Abstract
The year 1818 saw not only the settlement of the reciprocity question but also the recall by the governments of both countries of their reciprocal diplomatic representatives. In 1814 and 1815 a tense expectation resulting from the cessation of war and the starting of a new period had induced the sending out of full-equipped missions. Soon the Dutch government had retracted from this step, judging that the purely commercial relations with the United States would not require a full mission. Little more than a year after his departure for America Changuion had returned to Holland and been replaced by a chargé d’affaires.
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
Nov. 12 1816 to Eustis, and Nov. 14 1816 to Everett (D. o. S. Instructions).
April 10 1818, Adams, Memoirs IV p. 76.
April 4 1818, Ibid. p. 74.
For Eustis’ further career, see Chapter VIII, p. 153, footnote No. 4.
May 7 1818, to Ten Cate (R. A. B. Z. B XXI Leg. Wash. Port. 5). Even Clancarty, the stiffest of Tories as C. K. Webster calls him (in The Cambridge History of British foreign policy, I, chapter IV p. 462), was favorably impressed by Eustis’ appearance and behavior: “He will be much regretted here”, he wrote to Castlereagh; “They (Mr. and Mrs. Eustis) are the only tolerable Yankees I ever knew” (May 5 1818, Correspondence, despatches a.o. papers of Viscount Castlereagh..., ed. by his brother, 3d. series III, London 1853, p. 436).
For Everett’s biography see the author’s article in Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis No. 49 p. 42 f., 161 f.
Adams, Memoirs IV p. 116, July 24 1818.
With respect to the South American question Adams remarked: “You understand that the policy of the government of the United States is to favour by all suitable means compatible with a fair neutrality, the total independence of the South-American Provinces”. (Aug. 10 1818, D. o. S. Instructions.)
Appleton thus performed the interim duties of the legation from Oct. 20 1817 to April 18 1818, and from May 5 1818 to Jan. 4 1819. March 3 1819 he was appointed secretary of the legation to Portugal, at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and in 1822 to the same function in Spain. He was chargé d’affaires to Sweden and Norway from 1826 to 1830.
Dec. 26 1817, Lechleitner to Van Nagell (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 No. 460).
A very natural and usual characteristic with appointments and discharges, the accentuation of which leads directly to the spoils system.
Febr. 10 1818, Van Nagell to the King (R. A. B. Z. U. S. 1818 No. 342).
Febr. 12 1818 (Ibid. I. S. 1818 No. 660).
“Burggraaf De Quabeck, kapitein bij de Gendarmerie te Gend” (April 3 1818, Van Nagell to the King, Ibid. U. S. 1818 No. 862). He was promoted later on to “Majoor bij de Armée” (Royal Decree of April 20 1818, Ibid. I. S. 1818 No. 1595).
March 21 1818 (Ibid. No. 1257).
Ibid. No. 1437.
Febr. 20 1818 (R. A. B. Z. B XXI No. 5).
In March a bill of exchange had been protested at Amsterdam (March 26, W. J. Willink to Van Nagell, R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 No. 1270).
Sept. 15 1818, Lechleitner to Van Nagell (Ibid. No. 4492).
Also, Lechleitner started again a correspondence with the Governors of the Colonies (Ibid. No. 4723).
Adams, Memoirs vol. IV p. 118, July 28 1818.
After a correspondence, August 5–11 1818, between the Treasury and the State Departments (D. o. S. Miscellaneous and Domestic Letters). Of all of this Adams carefully notified Everett, Aug. 16 and Oct. 28 1818 (L. o. C. Papers of J. Q. Adams 1802 – 1846). On the same subject: De Quabeck’s despatches of Oct. 19 and 22 1818 (R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818 Nos. 4722 & 4704).
April 10 1819, Everett to Adams (D. o. S. Desp. Neth.). Compare May 7 1819, Adams to Everett (D. o. S. Instructions).
„La conduite du Sieur ten Cate est de toute manière reprehensible” (Dec. 10 1818, Van Nagell to De Quabeck, R. A. B. Z. B XXI Port. 7).
To Everett, Aug. 16 1818 (L. o. C. Papers of J. Q. Adams 1802–1846).
Aug. 25 1818, Adams to Van Nagell (D. o. S. Notes to For. Legations, vol. 2 p. 336; R. A. B. Z. I. S. 1818, mentioned only in Verbaal under No. 4776). Ten Cate was appointed, about 1820, to the office of the Legation at Paris (R. A. B. Z. No. 747).
P. 151.
R. A. B. Z. B XXI No. 77.
Dec. 17 1819, Van Nagell to De Quabeck (R. A. B. Z. B XXI Port. 8). 2) See Hoekstra, l.c. chapter VI.
Ibid, chapters VIII and IX.
