Determined to bring about a final resolution on trade with Great Britain that favored the American position of free and open trade, President John Quincy Adams tried to play hardball with King George IV. Unfortunately his attempts failed and, the British parliament eventually ended all negotiations and closed the door to any reciprocal trade agreements. In response, Adams rescinded the 1823 reciprocal trade act, and brought back the restrictive trade policies of 1818 and 1820.
In his second annual address to Congress, Adams explained in detail what had transpired starting with the convention of 1815, The British Government refused to negotiate on trade with her colonies, and thus trade with her colonies was carried out by British vessels exclusively. In response, the United States under President Monroe passed the acts in 1818 and 1820 to further restrict trade with Great Britain in an attempt to force them to open up trade with their colonies. Adams explained that this was not out of retaliation, but rather self-defense. There was some initial success, as acts of Parliament began to open up trade with some of their colonial ports to U.S. vessels. As, negotiations continued each side made additional concessions that opened up additional reciprocal trade. Despite repeated suspension of negotiations due to circumstances beyond the control of either nation, there remained hope that talks would continue and eventually a mutual agreement could be reached.
President Adams was determined to bring about a resolution on trade with Great Britain that favored the American position of free and open trade. He had some leverage in Canada, where he could pit the trading interests of Britain and Canada against each other. In 1825, the British Parliament passed an Order-in-Council that would open up trade with the Colonies, only if the United States would remove all restrictions on British Vessels. But according to Adams, the details of the act were "so doubtful and ambiguous" that they were likely to be misunderstood by the officers in the colonies, and only opened up certain ports. Rather than act immediately on this ambiguous act of parliament, Adams wanted to continue negotiations with Great Britain. Before Adams submitted any treaty to Congress, he wanted to get the terms clearly explained and understood. So, Adams sent Albert Gallatin whom he called "one of our most distinguished citizens" to Great Britain as "envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary" to renew negotiations. Gallatin was furnished with instructions that Adams believed would bring about a conclusion to this lengthy and controverted negotiations upon terms that would be acceptable to Great Britain. But even before Gallatin arrived, an Order of the British Council under King George IV was given that denied all American vessels from trade with any Colonial British port except those that bordered the United States territory. In essence, they opened trade with Canada but closed trade with the West Indies. The British used as a reason, an "ancient maxim" that according to the policy of European nations, trade with colonies was the "exclusive possession of the mother country", and opening up trade with these colonies to America or any other country is completely up to the mother country, and done only as a favor. In other words, negotiations were over, and it was Parliament alone that would decide whether or not trade would be open to the United States.
Here are the actual words of the president in his 1826 State of the Union Address:
"With Prussia, Spain, Portugal, and, in general, all the European powers between whom and the United States relations of friendly intercourse have existed their condition has not materially varied since the last session of Congress. I regret not to be able to say the same of our commercial intercourse with the colonial possessions of Great Britain in America. Negotiations of the highest importance to our common interests have been for several years in discussion between the two Governments, and on the part of the United States have been invariably pursued in the spirit of candor and conciliation. Interests of great magnitude and delicacy had been adjusted by the conventions of 1815 and 1818, while that of 1822, mediated by the late Emperor Alexander, had promised a satisfactory compromise of claims which the Government of the US, in justice to the rights of a numerous class of their citizens, was bound to sustain.
But with regard to the commercial intercourse between the United States and the British colonies in America, it has been hitherto found impracticable to bring the parties to an understanding satisfactory to both. The relative geographical position and the respective products of nature cultivated by human industry had constituted the elements of a commercial intercourse between the United States and British America, insular and continental, important to the inhabitants of both countries; but it had been interdicted by Great Britain upon a principle heretofore practiced upon by the colonizing nations of Europe, of holding the trade of their colonies each in exclusive monopoly to herself.
After the termination of the late war this interdiction had been revived, and the British Government declined including this portion of our intercourse with her possessions in the negotiation of the convention of 1815. The trade was then carried on exclusively in British vessels 'til the act of Congress, concerning navigation, of 1818 and the supplemental act of 1820 met the interdict by a corresponding measure on the part of the United States. These measures, not of retaliation, but of necessary self defense, were soon succeeded by an act of Parliament opening certain colonial ports to the vessels of the United States coming directly from them, and to the importation from them of certain articles of our produce burdened with heavy duties, and excluding some of the most valuable articles of our exports. The United States opened their ports to British vessels from the colonies upon terms as exactly corresponding with those of the act of Parliament as in the relative position of the parties could be made, and a negotiation was commenced by mutual consent, with the hope on our part that a reciprocal spirit of accommodation and a common sentiment of the importance of the trade to the interests of the inhabitants of the two countries between whom it must be carried on would ultimately bring the parties to a compromise with which both might be satisfied. With this view the Government of the United States had determined to sacrifice something of that entire reciprocity which in all commercial arrangements with foreign powers they are entitled to demand, and to acquiesce in some inequalities disadvantageous to ourselves rather than to forego the benefit of a final and permanent adjustment of this interest to the satisfaction of Great Britain herself. The negotiation, repeatedly suspended by accidental circumstances, was, however, by mutual agreement and express assent, considered as pending and to be speedily resumed.
