Maryland and France, 1774-1789 [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9781512807288

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
I. Maryland: A British Colony and a Sovereign State
II. Maryland's Contacts with the French before 1778
III. Supplying the French and the Spanish with Flour
IV. Maryland and the French Ministers
V. Maryland and the Soldiers of France
VI. A Maryland Agent in France, Holland, and England
VII. The Decline of French Influence in Maryland
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

MARYLAND AND FRANCE 1774-1789

Maryland and France 1774-1789

By K A T H R Y N SULLIVAN

Philadelphia UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS London: Humphrey Milford: Oxford University

1936

Press

Copyright 1936 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS Manufactured in the United States oj America

To A. W. S. and

A. J. S.

PREFACE of the American Revolution have studied the conflict of the Thirteen Colonies with Great Britain in its military, naval, economic, and social significance. They have emphasized not only the dangers that beset the young nation during the struggle itself, but also those that threatened to destroy it during the critical years that followed the Peace of 1783. These writers have exposed the jealous rivalries that divided one state from another, as well as those that existed between the individual states and Congress. ISTORIANS

H

The diplomatic side of the Revolution, too, has been made an object of thorough research, especially the question of the relation of the United States to France. This has been developed with regard to narrative in the general histories; biographies and monographs have further explored special aspects; while French authors have recorded the point of view of their nation. The function of this study, however, is unlike any of the above. Here an attempt is made to present an aspect of the question, at once local and foreign, namely the contacts of a single state— Maryland—with the French during the period of the Revolution and Confederation. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the aid that I have received from many institutions and individuals. I am deeply indebted, as must be anyone who writes on any phase of diplomatic history, to the rich resources of the Library of Congress, especially in the Division of Manuscripts. T w o archival centers in Maryland were of importance—the Maryland Historical Society and the State Library at Annapolis. In the Baltimore repository I received valuable suggestions from Miss Florence J . Kennedy and the late M r . Charles Fickus. Warmly appreciated too is the assistance given by the librarians of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. Grateful acknowledgment must be made to the Library of the University of Pennsylvania, especially for the kindly cooperation of Miss Helen S. Crowne.

viii

PREFACE

Discussions with Miss Elizabeth S. Kite proved both interesting and instructive. Miss Grace Gardner Griffin aided me with her vast store of bibliographical information. Mr. John C. Fitzpatrick, the eminent authority on George Washington, was generous with information and encouragement. The late Professors Herman V. Ames and A. E. McKinley read a draft of the manuscript. Professor Roy F . Nichols and Professor Arthur P. Watts made helpful suggestions. To Professor St. George L . Sioussat, more than to any other, I must make grateful acknowledgment for his wise counsels, great patience, and unfailing courtesy. This monograph was begun at his suggestion, and throughout its preparation he has, with the greatest kindness, given of his time and advice. K. S. Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart New York, N.Y.

CONTENTS Chapter

Page

Preface I.

vii MARYLAND:

A

A SOVEREIGN

BRITISH

COLONY

AND

STATE

T i d e w a t e r M a r y l a n d : the bay, the rivers, the t o w n s ; T h e importance of tobacco in the c o l o n y ; T h e effects of the mercantile system on trade ; T r a d e with the " f o r e i g n W e s t I n d i e s " ; T h e g r o w t h of flour; T h e last g o v ernors; Problems of the Seven Y e a r s ' W a r ; M a r y land leaders; T h e political situation in 1 7 7 0 ; T h e establishment of the Provisional G o v e r n m e n t ; Progress tow a r d Revolution in 1 7 7 5 ; Independence; T h e Constitution of 1 7 7 6 ; T h e wartime governors; M a r y l a n d ' s attitude toward Congress and the states; M a r y l a n d and the western territory; T h e land bounty dispute with C o n g r e s s ; M a r y l a n d ' s refusal to ratify the Articles of Confederation, 1 7 7 7 - 1 7 7 8 . II.

MARYLAND'S CONTACTS W I T H BEFORE

FRANCE

1778

Hostility to the F r e n c h and to R o m a n Catholics in M a r y l a n d , 1 7 5 4 - 1 7 6 4 ; T h e C a r r o l l s ; T h e proposed R o m a n Catholic colony in L o u i s i a n a ; F r e n c h secret agents in A m e r i c a : Pontleroy, the " U n k n o w n , " and K a l b ; V e r g e n n e s and the revolt: the mission of B o n vouloir ; T h e policy of secret aid ; Progress t o w a r d c o m mercial and political independence; M a r y l a n d W e s t Indies trade before the F r e n c h A l l i a n c e ; Congress sends A m e r i c a n commissioners to Paris; T h e C h e v a l i e r d ' A n n e m o u r s , F r e n c h consul in Baltimore ; John H olker, F r e n c h consul in Philadelphia and agent of the F r e n c h M a r i n e ; T h e treaties of 1 7 7 8 ; T h e results of the A l l i a n c e in E n g l a n d , Spain, and A m e r i c a ; E f f o r t s of individual states to buy and borrow in E u r o p e ; T h e activity of the F r e n c h consul in M a r y l a n d ; M a r y l a n d interests of the agent of the F r e n c h M a r i n e .

24

CONTENTS

X

III.

SUPPLYING ISH W I T H

THE

FRENCH

AND

SPAN-

FLOUR

65

Congressional control of provisions, 1 7 7 7 - 1 7 7 8 ; M a r y land shipments of flour; Maryland offers to supply the French with flour, 1 7 7 9 ; Difficulties in Maryland in 1 7 7 9 ; T h e French purchase flour in M a r y l a n d : Holker and W . S m i t h ; T h e M a r y l a n d Council objects to French methods; T h e French agents appeal to L a L u z e r n e ; L a L u z e r n e secures permission to ship M a r y land flour to H a v a n a ; Robert Morris appoints Robert Smith of Baltimore his agent in H a v a n a ; T h e M a r y land Council attempts to buy arms in H a v a n a ; A f t e r math of the flour purchases of 1 7 7 9 - 1 7 8 0 ; Holker is forced to relinquish the consulate. IV.

MARYLAND

AND THE

FRENCH

MINIS-

TERS

84

Maryland's relations with the French ministers; T h e arrival of G é r a r d in Philadelphia; Maryland's attitude toward the Mississippi question ; L a L u z e r n e modifies Gerard's Spanish policy; T h e memoir of October 1 7 , 1 7 8 0 ; French influence and the ratification of the A r ticles of Confederation; Review of Gerard's relations with the Maryland delegates on this subject; Maryland and Virginia ratify the treaties of alliance and commerce; Gérard attempts to reconcile Maryland and V i r ginia; Jenifer and the French minister in July 1 7 7 9 ; L a L u z e r n e continues friendly relations with M a r y land ; M a r y l a n d appeals to the French for naval protection; Virginia yields its claim on January 2, 1 7 8 1 ; L a L u z e r n e interests himself in Maryland's action; T h e Maryland delegates ratify the Articles on March 1, 17 81 ; M a r y l a n d appeals to the K i n g of Spain for arms ; Vergennes approves of Maryland's ratification. V.

MARYLAND

AND

THE

SOLDIERS

OF

FRANCE T h e Baltimore merchants supply Lafayette ; M a r y l a n d fears a British invasion ; Lafayette returns to Baltimore ; T h e Southern Campaign of 1 7 8 1 ; Maryland welcomes the victors of Y o r k t o w n ; T h e M a r y l a n d delegates and L a L u z e r n e ; L a L u z e r n e finds the Virginians "landm a d " ; Maryland celebrates the birth of the Dauphin; French troops stationed in Maryland.

105

CONTENTS VI.

A M A R Y L A N D A G E N T IN FRANCE, HOLLAND, AND ENGLAND T h e condition of Maryland's finances in 1 7 8 1 ; Matthew Ridley selected to represent the state; L a Luzerne recommends the Maryland agent to Vergennes; French officials remember why Maryland ratified the Articles; Vergennes champions Maryland's cause; Ridley memorializes the court, December 2 5 , 1 7 8 1 ; Objections raised by the controller of finance; Jealousy of the other states: Vergennes' ultimatum; Ridley borrows money in Holland; Ridley defends the Putnam interests; T h e Farmers General and the Lethe; French opinion of American agents; T h e Farmers General and the Rouen duties; Vergennes'continued kindness; Ridley's domestic sorrows; Difficulties and poverty of his last years in England.

VII.

T H E D E C L I N E OF F R E N C H IN

INFLUENCE

MARYLAND

T h e effect of peace on the situation of the Roman Catholics in Maryland; T h e interest of the French in the establishment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in America; T h e effect of peace on trade with France; Lafayette returns to Maryland, I 7 8 4 ; Visits from G o v ernor Eden and Henry Harford ; Maryland tobacco and the French Farmers General; Commerce leads toward a Constitution; T h e attitude of France. BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

I

M A R Y L A N D : A BRITISH C O L O N Y A N D A SOVEREIGN S T A T E HE C O N N E C T I O N which developed between the province of Maryland and the French during the period of the Revolutionary W a r and the Confederation, was circumstantial and temporary. As the population of Maryland was essentially of English stock, this is what one would have expected. But the fact that Maryland was founded under Roman Catholic auspices, though the founders were predominantly English, might establish some sort of presumption of a sympathy with France. In the second chapter it will be shown that this presumption is not supported by the facts; and the political hostility of Anglican Maryland to the Roman Catholics in the period immediately before the American Revolution will be made clear, as a preliminary to the story of the development of interest in French assistance. In this first chapter, it will be attempted to present to the reader a picture of English Maryland as it was at the end of the colonial period, and as it developed into independent statehood along with the other twelve colonies, down to the time of the raffort with France which found its chief expression in the treaties of 1778.

Maryland cuts obliquely across three physiographic regions: the coastal plain, the piedmont plateau, and the Appalachian plateau. 1 T h e present boundaries enclose more than twelve thousand square miles. A little less than ten thousand square miles of this is land: the remainder is all water—the Chesapeake 1 A u s e f u l a c c o u n t of the f o u n d i n g of M a r y l a n d a n d o f the e v o l u t i o n of its g o v e r n m e n t is the w o r k of N . D . M e r e n e s s , Maryland as a Proprietary Province ( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 0 1 ) . O f older w o r k s that o f J . T . S c h a r f , History of Maryland from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, three v o l u m e s ( B a l t i m o r e , 1 8 7 9 ) , ' s n o t t 0 be n e g l e c t e d , despite the a u t h o r ' s inaccuracies. A m o r e recent w o r k is that of M . P . A n d r e w s , Tercentenary History of Maryland, four volumes (Baltimore, 1 9 2 5 ) .

2

M A R Y L A N D AND

FRANCE

Bay and its estuaries. T h e bay, the most conspicuous feature of the coastal or tidewater region, has exercised an important influence on the history of Maryland. Its five hundred miles of waterfront afforded an easy means of communication between the settlements on the eastern and western shores. T h e eastern shore is low, level land, drained by the Pocomoke, the Nanticoke, the Choptank, and the Chester rivers. T h e land of the western shore is higher, "the Banks all Bluff," as wrote Adam Gordon, "and such intersections and doublings of wood and Water, as form the most pleasant and variegated Landscape.'" Into the bay from this western shore flow the Potomac, the Patuxent, the Patapsco, and the Gunpowder rivers. Through the Capes, the bay led commerce to neighboring provinces and abroad; and conversely afforded vessels of foriegn countries an easy access to Virginia and Maryland both in peaceful times and in those of war. In the period covered by this essay the fear of naval attack was recurrent. But the most important influence of the bay and its estuaries, at the beginning of the Revolutionary period, had lain in its determination of the economic and social structure of the plantation region. Although by that time German emigration had already begun to fill up a part of western Maryland, the area dominated by the Chesapeake was still by far the most important section of the province. Since the foundation of the colony the staple product had been tobacco. T h e extent to which tobacco had entered into the daily life of the people can be scarcely exaggerated. Every step in the seventeen months' process of planting and curing the "sotweed" was safeguarded by protective legislation. Wages, customs dues, and taxes were calculated in terms of tobacco. In this commodity the governor, the civil officers, and the clergymen of the established church received their payment. 3 2 N. D . Mereness, Travels in the American Colonies (New Y o r k , 1 9 1 6 ) , "Journal of an Officer w h o traveled in America and the West Indies in the Course of 1764 and 1 7 6 5 , " pp. 408-409. T h e author of this journal has been identified as Lord A d a m Gordon, an officer in the Sixty-sixth Regiment of Foot, which was stationed in the West Indies. * A very complete study of tobacco as the dominant factor in the Chesapeake tidewater region is to be found in the exhaustive monograph of L. C. Gray,

BRITISH

COLONY

AND

SOVEREIGN

STATE

3

T h e extensive use of tobacco as a medium of exchange continued until the close of the Revolution. Cultivation of this plant made Maryland preeminently an agricultural community with the planters as its most important members. T h e landowners sometimes shipped their hogsheads of tobacco to their merchants in England, and sometimes they committed the tobacco to the factors who lived on the banks of the Chesapeake. T h e factors, for the most part cautious Scots and known locally as "the foreigners," were canny traders who kept the planters at their mercy by their exacting and difficult credit terms. But the planters who entrusted their tobacco to the care of a London or a Bristol merchant fared no better, as was noted by an observant traveler in 1765: . . . they send their produce home, which is sold by the merchants at their o w n price, and aded to this Considerable Charges, there was litle C o m e i n g to the poor planter, and even the litle was sent out to him in some necessary furniture which cost him as Dear in proportion as his tobacco was sold Cheap.'*

H o w e v e r , to obviate all difficulty, it would have been necessary to change the whole mercantile system, which had been the basis of England's commercial policy ever since the time of Cromwell. It was believed that the parent country and the distant colony should be mutually dependent. 8 Should not colonial empires be self-sufficient units? Trade would then benefit the nation as a whole. T h e good of the mother country would be ensured by subordinating the good of the colony. Accordingly Maryland's tobacco must be carried to English markets in vessels owned and manned by his Majesty's subjects. T h e parliamentary legislation which confined colonial trade to British and colonial vessels and forced most of it through England as an entrepot seems, however, to have aroused little resentment in Maryland ; because if there were vexations, there were also comHistory of A griculture in the Southern (Washington, 1 9 3 3 ) , I, chaps. X , X I , 4 "Journal of a French T r a v e l e r in the Review, X X V I I , 73. F o r a further notice "Charles M . Andrews, The Colonial 10J-106.

United States to XII. Colonies, 1 7 6 5 " of this document Period (New

¡86o,

two volumes

American Historical see chapter II. Haven, 1924.), pp.

4

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

pensations in the protection of the British N a v y and in the closing of the British market to other than American tobacco. Maryland does not seem to have traded to any great extent with the "foreign" West Indies. Contemporary letter books bear out the statement made by Governor Sharpe, when he wrote to the Broad of Trade in 1770: T h e inhabitants of the Province T r a d e very little to any foreign Plantation, a f e w small vessels may be sent in a year to get Salt in some of the Portuguese Islands, and one or t w o perhaps to the Island of Madeira for W i n e ; neither do the inhabitants send any Vessels to any other place in Europe besides Great Britain except t w o or three loaded with flaxseed and lumber to Ireland. 6

Even when England was at war, and a clandestine trade with the French and Spanish colonies was carried on by many of the British colonies, the trade of Maryland seems to have run for the most part through legal channels. No doubt this was because the southern colonies had a so much more favorable balance of trade with the mother country than did the region of New England. 7 T h e belt of Triassic lowland soil, rich in limestone and shales, which crosses the Delaware, Schuylkill, and Susquehanna rivers extends far into Maryland. That wheat flourishes in such soil had been recognized in Maryland in the earlier part of the eighteenth century, and Annapolis, the ancient capital of the tobacco region, had gradually yielded in commercial importance to the enterprising town of Baltimore, which had been growing rapidly since its foundation in 1729. Situated on the fall line with access to the Chesapeake by the Patapsco, Baltimore was becoming a center not only for the wheat and flour trade of Maryland but also for that of the people of western Pennsylvania, separated from the eastern part of that province by racial and religious antagonisms as well as by geography, and led towards Baltimore by the Susquehanna and the northern part * Sharpe to the Board of T r a d e , from an undated manuscript copy in the Maryland Papers in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. ' W . S. McClellan, Smuggling in the American Colonies at the outbreak of the Revolution (Williams College, 1 9 1 2 ) , chapter I ; also p. 4 1 .

BRITISH COLONY AND SOVEREIGN STATE

5

8

of the bay. The Maryland people must have enjoyed a certain satisfaction in diverting, by the construction of roads, cargoes that might otherwise have gone to the Philadelphia markets, because they were still resentful of the loss of territory along their northern border, when in 1763 the long-standing boundary dispute with Pennsylvania was decided to Maryland's loss.9 For the exports of wheat and flour, carried in ships of Maryland as well as those of England and New England, the British West Indies furnished a ready and profitable market. 10 The stability of Maryland on the eve of the Revolution was partly due to the power and the personality of the governors. Unlike the Penns, who were active in the neighboring proprietary province, the Calverts remained in Europe. This was undoubtedly an advantage to Maryland, for the last Lords Baltimore did not maintain the high family traditions, while their deputized governors were able and kindly men. Horatio Sharpe reached the province in March 1753. Until the appointment of General Braddock, the Maryland Governor was commander-inchief of the British forces in North America. The lower house refused to cooperate with him in his efforts to vanquish the French. Throughout the Seven Years' War, Maryland shared fully in the hostility to the French which prevailed in the British colonies of North America. Maryland offered meager support to the mother country, but this was due to a provincial quarrel between the assembly and the proprietary, rather than to any tenderness towards the French. The assembly took advantage of the English requisition system, and used the royal demands for money as weapons to wrest long-desired privileges from Lord Baltimore. At a crucial moment, when Sharpe headed the British 8 C. H. Lincoln, The Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1 9 0 1 ) , chapter IV. " T h e Growth of the Revolution in the West," particularly pp. 59-76. B The following letters give a good summary of Maryland's land losses to Pennsylvania: Calvert to Sharpe, Dec. 16, 1 7 5 6 , Maryland Archives, VI, 5 1 4 ; Calvert to Sharpe, April 7, 1 7 5 7 , ibid. p. 5 4 2 ; Sharpe to Calvert, April 26, 1763, ibid., X I V , 86; Sharpe to Hammersley, July 27, 1767, ibid., p. 4 1 5 . 10 Gray, o f . cit., I., 164-169.

6

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

forces and when the Indians were harassing the border settlements, the assembly refused to pass adequate supply bills. 11 By the use of such tactics they hoped to increase their power. Six months after Braddock's defeat, a bill of £40,000 was reluctantly voted, but such was the temper of its framers that it was encumbered with every kind of objectionable clause. 12 In 1757 the scene of battle shifted to the North. Governor Sharpe, relieved of direct responsibility, found the assembly still recalcitrant j the colony's quota for the militia was raised only with difficulty. 13 L o r d Loudoun, Sharpe's successor as commanding officer, complained to Pitt that "Maryland has taken the Command of all Provincial Troops, entirely out of the King's hands, or of any General he appoints." 14 Loudoun planned to visit Annapolis, and to settle what he felt to be the boldest attack on the royal prerogative that he had yet experienced anywhere throughout the colonies. It is interesting to conjecture what effect this visit would have had on the assembly, but as it happened, L o r d Loudoun's immediate recall to England prevented him from calling Maryland to account for its disobedience. This stubborn resistance of the assembly to Sharpe's wishes was often repeated during his fifteen years in the colony. Rumors of his vacillation and of his inability were circulated by his enemies, but his friends countered these charges with repeated asseverations of his honesty and of his prudence. These qualities won for him the affection of the people but did not gain for " J o h n W . Black, Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada (Baltimore, 1 8 9 2 ) , p. 60. " O n Feb. 2 3 , 1 7 5 6 , Sharpe appealed to the assembly f o r a supply bill. A bill of ¿ 4 0 , 0 0 0 was passed but it did not exempt the land of the Lord Proprietor from taxation, so the Governor said that he would be obliged to veto it. T h e bill as finally voted continued all the taxes imposed by previous acts. Additional taxes were placed on exports and imports. A double tax was imposed on Roman Catholics. Further objectionable features were the duties on imported felons, ordinary licenses, a paper money emission, and a land tax. Sharpe to Calvert, N o v . 2 5 , 1 7 5 5 , Maryland Archives, V I , 3 0 9 ; Sharpe to John Sharpe, M a y 2 7 , 1 756, ibid., p. 428. 11 Sharpe to Lord Baltimore, M a y 23, 1 7 6 0 , ibid., I X , 4 0 3 ; Sharpe to General Amherst, Sept. 30, 1 7 6 0 , ibid., p. 4 5 0 ; Sharpe to General Monkton, Oct. 24, 1 7 6 0 , ibid., p. 463. " S t a n l e y M . Pargellis, Lord Loudoun in North America (New Haven, 1 9 3 3 ) . PP- 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 .

BRITISH COLONY AND SOVEREIGN S T A T E

7

him the support of the assembly. His relations with that body were always stormy. 15 Robert Eden succeeded Sharpe in 1768. Although the new governor owed his appointment to family influence (he had married Caroline, the youngest daughter of the fifth L o r d Baltimore), he proved to be a capable administrator, and thus Sharpe's parting wish that "Maryland may prosper more under my successors than it has under mine or the administration of my predecessors," was realized. T h e assembly pressed every advantage to increase their powers, but Eden protected the rights of the Calverts with dignity and with tact. His affability appealed to the more democratic Marylanders, while his courtly bearing and distinction of manner were admired and respected by the aristocratic planter society.16 H e reached Maryland in the spring of 1769, and found the colonies agitated over the vexatious provisions of the Townshend Act. On June 20, 1769, delegates from the whole province met at Annapolis and denied the right of Parliament to tax the colonies without their consent. They agreed to unite with the other colonies in a policy of non-importation.17 Maryland was spared any violent demonstrations against the Acts of Parliament because there was a moderating influence in a long-standing tradition of public service among the oldest and the wealthiest families. Precipitate action was also prevented by the conservatism of the council. An examination of the records of the province reveals the names of many pillars of the aristocratic society of pre-Revolutionary days, such as the Taskers, the Bladens, the Dulanys. Daniel Dulany, to select an illustrious example, was one of 11

Lady Matilda Edgar, A Colonial Governor in Maryland, Horatio Sharfe and His Times, 1753-1773 (London, 1 9 1 2 ) , pp. 28-30, 1 2 6 - 1 2 8 . It must be admitted that Sharpe was in a difficult position, for Frederick Calvert, sixth Lord Baltimore, never visited the province, merely regarding it as a source of revenue. Sharpe guarded his interests loyally, indeed their correspondence leads to the conclusion that the last Lord Baltimore, in spite of many objectionable characteristics, has been too summarily condemned in the standard Maryland histories. Lord Baltimore to Sharpe [no month] 22, 1 7 7 0 , Maryland Archives, X I V , 5 6 7 ; Nov. 2, 1766, ibid., 3 3 9 ; Nov. 6, 1766, ibid., 340; June 1 1 , 1 7 6 7 , ibid., 396. " B e r n a r d C. Steiner, Life and Administration of Sir Robert Eden (Baltimore, 1 8 9 8 ) , chapters I. and II. "Maryland Gazette, June 29, 1769.

