of State. Requests a warrant for $2,000 in favor of John Davidson, who is holding a bill drawn on JM by Simpson at Tangier. The warrant is to be charged to the appropriation for Simpson’s salary.

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). 1 p.


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 5 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

5 March 1803, “Near Natchez.” Encloses a letter from Hũlings communicating the latest intelligence from New Orleans. “The Western Boats are arriving daily at Natchez; our Markets are low but there is no difficulty in exporting Produce from hence to the Atlantic States or to Europe. There are many Vessels yet lying opposite to Orleans, waiting for return cargoes, & there are several now on their Passage to Natchez in quest of freight which I understand is not high.”

   Letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal). 1 p. Printed in Rowland, Claiborne Letter BooksDunbar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of W. C. C. Claiborne, 1801–1816 (6 vols.; Jackson, Miss., 1917)., 1:277, where the last sentence contains transcription errors that have been corrected here.

   Claiborne probably enclosed a copy of Hũlings to Claiborne, 25 Feb. 1803 (see Claiborne to Hũlings, 4 Mar. 1803, ibid., 1:276–77).


Title: To James Madison from William Eaton, 5 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Eaton, William
To: Madison, James

5 March 1803, Tunis. “Continuation of letter of 4. March.” Commodore Morris left the American house “yesterday morning about nine oclock” to board the Chesapeake. Because of “some altercations” between Morris and the bey’s commercial agent [Hajj Unis ben Unis], “who had three times come to and as often fallen from an agreement relative to the reclamations for the prize in question,” Morris had determined to depart without taking his leave of the bey. The commercial agent met Morris at the marine and detained him for payment of the balance of a $22,000 loan which Eaton had obtained from the agent, as reported in his 9 Nov. 1802 dispatch. “This act of violence was warmly remonstrated against. It was insisted that the loan was a transaction of my own for which I was solely responsible in my representative character. I repeated to the agent … that I had nearly four months since communicated this affair to my government and should probably soon recieve some assistance: that … the debt was secure. And … I offered to make him any reasonable compensation for the delay. He rejected the proposal—asserted that I had promised payment on the arrival of the commodore—and insisted on being paid. I denied having given him any assurance of payment on the arrival of the commodore; but confessed … that I had said to him I hoped to have the means of payment on the arrival of a frigate from America: and I repeated to him that I would make him any reasonable sacrifice by way of compensation if he would consent to suspend the settlement till such an arrival. All was in vain—Shilock must have his pound of flesh. The commodore returned to the American house—and, at his request, I presented myself before the bey and demanded if this detention was by his order? He did not give me a direct answer; but signified that it was understandingly done. There was no alternative but for the commodore to satisfy this demand before he could obtain permission to embark. He therefore addressed himself to the french Commissary general who engaged to advance the money on his bills on Leghorn. But in order to indemnify the Commodore I propose to put into his hands in favor of the United States, an assignment of all my property of every nature whether real, personal or mixed to be applied to the reembursement of this sum, in case my contingent charges which occasioned this loan, should not be admitted on final settlement; account of which accompanies this statement [not found].” Wishes to come to Washington with vouchers “in order to make such explanations as the nature of the subject may require,” but Morris thinks Eaton’s departure “at this crisis” would be injurious to U.S. interests. “It is hoped, however, this indulgence may be granted as soon as the situation of affairs will render it admissible. I am now totally destitute of funds and credit here—and do not know where to obtain the means of daily subsistence.” Morris and other U.S. officers have expressed to Eaton their entire approbation of his agency at Tunis. “But the events of yesterday seem to have excited some unpleasant sensations. I could have no apprehensions of such an event. It was impossible to apprehend that the respect attached to the person of the commodore would be violated. It is unprecedented, even in the history of barbary outrage.”
