Abstract
Since 1782 the basis of Dutch-American political intercourse had been the treaty of amity and commerce concluded on October 8th of that year between the States-General of the United Netherlands and the United States of America, represented by their envoy and minister plenipotentiary John Adams. This was the second treaty which the American belligerent states had concluded with a foreign power. The first one, made in 1778 with France in connection with a treaty of alliance against Great Britain1), had obtained in many respects the virtue of a precedent. It is the first open denial of the principle that overseas countries had to be governed from Europe. As such it had for the first time formally expressed most of the motives of American foreign policy, laid down in 1776 by a committee of the Congress in a general plan of treaties2). An important part of it was a new regulation of the rights of neutrals, which proclaimed, in opposition to the British rules of 1756, the most liberal principles for neutral trade: e.g. that free ships would make free goods. The French treaty had thus become a true example for all subsequent treaty negotiations of the United States. Also the Dutch convention followed its provisions closely.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See for instance: The treaties of 1778 and allied documents, edited by G. Chinard (Baltimore 1928).
On the merits of the preamble to the treaty see chapter IX.
Ratifications were exchanged on June 23 1783. For the progress of the negotiations see Edler p. 230,231, and Van Wijk, p. 168–173.
Although it should be noticed that such an alliance, including France, had been resolved upon in the Congress of the United States, Aug. 16 1781 (The revolutionary diplomatic correspondence IV p. 636), and proposed on the Dutch side in the province of Friesland (Edler p. 223, Van Wijk p. 156, De Jong Hzn. p. 462).
E.g. art. 5; in articles 8 and 10 the word “Confederate” (Dutch: bondgenoot; French translation: allié) is used in the sense of “one of the contracting parties”. The same occurs in the Swedish-American treaty of amity and commerce of April 3 1783 (art. 17).
By admitting the American diplomatic representative in his official character of minister plenipotentiary, April 19 1782 (Edler p. 225–228, Van Wijk p. 161–164). See p. 16.
The works of John Adams, ed. by his grandson Charles Francis Adams; neither Adams’ diary (vol. III) nor his correspondence (vol. VII) during the months of negotiation give information about the contents of the conferences. In his report home he explains his intention not to send with the treaty copy all documents concerning the material progress of the negotiations. They “make a large bundle, and after all, they contain nothing worth transmitting to Congress. To copy them would be an immense labor to no purpose,and to send the originals at once, would expose them to loss” (Oct.8 1782, to Livingston). Ibid. VII p. 646; The revolutionary diplomatic correspondence of the United States (ed. Wharton) V p. 804; The diplomatic correspondence of the American Revolution (ed. Sparks) VI p. 432. Neither of the latter publications gives more extensive information.
The Dutch archives have not been investigated for this purpose. A survey based upon the contents of the secret resolutions of the States General may be found in E. J. Kiehl, Ons verdrag met Amerika fs-Gravenhage 1863), p. 26.
The treaty is to be found in W. M. Malloy, Treaties, Conventions––between the United States of America and other powers, 1776–1909. 2 vols. Washington 1910 (60th Congress, 2d Session, Senate document, 357); in Treaties and other international acts of the United States of America, ed. by Hunter Miller (Washington 1931), vol. II; in G. F. de Martens, etc,: Recueil des traités des puissances et états de l’Europe 1761–1900, 2d ed., vol. III. Further in Kiehl p. 28 etc.; and in Nieuwe Nederlandsche Jaerboeken, 1782 p. 1161–1180.
Art. 2. “The most Christian King, and the United States engage mutually not to grant any particular favour to other nations in respect of commerce and navigation, which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same favour, freely, if the concession was freely made, or on allowing the same compensation, if the concession was conditional”. See chapter IX p. 161. Vernon G. Setser in a recent article in The Journal of modern history vol. V 1933 p. 319 f. (“Did Americans originate the conditional most-favored-nation clause?”) contends that it was not the United States but France who invented the “conditional” principle for this particular case. Only later on would it have become a fixed point in American policy. This may account for the fact that it was not inserted in the treaty with Holland.
See, however, the footnote on p. 85.
These italics are mine.
Reported to Congress March 14, 1787. In: The diplomatic correspondence of the United States of America from the signing of the definitive treaty of Peace, 10 September, 1783, to the adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789, (Washington 1837) III, p. 439 f. See also Samuel B. Crandall, Treaties, their making and enforcement (2d ed. Washington 1916), p. 404,405, who quotes from Secret Journals of the Continental Congress IV, p. 409; and refers to a passage on the same subject in Jefferson, Writings, ed. by P. L. Ford, IV (New York 1894) p. 19 (Dec. 10 1784, Jefferson to Monroe), and in Writings of Monroe I p. 36.