8

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

the most important of these men. H e had been educated in England where he won a high reputation for legal ability. In 1757 he was chosen to be a member of the Maryland council, and in 1 7 6 1 he was made secretary of the province. T h e celebrated essay that he published in 1765 was widely quoted on both sides of the Atlantic. In it he denied "the propriety of imposing taxes in the British colonies for the purpose of raising a revenue by act of Parliament." Redress, he asserted, could and should be obtained by legal, orderly resistance. In 1776, when force was substituted for juridical protest, Dulany refused to sanction the use of arms and joined the Tory 1 8 ranks, but at the time of the Stamp Act he was an ardent patriot. H e was then actively supported by a young man who held a seat in the assembly, Samuel Chase, the energetic and sometimes radical champion of colonial liberties.19 Closely connected with the government was another prominent leader, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer. 20 A distinguished member of Maryland's most aristocratic society, at his charming home in Charles County he entertained with lavish hospitality all the colonial leaders. George Washington was his frequent guest. H e had served the last two lords proprietary as agent and receiver-general, but he followed the course of events carefully and took an active part in the revolutionary struggle. Later, Samuel Chase was to accuse him of coolness in his attitude towards independence, but the charge was not sustained and Jenifer continued to hold high government positions.21 H e represented the state in Congress, where, as we shall see, he came under the influence of the French ministers. u St. George L. Sioussat, Economics and Politics in Maryland, 1720-1750, and the Public Services of Daniel Dulany, the Elder (Baltimore, 1 9 0 3 ) . For the work of the son during the American Revolution, see John V. L. M c M a h o n , An Historical View of the Government of Maryland (Baltimore, 1 8 3 1 ) , PP;> 3 4 9 - 3 5 7PP- 3 3 9 - 3 4 ° ¡bid., p. 3 4 1 . T h e papers of Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer were destroyed in 1 8 6 5 at the time of the evacuation of Richmond, Va. T h e y had been sent there to be edited. Some few papers escaped and these are in private hands. Justin Winsor, editor, Narrative and Critical History of America, eight volumes (Boston, 1 8 8 4 - 1 8 8 9 ) , VIII, 4 5 3 . " Votes and Proceedings of the Senate, March session, 1 7 7 9 , pp. 4 0 - 4 1 ; J u l y session, 1 7 7 9 , pp. 57 ff. Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, March session, 1 7 8 0 , p. 2 2 1 .

BRITISH COLONY AND SOVEREIGN STATE

9

The difficulties of the political situation that had confronted Governor Eden upon his arrival had increased steadily. The commercial resistance of the North American colonies forced the English to lessen the duties prescribed by the Townshend Act. However, the British troops sent to Massachusetts to overawe the belligerent Bostonians, as well as the trifling tax that was retained on tea, showed the Americans that the mother country intended them to submit to the principle of parliamentary taxation. While Maryland had been observing the trading regulations laid down in the Articles of Association of June 20, 1769, the northern colonies were undergoing a change of spirit. New York's defection in July 1770 was the signal for a general relaxation from the self-imposed boycott. With scarcely disguised relief the other colonies agreed that the exclusion of tea from their ports would accomplish all that they desired. After some hesitation the Maryland merchants reached the same conclusion in November 1770. A period of relative calm and prosperity followed during the next two years.22 Meanwhile the Maryland people were engaged in a local struggle with Governor Eden. The custom had been established in the colony of supporting certain government officers by giving them fees instead of a fixed salary. The abuses of this system were manifold. The charges were not only excessive, but fees were sometimes exacted when no service had been rendered and occasionally payment had to be made twice. When the old bill of 1763 expired in 1770, the assembly demanded that it be revised. Eden refused to make any alteration. H e prorogued the assembly and fixed the fees by proclamation. This arbitrary exercise of the tax levying power was the subject of a spirited debate carried on in the columns of the Maryland Gazette. Daniel Dulany, under the pseudonym of "Antillon," justified the governor's action with all the skill to be expected from the leading lawyer and attorney-general. But his arguments were refuted by Charles Carroll of Carrollton, writing under the pen name of "The First Citizen." This question of the legality of fixing fees by proclamation became the issue 22

M c M a h o n , of. cit., p. 380.

IO

M A R Y L A N D

AND

FRANCE

of the election of M a y 1 7 7 3 . In spite of the fact that the antiproclamation party was successful at the polls, and that the assembly declared in June 1 7 7 3 that the collection of fees was unconstitutional and oppressive, the governor was obdurate. T h e proclamation was not revoked. 23 There was little use in appealing to the Calverts for redress. During this same session of the legislature Eden announced the death of the last L o r d Baltimore. His illegitimate son, Henry Harford, never succeeded in establishing his claim on the colony. Throughout the colonies a spirit of discontent had been growing during the spring and the summer of 1 7 7 3 . T h e speakers of the assemblies of the New England provinces and two of the southern provinces invited Maryland to unite with all the colonies by means of committees of correspondence. T h e assembly met in October 1 7 7 3 to consider these letters. On the fifteenth of the month it was decided that a permanent committee of correspondence be established to obtain information about the acts of Parliament and to communicate such facts to the other colonies.24 The following M a y news reached Maryland of the passage of the Boston Port Bill. Eddis, the royal customs official at Annapolis, wrote to his friend in England: A l l A m e r i c a is in a

flame!—I

hear strange l a n g u a g e every

day.

T h e colonists are ripe for a n y measures that w i l l tend to the preservation of w h a t they call, their natural liberty. I enclose you the resolves a Maryland Gazette, Feb. 4, 1 7 7 3 ; March 1 1 , 1 7 7 3 ; M a y 6, 1 7 7 3 ; J u l y 1 , 1 7 7 3 . F o r a concise summary of this issue, Joseph G u m , Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1832 (New Y o r k , 1 9 3 2 ) , pp. 35-4.3. F o r the connection of the fee controversy with a similar dispute in Virginia, Allan Nevins, The American States During and After the Revolution, 1775-1789 (New Y o r k , 1 9 2 4 ) , pp. 2 1 - 2 2 . Conclusive evidence is lacking to prove that the Carrolls took an active part in furthering the relations of Maryland with the French. In 1 7 7 6 Congress was eager to take advantage of their European training and of their religion to enhance the importance of the commission to Canada but this was apparently an isolated instance of such an attempt. F o r an account of this commission, of which Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the Reverend John Carroll, Samuel Chase, and Benjamin Franklin were members, see Kate M . R o w l a n d , The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1832, two volumes (New Y o r k , 1 8 9 8 ) , I , 1 4 4 - 1 7 6 . T h e journal kept by Charles Carroll during this trip is given, I , Appendix B , pp. 363-400. "4 T h e work of the conventions is adequately summarized in John A . Silver, Provisional Government of Maryland, ¡774-1777 (Baltimore, 1 8 9 5 ) .

BRITISH

COLONY

AND

SOVEREIGN

STATE

n

of our citizens; they have caught the general contagion. Expresses are flying from province to province. . . . W h e r e will these matters end? Imagination anticipates, with horror, the most dreadful consequences. 25

Delegates from the whole province on June 22, 1774, assembled in the first provincial convention.26 This was the only representative body in the colony at that time, for the assembly had been prorogued in March. T h e ninety-two members were chosen by popular election, so that, although the civil polity was not yet affected, this convention marks the beginning of the provisional government and the exercise of popular sovereignty by the people. T h e convention made as the basis of its trade regulations the resolution of the Boston town meeting, "that if the other colonies would come into joint resolution to stop all importations from Great Britain, and every part of the West Indies, till the Act blockading up the harbor be repealed, the same will prove the salvation of North America and her liberties." Whereupon it was decided to endorse the plan of a non-importation and a non-exportation union, and to sever trade relations with those who refused to join. Delegates to a general congress were selected, and a subscription for the poor of Boston was promised. 27 T h e worth of these resolutions was tested by the arrival in August of the Mary and Jane. T h e committee of correspondence of Frederick County learned that some packages of tea were on board the ship; after deliberation they decided that the importation of "the detestable plant" was dangerous to the liberties of America. T h e vessel was ordered to return to England. 28 More spectacular was the destruction of the Peggy Stewart in October. T h e owner, it is said, " f r o m an anxious desire to preserve the public tranquility, as well as to ensure his own personal safety," not only agreed to destroy the tea, but with his own hand set fire to the vessel. 29 William Eddis, Letters from America (London, 1 7 9 2 ) , pp. 158-160. Silver, of. cit., p. 8. 27 Robert Purviance, Narrative of Events which occurred in Baltimore Town during the Revolutionary War (Baltimore, 1 8 4 9 ) , p. 12. Maryland Gazette, June 2, 1 7 7 4 ; June 9, 1774, June 16, 1 7 7 4 ; June 30 1774. Silver, op. cit., p. 9. 28 Scharf, of. cit., II, 159. 25

28

12

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

T h e continuation of non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption was asked for by the First Continental Congress that met in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. 30 Its resolutions were confirmed by the Maryland convention that met in Annapolis on December 8, 1774. In accordance with the recommendations made in Philadelphia, committees of observation and correspondence were formed in each county. It was agreed to unite with the other colonies in rejecting all British imports after December 1, 1774, and to forbid exportation on September 10, 1775, unless by that time there had been a "redress of grievances.'" 1 In spite of these revolutionary measures there was a marked conservatism in Maryland's movement towards independence and a frequently repeated hope of conciliation. Some clung to the belief that matters could be adjusted with England, and it was said at the end of 1775 that there were still "a great number of Professed Tories and still a greater number that will not say which side they are on.'" 2 T h e convention of April 1775 had proclaimed that the King was "the sovereign, constitutional guardian and protector of the rights and liberties of all his subjects." T h e delegates to Congress were reappointed with the understanding that they were not to proceed to the last extremity, "unless in their judgments they shall be convinced that such measure is indispensably necessary for the safety and the preservation of our lives and privileges," and that by no other means could be secured the happy reconciliation with the mother country on a firm basis of constitutional freedom. 33 W h i l e they were thus assembled in convention at Annapolis, news reached them of the trouble at Lexington, and of the nearer clash at Williamsburg. Fearing that the ill-advised action of Gage in New England and of Dunmore in Virginia might have its repercussion in Maryland, the convention sent a " Journal of the Continental Congress, W . C . F o r d et al., Eds., ( W a s h i n g t o n , 1904) , I , 75-80. " S i l v e r , of. cit., pp. 1 1 - 1 4 . " W o o l s e y and Salmon Letter B o o k , A p r i l 3, 1 7 7 5 . ™ Proceedings of the Conventions of the Province of Maryland, held at the city of Annafolis (Baltimore, 1 8 3 6 ) , 11-16.

BRITISH

COLONY

AND

SOVEREIGN

STATE

13

committee to Governor Eden to ask for the arms of the province, alleging as the motive of this request the possible danger of a slave uprising. They added that the province would be at the mercy of any man-of-war that might appear in the Bay. Eden remonstrated. After reflection, he yielded to the request with all possible dignity, and selected the gentlemen of the militia to whom he surrendered the arms.34 The temper of the people can best be gauged by the declaration that the convention drew up on January 18, 1776, prior to its adjournment. The delegates of the freemen of Maryland resolved unanimously that, Descended f r o m Britons, entitled to the privileges of E n g l i s h m e n , and inheriting the spirit of their ancestors, they have seen w i t h the most extreme anxiety the attempts of parliament to deprive them of those privileges, by raising a revenue upon them, and assuming a power to alter the charters, constitutions, and internal polity of the colonies without their consent. T h e endeavors of the British ministry to carry those attempts into execution by military force have been their only motive for taking up arms, and to defend themselves against those endeavors is the only use they mean to make of them, entitled to freedom, they are determined to maintain it at the hazard of their lives and fortunes. 3 5

In the spring of 1776 was heard the recurrent rumor, that the British were about to invade the Bay. Early in March 1776 two British tenders and a man-of-war sailed up the Chesapeake, to the consternation of the natives of Maryland, but the Defence, recently equipped by the council of safety, forced the intruders to push off.36 In the spring of 1776 there was intercepted a letter from Lord George Germaine to Governor Eden which informed the latter that an armament of seven regiments and a fleet of frigates were on their way to the southern colonies "to attempt the Restoration of Legal Government in that part of America." Eden was asked to assist in the work of subjugating the colonists, and to continue his zeal for the public cause. Reference was made to " Eddis, of1. cit., letters of April 27, 1 7 7 5 , and April 28, 1 7 7 5 . a Proceedings of the Conventions, pp. 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 . "Papers of the Continental Congress, vol. 70, folio 1.

14

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

the "confidential communication of the character of Individuals" that Lord George Germaine had found most useful.37 The Virginia council of safety sent the packet of letters to the Baltimore committee of observation, asking them to forward them to Congress. Samuel Purviance, the chairman of the committee, acted on his own initiative as the committee was not then in session, and wrote an unsigned letter to John Hancock, the President of Congress, accusing the Maryland provisional government of being timorous and inactive. Congress demanded that the governor be seized and his papers examined.38 When the council of safety assembled, they showed President Jenifer their resentment at this interference in a purely provincial matter and informed Congress that they were satisfied with Governor Eden's loyalty. They accepted his explanation of his conduct, and allowed him to remain a virtual prisoner in the colony. In a special meeting of the convention (May 8-May 25, 1776) the Eden affair was minutely investigated.39 Purviance was severely reprimanded. Eden, it was decided, had not carried on correspondence harmful to the province; but by a vote of 36 to 19, the resolution was passed that the public safety required his departure. He lingered quietly at his residence for another month, and then left on the Fowey on June 24, 1776. 40 On May 21, 1776, the convention had declared that "a reunion with Great Britain on constitutional principles would most effectually secure the rights and liberties" of the people. Early in June the issue was debated in Congress and then postponed for several weeks so that the delegates could return to their colonies to secure permission from their constituents to vote for independence. Matthew Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, and Samuel Chase left Philadelphia for a rousing campaign in Maryland. They found the people so ready to sever the bonds that bound them to England that on June 28, 1776, the delegates were instructed to unite with the other colonies in declaring "the *' Steiner, op. cit., chapter I I . " Proceedings of the Conventions, pp. 1 2 5 - 1 6 2 . " S i l v e r , o f . cit., 3 5 - 4 3 . 4 " Peter Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, 1 8 3 7 - 1 8 4 6 ) , VI., 1 4 8 7 - 1 4 9 1 .

6 vols.

(Washington,

BRITISH COLONY AND SOVEREIGN S T A T E

15

United Colonies free and independent States; in forming such further compact and confederation between them; in making foreign alliances, and in adopting such other measures as shall be adjudged necessary for securing the liberties of America." 41 By this act Maryland ceased to be a unit in the British Empire. The first problem of the new sovereign state was the establishment of a government. T h e provisional government of Maryland developed, as has been seen, from the economic boycotts of 1773. It gradually added to its powers until in June 1776 it became the supreme authority in the colony. Thereupon it declared Maryland independent, and it turned to the work of framing a state constitution. For this purpose delegates met in Annapolis on August 14, 1776. The establishment of the new state government of Maryland was effected with comparative smoothness.42 Early in 1777 there were several Tory disturbances, mostly on the Eastern Shore, but the assembly suppressed the incipient rebellion by measures that were both energetic and conciliatory.43 A committee was chosen "to prepare a declaration and charter of rights, and a plan of government agreeable to such rights as will best maintain peace and order, and most effectually secure happiness and liberty to the people of this state." 44 T h e declaration and charter of rights, thus drawn up, embodied the most important political principles of the day. The triple division of the powers of government, the advantages of English common law, the liberty of the press and of religion—these were among the rights specifically mentioned. This marked the beginning of the disestablishment of the Anglican Church. T h e new constitution was not influenced by the innovations of the recent provisional government, for the lower house of the old proprietary days was continued, although a senate of fifteen members replaced the former upper house. The legislative powers of both branches of the assembly were practically equal, excepting that "Proceedings of the Conventions, p. 42 Beverly W . Bond, State Government 1 9 0 5 ) , p. 1 9 . "Ib'd., pp. 9 3 - 9 5 . " Silver, o f . cit., pp. 5 0 - 5 4 .

176. in Maryland,

1777-1781

(Baltimore,

i6

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

to the lower house belonged the right of initiating money bills. T h e conservative nature of the senate was safeguarded by the mode of the election of the members, a mode later to be adoptd in the United States Constitution. T h e duties of a chief executive were shared by a governor and a council of five who were chosen annually by a joint ballot of both houses. This constitution, which was destined to last for sixty-five years, was a great triumph for the forces of conservatism. T h e aristocracy, which had controlled the government of Maryland when it was a province, continued to do so until the end of the century. The conservative influence was most strikingly evident in the carefully maintained balance between the branches of the assembly, and the high property qualifications demanded of both voters and civil officers.45 As in the last years of the provincial régime, Maryland was now, in the period of the W a r and the Confederation, fortunate in its governors. Thomas Johnson was elected on February 1 3 , 1777. Often selected by the people for positions of trust, he had been in Congress in 1775 where he had the honor of nominating Washington, his warm personal friend, to be commander-in-chief of the continental forces. Adams found that Johnson was " a deliberating man but not a shining orator." Unlike the majority of the Maryland lawyers, Johnson did not leave the confines of his state for his education, nevertheless he rose rapidly to the height of his profession. His was a practical mind, one well fitted to cope with the problems inseparable from a newly formed government. W e shall meet with him again. Johnson served the three one-year terms allowed in the constitution.46 H e was succeeded by Thomas Sim Lee. Lee, a member of the famous Virginia family of that name, was a man of fortune and of position. H e had first taken part in the revolutionary struggle in 1777 and he entered upon the duties of governor without the brilliant reputation of his predecessor. The skill and the tact with which he met and solved the difficult problems of the war years won him the admiration 41

N e v i n s , of. cit., pp. 1 5 7 - 1 5 8 . " E d w a r d S. D e l a p l a i n e , Life York, 1927).

of

Thomas

Johnson

(ijj2-i8iç)

(New

BRITISH COLONY AND SOVEREIGN S T A T E

17

of the people. His charm and social talents added to his popularity/ 7 William Paca was the third governor. Lee had been twice reelected to the highest position in the state, and Paca enjoyed the same distinction. H e was a brilliant lawyer, well trained at the Philadelphia College and at the Inner Temple in London. H e was a leader in the important political events of his times, holding in turn almost every prominent office. With the exception of Charles Carroll and possibly of Samuel Chase, he was the most distinguished revolutionary leader in Maryland. 48 Practically five years were to elapse between the Declaration of Independence and Maryland's ratification of the Articles of Confederation. During this period Maryland acted on the principle that the power hitherto vested in the proprietary now belonged to the people; therefore the individual states were independent allies united by common interests and fighting a common cause. While it is beyond the scope of this monograph to make a detailed analysis of the revolution in Maryland, it will be necessary to indicate how this principle of sovereignty was manifested. It is most evident in the attitude of the state toward the problem of the public lands, in its refusal to be coerced by Congress, in the appointment of foreign agents, and in the cooperation given to the French consul and to the agent of the French marine, as the following pages will show. T h e older view, which pretended to discover in the American Revolution a national popular movement, has been effectively shattered by the researches of modern investigators. The late Professor Van T y n e in particular has made it clear that the principle of state sovereignty dominated the minds of most of the American leaders. 49 The Congress at Philadelphia, though forced by necessity to action of the most vigorous sort, drew its authority from states which not only regarded themselves as 47

Scharf, of. cit., I I , 285-286, 488. " T h e most accurate account of Paca's life may be found in the article by Mary Elizabeth Fittro in vol. 14 of the Dictionary of American Biography, Allen Johnson, editor (New York, 1928). " C l a u d e H. Van T y n e , "Sovereignty in the American Revolution," American Historical Review, X I I , 529 ff. Some examples of this attitude are mentioned in Bond, of. cit., chapter II, "Attitude towards Congress."

i8

M A R Y L A N D AND F R A N C E

independent but exercised the authority of sovereignty. W e have to bear in mind, therefore, that this sovereignty meant not only independence with regard to Great Britain and with regard to recognition by other nations of the world, in the international sense, but also jealousy between the various states themselves and in particular an extreme sensitiveness with regard to the authority of Congress. Throughout this monograph it will appear that Maryland as a state was second to none in this insistence on its own autonomy and its resentment of pressure whether by Congress or by the other states. Coincident with the overthrow of British authority and with the movement for independence, there had developed in Maryland quarrels with Maryland's powerful neighbor to the south, and with Congress. These quarrels involved the disposition of the land west of the mountains. It is fundamental to an understanding of the many phases of these controversies to keep in mind the fact that by the terms of the charter of Maryland specific bounds were set to the province. Before the new state government was actually established, the Maryland convention came to a decision regarding the western lands that was destined to have important influence on the state's relations with Congress. The disputed territory was the land south of the Great Lakes, between the Ohio and the Mississippi, which in 1763 had become the property of Great Britain. To Maryland men—who belonged to a state with well-defined boundaries, and who had an old colonial charter with no ambiguous phrases that would justify a claim to the westward—it seemed obvious that Congress should succeed to the rights of England over this area. Consequently Maryland determined to challenge any state that should assert its jurisdiction over the whole or a part of this territory. 50 Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York, in the North, and Virginia and the states to the south of it, claimed this land. The region north of the Ohio was, however, the part of the Western country over which there was the most bitter controversy. Here the claims of the northern states overlapped those of Virginia; 50

F o r a d e v e l o p m e n t of this subject d u r i n g

1779-1781,

see chapter

IV.