Adds in a 6 Mar. postscript that he, Morris, Cathcart, and Rodgers waited on the bey at the palace “this morning.” After the affair of the prize ship was finally arranged by Morris’s promise to return all “Tunisian property,” the subject of the loan was brought forward and the bey was asked if he had ordered Morris’s arrest. “He answered evasively, by saying it was not customary for a commodore ever to depart without making him a visit of congee; and that he had been informed carriages were ready for the purpose the morning of the fourth.” States that it is true Morris had concluded on “the evening of the 3d.” to see and take leave of the bey, and carriages were prepared on the morning of 4 Mar. for the visit. The commercial agent had told Morris he thought the prize affair could be arranged without difficulty at the palace and a delay for payment of the balance could be obtained through the good offices of the minister. “But the equivocal and suspicious behavior of the government relative to the prize reclamations, as stated in my report of yesterday, had determined the commodore to go on board; to make his further communications with the palace through the medium of the consulate; and to leave to me the adjustment of the balance: his detention was the consequence.” Eaton remonstrated “in pointed and animated terms with the bey against this national indignity and breach of hospitality.” “I stated to him the means I possessed to meet this debt. That I had already informed my government of the circumstances of the case; and that answers could not now be long in arriving. That I had reason to suppose the confidence always manifested on his part towards me and the integrity of my conduct towards him would have shielded me against this wound to my feelings and reputation. That this loan … had originated in measures altogether compulsory; that I had given a premium of two thousand dollars to obtain it; and that I had been impeded from a more seasonable payment by reason of the iniquity I had experienced at his court; especially by the frauds of his minister who had literally robbed me. The Sapatapa, affecting to be affronted at this charge,… accused me of being mad—unfit for a consul—and the bey, taking an interest in his cause ordered me immediately to quit his court. I answered It is well! I am not dissatisfied to quit a court where I have experienced little else than violence and indignity. But demanded of him to state his objections to my agency—and if he had found me unjust to declare it. Addressing himself to the commodore, he answered—‘The consul is a man of a good heart but a wrong head. He is to[o] obstinate and too violent for me. I must have a Consul with a disposition more congenial to the barbary interests!’ … He said I had violated the laws of his country by bastinading his subjects—and named Famin, another Christian & a Jew. I acknowledged that I had three years ago chastised Famin—But I denied that he was his subject though I knew him his voluntary slave. His conduct towards me had merited chastisement: it had been treacherous dishonest and base. Finding no other means of justice I had used the discipline which I would again use in similar circumstances. As to the Jew, I was not in the habit of patiently taking an insult in my own house from any man, much less from an Algerine Jew. The other affair had been misstated to him. As it respected my public agency I was conscious of not having been wanting in point of duty, nor in my respect towards himself as a prince. The bey acknowledged it. I reiterated to him that I had suffered every species of injury, outrage and indignity in his regency—and I thanked him unfeignedly for ordering [me] out of it. I should at least leave behind me the impression that I was not his slave; and that it was not in the nature of things to reduce me to that situation. I gave him my hand and wished him well. He reciprocated the wish. I shall embark in the squadron. Doctor George Davis of New York, will remain charged.”
Adds in a 9 Mar. postscript that Commodore Morris embarked 7 Mar. and sent the remainder of the money due for the debt from the ship. “I shall quit this sink of treachery tomorrow and repair immediately to the seat of the government of the United States.” Thinks it worth remarking that on 8 Mar. Chevalier de Barthés told him in Rodgers’s presence that he had discovered the bey planned to force other exactions on Morris but had desisted after being informed that the French commissary general had interested himself in American affairs. “Confounded at this information, he had thought it prudent to change his views.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tunis, vol. 2, pt. 2); letterbook copy (CSmH). RC 8 pp. Filed with the RC are a translation of a statement by Hajj Unis ben Unis, 9 Mar. 1803 (2 pp.), certifying that Eaton had never promised that Morris would pay the debt; and a copy of Eaton’s 8 Mar. 1803 letter to George Davis (2 pp.), assigning him responsibility for the U.S. consulate.

   Eaton had earlier identified Algerine Nathan ben Sullah as the person in question (Eaton to O’Brien, 16 Nov. 1800, enclosed in a copy of Eaton to John Marshall, 24 June 1800 [DNA: RG 59, CD, Tunis, vol. 1]). In his 14 Mar. 1803 journal account, Cathcart stated that the bey accused Eaton of having beaten his “Jew money counter” and three Christians, Etienne Fa-min, Lewis Hargreaves, and the Dutch consul (see Cathcart to JM, 15 Mar. 1803, n. 1).

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: From James Madison to William E. Hũlings, 7 March 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Hũlings, William E.