In the years after 1815 France fought a hard diplomatic fight against the American interpretation of the most-favored-nation treatment article in their treaty of 1803,where likewise the conditional nature of this clause had not been expressly stipulated. She had no success at all. (“Reciprocity” treaties; favored nation clauses. 62d Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 29, May 16 1911.) It is noteworthy that the treaty concluded June 15 1827 between the Netherlands and Mexico (Lagemans II p. 191 No. 116), contains for the first time an acknowledgment of the American standpoint by the Dutch colonial policy, in art. 3 stipulating a conditional most-favored-nation treatment for Mexican subjects in the Dutch overseas possessions.
Some books and articles may be referred to here, besides Crandall above mentioned: Jacob Viner, The most-favored-nation clause in American commercial treaties. In the Journal of political economy, published by the University of Chicago, Vol. 32, February 1924, p. 101 f. (p. 103,104). H. H. Sillevis Smitt, De meestbegunstigingsclausule in handelsverdragen (Amsterdam 1929), p. 50–52. J. Kulischer, Die Meistbegünstigung in den Handelsverträgen im Wandel der Zeiten (p. 549) in Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 1930, vol. 89, p. 540 f. (Kulischer gives here, p. 540, 541 footnote 1, a supplement to the list of “Völkerrechtliche Literatur über die Frage der Meistbegünstigung”, compiled by Hans Wehberg, in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Bnd 26,1927 II, p. 1271). In this survey Kulischer treats mostly the development in the 19th and 20th centuries. A complement to it is his article: Les traités de commerce et la clause de la nation la plus favorisée du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle, in Revue d’histoire moderne, 1931, p. 3–29. For the rest see the bibliographies contained in these works.
Aug. 8 1782, Van Berckel to Adams (Works VII, p. 604).
Compare Kiehl p. 116.
This becomes remarkable as in his Memorial to the States-General upon the desirability of the conclusion of a treaty, 1781, Adams had hinted at a formal opening of trade between the United States and the West Indian colonies (see p. 22). In his report home of Oct. 8 1782 (see p. 83, footnote 5) he states in this respect: “It seemed at first to be insisted on that we should be confined to the Dutch ports in Europe, but my friend, M. van Berckel, and the merchants of Amsterdam came in aid of me in convincing all that it was their interest to treat us upon the footing gentis amicissimae, in all parts of the world”. This, in the ideas of the time, did not grant them any rights in the colonies, however. And the above stipulation was therefore of no special consequence. Compare upon this head: Van Wijk, p. 172.
The French treaty contained no stipulation on this subject.
July 17 and 23,1783, Adams to Secretary Livingston (Works VIII p. 103,110 f.). 5) J. Q. Adams, Writings I p. 199. Art. 21 regulated the admission of consuls in the ports of either party.
How it was abandoned in the extraordinary conditions resulting from the French period has been shown on p. 19, 20.
Art. 11: “.... free vessels shall assure the liberty of the effects, with which they shall be loaded”.
Chapter IV, p. 68; VI, p. 99, footnote 1. Chapter XIV, p. 290.
The “permanent” French treaty had been annulled by an Act of Congress of July 7 1798 (French translation in De Martens, Recueil, 2d ed. VI, p. 465). It had been succeeded by a new convention of peace, commerce and navigation, concluded at Paris in 1800, which expired, according to the stipulations of its ratification, in 1809 (Malloy I, p. 496, Hunter Miller II). The Swedish treaty of 1783 expired in 1798 in consequence of the stipulation which it contained about its duration, till 15 years after the exchange of ratifications (Hovde, Diplomatic relations of the United States with Sweden and Norway, p. 10,11). The treaty with Prussia of 1785 expired likewise, in 1796, in accordance with its 27th article.
Febr. 5 1795, J. Q. Adams to the Secretary of State (Writings I, p. 275), reporting on his conversation with Paulus, the President of the Assembly of Provisional Representatives of the People of Holland. Upon art. 8 of the treaty the American minister based his protests against the holding of American vessels in Dutch ports, in the same year (Van Winter II p. 76). The instructions to Van Polanen, May 2 1796, give no clear evidence of the wishes of the Dutch government. They are extremely vague and hint only at the desirability of the conclusion of a new and closer convention (R. A., Legation Archives America, Port. “R. G. van Polanen”).