BRITISH COLONY AND SOVEREIGN S T A T E

19

here the Quebec Act had undertaken to enforce British authority from a base in Canada. 51 Virginia was the most determined of the claimants.52 Its claim was based on the words of its charter of 1609, that the colony extended from "Cape or Point Comfort all along the sea coast to the northward two hundred miles, . . . to the southward two hundred miles,. . . from sea to sea west and northwest. . . ." T h e Virginia concept of the extent of its territory is clear from the clause of its state constitution of 1776, in which it declared that the state "cedes" to Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, all the land within their present boundaries, but that it reserves to itself all the rest of the land to which it has a right in virtue of the charter of James the First. 53 At the same time Virginia alienated the pre-Revolutionary land companies by announcing that it would not consider valid any speculative land titles purchased by individuals directly from the Indians.54 Maryland did not deny Virginia's claim until the fall of 1776. At that time the convention found it necessary to assert the rights of the state in the matter of the land bounties. On September 16, 1776, Congress had requested Maryland to furnish eight battalions as its contribution to the cause.55 T h e state was willing to give what was just, but it was felt that its quota had been computed on the basis of the total population, black and white, and as a consequence eight battalions were more than could be sent. Moreover, the bounty promised to each soldier was larger than the state could afford to pay; not only had the government agreed to give each man twenty dollars, but a further gift of from one hundred to five hundred acres of 51 For the classic treatment of this subject see B. A . Hinsdale, The Old Northwest (New York, 1 8 8 8 ) . A comprehensive study is given by Merrill Jensen, " T h e Cession of the Old Northwest," in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, X X I I I . " For a detailed defence of Virginia's claim, William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches, three vols. (New York, 1 8 9 1 ) , II,

William W. Hening, editor, The Statutes at Large; being a Collection the Laws of Virginia, thirteen vols. (Richmond, Va. 1 8 2 3 ) , I X , 1 1 8 . " J u n e 24, 1776, ibid., I X , 1 1 9 . °° Journals of the Continental Congress, Sept. 16, 1776, V, 762-763.

of

20

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

land was also specified. T h e first condition might be met; but the state, having no western lands of its own, feared that it would be forced to secure the land from other states, or from land companies at an exorbitant price. Opinion in the convention was divided; some suggested that Congress be asked to supply the land, but the majority were opposed to the appropriation of these back lands for such a purpose, because the whole western region had been secured at the joint expense of all the colonies and it should therefore remain national property. After a heated debate, the convention decided to send four commissioners into the camps in New Y o r k and New Jersey to offer to those who would reenlist for the term of the war the twenty dollars promised by Congress, and an additional ten dollars in lieu of the land bounty. 56 W h e n the commissioners reached Philadelphia, they learned that Congress was not pleased with this arrangement. In a resolution of that body on October 30, 1776, it was declared that land could be bought at the rate of one hundred acres for three dollars, and that were Maryland to offer ten dollars instead of the hundred acres, then the soldiers of the other states would complain of the injustice. It was intimated to the convention that their action had been unwarrantedly independent. 57 T h e convention replied to this resolution on November 9, 1776. T h e y regretted the difference of opinion that had arisen between them and Congress, and they made three new proposals: to promise the troops a land bounty in territory that would be set apart for this purpose by Congress; or, to substitute an approved sum of money instead of the land; or, to grant the twenty dollars, without incurring the obligation of making good the promise relative to the land. 58 T h e y restated in this connection the conclusion that had been reached on October 30, 1776, when they had considered the Virginia constitution, namely, that the lands that had been . . . secured by the blood and treasure of all, ought in reason, justice, and policy, to be considered as a common stock, to be parcelled out by " Proceedings of the Conventions, Oct. 9, 1 7 7 6 , pp. 2 7 2 - 2 7 4 . "Journals of the Continental Congress, Oct. 30, 1 7 7 6 , V I , 9 1 2 - 9 1 3 . ™ Proceedings of the Conventions, N o v . 9, 1 7 7 6 , pp. 3 7 0 - 3 7 1 .

BRITISH

COLONY

AND SOVEREIGN STATE

21

congress into free, convenient, and independent governments, as the wisdom of that body shall hereafter direct; but, if these (the only lands as this convention apprehended that can) should be provided by congress at the expense of the United States to make good the proffered bounties, every idea of their being a common stock must be thereby given up. . . . eB I n r e f e r e n c e to the intimation that their conduct had been dictated by a desire to show their independence, they said, that they f e l t . . . a strong disinclination to go into any discussion of the powers with which congress is invested, being fully sensible that the general interest will not be promoted by either the congress affirming, or this convention denying the existence of a fulness of power in that honourable body; the best and only proper exercise of which can be in adopting the wisest measures for equally securing the rights and liberties of each of the United States, which was the principle of their union.

60

C o n g r e s s replied on N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 1 7 7 6 , by a compromise. I n this instance as in so m a n y others M a r y l a n d achieved its point. 6 1 M a r y l a n d was permitted to bestow the twenty-dollar bounty on those w h o reenlisted f o r three years, w h i l e those w h o w e r e w i l l ing to s e r v e f o r the term of the w a r w e r e to receive an additional g i f t of land. T h e council of safety, a f t e r the convention had adj o u r n e d , instructed the commissioners to enlist the troops on a three-year a g r e e m e n t , with the understanding that, at the end of that period, they w o u l d be in the service of the state. T h e y expressly stated that they did not understand that this bound M a r y l a n d to "contribute her proportion of the expense attending the procuring of lands f o r the officers and soldiers f u r n i s h e d by the other States f o r the w a r . " 6 2 M a r y l a n d ' s delegates to Congress attempted to obtain f r o m that b o d y some expression as to the probable disposition of the back lands, but they had to be satisfied with the declaration that nothing that had been done jeopardized the right of the U n i t e d "Ibid., pp. 3 7 1 - 3 7 2 . Cf., pp. 292-293. " Ibid., p. 372. " Journals of the Continental Congress, Nov. 1 2 , 1776, VI, 944-945. " Council to commissioners, Nov. 17, 1776, Maryland Archives, X I I , 454. Cf., Journals of the Continental Congress, VI, 946.

22

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

States to the public lands, or determined the allocation of the war costs, or strengthened the claim of any individual state.68 In the fall of 1777 Congress submitted the Articles of Confederation to the states. T h e Virginia delegates succeeded in having an amendment passed by Congress to article I X , providing that no state might be deprived of land for the benefit of the United States.64 Maryland was less successful. On October 1 5 , 1 7 7 7 , the resolution proposed by its delegates was rejected: that Congress should determine the western boundaries of those states who claimed land to the South Sea.65 This fate was shared by two similar resolutions. T h e first provided that Congress, after having settled the western limits of the states, should dispose of the territory beyond these boundaries for the good of the whole confederation.66 T h e second added that this land should be divided into independent states.67 T h e MarylanH legislature considered the Articles in December. After suggesting minor amendments concerning the support of the vagrant poor, and the payment of taxes on unsurveyed land, it offered its major objection to the ratification of the Articles. In a remonstrance containing the resolution already referred to, the assembly declared that Congress should be given power to limit the land-claiming states. The delegates were instructed not to ratify the Articles until an amendment guarantee that the land that had been secured by united effort be recognised as " a common estate, to be granted out on terms beneficial to all the United States." 68 This opinion was stated with even more insistence by the assembly on June 20, 1778. Maryland definitely refused to ratify the Articles until Congressional jurisdiction over the western "ibid., Nov. 2 3 , 1 7 7 6 , V I , 978. F o r a typical example of M a r y l a n d ' s treatment of Congress see the Nicholson incident. Bond, o f . cit., pp. 22-23 gives a good summary of this a f f a i r . "journals of the Continental Congress, I X , 864. "Ibid., p. 808. "Journal of the Continental Congress, Oct. 1 5 , 1 7 7 7 , I X , 806-807. "ibid., Oct. 1 5 , 1 7 7 7 , I X , 807-808. M a r y l a n d alone voted in f a v o r of this resolution, T h e New Jersey vote was divided. " Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, Dec. 1 7 , 1 7 7 7 . Cf. Bond, op. cit., p. 26.

BRITISH COLONY AND SOVEREIGN S T A T E

23

lands was assured. The state's delegates were reminded that their instructions did not include the power of ratification and that they must wait until they received an explicit permission to do so.69 Rhode Island and New Jersey now rallied to support the position taken by Maryland, for it had become apparent that Congress would not act on the Maryland remonstrance.70 Neither of these small states had a claim to the western lands, so they dreaded the domination of either New York or Virginia. On June 23, 1778, Rhode Island proposed an amendment that gave Congress the right to dispose of the land, formerly held by England, for the benefit of the whole confederacy, but the amendment reserved to the states within whose boundaries the land was, "the entire and complete jurisdiction thereof.'" 1 New Jersey made a similar attempt on June 25, 1778, adding that the land should be used to defray the expenses incurred by all the states in prosecuting the war. 72 Both resolutions were defeated. 73 On J u l y 9, 1778, Congress sent a circular to those states that still hesitated to sign.74 Before the end of the year all the states had authorized their delegates to ratify, with the exception of Delaware, which delayed until the following May. Maryland then stood alone. 75 Here for the present may be left the struggle over the Articles. In a later chapter it will be shown that in the subsequent history of the Confederation movement, as in the matter of state boundaries, the French minister to the United States was greatly interested. 88

Votes and Proceedings of the Senate, June lo, 1778. ™ For the action of Congress on this remonstrance, Journals of the Continental Congress, June 22, 1 7 7 8 , X I , 6 3 1 - 6 3 2 ; and June 23, 1 7 7 8 , X I , 636. 71 Ibid., June 23, 1 7 7 8 , X I , 638-639. 71 Ibid., June 2 j , 1 7 7 8 , X I , 647-651. '* No votes are recorded. Virginia offered no amendments at this time. Ibid., X I , 652. "Ibid., July 9 , 1 7 7 8 , X I , 678. n Ibid., X I I , 1 1 6 2 ; XIII, 236.

II M A R Y L A N D ' S CONTACTS W I T H T H E F R E N C H BEFORE 1778 of apathetic support in the war against the French in 1 7 5 4 - 1 7 6 1 , there was in Maryland at that time a real dread of the enemy and an increasing hostility towards Roman Catholics. This animosity is at first sight surprising in a colony that had been established as a "land of sanctuary" where so many Roman Catholics made their homes. But an examination of the statute books on the eve of the Revolution reveals how little there remained in the Anglican province of Maryland's former freedom of religion. N SPITE

I

On November 29, 1753, Governor Sharpe had written to Cecilius Calvert, uncle and secretary of Lord Baltimore, that the assembly wanted to bring in "a furious bill against Roman Catholics." A year later he reported that the colony was aroused because it was alleged that a member of that church was in communication with the French. On July 9, 1755, the governor again wrote that the assembly had attacked the Catholics.1 It was therefore with alarm that the news of the removal of the Acadians was received in Maryland on September 4, 1755. On November 30, 1 7 5 5 , "upwards of Nine Hundred" French Neutrals sailed up the Chesapeake. Fear must have given way to pity when the destitution of these unfortunates was discovered. Private gifts and public levies provided for the exiles' immediate wants. Governor Sharpe protected them, uniting members of scattered families and allowing groups to settle in Louisiana. Those who established themselves in Baltimore formed a distinct section known as French Town, where they spoke their own 'Sharpe to Calvert, Nov. 29, 1 7 5 3 , Maryland Archives, VI, 1 3 ; Sharpe to Morris, Dec. 27, 1 7 5 4 , ibid., pp. 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 ; Sharpe to Calvert, J u l y 9, 1 7 5 5 , ibid., p. 240; Sharpe to Baltimore, M a y 5, 1 7 5 6 , ibid., p. 4 1 1 .

C O N T A C T S B E F O R E 1778

25

2

language and preserved their own customs. In the fall of 1756 there was another outcry against the Roman Catholics. A certain William Johnson was said to have deserted to the French at the instigation of one of the Jesuits, who then persuaded him to return to the colony as a spy. Rumors of a plot were rife. Clandestine correspondence with the enemy was suspected. Investigation revealed that the whole incident had been grossly exaggerated, so that Sharpe was able to write to Lord Baltimore on February 4, 1757, that the supposed spy was "a wicked Imposter," and that General Loudoun would try him in Philadelphia as a deserter.3 This incident revealed that hostility to the Roman Catholics was coupled in popular estimation with hatred of the French.4 In the account of Braddock's defeat given in the Maryland Gazette is inserted a heated outburst that is partly to be discounted because of the tense feeling of the moment, but that will provide a contrast for the fulsome eulogies of the French that were to appear in the columns of that same paper within a quarter of a century. O h H o r r i d B a r b a r i t y ! to kill in cold B l o o d ; B u t , Protestant R e a d er, such is the T r e a t m e n t w e m a y expect to receive f r o m his most C h r i s t i a n M a j e s t y ' s A m e r i c a n A l l i e s , if w e should be so u n h a p p y as to f a l l into their H a n d s , except w e g i v e up our R e l i g i o n , submit to be his Vassals, a n d D u p e s to the R o m i s h C l e r g y , w h o s e most tender M e r c i e s are but hellish cruelties, w h e r e v e r they have p o w e r to e x e r cise t h e m . 5

This is not an isolated instance of the fear of the French. In a letter from Halifax, dated August 9, 1755, printed in the Maryland paper, the writer refers to the French, "who have always been secret Enemies and have encouraged our Savages to cut 1 Maryland Gazette, Sept. 4, and Dec. 4, 1 7 5 5 , Abbé C. C. Robin, Nouveau Voyage dans l'Amérique Septentrionale en l'année 1781, et Campagne de l'armée de M. le comte de Rochambeau (Philadelphia and Paris, 1 7 8 2 ) , pp. 98-101. 'Sharpe to Baltimore, Nov. 1 , 1756, Maryland Archives, VI, 5 0 1 - 5 0 4 ; Sharpe to Calvert, Nov. 30, 1756, ibid., p. 5 1 2 ; Loudoun to Sharpe, Jan. 8, 1757, ibid., p. 5 1 8 ; Sharpe to Baltimore, Feb. 4, 1 7 5 7 , ibid., p. 520. * John William Black, Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada, (Baltimore, 1 8 9 2 ) , pp. 64-65. 5 Maryland Gazette, J u l y 3 1 , 1 7 5 5 .

MARYLAND

26

AND

FRANCE

our Throats." 6 T h e charge was often repeated that the French encouraged the Indians to invade Maryland. 7 That Governor Sharpe did not subscribe to the popular opinion in regard to Roman Catholics within his colony is attested by his letters. H e wrote to Lord Baltimore on December 16, 1758, . . . the R o m a n Catholicks w h o are among us continue to behave as behoves good Subjects and upon the W h o l e M y L d p I must say that if I w a s asked whether the C o n d u c t of the Protestants or the Bapists in this Province hath been most unexceptionable since I have had the honour to serve Y o u r L d p I should not hestitate to give an answer in favour of the Latter. 8

Such was the feeling with regard to Roman Catholics in the youthful days of Charles Carroll, who early chose to describe himself as "of Carrollton." His grandfather and his father, warm friends of the Calverts, founded a family that soon became one of the most prominent and influential in Maryland. T h e Carrolls rapidly acquired wealth, and in 1749 the future signer of the Declaration of Independence was sent with his cousin, John Carroll, who was later to be the first archbishop of Baltimore, to study on the continent and in England. 9 Debarred because of his religion from taking an active part in the government of Maryland, Charles Carroll, Senior, devoted the years of his son's absence to the improvement of his large estate.10 H e encouraged the cultivation of wheat, which up to this time had not been so important a Maryland product. Within the limits prescribed by " Ibid., Sept. 1 1 , 1 7 5 5 . Ibid.., Sept. 4 , 1 7 5 5 ; Oct. 23, 1 7 5 5 ; N o v . 6, 1 7 5 5 ; D e c . 4, 1 7 5 5 . * S h a r p e to B a l t i m o r e , D e c . 1 6 , 1 7 5 8 , Maryland Archives, I X , 318. ' J o h n C a r r o l l did not return to A m e r i c a w h e n his studies w e r e completed. H e became a Jesuit, r e m a i n i n g in E u r o p e until the suppression of the o r d e r in B r u g e s in 1 7 7 3 . T h e r e u p o n he c a m e to M a r y l a n d , w h e r e he w a s a c t i v e until his death in 1 8 1 4 . P . G u i l d a y , The Life and Times of John Carroll, Archbishop of Baltimore, (New York, 1922). " T h e l a w of 1 7 1 8 debarred R o m a n C a t h o l i c s f r o m h o l d i n g office and f r o m v o t i n g . In 1 7 1 5 and a g a i n in 1 7 2 9 , it w a s decreed that a l l o r p h a n s must receive a Protestant education. In 1 7 5 6 an act w a s suggested entitled, " T o p r e v e n t the g r o w t h o f P o p e r y w i t h i n this p r o v i n c e . " T h e b i l l never became a l a w , but its p r o v i s i o n s show the attitude of some members o f the assembly t o w a r d s the R o m a n Catholics. It denied the r i g h t of priests to h o l d p r o p e r t y , or to m a k e c o n v e r t s ; children educated in E u r o p e at C a t h o l i c schools could not o w n land or inherit p r o p e r t y in the c o l o n y . F o r a discussion o f this question, see: G . Petrie, Church and State in Early Maryland (Baltimore, 1892) ; William T . Russell, Maryland-, the hand of Sanctuary ( B a l t i m o r e , 1 9 0 7 ) . 7

C O N T A C T S

BEFORE

27

1778

the tenets of the mercantile system he was interested in the development of the iron mines within the colony.11 But irked by the legislative discrimination against Roman Catholics, he considered the advantages of moving to Spanish territory where he could enjoy greater freedom of religion. In this connection he wrote to his son in 1760: F r o m that time

[1715]

to the year 1 7 5 1

w e w e r e unmolested,

but then the Penal L a w s of E n g l a n d w e r e attempted to be introduced here and several bills to this and the like purposes past by our L o w e r House but rejected by the U p p e r House. A t last in 1 7 5 6 , an act w a s passed by all the branches of the legislature here to double t a x us, and to this l a w the present Proprietor had the meanness to assent, tho' he k n o w us innocent of the calumnies raised against us. F r o m w h a t I have said I leave you to j u d g e w h e t h e r M a r y l a n d be a tolerable residence for a R o m a n C a t h o l i c . W e r e I y o u n g e r I w o u l d certainly quit it; at m y age (as I w r o t e y o u ) a c h a n g e of climate w o u l d certainly shorten m y days, but I embrace every

opportunity

of getting rid of m y real property, that if you please you m a y the sooner and with more ease and less loss leave it. 1 2

Charles Carroll, the son, returned to Maryland in 1765, "Lately from London by way of Virginia after sixteen years of absence from his native country at his studies and on his travels.'" 3 He does not seem to have shared his father's desire to leave the province. Although he was later interested in land speculation, his name does not appear on the lists of the Maryland men who sought profitable investments at this time in the Mississippi Land Company.14 Nor did he take a leading part in 1767 when Roman Catholics of Maryland approached the Spanish authorities in regard to a settlement along the Mississippi.15 " K . M . Rowland, The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, two volumes (New Y o r k , 1 8 9 8 ) , I , 60. " C h a r l e s Carroll to his son, J u l y 14, 1 7 6 0 , of. cit., I, 43, citing the Papers of Thomas Sim Lee. Maryland Gazette, Feb. 1 4 , 1 7 6 5 . " Information about the members of the Illinois-Wabash Co. may be found in the Papers of the Continental Congress no. 4 1 , X . , folio 5 2 3 . C. E . Carter, "Documents relating to the Mississippi Land Company, 1 7 6 3 - 1 7 6 9 . " , American Historical Review, X V I , 3 1 1 - 3 1 9 . " " A Projected Settlement of English-speaking Catholics from Maryland in Spanish Louisiana, 1 7 6 7 , 1 7 6 8 , " with an explanatory note by J . A . Robin-

28

M A R Y L A N D

AND

FRANCE

Henry Jerningham, the fourth son of Sir Francis Jerningham, was the leader of this movement. H e had settled in Maryland where he had opened a private hospital. 16 T h e Acadians who had come to the province in 1755 had received such favorable accounts from their kinsfolk who had established themselves in Louisiana, that the Maryland Catholics wished to join them. Jerningham wrote on behalf of his friends, "men of property and fortunes," to learn from Governor Ulloa, "on W h a t terms they can acquire an equivalent among you." Jerningham declared that, . . . all that w o u l d e n t e r t o plant t h e r e f a m i l y s a m o n g y o u c o u l d not h a v e o b j e c t i o n t o t a k i n g t h e o a t h of a l l e g i a n c e of his C a t h o l i c M a j e s t y , as t h e i r i n t e n t i o n it W o u l d be t o b e c o m e his s u b j e c t s ; in c o n s e q u e n c e , m u s t c o n f o r m t o all t h e L a w s a n d c u s t o m s as e v e r y g o o d

Citizen

S h o u l d doe W h e r e he resides.

Jerningham informed the Governor of Louisiana that, before they could come to any conclusion about their proposed departure they must be reassured as to the priests who would provide for their religious needs and as to the nature of the tenure of land. 17 Before Ulloa's answer reached Maryland, Jerningham wrote again on December 14, 1767. H e introduced James W a l k e r , "a plebeyan and a mechanic," who "has behaved as a good C[h]ristian, and moral man, W i t h the Esteem of his neighbors." Jerningham explained that W a l k e r had no . . . other V i e w s or i n t e n t i o n s in his E x p e d i t i o n , but t o enable himself

at his r e t u r n t o r e n d e r

agreeable

accounts

to his

friends,

r e l a t i o n s , a n d n e i g h b o u r s , . . . that m a y e n c o u r a g e t h e m t o u n d e r t a k e son, American Historical Review, X V I , 320 ff. Efforts to secure land from the French Court had heretofore not been successful, ibid., p. 320; Rowland, op. cit., p. 32; Governor Sharpe to W. Sharpe, July 6, 1757, Maryland Archives, IX, 46. W J . A . Robinson has collected all the available information about Jerningham, "m.D. et eques Anglicanus," op. cit., pp. 321-322. The exact year that he left Europe is not known. From the references that he gives, it may be seen that he was connected with famous old Irish and English Catholic families. He died in Maryland on November 20, 1772, leaving a wife and several children. " Antonio de Ulloa, the first Spanish Governor of Louisiana, reached his province on March 5, 1766. On November 1, 1768, he was expelled by the French. Henry Jerningham to Don Antonio de Ulloa, Nov. 28, 1768 [ 1 7 6 7 ] , ibid., pp. 323-324.

CONTACTS BEFORE

1778

29

the same voyage With their familys. he proposes With your Excellencys permission to remain some months, under your governmant, to see the produce of the soil, at the different seasons, the manners and Customs of the people, their Way of living, and how the Laws are executed, Questions every reasonable and thinking person Will be enquisitive about at his return. 18 T h i s letter was brought to the Spanish governor by some Acadians who reached Louisiana early in 1768. Ulloa questioned them closely about Jerningham and W a l k e r . Satisfied with their replies, he arranged that " e l Emisario Jacobo W a l k e r " be taken through the country and that he be given every opportunity to secure the information for which he had come. T h e governor wrote at once to the Marquis of Grimaldi, the foreign minister in Spain, that Walker would be able to return to his Maryland compatriots, " a living letter" of facts about the land where they wished to live. U l l o a must have been deeply disappointed that this colony never materialized, because the political consequences of this initial gesture seemed to him to be tremendous.' 9 If the Spanish were keenly alive to the value of their contacts with British America, the French were f a r more eager to encourage friendly relations with the colonies. T h e Seven Years' W a r had been a costly failure for France. According to the terms of the Peace of Paris, Louis X V had surrendered practically all right to the North American continent. During the thirteen years between the treaty of 1 7 6 3 and the outbreak of the American Revolution the Court of Versailles sought to restore French prestige. T h e Due de Choiseul, the astute minister of foreign affairs, determined to retrieve, if possible, French losses, or at least to be revenged on England. T h e revolt of the American colonies, he believed, would put E n g l a n d in such a state of weakness that France would no longer need to fear that country. 20 Numerous memorials in the Paris archives attest the care with which the French Government followed the progress of events in America. 18

H . Jerning-ham to Ulloa, Dec. 1 4 , 1 7 6 7 , ibid., p. 3 2 5 . Ulloa to Grimaldi, Feb. I I , 1 7 6 8 , ibid., pp. 3 2 5 - 3 2 7 . M H . Doniol, Histoire de la Participation de la France a I'Etablissement Etats-Unis d'Amerique, five volumes (Paris, 1 8 8 4 - 1 8 9 2 ) , I, 4. 19

des

MARYLAND

3°

AND

FRANCE

A t f r e q u e n t i n t e r v a l s F r e n c h a g e n t s w e r e sent t o t h e B r i t i s h colonies, a n d a m o n g these m e n P o n t l e r o y , a n a v a l officer w i t h a l o n g line of confidential missions to his c r e d i t , r e p o r t e d in 1 7 6 4 , n o t d i r e c t l y to the F r e n c h f o r e i g n m i n i s t e r b u t t o the a m b a s s a d o r in E n g l a n d .

21

French

P o n t l e r o y c o m m e n t e d on the self-suffi-

ciency of M a r y l a n d a n d on its openness t o attack. T h e s e characteristics, h e f e l t , w e r e e q u a l l y t r u e of t h e o t h e r central p r o v i n c e s of N e w Y o r k a n d of P e n n s y l v a n i a . A p a r t f r o m this o b s e r v a t i o n , M a r y l a n d p l a y e d no p a r t i c u l a r p a r t in his r e p o r t . 2 2 I n contrast to this b r e v i t y

is t h e d e t a i l of a n o t h e r

French

visitor, a R o m a n C a t h o l i c w h o r e m a i n s still u n i d e n t i f i e d .

The

j o u r n e y of this o b s e r v e r t h r o u g h t h e colonies w a s set d o w n w i t h a wealth

of

description,

as w e l l

as political

comment.23

He

r e a c h e d M a r y l a n d in J u n e 1 7 6 5 w h e n t h e S t a m p A c t excitement w a s at its h e i g h t . H e v i s i t e d U p p e r M a r l b o r o u g h , " t h e senter of pleasures in m a r y l a n d " ;

Annapolis, which

he

f o u n d to be a

" p r e t y litle t o w n " ; a n d t h e n h e w e n t t o B a l t i m o r e , " w h i c h is " A summary of what Pontleroy reported may be found in C. H. Van Tyne, "French Aid before the Alliance of 1 7 7 8 , " American Historical Review, X X X I , 24-25. The Pontleroy material in the Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Angleterre, and in the Archives National, Marines, is largely reproduced in C. de Witt, Thomas Jefferson: étude historique sur la démocratie américaine (Paris, 1 862) , pp. 407 ff. " D u r a n d to Choiseul, Aug. 3, 1766, cited by Van Tyne, of. cit., pp. 408409. "Journal of a French Traveler in the Colonies, 1 7 6 5 , " American Historical Review, X X V I , 726-747, X X V I I , 70-89. This document was discovered by M . Abel Dovsié while going through the Paris Archives under the direction of M r . Waldo G. Leland of the Carnegie Institute of Washington. The first part of the journal is in English and is concerned with the people whom the traveler visited, the customs of the country, etc. T h e second part is in French and contains a detailed description of the colonies through which he passed. It has not been possible to identify him. M . Bernard Fay makes the conjecture that he may have been the Chevalier d'Annemours, the future French Consul of Baltimore. ( T h e Revolutionary Spirit in France and in the United States, New York, 1 9 2 7 , p. 508, fn. 90.) However, a comparison of the journal with D'Annemours' earliest memorials does not strengthen this hypothesis. The differences in style, orthography, etc., are too extreme. It is true that the Chevalier wrote in 1 7 7 6 that he had paid a visit "aux colonies anglaises" in 1 7 6 3 - 1 7 6 5 ; but he adds that between 1 7 6 5 and 1768, he went to England to learn English. Cf. Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. I. fol. 328. T h e author of the journal evidently knew English. Moreover in 1 7 7 6 when D'Annemours offered his services to Vergennes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he gave a full account of his life but he does not mention ever having served as a government agent.

CONTACTS

BEFORE

1778

31

Considerable for the short time since its first Establishment." In the warehouse in Prince George's County he examined "the bright couloured tobaco which sels So Dear in foreign markets." T h e Patapsco Iron W o r k s at Gwynn's Falls interested him, "wee went to see them but unfortunately the furnais was not in blast." 24 T h e Jesuits and the Roman Catholics were the first to welcome the Frenchman. T h r o u g h them he made many other friends. H e called on Governor Sharpe, and he dined with the men who were "at the top of the province," the Diggeses, the Carrolls, the Galloways, the Dulanys. T h i s convivial group of patriots took the Frenchman into their confidence. . . . there was a large and agreable Company at my tavern, where we had nothing but feasting and D r i n k i n g , after the K i n g s health, the Virginia assembly, and then Damnation to the Stamp act. . . .

If the Frenchman shared the desires of Choiseul he must have rejoiced to hear the Maryland men declare that "they would fight to the last Drop of their blood before they would Consent to any such slavery." H e was convinced that the English by the impolitic measure of the Stamp Act would drive the Maryland people to economic and eventually political independence. It is Certain that this act has made a great alteration in the americans Disposition towards greatbritain, and will have a very Good E f e c t with regard to themselves, it has already set them on raising everything within themselves, which they would never have thought of otherwise, for they hithertoo were the greatest spendtrifts in the world, satisfied if at the years E n d t h e [ y ] Could make both E n d s meet. . . . they were all scheming how to raise manufactures. one had sent home for weavers, another for spiners, another, other things. I n short in three years time they would not have a farthings worth of anything from England. 2 4

But perhaps the most interesting observation which he reported is to be found in his comment upon the feeling in one of the places which he had passed through in Virginia on his way to Maryland. H e r e , he said, "some of them muter betwixt their 24 He also visited " M r . J u n i f e r , " i.e., D a n i e l of St. T h o m a s J e n i f e r , then a " m a j o r in the m i l i t i a . " " J o u r n a l of a F r e n c h T r a v e l e r , " American Historical

Review, XXVII, 71-75.

32

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

teeth, let the worst Come to the worst we'l Call the french to our sucourj and if they were in Canada the British parlem't would as soon be Dd. as to offer to do what they do now." In the second part of his report, which was written in French and in a more serious vein, the traveler devotes his attention to matters military and naval. Like Pontleroy, he marvels at the ease with which a hostile power could gain possession of the Maryland towns, whose fortifications and naval stores he notes with a, precision that reveals the importance he attaches to this factor. 25 In what spirit this report was received we do not know with certainty. Nevertheless, as it contained the pleasing information that the colonists were determined to resist English tyranny, it was in all likelihood acceptable to the French ministers. After the lull caused by the repeal of the Stamp Act, and after the new storm raised by Townshend, still another scout was sent over by Choiseul. Johann Kalb reached Philadelphia on January 12, 1768. H e traveled northward to Halifax, having made two short stops in New York and in Boston. Returning to New York, he sailed for Europe in the spring. Maryland had attracted his attention in no particular way. His reports disappointed Choiseul, since that minister wanted to hear that the colonies were ready for revolt and French connections, whereas Kalb repeatedly asserted the existence of a fundamental loyalty to England. 20 In 1774 Louis X V I came to the throne of France. The ministers whom he selected as advisers were destined to be vitally concerned in the American struggle. Although Count de Maurepas was nominally the head, it was the minister of foreign affairs, the Count de Vergennes, who controlled the policies of the government. H e had succeeded the inept courtier, the Count d'Aiguillon, who had held that office since Choiseul's fall in 1770. Vergennes brought to his new work a keen intellect, a great capacity for work, and a wealth of experience gathered during many years of diplomatic service. Mindful of the crushing defeat M

Ibid., X X V I , 747. " Van T y n e , of. cit., p. 25. Friedrich K a p p , Ltben des Generals Johann Kalb (Stuttgart, 1 8 6 2 ) , pp. 49, 56, 60-63.

Amerikanischen

C O N T A C T S BEFORE

1778

33

and the humbling losses of the Seven Years' W a r , Vergennes made the restoration of French prestige his dominant purpose gs it had been that of Choiseul. Vergennes believed that his end might be attained by supporting the revolt of England's North American colonies. So he too sent a scout to Philadelphia to find out if the moment for intervention had come.27 Achard de Bonvouloir, a discreet observer, was selected by Vergennes to visit America in 1775. Since the middle of that year, the officials in Paris had been convinced that the revolt of the colonists was inevitable. So Bonvouloir went to Philadelphia as a secret agent sent directly to the leaders in Congress. In his communications with these men he disavowed any intention on the part of the French Court for territorial or political aggrandizement. In guarded terms and with great secrecy he solemnly assured the delegates that Louis X V I earnestly desired the establishment of commercial relations with the colonies. His report, which reached Vergennes early in March 1776, was calculated to convince that minister that the opportune moment for intervention had arrived. Bonvouloir had been previously in "all the colonies," but this trip was made for the purpose of talking with the Revolutionary government, therefore he makes no mention of Maryland: 28 On March 12, 1776, in a carefully prepared memorial, Vergennes showed the still hesitant Louis that England, with or without the colonies, would soon be in a position to attack France and Spain. It would be a politically shrewd move to secretly support the insurgents with arms and money. If possible, this should be done without arousing the suspicions of England, but warlike preparations would lessen the danger, should that country take umbrage at the intervention of the French King. One advantage of secret aid was that it would bridge the time that must necessarily elapse before Spain could be brought into line. Vergennes did not doubt that Charles I I I would follow the lead of-the Court of Versailles. United to France by the terms of the D o n i o l , of. cit., I , j 10. F o r some of B o n v o u l o i r ' s papers, see N o . 4, in " D o c u m e n t s Historiques," de W i t t , of. cit.,-pp. 465 ff. 21

28

34

M A R Y L A N D AND F R A N C E

Family Compact, Spain had an additional motive for war with England in the desire to hold Florida and Gibraltar.89 In 1776 Spain, through a desire to weaken England, was especially eager to cooperate with France in assisting the Americans. Grimaldi wrote to Vergennes in March 1776 that "the right as well as the interest of the two Crowns was on the side of aiding the English colonies," but aware of the dangers of such procedure he prudently added, "provided that that can be done in such a way as not to be imputed to us." Charles I I I was quick to follow his royal nephew when he learned that Louis X V I had given a million livres for the support of the insurgents.30 Convinced by the arguments of Vergennes, Louis committed himself to a policy of secret aid: a policy that was rendered all the more feasible by the skill of the man entrusted with this delicate business. Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais reveled in the dramatic role assigned to him by Vergennes. The versatile author of The Barber of Seville, and of The Marriage of Figaro, distributed with quixotic chivalry French and Spanish gold through the fictitious house of Hortalez et Cie. In him the first Americans may have found a "merchant who covered his speculations with the flag of liberalism," and "a man who succeeded in everything except in being honest," but they were deeply indebted to his financial ability and to his tireless activity. 31 Meanwhile, as has been noted, England was pursuing a policy destined, if not designed, to alienate the colonists. The Royal Proclamation of August 23, 1775, had denounced the patriots as "traitors," and had condemned their uprising as "rebellion." News of this proclamation reached America in November 1775. Congress appointed a committee of secret correspondence on " J . F . Y e l a Utrilla, Esfana ante la indefendencia de los Estados Unidos, two volumes ( L e r i d a , 1 9 2 5 ) , I , 9 3 - 1 1 3 . Doniol, o f . cit., I, 308. T h e r e is a convenient summary of the French and Spanish loans and subsidies in S. F . Bemis, The Diplomacy of the American Revolution (New Y o r k , 1 9 3 5 ) , p. 93. E d w a r d S. Corwin, French Policy and the American Alliance of 1778 (Princeton, 1 9 1 6 ) , pp. 6 j , 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 .

C O N T A C T S B E F O R E 1778

35

November 29, 1775, for the purpose of "corresponding with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world.'" 2 In retaliation for the act of Parliament of December 22, 1 7 7 5 , that cut off trade with the colonies, Congress on March 23, 1776, passed a resolution fitting out armed cruisers.33 On April 6, 1776, the ports of the American colonies were opened by a resolution of Congress for trade with the rest of the world. Nonimportation and non-exportation with Great Britain was continued.34 The resolution for independence was introduced in Congress on June 7, 1776, and adopted less than one month later. 35 This official opening of American ports had been preceded by the arrival of many French vessels during the early months of 1776. 36 That these ships had been permitted to bring ammunition and clothing from France was in itself indicative of the temper of the Court of Versailles, but no definite statement of the basis on which Americans might trade with the French was secured until the summer of 1776. In August Vergennes declared that citizens of the United States were "perfectly free to carry on any kind of commerce in the kingdom which any subject of any other state in the world might, as the court had resolved their ports should be equally free to both parties." 37 T h e French firm of Pliarne, Penet and Company were bidding for American trade in Philadelphia at this time. On October 2 1 , 1776, they offered to supply " T h e Respectable Members of the " Journals of the Continental Congress, Hunt and others, Eds. (Washington, 190+) , III, 392. "Ibid., IV, 229-232. M F o r the significance of the opening of the ports, see Bemis, of. cit., p. 30. In the Maryland Gazette of Oct. 1 7 , 1 7 7 6 , there is an interesting letter showing the extent of American trade at this time. The correspondent declared that there was not a maritime power in Europe that did not trade secretly with the British colonies of North America. France and Spain were particularly friendly. " Journals of the Continental Congress, V, 425-429, 5 1 0 - 5 1 6. * Edmund C. Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1 9 2 1 ) , I, 229, 304, 3 1 3 , 327, 3 4 1 , 407. " Deane to the committee of secret correspondence, Aug. 18, 1 7 7 6 , Francis Wharton, Revolutionary Diflomatic Corresfondence of the United Stales, six volumes (Washington, 1 8 8 9 ) , II, 1 1 4 . Trade continued on this basis until signatures were affixed to the treaties of 1 7 7 8 .

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

36

Secret Committee of the Province of M a r y l a n d , " with cannon, gunpowder, and everything necessary for a successful war. 38 T h e French were particularly eager to develop trade connections with Maryland because of tobacco. T h e Farmers General who had long enjoyed a monopoly of this trade in France had been accustomed to purchase this commodity in England. In June 1776 Arthur L e e wrote to the committee of secret correspondence that France wished to secure tobacco directly from America. A year later he wrote again that "tobacco was the most weighty political engine we could employ with the French court." 39 But the first interest of the Maryland council in 1776 was to secure needed supplies in the friendly French and Dutch ports of the West Indies. This trade centers around a Maryland merchant, Alexander Van Bibber, who was made state agent in St. Eustatius. 40 T h e council made frequent consignments to him and facilitated his relations with the other states.41 In June 1776 he formed a partnership with Richard Harrison of Martinique. 42 It was soon found necessary to buy or to charter more vessels for this trade. Tobacco, "super-fine flour," and bread were the articles that were most frequently exported. T h e importations varied. "Salt, as far as 30,000 bushels," was an item that appears frequently, and from the amounts asked for, it must have been badly needed. A t the end of August the state agents were empowered "to purchase and store thirty thousand Bushels of salt in such of the Islands of the West Indies as they may think proper and by proper Opportunities to import the same into this State to be sold out on the public account." 43 Another typical " P l i a r n e , Penet a n d C o . to the Secret C o m m i t t e e of the P r o v i n c e of M a r y l a n d , O c t . 2 1 , 1 7 7 6 , Maryland Archives, X I I , 3 8 4 - 3 8 5 . W h a r t o n , of. cit., I I , 2 4 3 . 19 A . L e e to the c o m m i t t e e of secret c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , J u n e 3, 1 7 7 6 , ibid., p . 9 J ; same to s a m e , F e b . 1 8 , 1 7 7 7 , ibid., 2 7 3 ; F r a n k l i n a n d D e a n e to the c o m m i t t e e of secret c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , M a r c h 1 2 , 1 7 7 7 , ibid., p. 2 8 3 . T h e last l e t t e r c o n t a i n s a g o o d a c c o u n t of the c o n t r a c t m a d e b y the c o m m i s s i o n e r s w i t h the F a r m e r s G e n e r a l . 40 T h e V a n B i b b e r s w e r e a c t i v e M a r y l a n d m e r c h a n t s d u r i n g the r e v o l u t i o n a r y p e r i o d . T h e s p e l l i n g of the n a m e v a r i e s , V a n b e b b e r , V a n B e b b e r . R o b e r t P u r v i a n c e , Narrative of Events which occurred in Baltimore Tovm during the Revolutionary War ( B a l t i m o r e , 1 8 4 9 ) , p p . 1 6, 3 2 , 3 5 , 6 5 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 . " C o u n c i l to c o m m i t t e e of s a f e t y o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a , M a y land Archives, X I , 442.

25, 1776,

C o u n c i l to V a n B i b b e r a n d H a r r i s o n , D e c . 1 9 , 1 7 7 6 , ibid., X I I , 5 4 2 . " Journal of the Maryland Conventions ( B a l t i m o r e , 1 8 3 6 ) , p. 3 6 .

42

Mary-

CONTACTS BEFORE

1778

37

order was for " A r m s , coarse clothes, Blankets and L e a d , " to which the council added, " w e fear we will be disappointed in procuring as many as we want—you will therefore if possible charter or buy Vessels with you. . . In the preceding months they had asked f o r small arms, a few field pieces, powder, and blankets. 45 A week later they received gunpowder. 46 On J u l y 6, 1 7 7 6 , the council commended their agents, . . we are pleased with everything that you have done, and shall give you every support in our P o w e r . " T h e y ordered: " P o w d e r , Gunlocks, musquets, Course cloths to cloath 3000 men, blankets 3000, greatly wanted, 3000 course stocks, 2000 pr shoes, L e a d , gun flints, thin duck for tents, course hats better than the last sent by M r . Van Bibber, German Ozna good, T i n , Camp kettles and Cantines." 47 Reports from St. Eustatius encouraged this trade. It was said that the demand for American produce increased daily and that many vessels came there straight from French and Dutch ports so that the market was well stocked with European goods. 48 In August the council sent another order for guns and bayonets, more woolens, linens, gun flints, lead, powder, and saltpeter. 49 In September they advertised for more vessels to trade with the "foreign West Indies." 5 0 T h e English could not allow such violations of neutrality to pass unchallenged. T h e y accused the governor of St. Eustatius of conniving at the illicit trade with the North American rebels and they requested the States General, the supreme legislative body of the United Provinces, to recall so weak and disloyal an officer. H e was replaced by his secretary, Johannes de G r a a f , who was soon in the good graces of the Americans. 51 On November 5, 1 7 7 6 , Van Bibber wrote of the change: I am on the best of terms with his Excellency the Governour and have his word and Promise relative to some particulars that gives 44 Council to Van Bibber and Harrison, Sept. 12, 1776, Maryland Archives, X I I , 268. "Council to Captain Abraham Van Bibber, June 18, 1776, ibid., X I , 501. " J u n e 29, 1776, ibid., p. 533. " C o u n c i l to Van Bibber and Harrison, July 6, 1776, ibid., pp. 556-557. " Maryland Gazette, J u l y 1 1 , 1 776. Council to Van Bibber and Harrison, Aug. 5, 1776, Maryland Archives, X I I , 1 7 1 - 1 72. 10 Maryland Gazette, Sept. 19, 1 7 7 6 . " Bemis, o f . cit., p. 1 2 2 .