Sir,Department of State 7th March 1803.
Mr. Lewis A. Terascon, an enterprising citizen of Pennsylvania, having built and loaded two vessels at Pittsburg and intending to dispatch them for Europe, apprehends that the present or future restraints of our rights in the Mississippi may render your good offices useful to him in their passage out of the river. One of the vessels is a schooner called the Amity of 105 tons, commanded by Samuel McCutchen, the other is a ship of about 270 tons called the Pittsburg, and commanded by James McKever. They are stated to be loaded chiefly with flour.
Should unforeseen circumstances require any protection you can give them as a public Agent, I request you to render it. I am Sir, very respectfully your most Obt Sert.
James Madison

   RC (IHi); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM.

   In 1794 Lewis A. Tarascon had emigrated from France to Philadelphia, where he established a mercantile house with his brothers. Tarascon and his brother John Anthony later founded Shippingport, below the falls of the Ohio, where they continued to engage in shipbuilding and other enterprises. The Amity and Pittsburgh carried their cargoes of flour abroad, returning to Philadelphia after taking on cargo at Bordeaux (Newman F. McGirr, “Tarascon of Shippingport at the Falls of the Ohio,” W.Va. History, 7 [1945–46]: 90, 94–95).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 7 March 1803
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear SirNew York March 7. 1803.
I recd. on saturday yr. letters of the first inst. wh. were put in the mail on that day, with a copy of the laws of the UStates, and I recd. this morning my instructions, with the letters to our ministers abroad and other documents that were forwarded with them. The ship had clear’d at the custom house on saturday, my baggage was on board, and every preparatory measure was taken for sailing yesterday, in expectation yr. dispatches wod. have reachd this in time. But they did not arrive till this morning, and the wind being unfavorable we are still on shore. The delay has been fortunate as there is now a snow storm which promises a continuance of some days. As soon as it clears up and the wind permits we shall embark & immediately put to sea.
The measures of Mr. Ross & his associates are those of a party wh. has become bold by despair. They are however calculated to produce a very serious effect in the western country. They will naturally raise the expectations and pretentions of the people in that quarter, in respect to the result of the proposed negotiation. If it shod. be attended with the desired success, the motives of that party will be sufficiently understood, and the effect on its fortunes pretty decisive. But if it fails to obtain what is counted on, that party will derive advantage from its temerity at the expense of the admn. It is very doubtful with me whether the western people will be satisfied with any thing short of what was offered by their quondam, perhaps present, enemies, the supporters of Mr. Ross’s motion. A treaty which left the great object, the jurisdiction over the deposit, in the hands of a foreign power, might produce a sensation & with it an effect throughout the union, very hurtful to our affrs. Those who now possess their confidence might lose it; unimportant and designing men might rise on the publick discontent; new projects wod. be suggested and fostered, new connections formed. The publick mind seems excited to a degree apparently to preclude a compromise of the difference by a temporary expedient, or one wh. by any future contingence may be made ineffectual. It is to be feared that any accomodation short of the idea here suggested might produce the worst effect. It may be asked on what motive can France refuse the jurisdiction or indeed, the whole of the territory left of the Mississippi, to us? not to secure to her the safety or the means of advancing the prosperity of Louisiana? It must be to give her the opportunity of interfering in our affrs., any attempt at wh. or movment wh. gave cause to suspect her of such a design, shod. be repressed with decision. The preponderance of that power, shod. that be the case, and the crouching spirit of its neighbours may make us submit to any thing. But if that preponderance is less complete, and it appears that this measure is one in the train of a vast system for universal dominion, wh. is to succeed by the supineness or pusilanimity of other powers, the motive for submission is proportionally diminished. It is a great question whether we ought to lead the fortunes of the western world, by taking the high ground in respect to the right lately invaded, so as to triumph by a brilliant success in negotiation, or failing in that appeal to the other alternative, or by taking a more moderate course risk the discontent and division wh may possibly result from it. If by the latter course it was probable that the enemies of free govt. wod. get into power, I shod. deem it the greatest calamity that cod. befall us. War wod. follow and a thousand consequences wh. under their auspices wod. be ruinous. If war is to take place it is better that it be under a republican admn., for then it might be directed to necessary and useful objects only and terminated when they were obtained. These ideas often occur to me and I suggest them for your consideration. I hope and think the prospect is favorable to an honorable and amicable adjustment. To obtain that result the best exertions will be made by me.
I have accepted this trust with pleasure and gratitude to those friends who conferr’d it on me. I undertake its duties with a confidence that my conduct will be viewed in the discharge of it with a just & liberal regard. To promote the object of my mission and the credit of an upright republican admn. will be the highest gratification I can enjoy.
I send you a note of things at Richmond wh. you will take, on terms you may approve. The plate will be weighed each article & the wt. send me. If you hesitate abt. any article I will inform you the price at Paris and then you may decide. For the interim you had better take possession of every thing. I owe (among other debts) 2000. dolrs. to the bank at Norfolk, & 2500. to that at Alexa. It is arranged between us that I am to pay the interest for a term that suits me. Will you be so good as send abt. 60. dolrs. to Wm. Herbert of Alexa. to my acct. and in abt. a month the same sum to Littleton W. Tazewell at Norfolk, to be applied to that object. That sum will I think pay it for a year with each bank, Mr. Tazewell having already a sum sufficient to pay it for a few months. Shod. Major Lewis call on you for 250. dolrs. be so good as let him have them. I shall want no other aid for a year perhaps longer on acct. of the articles above referr’d to. Mrs. M & my daughter unite in affectionate regards to Mrs. Madison & sisters. Believe me most sincerely yr. friend & servant
Jas. Monroe
8th. 8 Oclock in the morning—we have just recd. notice of the Capt. to embark & expect to be on bd. in an hour.