Crandall, I.e. p. 423, for instance: “A treaty is a compact between states, not organs of government. Consequently its obligation is not, in general, dependent upon the continuance of the particular form of government under which it happened to be concluded”.
Hoekstra, I.e. p. 25. This is the only allusion to the treaty noticed in his investigation of the years from 1803 to 1813.
Colenbrander, Gedenkstukken V, II, p. 676 f.
He refused to be troubled by American spoliation claims dating from 1809 and 1810. See p. 155 footnote 1.
Amsterdam, Dec. 7 1813, Bourne to Van Hogendorp (R.A.B.Z. No. 1755, “Oud-dossier A No. 12”,exh. 9 Dec. 1813 No. 3): „Le traité d’amitié fait entre la Hollande et les Etats-Unis d’Amérique le huit d’Octobre 1782, est-il considéré d’être en pleine force maintenant?” Cf. Dec. 10 1813, Bourne to the Secretary of State (D. o. S. Cons. Desp. Amsterdam). Bourne’s opinion was that all that had passed since 1795 would be considered as “un espace d’Interregnum”, and that therefore the treaty would resume its full force from the moment this interregnum had ended (to Van Hogendorp, Dec. 28 1813. R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. No 71 A). Cf. Cons. Desp. Amsterdam, Dec. 27 1813 (D. o. S.).
Dec. 26 1813, The Hague, Van Hogendorp to Bourne (D. o. S. Cons. Desp. Amsterdam). For a more extensive account of Bourne’s action at this juncture see Chapter VI.
Conceivably they have taken “eighty two” for “eighteen two”.
Dec. 19 1813, Fagel to Van der Duyn (R. A. B. Z. 1: bur. I. S., No. 4).
Dec. 21 1813, Castlereagh to Clancarty (F. O. 37/65).
Dec. 26 1813, Van Hogendorp to Fagel, No. 19 C (R. A. B. Z. 1: bur. U. S.).
Brieven en Ged. V, p. 216, (to the Prince Sovereign, Jan. 1 1814).
Ibid. p. 77: „alzo het op de toenmalige vijandschap met Engeland gegrond geworden was”. (This remark was written by him at least 3 years afterwards.)
Dec. 29 1813, Clancarty to Castlereagh (F. O. 37/65).
London, Jan. 2 1814, Fagel to Van Hogendorp (R. A. B. Z. No. 747: Correspondence of Dutch diplomats 1813–1828). His opinion was recognized at the end of the century as the only just one.
Declaration of July 10 1817 (Lagemans I No. 60). It states explicitly that the Danish subjects whose rights, as regulated by the old treaty, were extended with respect to the Southern Netherlands, had never stopped enjoying these rights in the Northern Netherlands („où ils n’ont point cessé d’en jouir”).
April 12 1815, Monroe to Changuion (D. o. S. Notes to foreign legations, vol. 2).
Washington, Aug. 16 1816, Monroe to Ten Cate (R. A. B. Z. 2: bur. I. S. enclosure with No. 3776; also in D. o. S. Notes to foreign legations).
Aug. 11 1815, Eustis to Monroe (D. o. S. Desp. Netherlands).
R. A. B. Z. No. 1743 “Instructien”, Dec. 6 1815.
Philadelphia July 311817, Ten Cate to Moses.Myers, Consul at Norfolk (R. A. B. Z. XXI Legation Washington, No. 51 Letterbook). This opinion was founded upon his instructions of December 1815.
As is shown for instance by Falck’s words, June 1818, to the American chargé d’affaires ad interim. See p. 321. (Memorandum from Mr. Appleton, enclosed with Gallatin’s despatch, Paris July 31 1818, D. o. S. Despatches France, vol. 18.)
See chapter XV.
R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 No. 2248: “qu’en attendant le président considérait celui de 1782 comme toujours subsistant”.
American State Papers, Foreign Relations IV p. 172. See chapter XVI.
The italics are mine.
D. o. S. Instructions to U. S. Ministers, VIII, Aug. 10 1818, Adams to A. H. Everett.
“A Treaty of Amity and Commerce, concluded in the year 1782 with the then United Provinces of the Netherlands, is acknowledged by both Governments to be still in force, so far as it is adopted to the present circumstances of the two Nations, both of which have since its conclusion undergone Revolutions of Government, and obtained acquisitions of Territory to which the engagements of the Treaty are understood to extend.”...
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1935 Martinus Nyhoff, the Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, J.C. (1935). The Treaty of 1782. In: The Netherlands and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0397-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0999-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive