1823 James Monroe - Just Indemnity from the French Government

One of the major foreign policies of our young nation was to win indemnity for damages that Americans endured during the Napoleonic wars.   John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams who first began negotiations with France after the Quasi war, continued this fight as Secretary of State under President James Monroe and later as president himself.   Negotiations would continue all the way through to 1835 under President Andrew Jackson, when the U.S. and France both began making preparations for war. Ultimately, Great Britain would step in to bring the conflict to a conclusion.

In 1797, the French Directory (then government of France), passed a decree allowing the "capture and condemnation neutral vessels and their cargoes if any portion of the latter are of British fabric or produce".  As of 1798, the French had robbed around 300 ships, for which John Adams called an “unequivocal act of war on the commerce of the nations".   It was the beginning of the Quasi War with France.  The federalists in Congress pounced on this and called for a declaration of War, but Adams refused.  Instead he entered into negotiations with France, and in September of 1800 signed the Treaty of Mortefontaine.  

Now 23 years later, some items of negotiation in the Mortefontaine treaty still were not completed, primarily rules governing indemnity for merchants whose cargoes were captured and seized.  Article II of the Treaty of Mortefontaine, left the negotiation of these indemnities.  Now, in 1823 President James Monroe appointed James Brown, Senator from Louisiana as the new Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to France.   On December 23, 1823 James Brown was given instructions from Secretary of State John Quincy Adams to finish negotiations that were left from his predecessor, Albert Galatin. The most important and urgent concerns were.

1. "The claims of many of the citizens of the United States upon the French Government for indemnity".
2.  "The pretension raised by the French Government to special and exclusive privileges in the ports of Louisiana."

John Quincy Adams, made it clear to Brown, that the United States was not willing to connect the indemnity claims with the demand for exclusive privilege in the Port of New Orleans. JQA wrote that "the difference in nature and character of the two interests is such, that they cannot, with propriety, be blended together. The claims are of reparation to individuals for their property taken from them by manifest and undisputed wrong. The question upon Louisiana treaty is a question of right upon meaning of a contract." Regarding the pretension raised by the French government that they should have exclusive privileges in the port of New Orleans, JQA explained that this has been "fully, deliberately, and thoroughly investigated" and was determined to be "utterly unfounded". But with that said, the United States was willing to negotiate. 

Earlier in December, President James Monroe delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress. In it, he wrote a few words about resuming the negotiations between the U.S. and France on important such as indemnity for the "unjustifiable seizures and confiscations' of United States citizens during the "late wars".

"The negotiation which had been long depending with the French Government on several important subjects, and particularly for a just indemnity for losses sustained in the late wars by the citizens of the United States under unjustifiable seizures and confiscations of their property, has not as yet had the desired effect. As this claim rests on the same principle with others which have been admitted by the French Government, it is not perceived on what just ground it can be rejected. A minister will be immediately appointed to proceed to France and resume the negotiation on this and other subjects which may arise between the two nations."

Negotiations continued under President John Quincy Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay, but as of 1823, Monroe had yet to satisfactorily negotiate a treaty to settle the US "claim to indemnity for spoliation which were committed on our commerce in the late wars" . In his final State of the Union, Monroe explained that it "has been duly attended to since by the Executive, but as yet it has not been accomplished". At the end of 1822, a treaty of commerce and navigation was hammered out with France, and that gave hope to Monroe that this would be too.

"At the time when that convention was concluded many interesting subjects were left unsettled, and particularly our claim to indemnity for spoliations which were committed on our commerce in the late wars. For these interests and claims it was in the contemplation of the parties to make provision at a subsequent day by a more comprehensive and definitive treaty. The object has been duly attended to since by the Executive, but as yet it has not been accomplished.

It is hoped that a favorable opportunity will present itself for opening a negotiation which may embrace and arrange all existing differences and every other concern in which they have a common interest upon the accession of the present King of France, an event which has occurred since the close of the last session of Congress."

A little later in his final State of the Union Address, Monroe returned to the subject of indemnities. The treaties had been negotiated, and Monroe left final wishes that he hoped that these would be settled with a "sentiment of justice and conciliation", so that our citizens would receive that which they are entitled to. Apparently, the work of the Monroe administration was done, and it now was in the hands of the offending countries to do the right thing.

"The attention of the Government has been drawn with great solicitude to other subjects, and particularly to that relating to a state of maritime war, involving the relative rights of neutral and belligerent in such wars. Most of the difficulties which we have experienced and of the losses which we have sustained since the establishment of our independence have proceeded from the unsettled state of those rights and the extent to which the belligerent claim has been carried against the neutral party. 