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers); enclosure (DLC). Enclosure dated ca. January–February 1803 in the Index to the James Madison Papers; in an unidentified hand, except for the last few lines in Monroe’s hand (see n. 1).

   Monroe enclosed a two-page list of silver, china, and glassware he had left at his homes in Albemarle County and Richmond. Included were several dozen spoons, forks, and knives, three dozen Sèvres plates, tea and coffee pots, candlesticks, table castors, and plated coolers. Also included were several beds and mattresses, “a number of porcelain figures chiefly in Albe.; some few in Richmond of infr. value,” and “a plattau [centerpiece] for the table in Albemarle.” For a detailed discussion of JM’s purchase of Monroe’s possessions, see Conover Hunt-Jones, Dolley and “the Great Little Madison” (Washington, 1977), pp. 22–23.

   William Herbert was president of the Bank of Alexandria, 1796–1819 (Miller, Artisans and Merchants of Alexandria, Virginia, 1:201).


Title: To James Madison from John Martin Baker, 7 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Baker, John Martin
To: Madison, James

7 March 1803, New York. Refers to his letters of 28 Nov. 1802 and 4 Jan. 1803. “Circumstances now urge me, to acquaint you Sir, that pressed by my affairs, have determined taking my passage for Gibraltar, on the Brig Alexander, to sail on the 24th. Instant, altho’ compelled to leave my family to follow me, owing to Mrs. Baker’s Situation.” Hopes this will excuse his soliciting the president’s decision on his application for a consular appointment. The vice-consulship at Gibraltar would be more to his interest than the consulship at Minorca, Majorca, and Iviza but submits to JM’s “Goodness Friendship, and Protection.” Adds in a postscript, “I received my Certificate of Naturalization, from the Pennsylvania District Court on the 4th February 1803.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Port Mahon, vol. 1). 2 pp.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: To James Madison from Frederick Jacob Wichelhausen, 7 March 1803 (Abstract)
From: Wichelhausen, Frederick Jacob
To: Madison, James

