[
5]
Preface.
the papers which I obtained from the
French archives when
Mr. Mignet had them in charge, have been of the greatest benefit in preparing this volume.
Important aid has been derived from the exceedingly copious and as yet unedited cabinet correspondence of Frederic the Second of
Prussia with his foreign ministers in
England,
France, the Netherlands,
Denmark, and
Russia.
In choosing from this vast mass of materials, I received the most friendly assistance from the superintendent,
Mr. Dunker, and from
Mr. Friedlander.
Extracts from these letters, which are all written in the
French language, will be published in
Paris.
I sought for some expression, on the part of Frederic, of a personal interest in
Washington; but I found none.
The
Chevalier von Arneth, so honorably known as historian, editor, and critic of integrity and acuteness, had the exceeding goodness to direct for me an examination of the archives at
Vienna; very many reports from the Austrian ambassadors in
London and
Paris were copied for me under his direction.
They assist to define exactly the pressure under which
Vergennes entered upon measures for mediation and for peace.
Mr. Frederic Kapp rendered me the best service in negotiating on my behalf for the purchase of ample collections
[
6]
of letters and journals of German officers who served in
America.
In
Vienna are preserved the reports of an agent sent from
Brussels to the
United States in the interest of Belgian commerce.
Of the best of these,
Mr. De la Plaine, of the
American legation in
Austria, took copies of which he generously made me a present.
Mr. Schuyler, lately of our legation at
Petersburg, communicated to me all that he could find on earlier American affairs in the archives at
Moscow.
My transcripts from the
Dutch archives, for which I had formerly much occasion to feel obliged to
Mr. W. Groen van Prinsterer, have been largely increased through the intervention of my friend
Count de Bylandt.
My request to make further researches in the
English archives was cheerfully granted, and in the most liberal terms, by the
Earl of
Granville, and the permission was continued by the
Earl of
Derby.
Indeed, there seemed to prevail in the foreign office a readiness to let every thing be investigated and made known respecting the past policy of
Great Britain toward the
United States.
The American government has manifested the same disposition, and this I hold to be wise.
The two great cosmopolitan nations are entering on a new era in their relations to one another; and their statesmen may mutually derive lessons alike from the errors which disturbed the past, and from what was done well.
The rule in natural science that ‘life divides’ is equally true of nations.
The
United States and
Great Britain will each live its great and divergent life; but it is to be hoped that the same ideas of freedom, truth, and justice will be developed in them both, and bring them nearer each other.
I have specially to thank Lord Tenterden for having favored me with copies of papers which establish the correctness of my narrative where it had been unjustly called in question.
My best thanks are also due to
Mr.
[
7]
Alfred Kingston, of the
Public Record Office, for the very obliging manner in which he gives effect to the permission granted me, and aids my researches.
To
Mr. Spofford, of
Washington, I owe two volumes of the manuscript correspondence of
General Greene.
Mr. Seward, in the State Department, and his successor
Mr. Fish, with equal friendliness furnished me with documents which I needed from our own records.
The late
Joseph H. Lewis intrusted to me the very voluminous professional and private correspondence of
General Wayne.
I was also aided materially by the late
Governor Andrew and by
Secretary Warner of
Massachusetts, by the late
Senator Mason of
Virginia, by
Mr. George S. Bryan, and by the never-failing friendship of
Mr. Brantz Meyer,
Mr. J. Carson Brevoort, and
Mr. George H. Moore.
On the character of
Alexander Hamilton, I sought and obtained instruction from the late
President Nott, as well as from the late
Mr. Church, who was
Hamilton's secretary in his last period of military service.
On two points I follow the verbal communications of
Madison; and it was not without fruit that I once passed a day with
John Adams.
With regard to the peace between the
United States and
England, I think I might say that my materials in their completeness are unique.
Of the letters of the
American commissioners, nearly all are in print; yet I have been able to make gleanings from unpublished papers of them all, and have full reports of their conversations with the
British representatives.