It is impossible to look back on the occurrences of the late wars in Europe, and to behold the disregard which was paid to our rights as a neutral power, and the waste which was made of our commerce by the parties to those wars by various acts of their respective Governments, and under the pretext by each that the other had set the example, without great mortification and a fixed purpose never to submit to the like in future. An attempt to remove those causes of possible variance by friendly negotiation and on just principles which should be applicable to all parties could, it was presumed, be viewed by none other than as a proof of an earnest desire to preserve those relations with every power.

In the late war between France and Spain a crisis occurred in which it seemed probable that all controvertible principles involved in such wars might be brought into discussion and settled to the satisfaction of all parties. Propositions having this object in view have been made to the Governments of Great Britain, France, Russia, and of other powers, which have been received in a friendly manner by all, but as yet no treaty has been formed with either for its accomplishment. The policy will, it is presumed, be persevered in, and in the hope that it may be successful. 

It will always be recollected that with one of the parties to those wars and from whom we received those injuries, we sought redress by war. From the other, by whose then reigning Government our vessels were seized in port as well as at sea and their cargoes confiscated, indemnity has been expected, but has not yet been rendered. It was under the influence of the latter that our vessels were likewise seized by the Governments of Spain, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Naples, and from whom indemnity has been claimed and is still expected, with the exception of Spain, by whom it has been rendered.

With both parties we had abundant cause of war, but we had no alternative but to resist that which was most powerful at sea and pressed us nearest at home. With this all differences were settled by a treaty, founded on conditions fair and honorable to both, and which has been so far executed with perfect good faith. It has been earnestly hoped that the other would of its own accord, and from a sentiment of justice and conciliation, make to our citizens the indemnity to which they are entitled, and thereby remove from our relations any just cause of discontent on our side."

In 1824, King Louis XIII's health continually worsened, and on September 16, he died and his brother Charles X succeeded him as king.  In 1825,  John Quincy Adams, now President Adams expressed in his first State of the Union Address, that this gave hope that progress could now be made on the payment of indemnities.  Unfortunately, it was more of the same, our ministers repeated their claims in earnest, but received no answer.  Adams now pondered, that if there were some impartial judge like when Russia mediated the Treaty of Ghent, this matter of indemnity might have been settled.  Here are John Quincy's words from his first sate of the Union address in 1825 on this subject.

"The convention of commerce and navigation between the United States and France, concluded on 1822-06-24, was, in the understanding and intent of both parties, as appears upon its face, only a temporary arrangement of the points of difference between them of the most immediate and pressing urgency. It was limited in the first instance to two years from 1822-10-01, but with a proviso that it should further continue in force 'til the conclusion of a general and definitive treaty of commerce, unless terminated by a notice, 6 months in advance, of either of the parties to the other. Its operation so far as it extended has been mutually advantageous, and it still continues in force by common consent. But it left unadjusted several objects of great interest to the citizens and subjects of both countries, and particularly a mass of claims to considerable amount of citizens of the United States upon the Government of France of indemnity for property taken or destroyed under circumstances of the most aggravated and outrageous character. In the long period during which continual and earnest appeals have been made to the equity and magnanimity of France in behalf of these claims their justice has not been, as it could not be, denied.

It was hoped that the accession of a new Sovereign to the throne would have afforded a favorable opportunity for presenting them to the consideration of his Government. They have been presented and urged hither to without effect. The repeated and earnest representations of our minister at the Court of France remain as yet even without an answer. Were the demands of nations upon the justice of each other susceptible of adjudication by the sentence of an impartial tribunal, those to which I now refer would long since have been settled and adequate indemnity would have been obtained."

In that same address of Adams, he noted that were "large amounts of similar claims upon the Netherlands, Naples, and Denmark". Adams was hoping to accomplish deals with these nations to get payment of the claims, but if not, he was giving Congress fair notice that he would need to come back to them for legislative support in the future. It seems that in his first address, President Adams was sending a signal that he would continue supporting the foreign policy agenda he started as the Secretary of State. Perhaps it was to give them some confidence through his support of the 'status quo'.

"There are large amounts of similar claims upon the Netherlands, Naples, and Denmark. For those upon Spain prior to 1819 indemnity was, after many years of patient forbearance, obtained; and those upon Sweden have been lately compromised by a private settlement, in which the claimants themselves have acquiesced. The Governments of Denmark and of Naples have been recently reminded of those yet existing against them, nor will any of them be forgotten while a hope may be indulged of obtaining justice by the means within the constitutional power of the Executive, and without resorting to those means of self-redress which, as well as the time, circumstances, and occasion which may require them, are within the exclusive competency of the Legislature."