7 March 1803, Bremen. Last wrote on 2 July 1802. On 1 Dec. received a 26 Aug. circular regarding expenditures for seamen Encloses a list of American arrivals and departures during the last six months of 1802 [not found]. Notes that the report lists fewer ships than formerly as the major part of the trade between the U.S. and Bremen is carried on in native ships, which are able “to navigate at much lower wages than the Americans.” Observes, therefore, that business between Bremen and the U.S. has not declined in the same proportion as American shipping. Although the West Indies trade, which the U.S. “mostly alone carried on” during the war, will take its former direction, and the Germans will be obliged to buy coffee and sugar from Spain, France, and Holland, “some branches are still left” to make trade between the U.S. and Bremen lucrative, including U.S. rice and tobacco. Coarse glassware and linens, which are locally made and cheaply exported, are “much demanded for the back country of the US.” So long as Germany’s population keeps labor costs lower than those in the U.S., “no Manufactures of this kind can rivalise with the germans” and the U.S. will “for many years” obtain such articles at Bremen. Discusses the acquisitions that Bremen has made by the Treaty of Lunéville. France and Russia supported the independence of Augsburg, Nürnberg, Frankfurt, Lübeck, Hamburg, and Bremen and arranged that no property within their boundaries should “be subject to any claim whatsoever from any foreign power.” As a result, Bremen obtained several properties formerly belonging to the electorate of Hanover. These cities will not be compelled to pay military contributions of any kind in future imperial wars. These decisions will allow Hamburg and Bremen “to carry on a very extensive and lucrative trade, the belligerent powers being deprived of every pretext not to consider these cities as perfect neutral, and the hanseatic flag will in future appear with much less fear on the different seas than in any of the foregoing wars.” France proposed that the duty on the Weser River be eliminated, but the duke of Oldenburg, proprietor of the duty, objected and was supported by Russia. “Doubts are entertained, whether this great point for Bremen will be carried,… as it is finally resolved, that the sundry duties on the Rhine shall also continue.… Although Germany appears, by these great changes, divisions and losses, in the Eyes of the world, as a very weak and impotent body of state, yet those alterations, where so many small regencies and especially eclesiasticals, are annihilated entirely, tend more to promote, the true welfare and internal strenght [sic] of this great body, than to its disadvantage; the constitution of the german Empire, it is true, has been injured by it greatly, however this constitution, was injured before so frequently by the great and powerful members of the german Empire themselves, that by no means this can be considered as a great loss.” The deputation at Regensburg will not dissolve until all the alterations “are distinctly regulated, to avoid all future discussions on this subject.” Winter has been “very severe and lasting and interrupted our navigation entirely for upwards of two months,” delaying the transmission of this report.

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Bremen, vol. 1). 4 pp. Docketed by Wagner as received 29 May.

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 3:361.

   See PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 3:489–90 and n. 5.

   A full transcription of this document has been added to the digital edition.


Title: From James Madison to Charles Pinckney, 8 March 1803
From: Madison, James
To: Pinckney, Charles

Sir,Department of State, March 8th. 1803
My last letter was of January 18. Yours since received are of the 6th and 28th of November.