3«

M A R Y L A N D

AND

FRANCE

g r e a t Satisfaction and puts much in our powers. I w a s not so happy some time agoe and had every bad consequence to apprehend our n e w G o v e r n o u r ' s taking C o m m a n d , but w e are as well

on fixed

w i t h him as w e w e r e w i t h the f o r m e r . 5 2

Van Bibber urged the Maryland council to send all their vessels to this island in preference to any other because the Dutch were disposed to make" the most favorable concessions to the Americans. On November 19, 1776, he informed the council that traders were quick to take advantage of the eagerness of the Dutch: O u r F l a g flys current every day in the road. T h e merchants here are a l w a y s complaining of the G o v e r n m e n t us as m u c h

Protection and

Indulgence

until they would

here to us as the

give

French

and Spaniards do. . . . the G o v e r n o u r is daily expressing the greatest desire and Intention to protect trade w i t h us here. Indeed they began to discover their Mistake and are n o w very jealous of the F r e n c h ' s r u n n i n g a w a y w i t h all their trade. 5 3

T h e interests of trade with the French were made the subject of a model treaty that Congress drafted during the summer that followed the Declaration of Independence. The "plan of 1 7 7 6 " was primarily a commercial treaty in which the Americans were to receive all the "privileges, immunities, and exemptions" that were granted by France to its own nationals. A l l the liberal principles for the protection of neutrals were embodied in the draft: T h e French were to protect American vessels from the depredations of the Barbary pirates. Each country was bound to admit vessels of the other to its armed convoys, and to assure the same protection to all the ships of the convoy. The United States agreed not to support England in the event that an Anglo-French war resulted from the American treaty.54 This document was entrusted to the three commissioners, Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Arthur Lee, who were sent to represent the United States at the Court of Versailles. 55 Deane, K

Van Bibber and Harrison to Townshend, Hooe, & Co., Nov. 5, 1 7 7 6 , Maryland Archives, X I I , 4 2 3 . " V a n Bibber and Harrison to Council, Nov. 19, 1 7 7 6 , ibid., p. 456. " Journals of the Continental Congress, V, 768-780. M Ibid., V, 827. Jefferson was prevented from accepting a place on the commission because of the illness of his wife. Arthur Lee was elected to fill the vacancy.

C O N T A C T S B E F O R E 1778

39

a Connecticut merchant, had left America on March 16, 1776. In spite of the mysterious subterfuges of an assumed name and the extensive use of invisible ink, Deane's identity was soon discovered by the English Ambassador in Paris. T h e immediate expulsion of the American agent was demanded. T h e French authorities minimized the importance of Deane's presence. Not until after the news of the Declaration of Independence reached Paris did Vergennes receive Deane. Evading all questions of a treaty or of an alliance, the French minister showed his kindly interest in the colonial struggle by introducing Deane to Beaumarchais and to Conrad Alexandre Gérard. 58 Gérard was well able to guide the American in the troubled waters of European politics. At the beginning of his career he had held positions in the smaller foreign chancelleries, Choiseul brought him back to France, making him chief clerk in the French foreign office in 1766. Vergennes reposed great confidence in him and he rose rapidly. His brother, Joseph Mathias Gérard de Rayneval, was chosen to be Vergennes' private secretary. Both brothers assisted the Americans, to the subsequent confusion of historians, but it was the younger one, Conrad Alexandre, who was sent to Philadelphia as French minister during the Revolution." It was to Gérard that the Chevalier de L a Luzerne appealed in behalf of the Chevalier d'Annemours, a relative of his who wished to go to America. L a Luzerne was to be another most prominent figure in the story of the Franco-American Alliance. H e had successfully combined a military with a diplomatic career. As Gérard's successor in Philadelphia, L a Luzerne would soon render signal services to the young republic. In 1776 he had been given a temporary appointment in Bavaria, but before his departure he interested himself in D'Annemours. 58 T h e Chevalier Charles François Adrien L e Paulinier d'Annemours was born in Normandy in 1742. When he was twelve years old, with a patrimony of six hundred livres, he embarked Doniol, of. cit., I, 243, 494-520. " Bemis, o f . cit., p. 97. Paul C. Phillips, The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution ( U r b a n a , 111., 1 9 1 3 ) , pp. 77-82. La Luzerne to Vergennes, 1776, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1, folio 328. M

40

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

on a merchant vessel to seek his fortune in the American colonies. For seven years he worked for shipping companies at Martinique. During the war with England he was taken prisoner. From this time dates his keen interest in and sympathy with things English. During the eighteen months of his incarceration he began to learn the language, and so congenial did he find the people that he came to the English colonies after the cessation of hostilities. A short visit to Normandy in 1765 brought him neither pleasure nor profit. So after a brief stay he crossed the Channel for a period of two years, eighteen months of which he spent in a small village in order to perfect himself in the fluent use of the English tongue. So well did he succeed that L a Luzerne was able to say of him, years later, that he had the "enormous advantage of knowing the English language as well as an Englishman, and of being able to express himself in it as if it were his native tongue." 59 In 1768 he returned to the French West Indies, making his home in Martinique, but he was unable to form satisfactory commercial connections, and he transferred his affairs to the British colonies, where for four years he enjoyed the confidence of the most prominent merchants. Frenchmen found that they could place in him the most implicit trust. His affairs prospered until his return to France in 1 7 7 3 . Once again he found life in Normandy uncongenial. H e declared that life anywhere else, under any other conditions, would be preferable to remaining at home. Hearing rumors of a rupture between the American colonies and Great Britain, D'Annemours decided to put his knowledge of English to good account. H e felt that his journey through the northern colonies in 1 7 7 2 and 1773 had given him information that would make him a valuable secret agent, so he determined to offer his services to the French Government. For this purpose he enlisted the help of L a Luzerne. L a Luzerne first appealed to Gérard, asking him to have an interview with D'Annemours. Gérard, however, expressed such "grave reasons" against the proposed visit that L a Luzerne ad" hoc, cit.

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

41

mitted that they were really unanswerable.60 But he did not desist from his purpose. H e encouraged D'Annemours to prepare two memorials. These papers show that the prospective agent was well acquainted with the political and economic needs of the people in the British colonies in the Caribbean and in North America. T h e first paper was entitled, " A Memorial on the Connections to be formed with the Americans." It bears the same date as the other documents sent to Gérard at this time, October 2, 1776. It is a well-prepared summary of the advantages that would accrue to France as a result of an alliance with the British colonies. It is based on their exploitation, the best means to be employed, and the ultimate advantages to be derived. 01 In his "Observations on the Affairs of England and North America," he outlined a plan for concerted action against three different parts of the British Empire. T h e scheme was a grandiose one. Eight or ten thousand troops were to be sent to the French West Indies to watch the English islands. Thirty or forty thousand men should be stationed in Normandy, Picardy, and Flanders, in order to terrify England. Eighteen or twenty thousand men should fortify Provence, and aided by a fleet near Toulon, menace the English in the Mediterranean. Another fleet of fifteen or twenty frigates should control the seas near Brest. France would then be in a position to dictate terms to England, either offering war or stipulating the price of peace. Finally— and this was the point in which the author of the memorial was most interested—secret emissaries were "to bind the Americans to France by the ties of friendship as well as by a common interest." In conclusion he offered himself as agent.02 There was also included "a plan of conduct that the Chevalier d'Annemours proposes to follow during his stay in Philadelphia." H e suggested that he should "present himself as a French officer whom the love of travel and the unusual spectacle of a revolution 1,0

L a Luzerne [to G e r a r d ] , Oct. 2, 1 7 7 6 , ibid., vol. 1 , folios 24.3-244. " " A Memorial on the connections to be formed with the Americans, by the Chevalier d'Anmours," Oct. 2, 1 7 7 6 , vol. 1 , folios 2 4 5 - 2 4 8 ' ° . 82 "Observations on the affairs of E n g l a n d and of North America, by the Chevalier d'Anmours," Oct. 2, 1 7 7 6 , ibid., vol. i , folios 2 4 9 - 2 5 2 .

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

42

had brought to that city for a prolonged visit." H e would impress the Americans with his knowledge of politics and commerce, in order to attract to himself merchants, soldiers, politicians, so that he might the better "penetrate the secrets of those among them who play some active part in public affairs." His aim was a fourfold one: to keep his finger on the public pulse in order to discover how strong was pro-French and pro-English feeling j to spy on the other foreign agents} to learn the military plans and the relative merits of the important generals -, and finally, to allow no matter to escape the notice of the Court of Versailles that would be of interest to the French Government in the army, navy, trade, or manufactures of British North America. H e would transmit this information frequently and at length, by way of England, thus obviating, he believed, the danger that his letters would be intercepted. Because of the importance of his communications he would always write in code. The memorial closed with a delicate allusion to the pecuniary needs of the future agent. Through La Luzerne and Gérard this document reached Vergennes, who, with his own hand, appended on the last page of the memorial, the trenchant and apparently decisive words: "As the King gives neither mission nor commission to Monsieur le Chevalier d'Anmours, his Minister cannot recognize in any way whatsoever the trip that is contemplated, unless it be to oppose and to forbid it." 63 How this official rebuff was communicated to D'Annemours is not known, but it did not leave him discouraged. H e prepared yet another memorial. Gérard may have pointed out to the applicant that the papers that he had written closely resembled other documents then being presented to the foreign office. Or it may have been L a Luzerne who realized that if Vergennes was looking for an agent to follow Congress and to report on conditions in America, he would not be concerned with that agent's ability to frame great military schemes, or with his skill in devising a remedy for the evils of the French colonial system, but he would be impressed by a memorial that showed accurate and detailed "Ibid.,

248".

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

43

knowledge of the British colonies, and a shrewdness of observation. T h e Chevalier now wrote the best of his early memorials.64 It is entitled: " A Memorial on the English Colonies situated on the continent of North America, by the Chevalier Danmours, who visited them during the years 1772 and 1773." In the opening paragraph he states that he will describe only the "warring provinces" of "a country destined to play an interesting rôle in the history of the world." Because of the large part of his life that was to be spent in Maryland, his remarks on that colony are of special interest. H e explained that Maryland was founded to ensure the religious freedom of the Roman Catholics. During his visit to the province he learned that there were more members of that faith in the colony than there were in any other. T h e people were pro-French. T h e y shared, he believed, the general longing for independence, but the lightness of their characters made it improbable that they would be constant or energetic in the pursuit of their ambition. In the course of the Revolution, he wrote, they will probably be guided by public opinion rather than by any predetermined resolution.65 Because of its situation, Maryland was able to produce the most valuable articles of the northern and of the southern colonies. In its woods there was an abundance of timber. Rich veins of iron had been discovered not far from Baltimore. W i t h Virginia it shared a monopoly of the tobacco trade. T h e value of its exports increased each year. Such necessaries as corn, vegetables, and salted meats were produced in large quantities. These products could be exported easily because of Chesapeake Bay which pene84 T h e r e are three copies of this memorial in the Manuscripts Division of the L i b r a r y of Congress, ( i ) " M é m o i r e de Chevalier d'Aumours sur les colonies anglaises de l ' A m é r i q u e du N o r d ; transmis par L a Luzerne à Vergennes," ibid., v o l . i , folios 329-355. ( 2 ) " M é m o i r e sur Les Colonies Angloises Située au Continent de l ' A m é r i q u e Septentrionale. P a r M . L e Chev. Danmours Qui Les a Parcourue pendant les années 1 7 7 2 et 1 7 7 3 , " ibid., Mémoires et Documents, v o l . i , pp. 1 8 ff. It is to this photostat that references are made in the text. ( 3 ) T h e r e is in the French Legation Papers an incomplete copy of the above under the heading: " M é m o i r e remis en 1 7 7 6 P a r M . D'anemours sur les Colonies anglaises d ' A m é r i q u e , " vol. 1, cahier 1. These three memorials show the difficulty of determining the correct spelling of the Chevalier's name. In his letters he was equally inconsistent. 85 Archives des A f f a i r s v o l . i , 25-26.

Etrangères,

Mémoires

et Documents,

Etats-Unis,

44

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

trated into the very heart of the continent. T h e bay was the key to the entire country. A n y European nation interested in America should guard it jealously, because along its waters a friendly power could bring succor to a land in distress, or a hostile power could carry terror and destruction. 60 In his travels, D'Annemours had noticed that there was a great demand for luxuries in the Carolinas, a demand that was not felt in Philadelphia, but which was first found in M a r y l a n d . T h i s would mean that France should try to cultivate trade with the southern colonies. T h e sympathy of the Chevalier seems to have been with this section, although he was more impressed with the energy and power of the northern provinces. A f t e r contrasting these two parts of the country, to the disadvantage of the South, he ventured on a prophecy, foretelling that if, in the years to come, there should be a civil war, the North would triumph. 67 L a Luzerne prepared a notice containing biographical details about D'Annemours, adding the commendatory remark that his protégé "knows the country thoroughly and understands the people, he is moreover a man of intelligence and a keen observer." 6 8 These two papers were evidently transmitted directly to Vergennes. This time the reaction was more favorable. Discreet inquiries were made. W o u l d the Chevalier consider an absolutely unofficial and unaccredited mission? His first answer was in the negative, but it was qualified by the condition that he would accept such a mission if he might, should occasion require it, confide his status to Washington and to other prudent members of Congress. An agreement was reached, and in the first half of 1 7 7 7 he sailed for Boston. F o r the next two years he followed Congress, reporting at intervals to Vergennes. 69 H e was disappointed that the French M

Ibid., pp. 27-30. "Ibid., p. 34. ™ "Notice sur le Chevalier d'Anmours par L a Luzerne pour accompagner son mémoire a Vergennes," 1 7 7 6 , ibid., Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 , folios 3 2 8 - 3 2 8 ' ° . Most of the information given by M . Patenotre in his article on d'Annemours is to be found in this notice. Maryland Historical Magazine, V, 38ff. and I, 2 4 1 f t . "* M . Patenotre believed that this correspondence was lost. Ibid., V, 42 fn. Some of the reports may be consulted in the French Legation Papers, in vol. I, cahier 1 . See bibliography.

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

45

were so slow in forming an alliance with the Americans. On July 6, 1777, he wrote from Philadelphia, " A l l confidence in the French is being lost here. It is time that a decision be made." 70 Experience had confirmed his first favorable opinion of the New England states. H e wrote: " T h e North is always energetic. The Center already desires rest, regretting its loss." In the South, where he believed that Virginia was the dominant state, he had found that dissatisfaction was bred by the great inequality in the distribution of wealth. The people, who devoted themselves to hunting, were poor. The rich merchants, for the sake of their commerce, supported the war. In Maryland he noted a change in the attitude of the people towards the French. In one of his memorials of 1776, he had written that there were more pro-French in that state than in any other, but now he observed a growing coolness. This he felt was due to the fact that there were a great number of Roman Catholics there. The people were influenced by the Jesuits, and they feared an alliance with France lest the Jesuits be expelled from Maryland. 71 Vergennes, not satisfied with D'Annemours, or wishing to supplement the information relayed from Philadelphia, in the fall of 1777 sought another agent. For this purpose he applied to Leray de Chaumont. This merchant was actively concerned with the commercial side of French aid. H e placed his home in Passy at the disposal of Franklin, who had been in France since the last days of 1776. The French merchant refused any remuneration other than the honor of having I'ami du f e u f l e as his guest.72 In official circles it was rumored that Beaumarchais would 70 Philadelphia, July 6, 1 7 7 7 , ibid,, "Extraits divers," cahier 1 (there is no pagination in the first cahier). ""Observations de 8 9eme mois de 1 7 7 7 , Par M . D'Annemours," ibid. The Jesuits had been exiled from France in 1 7 6 4 - 1 7 6 7 . England took no measures against the Society, so the Jesuits in Maryland were not affected. On July 2 1 , 1 7 7 3 , Pope Clement X I V signed an Apostolic Brief suppressing the Jesuits throughout the world. This meant that the Maryland Jesuits could no longer exist as a corporate b°dy, but that they were able to continue their work as individuals. T . J . Campbell, The Jesuits, 1534-1921 (New York, 1 9 2 1 ) , pp. 496, 498, 599-601. 2 Doniol, o f . cit., II, 614. This name varies: Le Roy, or Leray, or Lerey de Chaumont.

46

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

soon be chosen for a confidential mission in America. Indeed, this report was sent to Frederick I I of Prussia, who was still apparently indifferent to the American cause. But Leray de Chaumont did not suggest Beaumarchais as a suitable agent; he recommended John Holker fils, the son of a man closely connected with him in business." A knowledge of the history of the Holker family helps to an understanding of the strange combination of rashness and of prudence that were united in this adventurer who was to figure in the commercial side of the American Revolution in Maryland. His father, John Holker, was an Englishman who had been attracted by the promises and the personality of the Young Pretender. Leaving land, possessions, and friends, he had crossed the Channel and had settled in France after an "incursion du Prince Stuard." As a result, his property was confiscated by the British Government, and he turned to the French who befriended him with a grant of land and of valuable commercial privileges. With this official support he undertook the establishment of several new industries, soon amassing a large fortune. His son showed the same business ability, and because of his knowledge of French and of English he was well fitted, Leray de Chaumont informed Vergennes, to go to Congress as a secret agent. Great mystery surrounded his mission, which was, it would seem, that of a spy, a confidential agent, and an independent merchant. His instructions, dated November 25, 1777, were written by Gérard and communicated verbally to the agent then in Paris. H e was told to convince Congress that it must not make peace with England unless the independence of the United States was guaranteed. H e must meet the leaders in the legislative assemblies and inform Vergennes of their attitude towards France and England. He must report all possible facts concerning the American army and navy. It was also a matter of interest to the French court that it be kept informed of the growth n Ibid., I I , 6 1 5 . T h e r e are 40 volumes of J o h n Holker Papers in the M a n u scripts Division of the L i b r a r y of Congress. T h e first volume contains nothing of importance prior to 1 7 7 8 .

C O N T A C T S B E F O R E 1778

47

of commerce and the financial condition of the country.74 On December 1 , 1777, Holker left for Dunkerque. After his departure, Vergennes wished him to know that the English were contemplating a new offer of peace to the Americans. It was now no longer possible to communicate verbally with him, so Vergennes instructed Gérard to dictate to Leray de Chaumont the final word of advice. Holker was counseled to warn Congress that the English were about to suggest terms of peace, but that these must not be accepted unless they were accompanied by definite assurances of independence. News reached Paris on December 4, 1777, of Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga. 75 This American triumph overcame the last objection of the French King. On January 8, 1778, the American commissioners were informed that the King would enter into an alliance with their country. On February 6, 1778, two treaties were signed by Franklin, Deane, Lee, and Gérard. The treaty of alliance was to go into effect if France ar¡d England should go to war because of the treaty of amity and commerce which was operative at once. The purpose of the alliance was stated to be "to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence absolute and unlimited, of the said United States." France renounced forever any part of the North American continent which before 1763, or, in virtue of the treaty of that year, was the possession of Great Britain. The United States were free to conquer Canada, while France was allowed to secure any of the British West Indies. The French King agreed to interest himself in American shipping in the Mediterranean, but he did not bind himself to protect their boats from the Barbary pirates. In other details the main provisions of the "plan of 1 7 7 6 " were incorporated in the new treaties. There was an additional act, signed secretly by both parties, specifying that Spain had the right to sign the treaties.76 ™ Doniol, o f . cit., II, 6 1 5 - 6 1 6 . ™ Ibid., II, 626-628. ™ Bemis, o f . cit., 5 8 - 6 1 , gives a most concise summary of the result of this news in France. Ibid., 61-66. H. Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Washington, 1 9 3 1 ) , II, 45-47.

48

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

H e r e there is no need to marshal and to evaluate the evidence supporting the possible motives that may have influenced the French Court to come openly to the help of the new republic. It has been contended that the cause was a desire for "intellectual freedom." 7 7 M . Fay believes that it was an attempt to give the world a new economic status, to usher in, under French protection, a new era of justice, liberty, and morality. 78 Others have held that it was due to the fear of the loss of the French West Indies; 7 9 or the hope of the recovery of Canada; 8 0 or the ambition to restore French prestige; 81 or the effort to secure new markets. 82 In contrast with these motives, attributed by scholars to Vergennes, it is interesting to note that the King assured Gérard that the sole motive for the assistance rendered the Americans was the royal desire for their independence. In the instructions given to Gérard on March 29, 1778, to guide him in his office of first Minister Plenipotentiary at Philadelphia, his chief purpose was said to be to strengthen the independence of the nation, to preserve union among the states, and to foster friendly relations with France. 83 H o w e v e r , when separatist tendencies became evident during the American Revolution, Vergennes admitted that the union of the states was necessary only during the continuation of hostilities; with the coming of peace, the confederation could be permitted to fall apart, lest the nascent country develop into a dangerous rival. 84 T h e Chevalier d'Annemours, the French secret agent, who, as we have seen, was sent to this country in 1776, later reported the rumor current in Maryland that the " B a n c r o f t , History of the United States, V , 2 5 6 . " F a y , of. cit., pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 4 . ™ V a n T y n e , of. cit., p. 24. M D o n i o l , op. cit., I I , 6 1 6 . " C o r w i n , of. cit., p. 22. " A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n g è r e s , C o r r e s p o n d a n c e P o l i t i q u e , Etats-Unis, v o l . 3, f o l . 1 6 8 , f o l . 1 7 3 . " D o n i o l , of. cit., I l l , 1 5 3 , citing- the instructions g i v e n to G é r a r d on M a r . 29, 1 7 7 8 . 94 G é r a r d to V e r g e n n e s , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n g è r e s , Correspondance P o l i t i q u e , E t a t s - U n i s , v o l . 10, f o l . 35-38.

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

49

foreign aid was a scheme to prolong the war and to secure the American continent for the French. 85 Debatable as are the motives that prompted the alliance, its results are definitely ascertainable. For purposes of diplomacy the English ignored the treaty, whose existence they must have suspected. On March 3, 1778, it was officially brought to their attention by the Marquis de Noailles, the French ambassador to the Court of St. James's. Six days later diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed, and war followed. 86 Charles I I I did not take advantage of the secret clause of the French treaties that gave him the right to become a member of the alliance. Grimaldi, the vacillating Genoese marquis, was no longer minister of state; Florida Blanca, his capable and aggressive successor, had adopted a policy calculated to free Spain from French interference. H e made it clear to both England and France that Gibraltar must be the price of Spanish support.87 In America the news of the Alliance was hailed with joy. Congress was eager to ratify the treaties. They received the approbation of that body on May 4, 1778. 88 Confronted with the problem of securing gunpowder and uniforms for their militia, the individual states turned towards France. Georgia acted before the Court of Versailles had accepted the young republic as an ally. In 1777 the southern state received a favorable answer to its request, presented by Captain de la Plaigne, for arms, clothing for soldiers and negroes, material for the Indians, and drugs. In exchange, rice, indigo, silk, and furs "suitable for the French trade" were to be moderately priced 85 D'Annemours to Vergennes, Oct. 22, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, Supplément, vol. 4, fol. 8. 89 Doniol, op. cit., II, 8 1 7 . Edward Bancroft, secretary of Deane and a spy in the pay of the British government, later boasted that the English Foreign Office had a copy of the treaty on Feb. 8, 1778. S. F. Bemis, "British Secret Service and the French American Alliance," American Historical Review, X X I X , 474.-476. Wharton discusses Bancroft's career in great detail, op. cit., I, 6 2 1 - 6 4 1 . His "alleged corrupt disclosures" of the French American Treaty are minimized, op. cit., I, 634-636. 87 Bemis, The Diplomacy of the American Revolution, pp. 75-77. Not until June 2 1 , 1 7 7 9 , did Spain unite with France against England. 88 The treaties had reached Congress only two days previously. S. Chase to Governor Johnson, Apr. 5, 1 7 7 8 , Maryland Archives, X X I , p. 10.

5o

M A R Y L A N D AND F R A N C E

in America, and shipped to France. Between April and June, 1778, four vessels, the Prince Emmanuel, the Consul of Cadiz, the Vernet, and the Adams, sailed to Georgia. But when the Vernet reached the state the English were in possession, and finding that the other cargoes had been sold to them, the captain ordered his vessel to return to France. On his homeward trip the vessel was captured by the British, but it was soon overtaken by the Americans, who brought it to the port of Boston. There Monsieur de Valnais, the French consul, claimed it as the property of France, but part of the cargo was awarded to the American privateer that had "captured" the Vernet. Thus the foreign aid solicited by Georgia resulted in a claim made against Congress by the French company for the loss of the vessel and its cargo.89 South Carolina made a foreign agent of Commodore Gillon in 1778, when he was commissioned to procure ships of war in Europe and to borrow the funds necessary to purchase the armament.90 When Gérard heard that South Carolina not only intended to charter vessels in France but even hoped to raise a foreign legion for the protection of the state, he was alarmed. He feared that this might give the authorities abroad a poor idea of the Confederation or of Congress, so he suggested that South Carolina ask the American minister in France "to countenance the demands" of that state.91 Gillon tarried unsuccessfully in Paris and then turned to Holland where he hoped to be aided by John Adams.92 Virginia, like Maryland, bid for French favor by the ratification of the treaties of alliance and commerce, when requested to do so by the French minister in Philadelphia.93 It was one of the first states to engage in foreign ventures, of which only the barest outline will be given here. In 1778 the legislature em™ Garson, B a y a r d et Cie. to Vergennes, J u n e 29, 1 7 8 0 , Archives des A f f a i r e s Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. i z , folios 4 2 3 - 4 3 1 . " R . Lowndes to F r a n k l i n , J u l y 1 8 , 1 7 7 8 , The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, A . H . Smyth, editor, ten volumes ( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 0 7 ) , V I I , 2 8 7 . " M e m o r a n d u m of Henry Laurens, Oct. 6, 1 7 7 8 , Burnett, o f . cit., I l l , 5 5 7 . " Adams to G i l l o n , N o v . 1 2 , 1 7 8 0 , The Works of John Adams, C. F . Adams, editor, ten volumes (Boston, i 8 j 6 ) , V I I , 328. " Doniol, o f . cit., I V , 1 5 5 .

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

51

powered the governor to secure a foreign loan. Efforts were made to purchase arms and military supplies in Europe. T h e resultant correspondence was so heavy that a clerkship was established for such business. T h e incumbent was to be one " w e l l versed in modern languages." Governor H e n r y sent William L e e to France to obtain arms or a loan from H i s Most Christian Majesty. 9 4 L e e was assisted by Captain Lemaire, who won the support of Franklin. T h r o u g h the latter's good services, three French merchants were found who were willing to give Lemaire what he wanted. But John Adams and William L e e interfered, and nothing was secured for Virginia. Fearing that he could not accomplish anything in France, early in 1779 Lemaire went to Germany on the same errand. 85 North Carolina opened international purchasing in 1779. Colonel Benjamin Hawkins was appointed by the state to secure a loan in the West Indies. H i s mission was not successful because the remittances that he claimed were not forthcoming. T h e Marquis de Bretigny, who was in the pay of both Carolinas, was authorized to "pledge the Faith of the State for the paying and the fulfilling such contracts as he, our said Agent, may enter into for procuring" the arms that were needed. Apparently large amounts of supplies reached North Carolina from this source. T h e post-war difficulty about the settlement of the debt has a twentieth-century note.80 These experiences of some of the other states indicate that Maryland was not alone in its desire for foreign supplies. T h e Diggeses were among those Anglo-Americans who surrounded the commissioners in Paris. George D i g g e s was closely connected with Arthur L e e , to whom he rendered valuable services, but he does not seem to have afforded any direct aid to the state. " H e n i n g , of. cit., I X , 4 6 7 . List o f a r t i l l e r y ordered by the state of V i r g i n i a , June 3, 1 7 7 8 , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n g è r e s , C o r r e s p o n d a n c e P o l i t i q u e , EtatsUnis, v o l . 3, f o l i o 284. " F r a n k l i n to P . H e n r y , F e b . 26, 1 7 7 9 , F r a n k l i n , Writings, V I I I , 320-322. F o r the shipments m a d e to V i r g i n i a , F r a n k l i n to Lee, M a y 1 3 , 1 7 7 9 , ibid., 341-342. " B . U . R a t c h f o r d , " A n I n t e r n a t i o n a l D e b t Settlement: T h e N o r t h C a r o l i n a D e b t to F r a n c e , " American Historical Review, X L , 63, 6 5 - 6 9 . B . H a w k i n s to G o v . C a s w e l l , F e b . 1 4 , 1 7 8 0 , State Records of North Carolina, X V , 3 3 7 - 3 3 8 ; June 24, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., X V I I , 798-802.

52

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

Thomas Digges was also active in these circles. H e was in frequent communication with Franklin, although the latter was convinced that he was in the pay of the British.97 T h e name of William Carmichael, a Maryland citizen, appears frequently in the official correspondence of the period. As Deane's secretary, he was involved in the bitter recriminations that marred the relations of the American commissioners. There is no direct evidence that Carmichael betrayed the trust that was placed in him, but his choice of friends was unfortunate; particularly the confidence he had in Joseph Hynson, a Maryland sea captain, who substituted blank paper for the diplomatic dispatches that he had been given for Congress. Here there is no need to follow Carmichael's European adventures in detail as he did not hold any commission from Maryland, and shortly afterward he returned to America, where he represented that state in Congress until he was sent to Spain.98 The state was more fortunate in its other agents. The commissioners informed Congress of the gift made to them by a Maryland gentleman, then a resident in France. This was Matthew Ridley who had presented them with a valuable manuscript on naval affairs. The document was to be forwarded to Philadelphia on the first vessel leaving France for that city. At this time Ridley was living in Nantes. H e made useful diplomatic and commercial connections there, and upon his return to the United States he was selected by the Maryland assembly to arrange a loan for the state in France, Holland, and Spain." T h e most active agent of this earlier period was Joshua Johnson, the brother of Maryland's popular war-time governor. The Johnsons belonged to a prosperous family of the middle class " W h a r t o n , o f . cit., I , 5 4 1 , 658-659. ™ S. G . Coe, The Mission of William Carmichael to Spain (Baltimore, 1 9 2 8 ) , chapter I. Wharton, o f . cit., I , 5 7 7 - 5 7 8 . Committee of Foreign A f f a i r s to the Commissioners in Paris, J a n . i z , 1 7 7 8 , Wharton, o f . cit., I I , 468-469. A . Lee accused Carmichael of tampering with these papers, Lee to Committee of Correspondence, A p r . 1 4 , 1 7 7 8 , ibid., I I , 5 5 0 . F o r a balanced and scholarly explanation of the incident, cf., S. F . Bemis, "British Secret Service and the French American A l l i a n c e , " American Historical Review, X X I X , 478-480. "Commissioners to President of Congress, Nov. 7, 1 7 7 8 , Wharton, o f . cit., II, 831.

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

53

in Yarmouth. They had established themselves in Maryland in the eighteenth century. Thomas devoted himself to the study of law, reaching, as has been noted, the highest offices in the state. His brothers were neither as gifted nor as fortunate as he, but they achieved success along industrial lines, and later they aided in the development of the western part of the state. Joshua went to England when he was a young boy. H e entered a counting house in London and eventually became a dealer in tobacco. When the war broke out and relations between the mother country and the American colonies were severed, Johnson moved to France and established himself at Nantes. 100 In 1778, when Congress was considering the appointment of commercial agents in France, James Forbes, the Maryland delegate, nominated Joshua Johnson. This choice was approved by his companion, James McHenry, but Congress decided to allow the commissioners to select their own men, so that nothing came of the nomination.101 Prior to this the Maryland assembly had asked Johnson to apply to the French or Spanish courts or to individuals in Spain, France, or Holland, for money, arms, and clothing for the state.102 Franklin was informed of the appointment and of the power that he possessed of selecting another agent should Johnson not be in France. The Maryland agent was in France and he acted promptly according to the detailed instructions of April 3, 1778, that accompanied the resolution of the assembly. H e was told that it would be advisable to borrow money at a moderate rate of interest, rather than to obtain goods on credit; cash payments meant lower prices. T h e clothing should be made of "the same cloth worn by the King of France's Soldiers, the Uniform may be varied a little from theirs, as your Fancy may direct." Muskets should be of one bore, bayonets were most useful when of good length. The whole order should be shipped in several bottoms, a small part of each type of goods in each boat. T h e shipments were to be 100

Delaplaine, of. cit., Maryland History Magazine, X V , 48. J . Forbes to T . Johnson, Feb. 1 3 , 1 7 7 8 , Maryland Archives, X V I , 4.96. J . Henry to T . Johnson, Feb. 1 3 , 1778, ibid., 499. Council to J . Johnson, Apr. 3, 1778, enclosing the resolution of Dec. 12, 1778, ibid., X X I , 7. Council to Franklin, Apr. 3, 1778, ibid., p. 1 3 . 101

54

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

insured, and the order duplicated at the first news of the loss of the vessel. 103 T h e French reciprocated Maryland's desire to establish commercial connections with France. Trade was one of the objectives of the alliance, and the French were eager to exchange their manufactured articles for the raw materials of the new world. T h e large number of French ships that came to Chesapeake Bay in the fall of 1778, as well as some local difficulties that the captains had with the Baltimore authorities, made it seem to Gérard that a French consul ought to be appointed for Maryland. 1 0 4 For this post he turned to the Chevalier d'Annemours. Since his arrival in America in 1776, this agent had reported with fidelity and accuracy all that he had observed. T h e establishment of official relations between France and the United States made it possible to reward him with an official position. In this connection Gérard wrote to M . de Sartine, Minister of the Marine, on October 12, 1778: My

c h o i c e has f a l l e n on the C h e v a l i e r d ' A n n e m o u r s , a N o r m a n

gentleman

who

has been t r a v e l i n g

in

America

through

curiosity

a n d h a s b e e n l i v i n g here f o r the last t w o y e a r s . H e is an i n t e l l i g e n t a n d c u l t u r e d m a n , he speaks E n g l i s h p e r f e c t l y , a n d has w o n the esteem of a l a r g e n u m b e r of i m p o r t a n t people in this c o u n t r y .

Monsieur

the C h e v a l i e r de la L u z e r n e , the f o r m e r m i n i s t e r of the K i n g B a v a r i a , w o u l d be able to i n f o r m y o u m o r e f u l l y c o n c e r n i n g sieur t h e C h e v a l i e r d ' A n n e m o u r s . . . .

in

Mon-

I r e c o m m e n d him to your

kindness.105

T h i s choice was acceptable to the French officials, and on December 12, 1779, the temporary appointment made by Gérard was confirmed by the permanent provisions that made D'Annemours consul general, with his residence in Baltimore. H e was given jurisdiction over Maryland, Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia. In the official communication in which he was told of his appointment, he learned that the choice of His Majesty had been determined by the extensive knowledge of local condi"" C o u n c i l to J. Johnson, A p r . 3, 1 7 7 8 , ibid., p. 14. Ministre du M a r i n e à d'Annemours, Dec. 12, 1 7 7 9 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 1 , folio 80. 104 It must be noted that G e r a r d , w r i t i n g at this time to M . de Sartine, makes no mention of the Chevalier's secret mission in America. Ibid., vol. 5.

CONTACTS

BEFORE

1778

55

tions that D'Annemours had acquired, the proofs of zeal that he had repeatedly given, and the discreet prudence that he had shown during his two years in America.106 Lest there be any doubt in his mind concerning what was expected of him, the letter bringing him his appointment was very explicit on one point—commerce. It was principally for this, so it was repeated, that he had been selected. The King was vitally concerned in the development of those trade relations with Maryland which were of such great importance to the whole French nation. The Chevalier realized this, for he later expressed the same thought: T h e state of M a r y l a n d , though of moderate size, is nevertheless one of the most important of the A m e r i c a n L e a g u e , not only because of its situation, which offers unlimited possibilities for commerce, but also because of its products which are of a kind and in such abundance as to make trade profitable. 1 0 7

The extensive nature of this trade increased the number of problems that the consul had to solve. H e soon discovered that the merchants and the shipowners were utterly ignorant of the requirements of international law. Gérard instructed him to be more exacting in regard to legal formalities. If necessary he must teach the traders what flying a French flag on a vessel meant. H e must explain the regulations governing commerce with France. T h e merchants of Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond were more amenable than were those of Baltimore. The latter were too independent to learn or to care to follow established customs. 108 But D'Annemours' difficulties were not only with the Americans; the French, too, were a cause of trouble to him. Vergennes spoke most decisively to Gérard about the convenient expedient resorted to by certain French captains, who acted independently of the consul until they needed him, and then claimed all the "Provisions de Consul General de france auprès des provinces des deux Carolines de la Virginie et de la Georgie en f a v e u r de Sr. Chev. Dannemôurs." Dec. 1 2 , 1 7 7 9 , ibid., vol. 1 1 , folio 8 1 . 107 " M é m o i r e sur le commerce de l'Etat de M a r y l a n d , " Feb. 1 4 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. i 7, folio 2. lw Vergennes to L a Luzerne, June 3, 1 7 8 0 , ibid., vol. 1 2 , folio 6 1 .

56

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

rights and privileges of their nation when it served their interests. Such insubordination must be dealt with with great severity, so d'Annemours was informed. 109 In the letters still existing written by D'Annemours at this time, reference is most frequently made to the problems raised in connection with the French sailors. M a n y of these men worked their way over on the vessels that plied between the ports of France and of M a r y l a n d ; when they were being loaded or unloaded the sailors escaped to seek their fortunes in America. Sometimes they returned to the seaports, disappointed and disillusioned, and attempted to return as stowaways to Europe. In their distress, the captains appealed to D'Annemours, who tried, usually without success, to trace the missing seamen or to arrange for their passage back to France. 110 A t the time of the terror caused by the presence of English warships in the Chesapeake during the spring of 1779, D'Annemours wrote to the agent of the French Marine in Philadelphia: T h e r e are here at present, forty or fifty French sailors, w h o , I believe, are deserters from Philadelphia or elsewhere. If you wish, I will try to send them to you. But I must w a r n you that w e have here no provincial troops and that the most that w e can do, is to put the men in prison. It is doubtful if they will take them t w o miles out of the city. 1 1 1

H e added, from long experience with such people, that they would probably disappear of their own accord before an answer would reach him from Philadelphia. W h e n mariners reached Maryland, too sick to be sent to France, D'Annemours provided for their wants, rendering an account to H o l k e r of the funds advanced for the "relief of French sailors in the department of Maryland." 1 1 2 In spite of the consul's efforts, the number of deserters continued to increase, with the result that he was notified from Versailles that he must be more vigilant and prevent the French sailors from boarding American vessels and returning to France. 1 1 3 Gerard to de Sartine, June 10, 1780, ibid., vol. 12, folios 261-264. D'Annemours to Holker, A p r . 8, 1779, Holker Papers, III, 466. 111 D'Annemours to Holker, M a y 13, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., I l l , 565. m D'Annemours to Holker, A u g . 23, 1779, ibid., V , 856. "* L a Luzerne to d'Annemours, A u g . 22, 1782, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 12, folio 190. 1W

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

57

Only a passing reference can be made to D'Annemours' work in Virginia. His presence in that state was often necessary, and these prolonged absences occasioned hostile comment in Baltimore. 114 H e found it difficult to attend to the immense correspondence when called away from Maryland so frequently. But these trips had the advantage of enabling him to follow those who left suddenly and of set purpose from Baltimore. 1 1 5 Through L a Luzerne, he was asked to investigate the sudden disappearance of a captain entrusted with a cargo of goods which belonged to a French firm and had been consigned to Baltimore or to Williamsburg. Every effort was made by the consul to locate this vessel. 116 T h e claims of individuals were not the only ones that were entrusted to D'Annemours. M . Penet, a member of the French firm that had solicited the trade of the states in 1776, acting as agent of the state of Virginia, had secured large quantities of goods, but he refused to pay the French manufacturers until Virginia should remit the necessary funds. T h e consul was asked to protect the interests of the French. 1 1 7 The Baltimore consul was also called upon to locate missing relatives, and to settle estates. 118 This difficult business was always complicated by the misunderstanding of the European members of the family, who either would not accept the loss due to the depreciation of the paper money, or made the mistake of believing that anyone who came to this country immediately acquired great wealth. 110 Frequently the French in Philadelphia sent their packets destined for the foreign or the West Indian ports to D'Annemours, who relayed them as directed. 120 One of the chief problems of the war was the ever fluctuating currency. T h e minister in Philadelphia tried to keep his consuls informed as to the probable trend of its value, but from their D'Annemours to Holker, Apr. 8, 1779, Holker Papers, III, 467. Terrasson to Marbois, n.d., Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, Supplément, vol. 12, folio 190. 115 D'Annemours to Holker, Sept. 25, 1779, Holker Papers, VI, 1006. IW La Luzerne to D'Annemours, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 1 , folio 177. " ' L a Luzerne to D'Annemours, Aug. 22, 1782, ibid., vol. 1 1 , folio 219. "* D'Annemours to Marbois, May 8, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 12, folios 245-256. 119 D'Annemours to La Luzerne, Mar. 30, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 6, folio 80. 120 D'Annemours to Holker, Feb. 1 3 , 1779, Holker Papers, II, 358.

5«

M A R Y L A N D

AND

FRANCE

unceasing complaints it is obvious that they must have suffered from the sudden changes. Such incidents as the following were constant: " I have learned at my own expense that the Continental paper is worth nothing. A man owed me $6,000 . . . this he returned a few hours before it was known that the money was no good.'" 2 1 T h e Maryland consul, it has been seen, came into frequent contact with John Holker. Before describing their purchases of flour in Maryland for the French and the Spanish, it will be necessary to speak of Holker's appointment and of his duties as consul and agent of the French Marine. Although he evidently left France in December 1777 or in January 1778, of his first months in America there is no mention. 122 On M a y 1, 1778, his family were able to write, " A t last the impenetrable veil is torn that necessarily enveloped your voyage." 1 2 3 Although charged to go directly to Congress, it was not until June 16, 1778, that he presented himself to that body. H e declared that he had been sent by France to serve Congress as a royal agent. H e testified to the esteem and to the affection of the French King for the young country, and he begged Congress to avail itself of his services. 124 Desiring to be reassured as to the authenticity of this "agent," Congress instructed the commissioners in Paris to call on Vergennes in order to ascertain the status and the powers of this Frenchman, who lacked the simplest credentials. T h e commissioners replied in the fall of 1778: In

observance

of

our

instructions to inquire

into M .

Holker's

authority, w e w a i t e d on his E x c e l l e n c y , the C o u n t de V e r g e n n e s , p r e sented

him

with

the

extract

of

the

letter

concerning

him,

and

requested to k n o w w h a t authority M . H o l k e r had. H i s E x c e l l e n c y ' s a n s w e r to us w a s , that he w a s surprised;

f o r that M .

Holker

had

no verbal commission f r o m the m i n i s t r y ; but that M . de V e r g e n n e s , being i n f o r m e d that M . H o l k e r w a s going to A m e r i c a , desired h i m m D'Annemours to Marbois, M a y 8, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 2 , folios 245-24.6. 123 Doniol, o f . cit., I l l , 6 1 5 . 13 to Holker, M a y 1 , 1 778, Holker Papers, I, 1 8-25. 124 Doniol, o f . cit., I l l , 6 1 5 . Ibid., I l l , 1 8 2 - 1 8 3 . Holker to Congress, Papers of the Continental Congress, vol. 94, June 1 6 , 1 7 7 8 .

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

59

to w r i t e t o him f r o m t i m e t o time, the state of things and the temper of the people. 1 2 5

I n spite of this indifferent recognition, Congress learned that H o l k e r was selected to be the French consul in Philadelphia. In that capacity he began three years of active work. T o his consular duties he added those of agent of the French marine. 1 2 6 In this double office he often went to M a r y l a n d , where he soon became well known. Because of contrary winds, or the presence of the enemy cruisers along the D e l a w a r e , many ships consigned to H o l k e r in Philadelphia were forced into Chesapeake B a y . W h e n the captains landed at Baltimore, and appealed to him for advice, he recommended that they seek the aid of his agents to discharge their cargoes. 1 2 7 M o s t of the captains were Frenchmen w h o did not speak E n g l i s h . T h e y were at the mercy of unscrupulous buyers. B u t H o l k e r did all that he could to help them. 1 2 8 T h e first vessels that were sent to him f r o m France usually carried salt, and returned with tobacco. 129 T h e captains were

highly

gratified with the attention that they received f r o m H o l k e r , and preferred to conduct their business through him, rather than directly with the American merchants who solicited their trade. T h e encouragement that he g a v e to the French he also showed 125 Commissioners to the President of Congress, Sept. 1 7 , 1778, Adams, Works, VII, 39. " O n July 16, 1778, Congress was informed that Holker was "agent of marine of France," Journals of the Continental Congress, X I , 696. On July 23, 1778, Congress was told that he was both consul and agent, ibid., X I , 7 1 3 . 127 The adventure of Captain Burney is typical of many others, Holker Papers, I, 84. ""Ibid., I, 4 1 , 42, 120, 128, 130. This is a series of letters exchanged by Holker and the captain of the Jennie Pierre, Le Griffin, who brought a cargo of salt to Baltimore, J u l y , 1778-Sept., 1778. The salt was sold, at Holker's suggestion, through W. Smith, to the satisfaction of the Bordeaux firm. Ibid., I, 100-01, Aug. 22, 1778. Captain Eymalt of L'Aimable Genevieve turned at once to Holker when the British chased the Frenchman into the Chesapeake. This letter throws some light on the friendship that existed at that time between Robert Morris and Holker. Appended to the Captain's account of expenditures is W. Smith's acknowledgment of the cargo of salt and the receipt for the purchase of some rare claret that Holker wanted for Morris. In the fall, when Holker was in New England looking after the needs of the French fleet, he wrote frequently to Morris, assuring him that he hoped soon to enjoy the claret with him, and begging him to persuade Mrs. Morris to use his mares. Oct. 6, 1778, ibid., I, 154.