It wasn't until 1831 under President Andrew Jackson, that France finally agreed to pay claims for the depredations on American shipping.  Unfortunately, the French Chamber of Deputies would refuse to appropriate the funds leading to Jackson requesting Congress to authorize reprisals.   The story will continue, but in 1831 we find President Andrew Jackson declaring a victory over the signing of a treaty where France agreed to make a lump sum payment to the United States to cover all of the individual claims.   Jackson suggested that the choice of a lump sum payment was accepted because it would have been "ungracious and unjust" to insist on settling each claim individually.  The treaty also include a small payment from the United States to France to cover any claims of the French citizens against our government, and a reduction of some duties on our cotton and their wine.  Jackson suggested, that with this treaty (if agreed to) would finally stop the source of irritation that has alienated two friendly nations for so many years.  According to Jackson in 1831, this treaty would prove that perseverance and dedication pays off and serve as a practical illustration of "practical illustration of our submission to the divine rule of doing to others what we desire they should do unto us."  Unfortunately, the story was not over and in 1835, if not for the intercession of Great Britain, the U.S. and France could have been heading to war.

"In my message at the opening of the last session of Congress I expressed a confident hope that the justice of our claims upon France, urged as they were with perseverance and signal ability by our minister there, would finally be acknowledged. This hope has been realized. A treaty has been signed which will immediately be laid before the Senate for its approbation, and which, containing stipulations that require legislative acts, must have the concurrence of both houses before it can be carried into effect. 

By it the French Government engage to pay a sum which, if not quite equal to that which may be found due to our citizens, will yet, it is believed, under all circumstances, be deemed satisfactory by those interested. The offer of a gross sum instead of the satisfaction of each individual claim was accepted because the only alternatives were a rigorous exaction of the whole amount stated to be due on each claim, which might in some instances be exaggerated by design, in other over- rated through error, and which, therefore, it would have been both ungracious and unjust to have insisted on; or a settlement by a mixed commission, to which the French negotiators were very averse, and which experience in other cases had shewn to be dilatory and often wholly inadequate to the end. 

A comparatively small sum is stipulated on our part to go to the extinction of all claims by French citizens on our Government, and a reduction of duties on our cotton and their wines has been agreed on as a consideration for the renunciation of an important claim for commercial privileges under the construction they gave to the treaty for the cession of Louisiana. 

Should this treaty receive the proper sanction, a source of irritation will be stopped that has for so many years in some degree alienated from each other two nations who, from interest as well as the remembrance of early associations, ought to cherish the most friendly relations; an encouragement will be given for perseverance in the demands of justice by this new proof that if steadily pursued they will be listened to, and admonition will be offered to those powers, if any, which may be inclined to evade them that they will never be abandoned; above all, a just confidence will be inspired in our fellow citizens that their Government will exert all the powers with which they have invested it in support of their just claims upon foreign nations; at the same time that the frank acknowledgment and provision for the payment of those which were addressed to our equity, although unsupported by legal proof, affords a practical illustration of our submission to the divine rule of doing to others what we desire they should do unto us."

In 1833, Andrew Jackson appointed Edward Livingston to be minister plenipotentiary to France charged with procuring the fulfillment of the 1831 treaty.   In his 1832 Address, Jackson described the current situation and why payments from France that still remain unfulfilled.   As was typical of Jackson, he described the situation in great detail.   To resolve this matter, Jackson explained that he appointed a "distinguished citizen" to express his disappointments and bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.  At the end of the section, Jackson explained that he felt it necessary to make an "explicit statement of its actual condition".  In other words, Jackson was sharing the facts of what actually happened.

"Not withstanding that I continue to receive the most amicable assurances from the Government of France, and that in all other respects the most friendly relations exist between the United States and that Government, it is to be regretted that the stipulations of the convention concluded on 1831-07-04 remain in some important parts unfulfilled. 