On the
French side, I have papers drawn up for the guidance of the negotiation; the reports of
Rayneval from
England to
Vergennes, repeated in the accounts addressed by
Vergennes himself to
Montmorin, the
French ambassador at
Madrid, and to
Luzerne, the
French minister at
Philadelphia.
On the
British side, I have the official letters of
Shelburne and
[
8]
Secretary Townshend, and of every member of the British commission; beside a profusion of the private letters and papers of
Shelburne and of
Oswald.
I have also the private papers, as well as the official ones, of
Strachey; and the courtesy of the present head of the family voluntarily gave consent to the unrestricted use of them.
The
Marquis of Lansdowne, of 1848, was persuaded that no letters existed from George the Third to his father while first minister; but assured me from his father that the king did nothing to obstruct the peace with the
United States.
Passing lately through
London,
Lord Edmond FitzMaurice was so good as to inform me that the numerous original letters of the king to Lord Shelburne had been discovered; and he allowed me to make transcripts from them all, as well as from fragments of Lord Shelburne's autobiography.
This generosity was all the greater, as Lord FitzMaurice will himself write a biography of his ancestor.
The conduct of
Shelburne,
Townshend, and the younger
Pitt, in 1782, in the negotiations for peace with
America, are marked by liberality and candor; but as to the administration of Lord North, English opinion will finally decide that it no more deserves to be recognised as the expression of the
British mind on the fit methods of colonial administration than the policy of James the Second to be accepted as the proper exponent of English liberty.
From these and other materials, it has been possible to place some questions of
European as well as of American history in a clearer light.
The embarrassments of
Vergennes, arising alike from his entanglements respecting
Gibraltar, and the urgency of his king for peace, explain and justify the proceedings of the
American commissioners in signing preliminaries of peace in advance.
It will appear how much Frederic the Second aided
America by
[
9]
encouraging
France to enter into the war for her independence.
The interest of this exposition is heightened rather than impaired by the fact that his motives sprung from his love to his own people.
It also becomes certain that the
Empress Catharine promulgated her naval code, not in ignorance of its character as has been hitherto stated, but with a full knowledge of what she was doing; and that she practised on the
British minister at
Petersburg no other cajolery than was needed to make him the channel through which the code was communicated to
Great Britain, so that direct crimination might be avoided.
The contemporary documents show that
England declared war on the
Dutch republic, solely to prevent her from being unconditionally received into the armed neutrality.
I have been able from new materials to trace the division between the
North and the
South, arising from slavery, further back than had as yet been done.
As to separatism, or the exaggerated expression of what we call States Rights, it did not grow out of the existence of slavery, but out of an element in human nature.
The much agitated question as to the time and manner of the abolition of slavery in
Massachusetts finds itself solved without going from home: the witness was at the door.
The conduct of
Shelburne in making peace between the two countries is made clear from his own words and acts.
The part taken by
Franklin in initiating and forwarding the negotiation for peace is illustrated, not from his own letters alone, but from those of
Oswald and others.
In
England it was never misapprehended.
It is worth noticing that, though the negotiators on each side reciprocally marked the boundary agreed upon by a well-defined line on the map, yet, during the strife which was kept up about it for half a century, the
American government did not catch a glimpse of this evidence till a treaty of compromise was ratified, and the map
[
10]
of
Oswald was not produced till the
British ministry that made the compromise had to defend it in parliament.
It appears further that, late as was the participation of
John Adams in the negotiation, he came in time to secure to
New England its true boundary on the north-east.
Adams and
Franklin had always asked for the continuance of the accustomed share in the coast fisheries; and they were heartily supported by
Jay, who had in congress steadily voted against making the demand.
The requirement of the change in the form of
Oswald's commission, so grateful to the self-respect of
America, is due exclusively to
Jay.
It is good to look away from the strifes of the present hour, to the great days when our country had for its statesmen
Washington and
John Adams,
Jefferson and
Hamilton,
Franklin and
Jay, and their compeers.
The study of those times will always teach lessons of moderation, and of unselfish patriotism.