The best brief account of British policy, as sketched in the following pages, is to be found in C. K. Webster, The foreign policy of Castlereagh 1815–1822, Britain and the European alliance (London 1925), Chapter VIII 3, p. 454–166. Reference should be made also to W. L. Mathieson’s books, British slavery and its abolition 1823–1838 (London 1926) p. 20–23, and: Great Britain and the slave trade 1839–1865 (1929) p. 1–15. An account of the American attitude is given by Eugene Schuyler, American diplomacy and the furtherance of commerce (New York 1886), Chapter V, p. 233 f., based mostly upon Henry Wheaton’s Enquiry into the validity of the British claim to a right of visitation and search of American vessels suspected to be engaged in the African slave trade (1841).
Mathieson, Great Britain and the slave trade, p. 11.
Cf. W. Dökert, Die englische Politik auf dem Wiener Kongress (Weida i. Th. 1911), p. 18, 19.
Ibid. p. 139. On the treatment of this subject at the Congress also: C. K. Webster, The foreign policy of Castlereagh 1812–1815, Britain and the reconstruction of Europe (London 1931), VII 3, p. 413–426.
All powers promised to abolish it within a limited period.
The respective dates of these treaties are Sept. 11 and Sept. 23 1817 (published in British and Foreign State Papers IV p. 85 and 33). They stipulated for both parties “that the ships of war of their royal navies, which shall be provided with special instructions for this purpose...., may visit such merchant vessels of the two nations as may be suspected, upon reasonable grounds, of having slaves on board, acquired by an illicit traffic” (Art. 9 of the Spanish treaty).
Lagemans I p. 16 No. 3.
Ibid. No. 9, p. 37. In article 8 he engaged “to prohibit all His subjects, in the most effectual manner and by the most solemn laws, from taking any share whatsoever in such inhuman traffic”. On the King’s measures with regard to the West Indies, see De Gaay Fortman in De West-Indische Gids IX (1927) p. 260.
De Martens, Nouveau Recueil IV p. 511; Brit, and For. State Papers V p. 125; Lagemans II No. 68, p. 1. It was concluded, the preamble said, “for putting a stop to the carrying on of the slave trade by their respective subjects, and for preventing their respective flags from being made use of as a protection to this nefarious traffic by the people of other countries, who may engage therein...”. Compare Colenbrander, Gedenkstukken VIII 1815–1825, I (Index sub Slavenhandel).
Unequal consequences of this regulation with respect to the much larger navy of England were avoided by the stipulation that only a limited number of war vessels, equal for both parties, would be given the commission of visitation. Although the balance of power was thus maintained, the effective control suffered a considerable weakening by this restriction. The treaty is for this reason an important concession on the part of British diplomacy.
Art. 3, sub 4. For the rest, this, like the earlier treaties, contained articles on the establishment of mixed tribunals for those cases in which the search and capture had been effected by a war vessel of the other party. It led to a still stricter law on the slave trade of Nov. 20 1818 (Staatsblad No. 39), for practical execution. Cf. Van Hogendorp, Bijdragen III p. 224 f.
On May 15 1820 Congress actually declared slave trading to be piracy, punishable with the penalty of death. Even then, however, the American measures to suppress it, by the national navy forces, remained inadequate.
In the forties the United States for this reason still successfully insisted that France should not give way to the British pressure for an establishment of the mutual right of search.
Adams, Memoirs V p. 183, Oct. 2 1820. (Cf. IV p. 151, Oct. 30 1818!)
Nov. 2 1818, to Gallatin and Rush (Writings VI); Dec. 30 1820, to Stratford Canning, Febr. 6 1821, to Rush, Aug. 15 1821, to Stratford Canning, June 24 1823, to same, (Writings VII).
It is remarkable that on the Dutch side both the Minister of Justice, Van Maanen, and the Minister of the Navy had objected to this stipulation in the treaty, on the grounds of its unconstitutional character with regard to sovereignty and of the danger of a disturbance of trade in times of peace. (R. A. Archives of the Dept. of Justice, dossier „Slavenhandel en Zeerooverij 1818–1875”.)
This argumentation represents conditions most regularly prescribed by the instruments of international law for visitation in time of war. The Dutch-American treaty of 1782, for instance, had contained the stipulationin Art. 10: “.... Nevertheless, it shall not be required to examine the Papers of Vessells, convoyed by Vessells of War, but Credence shall be given to the Word of the Officer, who shall conduct the Convoy”. The same provision had been inserted in Art. 15 sub d of the Dutch project treaty with the United States, transmitted to the King in 1817 (see Chapter XII).
Aug. 15 1821, to Stratford Canning (Writings VII p. 171).
Febr. 12 1821, Everett to Adams, with enclosure of the draught (D. o. S. Desp. Neth. VIc). He acted upon the loose supposition that Goldberg’s remarks “might be intended as an indirect overture”.
July 25 1821, Adams to Everett (D. o. S. Instructions; published in Adams, Writings VII p. 126).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1935 Martinus Nyhoff, the Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, J.C. (1935). Recall of Eustis and Ten Cate. Definitive Abandonment of Further Negotiations. In: The Netherlands and the United States. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0999-2_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0397-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0999-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive