Papers of John Adams, volume 16
in Support of Article 23 of the Draft
Prussian-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce
10 November 1784]1
By the original Law of Nations war and extirpation was the punishment of injury—humanizing by degrees, it admitted slavery instead of death. A farther step was, the exchange of prisoners instead 399 of slavery. Another, to respect more the property of private persons under conquest, and be content with acquired dominion. Why should not this Law of Nations go on improving? Ages have intervened between its several steps; but as knowledge of late encreases rapidly, why should not those steps be quickened? Why should it not be agreed to as the future law of Nations that in any war hereafter the following discriptions of men should be undisturbed, have the protection of both sides, & be permitted to follow their employments in surety, viz.
- 1. Cultivators of the earth, because they labour for the subsistance of mankind.
- 2. Fishermen, for the same reason.
- 3. Merchants & Traders in unarmed ships; who accomodate different Nations by communicating & exchanging the necessaries & conveniencies of life.
- 4. Artists & Mechanics inhabiting & working in open towns.
It is hardly necessary to add that the Hospitals of Enemies should be unmolested, they ought to be assisted.
It is for the interest of humanity in general, that the occasions of war, & the inducements to it should be diminished.
If rapine is abolished, one of the encouragements to war is taken away, & peace therefore more likely to continue & be lasting.
The practice of robbing merchants on the high seas, a remnant of the antient piracy, tho’ it may be accidentally beneficial to particular persons, is far from being profitable to all engaged in it or to the nation that authorizes it. In the beginning of a war some rich ships, not upon their guard, are surprized & taken. This encourages the first adventurers to fit out more armed vessels, and many others to do the same—but the Enemy at the same time, become more careful, arm their merchant ships better & render them not so easy to be taken— they go also more under the protection of convoys— Thus while the privateers, to take them are multiplied; the vessels subject to be taken & the chances of profit are diminished, so that many cruises are make wherein the expences overgo the gains;—as it is the case in other lotteries, tho’ particulars have got prizes the mass of Adventurers are losers, the whole expence of fitting out all the privateers during a war, being much greater than the whole amount of goods taken. Then there is the national loss of all the labour of so many men during the time they have been employed in robbing; who besides spend what they get in riot, drunkenness, and debauchery, lose their habits of industry, are rarely fit for any sober 400 business after a peace, and serve only to encrease the number of Higwaymen & House-breakers. Even the Undertakers who have been fortunate, are by sudden wealth led into expensive living, the habit of which continues when the means of supporting it cease, and finally ruins them. A just punishment for their having wantonly & unfeelingly ruined many honest innocent Traders and their families, whose substance was employed in serving the common interests of Mankind.
MS in David Humphreys’ hand (PCC, No. 116, f. 103–107).
The editors of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson attribute the authorship of this memorandum to Jefferson (Jefferson, Papers
, 7:492–493). However, the ideas expressed in the document, as well as in Art. 23 of the draft treaty, are those long held by Benjamin Franklin and approved of by JA. For the history of Franklin’s proposals to exempt the “Cultivators of the earth,” fishermen, and others from the rigors of war, and even to ban the issuance of letters of marque, see the fourth of the commissioners’ 7 May instructions, and note 4, above.
to the American Commissioners
La lettre dont Vous m’avez honoré, Messieurs, en date du 10 de Novembre ne m’est parvenue que le 26 du même mois, par la voye d’un courier Hollandois. J’ai transmis au Roi une traduction françoise du Projet d’un Traité de Commerce à conclure pour l’avantage réciproque des Sujets de Sa Majesté et des Citoyens des Etats-Unis de l’Amérique, auquel les instructions récentes du Congrès Vous ont obligés de faire subir quelques altérations, en opposition de celui que j’avois eu l’honneur de mettre entre les mains de Monsieur Adams le 9. d’Avril de l’année courante. Dès que les ordres de ma Cour me seront parvenus, je m’empresserai, Messieurs, de Vous informer des observations que le Roi aura cru devoir se permettre sur ce nouveau Projet. L’article 23. est dicté par le zèle le plus pur en faveur de l’humanité. Rien de plus juste que les réflexions sur le noble désintéressement des Etats-Unis d’Amérique. Il est à desirer que ces sentimens sublimes soyent adoptés par toutes les Puissances Maritimes sans exception. Les calamités de la guerre seroient alors de beaucoup adoucies, et les hostilités, souvent provoquées par la cupidité et l’amour désordonné du gain, moins répétées.
Agréez, Messieurs, que je retrace à Votre Souvenir la requisition que j’ai eu l’honneur de Vous faire par les dernières lignes de ma 401 lettre du 18. Octobre de cette année.2 Le Roi m’ayant témoigné qu’il apprendroit avec plaisir le choix que les Etats-Unis d’Amérique pourroient faire de préférence de telle ou autre ville pour le commerce d’échange entre les négocians des deux Nations, je Vous suppliai de me faire connoître Vos idées à cet égard. J’ajoutai que Stettin, Emden, places maritimes Prussiennes, même quelques ports de France ou d’Hollande, rempliroient également ce but.
J’ai l’honneur d’ètre avec la considération la plus distinguée, / Messieurs, / Vôtre très humble et très obéissant Serviteur
The letter of 10 November with which you honored me, gentlemen, reached me by means of a Dutch courier only on the 26th. I transmitted to the king a French translation of the draft treaty of commerce to be concluded for the reciprocal advantage of the subjects of His Majesty and the citizens of the United States of America, to which the recent instructions of Congress obliged you to make a few alterations at variance with the one that I had the honor of putting in the hands of Mr. Adams on 9 April of this year. As soon as orders from my court reach me, I will hasten to inform you, gentlemen, of the observations that the king believes he must make on this new draft. Article 23 is dictated by the purest zeal for the good of humanity. Nothing could be fairer than the reflections on the noble disinterestedness of the United States of America. It is to be desired that these sublime sentiments should be adopted by all maritime powers without exception. The calamities of war would then be much relieved, and the hostilities often provoked by cupidity and the immoderate love of gain, less often repeated.
Please receive kindly, gentlemen, my recalling to mind the request that I had the honor to make you in the last lines of my 18 October letter.2 The king having informed me that he would learn with pleasure the choice of the United States indicating a preference for one city or another where the exchange of commerce between merchants of the two nations might take place, I beseeched you to let me know your ideas on this matter. I added that Stettin or Emden, Prussian ports of trade, as well as several French or Dutch ports could equally serve this purpose.
I have the honor of being with the most distinguished consideration, gentlemen, your very humble and very obedient servant
RC (PCC, No. 86, f. 81–84); internal address: “Messieurs Adams, Franklin et Jefferson: / Ministres Plenipotentiares des Etats-Unis / de l’Amérique à la Cour de
402
S. M. T. C. / à Paris.”; endorsed: “Hague Decr. 10th. 1784 / from / Baron de Thulemeier.” FC (Adams Papers).
Thulemeier also wrote a short note to JA on this date (Adams Papers) in which he acknowledged JA’s letter of 19 Nov., which Thulemeier had received at the same time as the commissioners’ letter of 10 November. His 10 Dec. letter to the commissioners was likely an enclosure to that note.
This is presumably an inadvertence, and Thulemeier means his letter of 8 Oct., above.