Our latest authentic information from New Orleans is of January 20. At that date, the Edict of the Intendant against our right of deposit had not been revoked, altho’ the letters to him and the Governor from the Spanish Minister here had been previously received. And it appears that the first outrage had been followed by orders of the most rigid tenor against every hospitable intercourse between our Citizens navigating the river, and the Spanish inhabitants.
This continuation of the obstruction to our trade, and the approach of the season for carrying down the Mississippi the exports of the Western Country, have had the natural effect of increasing the Western irritation, and emboldening the advocates for an immediate redress by arms. Among the papers inclosed you will find the propositions moved in the Senate by Mr. Ross of Pennsylvania. They were debated at considerable length and with much ardour; and on the question had eleven votes in their favour against fourteen. The resolutions moved by Mr Breckenridge, and which have passed into a law, will with the law itself be also found among the inclosed papers.
These proceedings ought more and more to convince the Spanish Government that it must not only maintain good faith with the United States, but must add to this pledge of peace, some provident and effectual arrangement, as heretofore urged, for controuling or correcting the wrongs of Spanish Officers in America, without the necessity of crossing the Atlantic for the purpose. The same proceedings will shew at the same time that with proper dispositions and arrangements on the part of Spain, she may reckon with confidence, on harmony and friendship with this Country. Notwithstanding the deep stroke made at our rights and our interests, and the opportunity given for self redress in a summary manner, a love of peace, a respect for the just usages of Nations, and a reliance on the voluntary justice of the Spanish Government, have given a preference to remonstrance, as the first appeal on the occasion, and to negotiation as a source of adequate provisions for perpetuating the good understanding ——. ——. —— between the two nations; the measures taken on the proposition of Mr Breckenridge being merely those of ordinary precaution and precisely similar to those which accompanied the mission of Mr Jay to Great Britain in 1794. Should the deposit however not be restored in time for the arrival of the Spring craft, a new crisis will occur, which it is presumed that the Spanish Government will have been stimulated to prevent by the very heavy claims of indemnification to which it would be otherwise fairly subjected. The Marquis de Casa Yrujo does not yet despair of receiving from New Orleans favourable answers to his letters; but the remedy seems now to be more reasonably expected from Madrid. If the attention of the Spanish Government should not have been sufficiently quickened by the first notice of the proceeding from its own officers, we hope that the energy of your interpositions will have overcome its tardy habits, and have produced an instant dispatch of the necessary orders.
Mr Monroe was to sail from New York for Havre de Grace on yesterday. He carries with him the instructions in which you are joined with him, as well as those which include Mr Livingston.
The Convention signed with Spain in August, tho’ laid before the Senate at an early day, had no question taken on it till the close of the Session. It was then postponed till the next Session which is to commence in November. More than a Majority, but less than two thirds which the Constitution requires, would have acquiesced in the instrument in its present form; trusting to the success of further negotiations for supplying its defects, particularly the omission of the claims founded on French irregularities. But it is understood that it would have been a mere acquiescence, no doubt being entertained that Spain is bound to satisfy the omitted as well as the included claims. In explaining therefore the course taken by the Senate, which mingles respect for the Spanish Government with a cautious regard to our own rights, you will avail yourself of the opportunity of pressing the reasonableness and the sound policy of remodelling the Convention in such a manner as to do full justice. I need not repeat the observations heretofore made on the Spanish responsibility for the conduct of French Citizens within Spanish jurisdiction; but it may be of use to refer you to the inclosed copy of a Royal Order issued by the Spanish Government in 1799 which will enable you to remind them of their own view of the subject at that time. In this document it is expressly declared that the French Consular jurisdiction was not admitted, and that French Consuls in Spanish ports were in the same condition with those of every other nation. After such a declaration against the authority of French Consuls, the Spanish Government would be chargeable with no less disrespect to the French Republic, than to itself, in saying that Spain was not left at liberty to prevent an exercise of the usurped authority; and if at liberty, she is indisputably answerable for the consequences of not preventing it. A document which I add, will explain the just sentiments entertained by the Batavian Government, during the same period, in relation to a case turning on the same principle.
The President has attended to the question between yourself and Mr Graham concerning his Salary during your absence from Madrid. In permitting your excursion into Italy, which was considered as resulting from your inclination, not your duty, it was not intended, nor can now be admitted, that any expence was thence to accrue to the United States. Mr Graham, it was presumed would continue to live at your expence, in the same manner as if you were not absent; and consequently would be able to do the business devolving on him, without being subjected to new expences on that account. The question therefore lies rather between you and Mr Graham, than between the public and either of you, and with the mutual liberality you possess will no doubt be readily adjusted. On recurring to your instructions of June 9. you will find that your Secretary was to live with you; that is, was to be a member of your family, and of course to live at your expence. With sentiments of great respect &c &c
James Madison
P. S. I inclose copies of a remonstrance from the Citizens of the United States whose property is detained in the River of Plate, tho’ you have probably received the same in substance directly from themselves.

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6). Enclosures not found, but see nn. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8.

   See Hũlings to JM, 20 Jan. 1803.

   See Monroe to JM, 25 Feb. 1803, n. 3.

   See JM to Monroe, 1 Mar. 1803 (first letter), n. 3.

   Dashes in letterbook copy.

   JM probably enclosed a copy of the December 1799 royal order declaring the establishment of French consular tribunals in Spanish ports a “usurping right” which had never been recognized by the Spanish court (Philadelphia Gazette of the U.S., 5 Mar. 1800).

   JM probably enclosed a copy of the 12 Aug. 1798 regulation forbidding French privateers to disturb neutral shipping within Batavian waters (see William Vans Murray to Timothy Pickering, 15 Aug. 1798, and enclosure [DNA: RG 59, DD, Netherlands, vol. 1]).

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 1:273–79.

   JM may have enclosed copies of the remonstrance of Joseph Russell and others, 6 June 1802 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (4 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986—)., 3:281–84); see also JM to Pinckney, 10 Nov. 1802, and n. 4.