6o

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

to the Americans who were making their first ventures in European markets. H e aided them to make profitable connections with the merchants associated with his father and with Leray de Chaumont. 130 But even in the early part of his career there are indications of the two causes of his later troubles: independence of action and a desire to speculate. Sabatier and Son, a Paris firm active at this time in the trade with America, reproached him with the slowness with which he answered their letters, and with the indefinite accounts he had forwarded concerning the many vessels that they had consigned to him. In the disposal of these cargoes he was said to have acted with great freedom and with much personal profit. 131 H e had an insatiable desire for speculation, and the large emissions of paper money and the issue of continental securities seemed to H o l k e r to offer a profitable field. H e encouraged his friends to make this lucrative investment, urging them to do this when the bills were at a high price; he was sure that he could sell the bills at an advantageous price and that he would invest the proceeds in continental securities. H e reassured the prospective purchasers as to the ultimate redemption of these forms of indebtedness. 132 H i s friends followed his suggestion with disastrous results. A year later a man in Cadiz thus summarized for him the results of this folly. T h e paper had depreciated as soon as it had been purchased. W i t h its fall had collapsed the imaginary fortunes of many foreigners, who turned bitterly against the young republic and raised grave doubts as to the eventual victory of the Americans. 133 Holker's relations with the French captains had been so successful that many Frenchmen in Maryland wished to act as his agents. H e received innumerable offers from strange unidentified adventurers, who wrote French and English equally badly, and who had nothing in common with each other except the desire to make money. 134 One of their number makes a curious 11

A u g . 20, 1 7 7 8 , ibid., I , 95. Sabatier and Son, to H o l k e r , Sept. 1 3 , 1 7 7 8 , ibid., I, 169. H o l k e r to L e r a y de C h a u m o n t , Aug. z j , 1 7 7 8 , ibid., I, 103. Contembe to H o l k e r , N o v . 1 6 , 1 7 7 9 , ibid., V I , 1 1 5 6 . J . A . Laussat offered to sell him w i n e and o i l , Oct. 18, 1 7 7 9 , ibid.,

VI,

CONTACTS BEFORE 1778

61

commentary on their nation, when he said, in reference to a protégé whom he had recommended to Holker, " H e is a very good man, who loves to work. This type is very rare among the Frenchmen who are in this country.'" 35 This charge of idleness could never be made of Holker, who was an indefatigable worker, and he was generally recognized as a successful and wealthy merchant during the years of his consulship.136 The nature and the diversity of his Maryland interests may be gathered from his relations with four men during 1779— Jolidan, Terrasson, Ridley, and Smith. The first two were Frenchmen—of whom little more can be told than is shown in an account of their work for Holker. The second pair were prominent Baltimore merchants of whom more is said in other parts of this study. The most elusive of all Holker's agents is Jolidan. H e was a Figaro whose investigations resembled those of a secret service worker, and whose indiscretions aroused the resentment of those to whom Holker sent him, although they never caused him to forfeit the latter's good esteem. 137 H e was aided by a friend, L e Cerf, whom he had known in Europe and in St. Dominica. 138 Terrasson first addressed himself to Holker in the summer of 1779. From the beginning his aim was to supersede D'Annemours, or at least to secure for himself whatever trade the agent of the Marine might have in Baltimore. 139 H e prided himself that he had known L a Luzerne in Paris and in Lyons, and he 1074.; Michery offered him a vessel, Aug. 7, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., V, 948; cf. ibid., V, 8 3 1 ; Boullange wished to serve him in any way, ibid., V I I , 1 2 4 1 , and VI, IO 5 3 i1 » '

°Ct' 9' I ? 7 9 ' Jolidan to Holker, Oct. 30, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., IV, 775. Hall to Holker, Aug. n , 1 7 7 8 , ibid., I, 87. M. L. Carrabus to Holker, Aug. 24, 1 7 7 8 , ibid., V, 858-859. Of special interest for the light that they throw on the commercial aspect of the American Revolution, the hostility to the French in New England, and the pro-French propaganda, are the letters Holker exchanged with the French Consul in Boston, the Chevalier de Valnais. Ibid., IV, 608, 664, 665, 668, 732, 733, 7 3 4 ; V, 799, 800, 823, 824; VI, 996, 11 9+" Jolidan to Holker, Sept. 26, 1 7 7 8 , ibid., VI, 1004. The following series of letters exchanged by Jolidan and Holker refer to commercial transactions connected with French and American houses. Ju|^-Aug., 1 7 7 9 , ibid., IV, 679-680, 6 8 1 , 690-691, 725-726, 742, 762; V, 821. Terrasson to Holker, Aug. 14, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., V, 829-830; cf. ibid., V, 848-849. «53-

62

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

made much of his position as deputy of the local "Assembly General of the French Nation". 1 4 0 Seeing the huge profits that the Americans were making in the trade with the West Indies, he outlined a scheme for Holker and his friends, Robert Morris and the Spanish representative Miralles. 1 4 1 There is no evidence that Holker encouraged this venture or that he recommended it to his friends, but he did make many purchases for the fleet through Terrasson, who replaced D'Annemours during the latter's trips to Virginia. 1,42 Holker's dealings with Matthew Ridley are of interest because of the activities of the Maryland merchant in France. Shortly after the American Revolution began, Ridley returned to Maryland where he took a prominent part in the struggle. In J u l y 1779, Ridley arranged to forward packets from Maryland, addressed in such a way to William Carmichael, the continental agent of the United States then in France, that they would be sent without charge. Ridley informed Holker of the scheme so that he might profit thereby. At the same time he reminded Holker of their meeting in Rouen in 1 7 7 7 , and concluded with the offer to serve him as agent in Baltimore. T h e correspondence continued during the summer. News of shipping, the departure of the fleet, the fall of the currency, were the subjects of their letters until Ridley's appointment as state agent in 1 7 8 1 . 1 4 3 But it was through William Smith, a Baltimore merchant, that Holker conducted most of his Maryland business. It was to him that bills to be sold for Robert Morris were addressed, and packets for Europe were entrusted. Private speculations in the West Indian trade were combined with purchases of salt, provisions, and flour " f o r the account of the King." 1 4 4 So satisfied was Holker with this connection that he made Smith his agent when it was necessary to procure flour for the French and the Spaniards. 145 140 Terrasson to Holker, Oct. 14, 1779, ibid., VI, 1066. "'Terrasson to Holker, n.d., ibid., V, 848. 142 Terrasson to Holker, ibid., V, 853; VI, 1096. '"Ibid., IV, 784; V, 789; VI, 1 1 7 7 ; VII, 1268. 144 Ibid., II, 270; III, 425; V, 833; VI, 1002; VII, 1 2 1 1 . "* See chapter III.

CONTACTS

BEFORE

1778

63

Mention has been made incidentally of Holker's contacts with D'Annemours, but the question may be asked, W e r e the two men friends? T h e answer is decidedly in the negative. Their relations were never smooth. T h e y apparently distrusted each other: H o l k e r resented a certain superiority in D'Annemours' attitude, while D'Annemours seems to have believed that Holker's commercial dealings were not above suspicion. T h e following incidents would warrant such an assumption. 146 T h e appointment of William Smith as Holker's agent in Maryland annoyed the Baltimore consul, but an open rupture was averted until 1780. T h e expected arrival of the vessels under the Count de Grasse in November 1779 was the occasion of a typical complication. T h e Marquis de Vaudreuil reached Chesapeake Bay before de Grasse, for whom Smith had purchased flour, biscuits, and fresh vegetables as H o l k e r had directed. T h e Marquis knew nothing of these arrangements, . . . and conceived it to be the regular line for him to make application to the Consul of France, w h o is n o w at Y o r k where the ship is stationed and M . D ' A n m o u r s has made his application to some persons in Virginia w h o have I believe undertaken the Business of supplying the Ships which may arrive. 1 4 '

It was the Chevalier de Valnais, the French Consul in Boston, who made the suggestion that caused to burst into flame the animosities that the repeated differences between D'Annemours and H o l k e r had enkindled. D e Valnais' suggestion was this: " I believe that the Chevalier d'annemours would be more comfortable in the Baltimore consulate, if he were sent 4000 dollars either as an increase in salary, or as a gift." 1 4 8 H o l k e r acted accordingly. But d'Annemours was indignant, considering that H o l k e r had exceeded his authority and resenting what such a gift implied. 149 In character the two men were diametrically opposed. Holker, the shrewd man of business, had little in common with the more 144 T h i s opinion was later shared by L a Luzerne, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 25, folios 166-166 vo. W . Smith to Holker, N o v . 20, 1779, Holker Papers, V I I , 1 1 7 3 - 1 1 7 4 . '"Ibid., V I I , 1174.. 149 Ibid., I l l , 568.

64

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

aristocratic D'Annemours, who was inclined to patronize him. W i t h becoming dignity and a certain partly concealed scorn, D'Annemours informed H o l k e r that there was no justification for the assumption of power that dictated such an offer: A s simple Consul of Pennsylvania you cannot authorise me to dispose of the subjects of the K i n g in any way whatsoever; as A g e n t of the Marine, w e have nothing in common. T h e Minister of France is the only person in A m e r i c a from w h o m I wish, can, or desire to receive my orders. 150

But Holker was not one to be discouraged by the rebuff offered him by the Maryland Consul. Early in July he suggested to D'Annemours that he would be very happy to advance him any sum of money, were the latter merely to express such a wish. T h e retort was frigid: I have the honor to return to you the statement of expenditures to which I have added a receipt. I beg you to accept my thanks for the most obliging offers that you are good enough to make to me. If my needs required such help I am sure that I could take advantage of them with great confidence, but I flatter myself that I am able to wait until the end of the next quarter without that assistance. 151

T o add to the growing coolness between the two men there were differences in the settlement of their accounts. Perhaps D'Annemours may have felt that he had been too aloof, for after this he made several gestures of friendship to Holker. 1 5 2 However, it is significant that Holker disregarded him after this time, purchasing the flour needed for the Spanish and the French entirely through William Smith. D'Annemours to Holker, June 19, 1779, ibid., IV, 646. 568. l u D'Annemours to Holker, July 9, 1779, ibid., IV, 717. D'Annemours to Holker, July 23, 1779, ibid., IV, 778-779. IM

M1Ibid.,

Ill

SUPPLYING THE FRENCH AND THE SPANISH WITH FLOUR and naval exigencies of the Revolutionary War increased the demand for flour to such a degree that great impetus was given to the cultivation of wheat in Maryland. Nevertheless the supply was rarely equal to the demand because not only did the local needs have to be provided for, but the Maryland merchants had learned how profitable it was to exchange their wheat for French and Spanish gold. The complications that resulted from these conflicting interests form one of the minor incidents of the struggle for independence in Maryland. T h e commissary-general appointed by Congress at the beginning of the war had proved so inadequate to the task of provisioning the army that in the fall of 1777 the shortage of supplies obliged the president of Congress to ask the states for help. 1 Maryland had already taken measures to protect the supply of food in the state. In the spring of that year the assembly had attempted to discourage forestalling and engrossing by stipulating the margin of profit to be allowed wholesale and retail dealers. 2 A n embargo was not yet in force in the state, but all vessels were searched by special order of the governor. 8 These measures were not effective. In the first months of 1778 Congress appealed to Virginia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania for grain.4 In M a y , William Smith of BaltiHE MILITARY

1 E . C. Burnett, " T h e Continental Congress and Agricultural Supplies," A gricultural History, II. 2 Acts of the Maryland Assembly, June session, 1 7 7 7 , chapter X I ; Oct. session, 1 7 7 7 , chapter X I ; Oct. session, 1 7 7 8 , chapter V I I I ; J u l y session, 1 7 7 9 , chapter X V I I . "Council to Captain Cook, J u l y 2, 1 7 7 7 , Maryland Archives, X V I , 304. Council to W. Paca, Sept. 1 , 1 7 7 7 , ibid., X V I , 358. 4 Journals of the Continental Congress, X, 49, 32, 53-55, 1 2 6 , 1 5 2 , 1 6 6 - 1 6 9 , 273-274.

66

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

more, recently elected to the navy board of the middle district, secured a large amount of the much-needed wheat. 5 In June, Congress proposed a country-wide embargo. The argument for such a measure was based on the discovery that efforts to limit prices were ineffectual and valueless both to the general and to the individual good.6 Another factor, equally pernicious, was the exportation of provisions.7 This exportation had made food scarce for the army; and either directly, by collusion, or, indirectly, by capture, had provided the enemy with supplies. So the states were asked to prohibit shipments of grain and livestock from June 10 until November 15, 1778. 8 Although the Maryland assembly confirmed this embargo promptly, within three months Robert Morris declared, in a formal address to Congress, that flour was daily being exported from Maryland "under the Idea of Tobacco." 9 As a result, on September 1 1 , 1778, Congress earnestly recommended "to the governor and council of the State of Maryland, to take measures for preventing the embargo being eluded, by this and such other practices, which, in the opinion of Congress, are highly injurious to the general welfare." 1 0 Six days later the council replied with dignity that such an imputation was unfounded and that the embargo had been strictly observed. 11 In the summer of 1778 the problem of securing provisions for the continental army was further complicated by the arrival ' F o r William Smith's appointment and work on the navy board, ibid., X I , 484, 546, 709, 7 1 0 . It is interesting to note that Smith wrote that private business put it out of his power to give any further attendance at the navy board, ibid., X I , 7 1 0 , J u l y 2 2 , 1 7 7 8 . T h e next day, J u l y 23, 1 7 7 8 , G e r a r d presented two commissions to Congress in f a v o r of J o h n Holker. Ibid., X I , 7 1 3 . It will be shown that in these two positions Holker was to give Smith a great deal of "private business." ' It is to be noted that M a r y l a n d did not revoke its legislation on the limitation of prices. ' Journals of the Continental Congress, X I , 569, June 4, 1 7 7 8 . 'Ibid., X I , 5 7 8 - 5 7 9 , June 8, 1 7 7 8 . T h e letter to the states is given, June 10, 1 7 7 8 , ibid., X I , 5 8 3 - 5 8 4 . * Acts of the Maryland Assembly, June session, 1 7 7 8 , chapter II. E. C. Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1 9 2 1 ), I I I , 406-407, H. Laurens to R . Lowndes, Sept. 1 0 , 1 7 7 8 . F o r other references to this incident see ibid., pp. 409, 4 1 1 , 4 3 1 . 10 Journals of the Continental Congress, Sept. 1 1 , 1 7 7 8 , X I I , 903. " C o u n c i l to the President of Congress, Sept. 1 7 , 1 7 7 8 , Maryland Archives, X X I , 205-206.

FLOUR FOR FRANCE AND SPAIN

67

of the French troops. On July 2, 1 7 7 8 , Gérard, the newly appointed French minister, presented two commissions to Congress which named John Holker, respectively, "inspector general of trade and manufactures of France, and agent to the royal marine of France in all the ports belonging to the United States of North America" and "consul of France in the port of Philadelphia." 12 Holker at once began the purchase of flour for the French forces.13 However, the scarcity of this commodity during the winter of 1 7 7 8 - 1 7 7 9 obliged Gérard to arrange a conference with a committee of Congress on the subject of " T h e State of the Country as to bread." 14 Unable to solve the problem by 12

Journals of the Continental Congress, J u l y 2 3 , 1 7 7 8 , X I , 7 1 3 . " G é r a r d continued to interest himself in commercial matters after the appointment of Holker. Congress suggested that it would be better f o r the French minister to refrain from such operations. Nov. ii, 1 7 7 8 , ibid., X I I , I 122.

" M i n u t e s of conference. 3 Feby., 1 7 7 9 . J [ a m e s ] D [ u a n e ] and M r . Hutson f o r Congress and the Minister of France. Conference opened in behalf of Congress by the Committee. First Subject. T h e State of the Country as to bread. I. In general plentiful, now shortened by the f o l l o w i n g circumstances: 1 . M a n y farmers employed in the w a r . 2. Husbandry discouraged f o r want of Markets. I I . L a r g e demands. a. Losses of magazines. b. Increase of consumption to the Eastward. c. By Burgoyne's army. d. French fleet. e. Our own army. f. Ravages of the Indians, burning grain and driving off the frontier Inhabitants. h. Arts of our enemies. i. F l y and floods. j. Frauds of Forestallers. k. Southern w a r . T h a t on Ministers application Congress appointed a Committee to examine into the State of provisions. A . T h e i r report to Congress. On official information of Commissary General. B. T h e i r sentiments doubtful. C. Further information sought for. T h i s the occasion of delay. In conclusion we offered 1. Immediate supply of 1000 Bbls. of flour in Virginia. 2. Further aid according to circumstances, and to exert ourselves to d r a w forth the remains of flour into the public stores. 3. Submitted whether it will not be wise f o r the Minister to look f o r supplemental aid from Europe.

68

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

discussion, Holker developed a system that was eventually to prove his undoing. Either directly or through agents he purchased flour in large quantities in the neighboring states, holding it in reserve until it was needed for the French troops. His enemies alleged that his fortunes did not suffer through this plan. 15 In the summer of 1779 the first serious charge was made against him, but Congress came to the conclusion that "no imputation of misconduct can be attributed to M r . Holker," and so he continued his purchases of flour, confining them after that date more exclusively to Maryland. 1 6 T h e embargo recommended by Congress in June 1778 was extended until April 1 , 1 7 8 0 . " Maryland during that time allowed three important exceptions: flour was shipped to neighboring states, to an enemy colony, and to the French. Distant New England turned to Maryland in the fall of 1778, when the arrival of the French fleet made it imperative that additional supplies be secured. Certain Falmouth firms responsible for rations applied to Woolsey and Salmon, of Baltimore, for wheat and other necessaries.18 Because of the embargo the Maryland firm hesitated to make the shipment. They suggested that it would be necessary for the Massachusetts governor to apply to the Maryland authorities for permission to send flour out of the state. Application was made in due form and the provisions were shipped in the spring of 1779. 1 9 A similar exportation of wheat was allowed in favor of Virginia in the fall of 1779. 20 A second and interesting exception to the embargo was made for the inhabitants of the Bermudas who suffered when war interrupted their trade with the former continental colonies. On M a y 18, 1779, Congress asked the states of Maryland, Virginia, 4. And he not to purchase [stricken out] Journals of the Continental Congress, X I I I , 326-329. Ibid., Aug. 2, 1779, X I V , 914. This refutes the charges in the Pennsylvania Packet of July 24, 1779. Cf., Journals of the Continental Congress, Aug. 4, 1 7 7 9 , X I V , 919. ^ J u l y 30, 1779, ibid., X I V , 899. X I V , 953-954, 979, 984, 1 0 0 7 ; X V , 1 3 8 3 . " Ibid., Feb. 26, 1779, X I I I , 257. "Votes and Proceedings of the Senate, March 20, 1779. Woolsey and Salmon Letter Book, March-May, 1779. 30 Council to S. Smith, Oct. 22, 1779, Maryland Archives, X X I , 564. Journal of the Continental Congress, Oct. 2, 1779, X V , 1 1 37.