In the mean time another act of Parliament, so doubtful and ambiguous in its import as to have been misunderstood by the officers in the colonies who were to carry it into execution, opens again certain colonial ports upon new conditions and terms, with a threat to close them against any nation which may not accept those terms as prescribed by the British Government. This act, passed 1825-07, not communicated to the Government of the US, not understood by the British officers of the customs in the colonies where it was to be enforced, was never the less submitted to the consideration of Congress at their last session. With the knowledge that a negotiation upon the subject had long been in progress and pledges given of its resumption at an early day, it was deemed expedient to await the result of that negotiation rather than to subscribe implicitly to terms the import of which was not clear and which the British authorities themselves in this hemisphere were not prepared to explain.
Immediately after the close of the last session of Congress one of our most distinguished citizens was dispatched as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain, furnished with instructions which we could not doubt would lead to a conclusion of this long controverted interest upon terms acceptable to Great Britain. Upon his arrival, and before he had delivered his letters of credence, he was bet by an order of the British council excluding from and after the first of December now current the vessels of the United States from all the colonial British ports excepting those immediately bordering on our territories. In answer to his expostulations upon a measure thus unexpected he is informed that according to the ancient maxims of policy of European nations having colonies their trade is an exclusive possession of the mother country; that all participation in it by other nations is a boon or favor not forming a subject of negotiation, but to be regulated by the legislative acts of the power owning the colony; that the British Government therefore declines negotiating concerning it, and that as the US did not forthwith accept purely and simply the terms offered by the act of Parliament of 1825-07, Great Britain would not now admit the vessels of the United States even upon the terms on which she has opened them to the navigation of other nations."Adams was quite upset at the actions of the British Council, and seemed to consider the suggestion that trade with British Colonies was a favor. America had always considered there to be an "interchange of mutual benefits" not a "mere favor received". It was a step to far for Adams, and he told Congress that the refusal of Great Britain to negotiate, left him no other options but to rescind previous Act of March 3, 1823 that offered Reciprocal trade with Great Britain.
"We have been accustomed to consider the trade which we have enjoyed with the British colonies rather as an interchange of mutual benefits than as a mere favor received; that under every circumstance we have given an ample equivalent. We have seen every other nation holding colonies negotiate with other nations and grant them freely admission to the colonies by treaty, and so far are the other colonizing nations of Europe now from refusing to negotiate for trade with their colonies that we ourselves have secured access to the colonies of more than one of them by treaty. The refusal, however, of Great Britain to negotiate leaves to the United States no other alternative than that of regulating or interdicting altogether the trade on their part, according as either measure may effect the interests of our own country, and with that exclusive object I would recommend the whole subject to your calm and candid deliberations."Finally, on March 17, 1827 President John Quincy Adams by proclamation rescinded the Act of March 3, 1823. It removed all provisions that were in favor of the British, and reverted the trade agreements to those established by the previous acts of 1818 and 1820.
"Now, therefore, I, John Quincy Adams, President of the United States of America, do hereby declare and proclaim that the trade and intercourse authorized by the said act of Parliament of the 24th of June, 1822, between the United States and the British colonial ports enumerated in the aforesaid act of Congress of the 1st of March, 1823, have been and are, upon and from the 1st day of December, 1826, by the aforesaid two several acts of Parliament of the 5th of July, 1825, and by the aforesaid British order in council of the 27th day of July, 1826, prohibited."
Yet, Adams remained hopeful that this would not have any significant impact on the other negotiations regarding the Treaty of Ghent, namely the discussions on the northern boundaries, and the payment of indemnity for slaves carried off during the war of 1812.
"It is hoped that our unavailing exertions to accomplish a cordial good understanding on this interest will not have an unpropitious effect upon the other great topics of discussion between the two Governments. Our north-eastern and north-western boundaries are still unadjusted. The commissioners under the 7th article of the treaty of Ghent have nearly come to the close of their labors; nor can we renounce the expectation, enfeebled as it is, that they may agree upon their report to the satisfaction or acquiescence of both parties. The commission for liquidating the claims for indemnity for slaves carried away after the close of the war has been sitting, with doubtful prospects of success. Propositions of compromise have, however, passed between the two Governments, the result of which we flatter ourselves may yet prove unsatisfactory. Our own dispositions and purposes toward Great Britain are all friendly and conciliatory; nor can we abandon but with strong reluctance the belief that they will ultimately meet a return, not of favors, which we neither as nor desire, but of equal reciprocity and good will."
References
Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). John Quincy Adams: Second Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29468 [Accessed 6 Mar. 2018].
Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). John Quincy Adams: Proclamation 33—Levying Discriminating Duties on British Vessels Trading Between the United States and Certain British Colonies. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=66694 [Accessed 6 Mar. 2018].
The Raab Collection. (2018). Sold - Adams Asserts American Independence of British Trade Restrictions | The Raab Collection. [online] Available at: https://www.raabcollection.com/john-q-adams-autograph/john-q-adams-signed-sold-adams-asserts-american-independence-british-trade [Accessed 6 Mar. 2018].
Wagner, D. (2018). 1824 James Monroe - Our next blunder, the famous act of March, 1823. [online] Stateoftheunionhistory.com. Available at: http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2017/10/1823-james-monroe-our-next-blunder.html [Accessed 6 Mar. 2018].
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/George_IV_1821_color.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment