From John Jay to Thomas Jefferson, 9 February 1787
To Thomas Jefferson
NYork 9 Feb. 1787
Dr Sir,
Since my last to you of the 14 Decr I have been honored with yours of the 26 Septr last, which with the Papers that it enclosed, have been laid before Congress, but neither on that nor any of your late Letters have any orders as yet been made.1
The annual Election produces much Delay in affairs—from that Time to this scarcely any thing has been done—It was not until last week that, seven States being represented, a President was elected—the choice fell on Major General St. Clair—2 They have much back Business to dispatch—several Reports on important Subjects from the different Departments are to be considered and decided upon. A Form of Governmt so constructed has Inconveniences, which I [despair?] think will continue to operate against the public Int or national Interest until some cause which I cannot not easily predicted shall produce such a modification of it as that the executive Legislative judicial & Executive Business of Governmt. may be consigned to three proper & distinct Departments.
The Struggles for and agt. the Impost remain, but promise little. The States in general pay little Attention to Requisitions, and I fear that our Debts foreign and domestic will not be soon be provided for in a manner satisfactory to our Creditors. The Evils to be expected from such Delays are less difficult to be foreseen, than obviated. our Government wants Energy, and there is Reason to fear that too much has been expected from the Virtue & good Sense of the People.
You will recieve herewith inclosed a Letter from Congress to his most Christian Majesty, with a Copy of it for your Information—it is in answer to one recd. from him and should have been of earlier Date had Congress sooner convened—3 be pleased to explain this Circumstance to the Minister
The public papers herewith sent contain all we at present know respecting
the Troubles in Massachusetts. whether they will soon be terminated or what Events they may yet produce is perfectly uncertain; and the more so as we are yet to ascertain whether and how far they may be [fom?] encouraged by our neighbors.
I enclose a Copy of a Letter from Mr Otto formally contradicting the Report of an Exchange between France and Spain for the Floridas—That Report had excited attention; and given pleasure to Anti-Gallicans4
Our apprehensions of an Indian War still continue; for we are at a Loss whether to determine whether the present Continuance of peace is to be ascribed to the Season, or their pacific Intentions.
We have not yet recd. the Morrocco Treaty—as soon as it arrives I am persuaded that Congress will take the earliest opportunity of making their acknowledgments to the friendly powers that promoted it. Mr. Lamb is still absent—He doubtless has recd. his or the order of Congress directing his Return, either at from you & Mr Adams Adams or directly from me—5
Congress has not yet given any orders respecting further negociations with the Barbary States, nor can I venture to say what their Sentiments will be on that Head—I am equally at a Loss to judge what they will direct, respecting Treaties of commerce with the Emperor & other European powers—For my part I think, and have recommended, that pro Commissions and Instructions ^should^ be sent to you & Mr Adams for those Purposes.6
In my Opinion such Treaties for short Terms might be advantageous—The Time is not yet come for us to expect the best. The Distance [or Nearness?] of that period will ^however^ depend up much on ourselves—With very sincere Esteem and Regard I am Dr Sir Your most obt. & hble Servt
To the Honble Mr. T. Jefferson
Dft, NNC (EJ: 5884). Endorsed. LbkC, , 238–40 (EJ: 2489). Received 6 Apr. 1787, 11: 130. Enclosures as listed below.
1. See JJ to TJ, 14 Dec. 1786, above; and TJ to JJ, 26 Sept. 1786, FC, DNA: PCC, item 87, 1: 650–53; C, DLC: Jefferson (EJ: 10134); LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 107, 1: 372–75; E, DNA: PCC, item 140, 2: 389.
2. Seven states with a minimum of two delegates in attendance were first assembled in Congress on 17 Jan., a total not achieved again until 2 Feb., on which day St. Clair was elected president. See 32: 1, 8–9, 11.
3. President of Congress to Louis XVI, 3 Feb. 1787, in response to his letter of 9 July 1786 regarding the birth of a princess. This letter was drafted by JJ and included in his report of 18 Dec. 1786, which was read in Congress on 3 Feb. and ordered to be sent back to JJ to be made out, and, once signed by the president of Congress, forwarded. DNA: PCC, item 81, 3: 171–82; 32: 15 and n. Otto had enclosed the king’s letter in a letter to JJ of 23 Oct. 1786, LbkC, , 2: 474–76 (EJ: 2055). JJ informed Otto of its submission to Congress on 18 Dec. but warned of a delayed response due to the lack of a quorum. , 3: 117 (EJ: 2083).
4. Text not excised in LbkC. A rumor had begun to circulate, perhaps originating from an article in the Charleston Evening Gazette of 18 Mar., that the settlement of Acadian refugees in Louisiana and Florida was a prelude to a transfer of that province back to France on condition that France would guarantee Spain her remaining possessions in the Americas. Otto subsequently informed Vergennes about the rumor. He indicated further that southern delegates looked with favor on the possibility, especially since they believed that France would agree to provide the United States with a free port at New Orleans. In his reply of 25 Aug. Vergennes stated unequivocally that the exchange of Louisiana for a French possession in the West Indies had never been contemplated, and instructed him to “contradict it formally,” but he made no mention of the possibility of an exchange for the Floridas (Otto to Vergennes, 23 Apr. 1786, FrPMAE: CP-EU, 31: 259; Vergennes to Otto, 25 Aug. 1786, CP-EU, 32: 62–63). Otto told members of Congress what Vergennes had said, and, at JJ’s request, provided an extract of Vergennes’s letter in writing in Otto to JJ, 21 Dec. 1786. See 1: 336; LbkC, , 3: 118 (EJ: 2084). By this time agitation about the matter had, for the moment, died down.
On 6 Jan. 1787, however, the Pennsylvania Journal published a notice taken from a London newspaper stating that “The most indisputable authorities” from both France and Spain confirmed that Spain was about to exchange the Floridas with France for some other territory. On 16 Jan. the Daily Advertiser (New York) published the terms of the supposed agreement and alleged that the treaty would also include a secret article in which France pledged “in the most unequivocal terms” to reserve navigation of the Mississippi River “to the Spaniards alone.” On 17 Jan., the Daily Advertiser, and then the New-York Journal of 18 Jan., and the New-York Packet of 19 Jan., carried the extract of Vergennes’s and Otto’s letters that explicitly denied the transfer of Louisiana from Spanish to French possession; this publication was later reprinted in numerous newspapers throughout the nation.
On 19 Jan., Otto reported to Vergennes that the rumors about the exchange of Louisiana had almost been forgotten until the supposed treaty and its fabricated terms were reported. He also mentioned that, except for the secret term regarding restrictions on use of the Mississippi, southerners would have favored the exchange because they believed that France would be more receptive to their needs than Spain. While he indicated that members of Congress told him that they believed JJ’s publication of his letter had effectively quashed the rumors, and that JJ’s fears about British attempts to stir up sentiment against France were amply justified, Otto reported that Congress strongly disapproved of JJ’s publication of information addressed to itself (in fact, Otto’s letter had been addressed to JJ). Otto declared that, in the future, JJ’s decision to publish would make him extremely cautious about communicating with him in writing unless explicitly ordered to do so by Vergennes. See Otto to Vergennes, 19 Jan. 1787, FrPMAE: CP-EU, 32: 282r–284v.
Publication of Vergennes’s assurances about Louisiana did not, however, entirely end the discussion. On 29 Jan. 1787, the Daily Advertiser carried an article by “Timon,” subsequently re-printed elsewhere, asking whether the report about the Floridas being given to France was true, and presenting reasons why Spain might want to give up her possessions east of the Mississippi in exchange for protection for her colonies on the west. The exchange, “Timon” remarked, would benefit not only France, but would open up markets for produce from the American west and expose savage American “boors” to the “inestimable blessing of being under the guardianship” of America’s “good and great ally.” For denials by both the French and Spanish “ministers” that Florida would be ceded, and for JM’s belief that France could “conciliate the Western people in common with the Atlantic States, and to extend her commerce, by reversing the Spanish policy,” and for his statement that he would prefer to see the Mississippi in the hands of France rather than Spain, see 24: 76–77, 174. For criticism of JJ’s publication of the letter, see 11: 130n.
5. On the Moroccan treaty, see “The Barbary States: A Problem with No Ready Solution” (editorial note), above.
6. See JJ’s report of 11 May 1786, DS, DNA: PCC, item 80, 2: 108–10; LbkC, PCC, item 124, 2: 8; 30: 259–62.