By the second article of that convention it was stipulated that the sum payable to the United States should be paid at Paris, in 6 annual installments, into the hands of such person or persons as should be authorized by the Government of the United States to receive it, and by the same article the first installment was payable on 1833-02-02. By the act of Congress of 1832-07-13 it was made the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to cause the several installments, with the interest thereon, to be received from the French Government and transferred to the United States in such manner as he may deem best; and by the same act of Congress the stipulations on the part of the United States in the convention were in all respects fulfilled. Not doubting that a treaty thus made and ratified by the two Governments, and faithfully executed by the United States, would be promptly complied with by the other party, and desiring to avoid the risk and expense of intermediate agencies, the Secretary of the Treasury deemed it advisable to receive and transfer the first installment by means of a draft upon the French minister of finance. 

A draft for this purpose was accordingly drawn in favor of the cashier of the Bank of the United States for the amount accruing to the United States out of the first installment, and the interest payable with it. This bill was not drawn at Washington until 5 days after the installment was payable at Paris, and was accompanied by a special authority from the President authorizing the cashier or his assigns to receive the amount. The mode thus adopted of receiving the installment was officially made known to the French Government by the American chargé d'affaires at Paris, pursuant to instructions from the Department of State. The bill, however, though not presented for payment until 1833-03-23, was not paid, and for the reason assigned by the French minister of finance that no appropriation had been made by the French Chambers. It is not known to me that up to that period any appropriation had been required of the Chambers, and although a communication was subsequently made to the Chambers by direction of the King, recommending that the necessary provision should be made for carrying the convention into effect, it was at an advanced period of the session, and the subject was finally postponed until the next meeting of the Chambers. 

Not withstanding it has been supposed by the French ministry that the financial stipulations of the treaty can not be carried into effect without an appropriation by the Chambers, it appears to me to be not only consistent with the character of France, but due to the character of both Governments, as well as to the rights of our citizens, to treat the convention, made and ratified in proper form, as pledging the good faith of the French Government for its execution, and as imposing upon each department an obligation to fulfill it; and I have received assurances through our chargé d'affaires at Paris and the French minister plenipotentiary at Washington, and more recently through the minister of the United States at Paris, that the delay has not proceeded from any indisposition on the part of the King and his ministers to fulfill their treaty, and that measures will be presented at the next meeting of the Chambers, and with a reasonable hope of success, to obtain the necessary appropriation. 

It is necessary to state, however, that the documents, except certain lists of vessels captured, condemned, or burnt at sea, proper to facilitate the examination and liquidation of the reclamations comprised in the stipulations of the convention, and which by the 6th article France engaged to communicate to the United States by the intermediary of the legation, though repeatedly applied for by the American chargé d'affaires under instructions from this Government, have not yet been communicated; and this delay, it is apprehended, will necessarily prevent the completion of the duties assigned to the commissioners within the time at present prescribed by law. 

The reasons for delaying to communicate these documents have not been explicitly stated, and this is the more to be regretted as it is not understood that the interposition of the Chambers is in any manner required for the delivery of those papers. 

Under these circumstances, in a case so important to the interests of our citizens and to the character of our country, and under disappointments so unexpected, I deemed it my duty, however I might respect the general assurances to which I have adverted, no longer to delay the appointment of a minister plenipotentiary to Paris, but to dispatch him in season to communicate the result of his application to the French Government at an early period of your session. I accordingly appointed a distinguished citizen for this purpose, who proceeded on his mission in August last and was presented to the King early in the month of October. He is particularly instructed as to all matters connected with the present posture of affairs, and I indulge the hope that with the representations he is instructed to make, and from the disposition manifested by the King and his ministers in their recent assurances to our minister at Paris, the subject will be early considered, and satisfactorily disposed of at the next meeting of the Chambers.

As this subject involves important interests and has attracted a considerable share of the public attention, I have deemed it proper to make this explicit statement of its actual condition, and should I be disappointed in the hope now entertained the subject will be again brought to the notice of Congress in such manner as the occasion may require. "

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Seventh Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/seventh-annual-message-1 [Accessed 29 Jun. 2019].

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Eighth Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/eighth-annual-message-1 [Accessed 29 Jun. 2019].

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). First Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-2 [Accessed 29 Jun. 2019].

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Third Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-annual-message-3 [Accessed 29 Jun. 2019].

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Fifth Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fifth-annual-message-2 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2019].

Avalon.law.yale.edu. (2019). The Avalon Project : France - Convention of 1800. [online] Available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/fr1800.asp [Accessed 29 Jun. 2019].

Congressional Series of United States Public Documents, Volume 235. (1832). U.S. Government Printing Office, pp.3-5.

Miller Center. (2019). Andrew Jackson: Foreign Affairs | Miller Center. [online] Available at: https://millercenter.org/president/jackson/foreign-affairs [Accessed 29 Jun. 2019].