« AnteriorContinuar »
It has been shewn, in the most conclusive manner, in the First American Statement, Notes to the State that he was completely mistaken in that respect. But the manner in which the subject had
Mr.Galiatin's Letbeen first presented, and the subsequent observatious of the British Commissioners, justified tenor 25th Dee. his belief, that they had no faith in the alleged right of Great Britain, and were simply desirous of obtaining a cession for an equivalent.
An apology might perhaps be due, for having ascribed to the British Government an unsound argument, which, it is hardly necessary to observe, was nothing more than the untenable assertion, that the Gulf of St. Lawrence is not a part of the Atlantic Ocean. Mr. Gallatin had then no other knowledge of a question for the first time presented as doubtful, than what was derived from the treaty, and from maps in common use. After the most thorough investigation, he must say, that the preposterous reasoning, to which he thought Great Britain would perhaps be obliged to resort, does not appear to him much worse than any of the arguments, which have been since alleged to sustain her extraordinary.claim.
Nos. 1 to 39, are principally intended to shew the understanding which prevailed prior Engraved Maps. to the date of the treaty of 1783, respecting the boundary lines of the British Provinces, as laid down by the Proclamation of 1763, and other public acts of Great Britain, and respecting the boundaries of the United States, as described by the treaty.
Nos. 40, 45, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, and 57, are quoted in the American Statement.
No. 42, is the supplement of No. 40. Having adduced in evidence Mr. Bouchette's Map, No. 40, it was not deemed proper to ornit his other maps, Nos. 41 and 43; in the first of which the British line is laid down along Mr. Holland's presumed highlands, and the two ridges or highlands respectively claimed by both parties, are also delineated. In No. 43, the due North line from the sourcce of the River St. Croix, extends to the highlands claimed by the United States.
No. 44, is principally intended to shew the subdivisions of the Province of New Bruns. wick, and its reputed boundaries, which do not differ materially from those laid down in map No. 45. The boundary line between the United States and Lower Canada, is laid down aleng Mr. Holland's presumed highlands.
Nos. 46 and 47, of the years 1755 and 1775, are evidently the same map, without any alteration as to the boundaries. No. 46 has been inserted to corroborate the facts proved by Mitchell's Map, that in 1755 the boundaries of Nova Scotia and of New England were understood by Great Britain to extend to the River St. Lawrence, and that the course and extent of the Western and Northern branches of the River St. John, were generally known. No. 47 has been inserted only not to omit any map bearing that date; but it proves nothing, as the boundaries prescribed by the Proclamation of 1763, are not laid down in it.
No. 48, published in 1760, corroborates the manner in which the boundaries of Nova Scotia and New England were understood at that time, and also, that the terms “land's height” and “highlands," were then used in that part of the country as synonymous.
Nos. 49 and 50, illustrate what has been stated respecting the line which is presumed to divide the River from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No. 50 also shews, that the Western extremity of Bay des Chaleurs, or entrance of the River Ristigouche, is only ten miles from the dividing highlands, there called “ Albany Ridge,” or “ Notre Dame Mountains."
No. 53, is that of the Middle British Colonies, annexed to, and illustrating Governot Pownall's Topographical Description, quoted in their Stateinents by both parties.
In map No. 54, quoted in the Statement for another purpose, will be found " Highland County," so called, as it would seem, on account of the high land in which rivers have their sources, which flow in three different directions, viz: East, to the Scioto; South, to the Ohio; and West, to the Little Miami.
Notes to the State
A DOLPHUS'S HISTORY.
For what purpose Adolphus's History has been produced, unless it was in order to inflict on the officers of the American Government the penalty of reading the work, is altogether unintelligible. The only paragraphs of the Chapter inserted in the British Appendix, which relate to America, are the following:
“ The general impatience for peace in England was founded on a despair of success in the principal object of the war, the reduction of America, and a conviction that the whole force of the nation was insufficient to resist the career of the enemy in other quarters. Success would have given a new impulse to popular energy, and frustrated the long labors of an almost successful opposition ; but fortune declared against Lord North, and the hasty combination of heterogeneous parties, and their vigorous and persevering assaults on the Cabinet, impeded every measure for preventing, and sanctioned the proposition for conceding, the Independence of America.”
“ After the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, the attainment of this object by force appeared no more certain than at any previous period. The resources of America were exhausted, the long interruption of commerce produced a lamentable want of all necessaries, a want felt from the highest to the lowest classes throughout the Colonies. No art or coercion could give circulation to the paper currency; and not only the friends of Great Britain, but the warmest adherents of America, considered the maintenance of the Army for another year, and still more the establishment of Independency, as utterly impossible, and hardly desirable. * Sir Henry Clinton himself, after the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, forwarded an assurance to Administration, that with a reinforcement of ten thousand men, he would be responsible for the conquest of America ;t but before this offer could be made, the Ministers, who alone could be expected to give it effect, were shaken ; a new system was adopted, active hostilities were no more to be pursued, and Sir Henry Clinton being allowed to retire, was replaced by Sir Guy Carleton.”
Those passages are a fair specimen of the information, impartiality, and intellect of the author.
It was after the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, when the only difficulty in maintaining the Army arose from a conviction that the contest was at an end, and any further effort unnecessary, that the warmest adherents of America considered, as Mr. Adolphus asserts, the establishment of Independency, as utterly impossible, and hardly desirable. His authority for that assertion is that of an unfortunate American, who was compelled to banish himself from his own country. And he has no other than what must have truly been very private information, for the singular offer which he ascribes to a cautious General, whom his own experience could not have rendered very sanguine of success.
We protest against any attempt that may be made to adduce in any shape Mr Adolphus's History, as competent evidence. There is no fact relating to the contest or negotiations of Great Britain with America, alluded to in that work, of which authentic evidence might not have been found in the Archives of the British Government, or been obtained, according to the Convention of 1827, from the Government of the United States.
• “Silas Dean's intercepted letters.”