F L O U R F O R F R A N C E A N D SPAIN

69

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Delaware to authorize the exportation of one thousand bushels of corn for the relief of the inhabitants.21 This permission was granted, but the Maryland council suspected that the captain entrusted with the shipment did not dispose of it as he had been directed.22 In the first six months of the next year the council was again generous in allowing corn to be exported to the islands. Permission was given for four vessels laden with provisions to leave Maryland. 23 At the close of 1780 the people of Bermuda addressed a memorial to the Maryland governor asking that the shipment that they were then preparing be exchanged for grain and other provisions. The memorial continued, " . . . the Inhabitants of that distressed Island exists by Trade, of which at this unhappy Period they are precluded, and for the want of the necessaries for the support of L i f e some hundreds of them have actually perished." 24 In the following May another shipment of bread, flour, and foodstuffs was made in spite of the fact that Britain and the continental colonies were still at war. 25 The anomaly of this altruistic procedure did not escape the watchful L a Luzerne. As soon as he had learned that Congress had empowered two vessels to sail for Bermuda to exchange their cargoes for the much-needed salt, he remonstrated, as he afterwards reported to Vergennes: I found it difficult to justify any assistance given to the subjects of an enemy power. The Bermudians refrain from commercial ventures because they are well aware that were they to do so, two frigates could at once capture their island which is practically without defence.26 But the most significant of all export permits were those granted to the French minister. They reveal with the subsequent suspicions, refusals, recriminations, and the ultimate cordiality, the importance that Maryland attached to the control of 21

Ibid., May 18, 1779, XIV, 608-609. Council to J. Robinson, Dec. 7, 1779, Maryland Archives, XLIII, 32. 28 D. Prudden, May 30, 1780, ibid., 185; Council to P. Trott, June 17, 1780, ibid., 197. 21 Robinson to Governor Lee, Dec. 1, 1780, ibid., 375-376. 25 T . Smith to T . S. Lee, May 16, 1781, ibid., 494; cf., ibid., 499, 502. 28 La Luzerne to Vergennes, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 18, folio 80, Sept. 1 1 , 1781. 22

70

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

commerce, to the exercise of the functions of a sovereign state, and to holding the good will of the French. In the fall of 1779, Gérard secured Governor Johnson's permission to purchase flour in the state for the French fleet. H e had been forced to ask help from Maryland, for, as he wrote to Vergennes, he had learned with great disappointment that it was impossible to count on the help promised by Congress or by Pennsylvania. T h e fleet needed provisions, and he had come to the conclusion that confidence could be placed in the offer made to him by Maryland. 2 7 This offer had been made to him the preceding summer, when, alarmed by the Virginian sale of western lands, Maryland had again refused to join the Confederation: a matter to which reference will be made in the next chapter. At once the state leaders had called on Gérard and had explained to him their actions and the ground for the state's refusal. At the same time the assembly had passed vigorous measures for the enlistment of recruits and for the collection of taxes.28 This law, the two congressional delegates had told Gérard, had for its special purpose the desire to assure the French King of the friendship of the state of Maryland. The assembly had also passed a resolution that he, or his agent, could purchase grain and other provisions in the state without consulting Congress. This was a privilege that, as Gérard declared to Vergennes, would be of inestimable value to the French West Indies.29 Although Maryland had said that the consent of Congress was not necessary when he wished to export flour, still Gérard thought it more prudent to secure an order from that body, in the summer of 1779, for ten thousand barrels of flour.30 The council purchased the flour and sent the Kitty and the Dolfhin to him in the fall. 3 1 So difficult was it to procure wheat at that time in Harford County, that a bushel of salt was exchanged for 2

' G é r a r d to Vergennes, Sept. 5, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., vol. 1 0 , folio 7. " Acts of the Maryland Assembly, J u n e session, 1 7 7 9 , chapter V I I . Gérard to Vergennes, A u g . 1 4 , 1 7 7 9 , Archives des A f f a i r e s Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 9, folio 1 0 0 . 80 Congress to Smith, J u l y 1 5 , 1 7 7 9 , Journals of the Continental Congress, X I V , 837. " C o u n c i l to Captain J . Green, N o v . 19, 1 7 7 9 , Maryland Archives, XLIII, zi. 28

FLOUR

FOR

FRANCE

AND

SPAIN

7i

38

a bushel of wheat. Nevertheless the council was generous with permissions for the exportation of provisions for the West Indies, and many cargoes left the Bay. 33 For the island of Martinique alone the assembly allowed six thousand barrels of flour to be shipped. But in this instance, as in the preceding ones, the whole affair was managed with discretion and according to the governor's wishes.34 Friendly relations with the French continued until December 1779. T h e last month of 1779 was a difficult one for Maryland. So discouraged was Charles Carroll of Carrollton that he wrote a long letter to Benjamin Franklin on December 5, 1779, telling him of the scarcity of supplies. H e entitled it a "Chapter of Lamentations," to which he added this postscript: T h e crops of w h e a t have been very short, and m u c h of the wheat destroyed by the fly; a good deal has been exported in flour to the F r e n c h Islands. I t w o u l d therefore be proper and prudent f o r the fleet to bring flour enough to feed the land and sea forces till the next harvest comes in. 3 5

In spite of the scarcity of grain, Holker appointed William Smith as his agent to secure in Maryland the flour that would be needed for the French fleet.36 Although it was Gérard who had made the preliminary arrangements with the governor for the exportation of flour, it was L a Luzerne, his successor, who wrote in December 1779, urging the state to (Jo all in its power to provision the French fleet.37 On December 29, 1779, the council wrote to L a Luzerne as follows: T h e polite Assurance that you received Pleasure w h e n you under12 Council to W . Smith, Oct. 2, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., X X I , 5 4 4 ; Council to R. Buchanan, Oct. 5, 1779, ibid., p. 5 5 0 ; Council to S. Smith, Oct. 22, 1779, ibid., p. 564. X X I , 5 J 4 , 5 5 5 , 5 5 5 - 5 5 6 ; X L I I I , 1 5 , 24, 25. Ibid., X X I , 176, 186, 204, 2 4 1 , 338. " K a t e M . R o w l a n d , Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1 7 3 7 - 1 8 3 2 (New York, 1 8 ^ 8 ) , t w o volumes, I I , 31. Maryland Archives, N o v . 24, 1 7 7 9 , X L I I I , 24. " G é r a r d asked to be replaced in P h i l a d e l p h i a because of illness. P a u l C. Phillips , The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution (Urbana, 111., 1 9 1 3 ) , p p . 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 . E d w a r d S. C o r w i n , French Policy and the American Alliance of 1778 (Princeton, 1 9 1 6 ) , chapter X I , " S i e u r G é r a r d and the Continental Congress," also p p . 263-264.

72

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

stood the Commander of his most Christian Majesty's Squadron had made choice of this Station because you could rely on us for Succour, communicated the highest Satisfaction. Such is our Inclination to render every Assistance in our Power to the Troops of our illustrious Ally, that nothing was necessary to prompt us to an Exertion for their Relief, but a Communication of their W a n t s and sufferings. O u r Duty seconded by our Attachment to Friends who have bravely fought and bled in the Cause of Liberty, lead us to consider their Distresses as our O w n , and make our Exertions to provide the Sick and wounded with suitable Lodgings and proper Sustenance, the most pleasing T a s k . Victualling the Squadron is certainly an important Object and demands our utmost Endeavours to enable Mons r De Grasse or any other French Commander, to procure full and Speedy Supplies for the Use of the Fleet. T h e Congratulation of your Excellency, is flattering. Convinced that America is interested in the judicious Appointments of your King, it gives us infinite Pleasure in felicitating you and United America, on your Excellency's Appointment, which alone can console us for the Loss of your worthy Predecessor, whose Goodness of Heart impelled him on every Occasion to exert his extraordinary Abilities in promoting such Measures as tended, not only to render the present happy Connexion between France and America permanent, but to secure the Happiness and Independence of the Latter. 3 8 T h e friendly tone of this letter is all the more to be wondered at when it is realized that as the result of the excesses of the French agents during December, on the same day (December 29) that the letter was written, the governor issued a special proclamation that all surplus grain and flour must be seized.39 W h e n Smith heard of this proclamation he wrote at once to Holker that by its terms no more flour was to be given to the French. Moreover, since they had exceeded the amount which they had been permitted to purchase, "Commissioners are appointed with power to seize all wheat and flour wherever it may be found, without exception, not even that purchased for the Marine of France." H e suggested that the minister write at once to the governor and to the council.40 T h e next day, January 4, 1780, he repeated his plea, promising to do all that he could to defer any action until Holker would have made his petition " C o u n c i l to La Luzerne, Dec. 3, 1779, Maryland Archives, X L I I I , 29-30. " C o u n c i l to R. Dallam, Dec. 3, »779, ibid., p. 29. " S m i t h to Holker, Jan. 3, 1780, Holker Papers, V I I , 1399.

F L O U R F O R F R A N C E A N D SPAIN

73

to the officials.41 On January 6, 1780, the council informed Smith that the flour must be given up.42 H e had written, asking permission to send the Hawk with flour to Cap François on the account of his Most Christian Majesty. The reply had been that the vessel could not be loaded until the needs of the Maryland troops were supplied. T h e agent reluctantly admitted that the requirements of the continental army and of the state militia should come first, but he felt that it was an injustice, dictated by a prejudiced discrimination against the French, that the flour must be taken from the magazines that belonged to the King. H e begged that application be made to Congress; nothing was now to be hoped for from the governor. 43 T h e situation was crucial. Winter had set in with a severity to which the people were little accustomed. Since the middle of December there had been no cessation of the cold. Many perished and those who survived faced starvation. T h e persistent depreciation of paper money made the future ominous.44 Smith attempted to secure the aid of D'Annemours, the French consul. In these difficult days Smith showed that he was a man of courage and ingenuity. 45 T h e state commissioners were unduly violent. T h e y attacked the stores where he kept the grain. According to his account he defeated them with their own weapons: . . . for those persons they had collected to assist in breaking open my doors, on my representation of the matter not only refused to execute the orders, but declared they should not proceed, for the opposing the execution of this Unconstitutional Law I will probably be prosecuted. However, Smith realized that this was only a temporary expedient. H e continued: I have however, the satisfaction to find that this step has delayed the sending of your flour at least for some time . . . unless orders Smith to Holker, Jan. 4, 1780, ibid., V I I I , 1401. " C o u n c i l to W . Smith, Jan. 6, 1780, Maryland Archives, X L I I I , 52. " S m i t h to Holker, Jan. 6, 1780, Holker Papers, VIII, 1408. " J o l i d o n to Holker, Feb. 6, 1780, ibid., VIII, 1537-1539. Conway to J. G a l l o w a y , Feb. 7, 1780, G a l l o w a y Papers. " Smith to Holker, Jan. 6, 1780, Holker Papers, V I I I , 1408. For praise of Smith, Jolidon to Holker, Feb. 6, 1780, ibid., 1509-1510. 41

74

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

from Congress requesting our G o v e r n o r and Council may stop the proceedings soon arrive, the whole will undoubtedly go, for I have only obtained a temporary suspension by permitting a part to be taken. A n d though I could prevent them taking any further quantity by only saying they should not, it will nevertheless not be advisable to persist in opposing those men w h o have law in their favor and force. 4 6

T w o days after this letter was written from Baltimore, Congress considered the report of the committee to whom had been presented the memoir of the French minister. L a Luzerne had asked Congress to intervene in behalf of William Smith who, at great expense, had collected and procured wheat and flour for the French fleet and for the garrisons in the West Indies, but by an act of the Maryland legislature the grain had been taken from him. Whereupon Congress commended Maryland for having shown zeal in securing flour for the continental army, but requested the governor and the council to exempt the flour belonging to the French. Moreover they asked that the flour be restored and exported at the pleasure of the minister or of his agents.47 On January 17, 1780, the day that Congress had passed this resolution exempting the French flour, the council had written to the commissioners of Cecil County that they should seize all flour. A f t e r Seizure made of such Flour and W h e a t , w e advise you to take a particular Account of the Quantity of each and of the Persons in whose Possession it is seized, in O r d e r that w e may fix with the utmost certainty the precise Quantity purchased under the Pretext of purchasing for the F r e n c h . T h i s will lead to a Detection of that Villany which w e have the strongest Reason to Suspect and to which w e think the present Distresses of our A r m y may in great measure be imputed.

They concluded with the order that the French flour should be seized but not transported, because "it is our Desire to avoid every-Thing that is offensive to the Minister of France," or which may interfere with his schemes.48 " S m i t h to Holker, Jan. 1 5 , 1780, ibid., V I I I , 1 4 3 1 - 1 4 . 3 2 . "Journals of the Continental Congress, J a n . 1 7 , 1780, X V I , 67. " C o u n c i l to the commissioners of Cecil County, J a n . 1 7 , 1780, Maryland Archives, X L I I I , 58-59.

FLOUR

FOR

FRANCE

AND

SPAIN

75

Smith wrote to Holker on January 22, 1780, that resistence was now useless. H e had been told that force would be used against him if he did not surrender the flour. " B u t , " he concluded, "they must take the trouble of Breaking open doors to take it." In this letter he gives a clue as to the motives behind the seizures: M r . Saml. Chase w h o tis said brought in this bill I am told declares that the intention was to take all the french flour in the state, some say otherwise and that it was only intended to take what the agents had purchased over and above what they were permitted to purchase as it w a s insinuated that they had exceeded that quantity. 4 9

T h e commissioners acted promptly and seized the flour. Smith was hurt during the removal, which was effected so completely that his son Robert Smith, in reporting the loss to Holker, said, "he is not now possessed of a Barrel of Flour in this place." 30 As a further restriction, special oaths and licenses were hereafter to be required of the French agents.51 T h e council was not satisfied with the amount of flour that the raid on Smith's stores had yielded. It demanded that he surrender "the remainder." 52 On February 1 2 , 1780, Robert Smith, William Smith's son, wrote to Holker minimizing the whole affair. H e explained that the injury of his father's hand that he had mentioned was not received in resisting the commissioners. " I t was [received] in chastising the Indolence of one of the Commissioners after they had without resistance taken possession of the Flour. H e [William Smith] had repeatedly offered to make returns to them or to the Council. . . ." 5 S On February 16, 1780, the council wrote to the Maryland delegates that the French minister was highly displeased with the whole affair. Hoping to placate the offended official the council asked the delegates to call on him and to explain the matter.54 This the council also attempted to do by letter. They 48

Smith to Holker, Jan. 22, 1780, Holker Papers, VIII, 1 4 5 3 - 1 4 5 4 . °° R. Smith to Holker, Jan. 30, 1780, ibid., VIII, 1467. " C o u n c i l to Cecil County Committee, Feb. 3, 1780, Maryland Archives, X L I I I , 77. " C o u n c i l to Smith, Feb. 2, 1780, ibid., p. 87. a R . Smith to Holker, Feb. 1 2 , 1780, Holker Papers, I X , 1 7 . " Council to delegates, Feb. 16, 1780, ibid., 90.

76

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

blamed the misunderstanding on the fact that it had been reported to them that William Smith had acted dishonestly in securing the flour. Nor could they condone his resistance of their orders. They added that nothing had been proved against him, and that they would watch sharply to prevent the interests of the French from being harmed in Maryland. 55 Whoever may have been to blame, Holker professed himself perfectly satisfied with his agent. On March 6, 1780, Smith wrote gratefully to Holker, " I thank you for the favorable sentiments you are pleased to entertain of my character and conduct." 56 From a study of Holker's dealings in Delaware in the summer of 1779, his approbation of Smith's actions carries little weight. 57 At this juncture Congress acted tactfully, suggesting on March n , 1780, that Maryland give Smith enough flour to make a total of fifteen thousand barrels. Pennsylvania and Connecticut were to assist with grain and with pork. Congress diplomatically said that the Board of War requested that French flour be replaced, from flour of the public stores for the flour borrowed from M r . Holker's agent.58 Maryland agreed to return the "borrowed" flour, but specified that the amount given to the French be deducted from the amount asked for by Congress. The state's capitulation to Smith was more cordial. On April 1 , 1780, the council wrote that he might take the flour that he needed, merely adding the reasonable request that he keep them informed of the number of barrels that he shipped.59 In spite of the difficulty with which grain had been procured in Maryland for the French, L a Luzerne turned to that state in the summer of 1780 for wheat for the Spanish. By the secret " C o u n c i l to La Luzerne, Feb. 16, 1780, ibid., 88. " S m i t h to Holker, March 6, 1780, Holker Papers, I X , 1 1 0 1 . Circular Letter, May 2, 1780, Maryland Archives, X L I I I , 1 6 1 . " P a p e r s of the Continental Congress, volume 94, letters of June i - J u l y 1 , 1779. Holker had purchased flour in Delaware. It was believed that he had paid a high price for it in order to raise the market so that he might sell at a profit. His first intention had been merely to speculate. However, when an investigation was ordered, he declared that the flour was intended for the French fleet. M Journals of the Continental Congress, X V I , 196-197, 2 3 1 - 2 3 2 , 2 5 1 - 2 5 2 . "Council to W. Smith, Apr. 1 , 1780, Maryland Archives, X L I I I , 1 2 7 ; same to same, Apr. 5, 1780, ibid., p. 1 3 1 .

F L O U R F O R F R A N C E A N D SPAIN

77

convention of Aranjuez, April 1 2 , 1779, Spain agreed to unite with France against England. But Spain, bound by no treaty of the United States, conducted the negotiations with Congress through the French minister in Philadelphia. Gérard and L a Luzerne were assisted by Don Juan de Miralles, a Cuban merchant, who, without any official title, remained near Congress from 1778 until his death on April 28, 1780.°° H e was succeeded by his young secretary, Francisco Rendôn. 61 Both Spaniards wrote regularly to Bernardo de Galvez who in turn informed Florida Blanca of the progress of the Revolution. 62 Through Rendôn L a Luzerne learned in June 1780 that a large number of Spanish troops were on their way to Havana and that the governor general of the island, Don Diego Navarro, would deem it a favor if flour could be sent to him from the United States.63 On June 28, 1780, he asked Congress to permit the exportation of the necessary amount of grain. On July 7, 1780, Congress replied that the loss of Charleston, ( M a y 12, 1780), had placed a heavy burden on the southern department, but that Maryland would be asked to provide three thousand barrels of flour.64 At this time the council was already sending flour to Havana, as will be described later, and this request from Congress was acceded to with reluctance. However, shipments of grain were permitted. Robert Morris, a Philadelphia merchant and active member of the Congress, undertook to organize these shipments.65 " Miralles to N a v a r r o , June 6, 1 7 7 8 , Papeles de Cuba, legajo 1 2 8 1 . " Rendôn made frequent mention of his indebtedness to L a Luzerne, who introduced him to all the distinguished gentlemen in Philadelphia. On M a r c h 7, 1 7 8 1 , he wrote to Josef de Galvez, that the minister of France helped him with all "his weighty influence in Congress." Papeles de Cuba, legajo 1 2 8 2 , 162-165. " B e r n a r d o de Galvez had been governor of Louisiana since 1 7 7 7 . H i s uncle, Don Josef de Galvez, was the Spanish minister of the Indies. ** Bemis, o f . cit., p. 89. 64 Journals of the Continental Congress, J u l y 7, 1 7 8 0 , X V I I , 5 9 3 - 5 9 4 . " Ellis P. Oberholtzer, Robert Morris, Patriot and Financier (New York, 1 9 0 3 ) . Although M o r r i s was not reelected to Congress in 1 7 7 9 , he frequently purchased provisions for the army on his private credit. Ibid., pp. 5 6 - 5 7 . C f . L a Luzerne to Vergennes, June 2 7 , 1 7 8 0 , Archives des Affaires Étrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 2 , folio 1 2 1 .

78

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

Morris was interested in trade with Havana. O n the occasion of the death of Miralles he had written a letter of deep condolence to the Governor of Havana. H e followed this gesture by a letter on July 14, 1780, telling Navarro that he had just learned of the scarcity of flour. H e intended to assist in the shipment and to this end he would add to the flour from Maryland some from his own stores.68 Morris took advantage of this opening. H e wrote on July 24, 1780, that to settle Miralles' estate it would be necessary to send a valuable consignment to Havana. But prices of foodstuffs were so prohibitively high in Philadelphia that he had ordered the Buck-Skin to go to St. Eustatius where the captain would purchase flour and take it to Havana. 6 7 O n August 9, 1780, he wrote to Navarro that many barrels of Maryland flour were leaving the Chesapeake on the Lincoln. H e hinted that the shipment of this flour and the purchase of return cargoes was so complicated that it would be convenient to have an agent in Cuba. 68 A week later he explained to the governor that it would be advantageous to those concerned in this enterprise to establish a permanent representative in Havana. For this purpose he recommended Robert Smith of Baltimore, "a youth of great personal merit and the son of a particular friend of mine." A well-educated gentleman and a valiant soldier, he had served his country well, but he would now like to turn to a lucrative employment. This he expected to do in the present venture. Morris concluded with the words: " H i s permanent presence in Havana would enable your Excellency to procure other shipments of grain. H e has many friends who would be delighted to help you." 6 9 In spite of the restrictions of Spanish trade and the arbitrary embargoes enforced by the governor in Havana, Morris had not had any difficulty. His shipments had been accepted and the return cargoes easily secured. E v e n the shipment from the Dutch island of St. Eustatius was received by Navarro, although it was " R. " R. ™ R. ** R.

Morris Morris Morris Morris

to to to to

Navarro, Navarro, Navarro, Navarro,

July 14, 1780, Papeles de Cuba, l e g a j o 1301, 185. July 24, 1780, ibid., 197-198. A u g . 9, 1780, ibid., 189. A u g . 17, 1780, ibid., 190.

F L O U R F O R F R A N C E A N D SPAIN

79

contrary to the Spanish colonial system. Foreign vessels were required to bring their cargoes directly from the place of origin or from the accustomed port. Encouraged by this success, Morris continued his shipments. On September 14, 1780, he directed the General Scott to go to Porto Rico or to Havana; on October 23, the Stevens was sent to St. Eustatius for wheat for Cuba; on October 25, the Livingston was sent directly to Havana. 70 Robert Smith had made rapid progress in Spanish. Before the end of the year Morris wrote to Navarro that the permanent agent was highly satisfactory. 71 But the cordial relations were interrupted when the Livingston and the Stevens arrived at Havana. Navarro was indignant. H e made Smith understand that Havana was not a center for trade with the French and Dutch West Indies. H e explained that if he had allowed exceptions it had been out of courtesy to Congress for having permitted the exportation of grain; but that Smith must not claim as a personal right what had been granted to his country as a special favor. 72 Smith capitulated promptly and ordered the vessels to go to Philadelphia with their cargoes. Morris commended him for this action. H e wrote to Navarro on January 28, 1 7 8 1 , that he was distressed that he had unknowingly acted contrary to the wishes of the governor. H e explained that when L a Luzerne had told him to send provisions to Havana he had believed that he could procure them from any source. Mollified by this answer, Navarro permitted Robert Smith to remain. 73 Many shipments were made to him in 1 7 8 1 . So extensive did this trade become that L a Luzerne, in speaking of it to Vergennes on M a y 1 , 1 7 8 1 , said that the immense profits made by those who traded there had attracted so many vessels that there were few large consignments then made for France.7'4 Aside from the shipments of Maryland flour arranged by ™ R. Morris to Navarro, Sept. 14, 1780, ibid., 198-200. Navarro to R . Morris, Sept. 30, 1780, ibid.., 187. R. Morris to Navarro, Oct. 23, 1780, ibid., 200-201. R . Morris to Navarro, Oct. 25, 1780, ibid., 201-202. 71 R. Morris to Navarro, Dec. 26, 1780, ibid., 204-207. " N a v a r r o to R. Morris, Dec. 1 7 , 1780, ibid., 202-204. " R. Morris to Navarro, J a n . 28, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., 207-208. " L a Luzerne to Vergennes, May 1 , 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 16, folio 67.

8o

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

Morris at the suggestion of L a Luzerne and consigned to Robert Smith of Baltimore, the Maryland council was at the same time attempting to secure arms from Havana on its own account. In 1777 a vessel was ordered to proceed to that port and there to exchange its cargo of tobacco for salt and medicines. 75 This vessel must have been lost, for no further mention is made of it.76 More successful were the efforts made in 1780-1781. O n June 27, 1780, Governor L e e wrote to Governor Navarro that the Fox was bringing flour from Maryland to Havana. 77 T h e desired military supplies were so satisfactory that the council hurried three vessels to the same port on January 5, 1781. Only one reached that destination, for the other two went aground before they left the confines of the state. It was with difficulty that the militia salvaged the cargo. 78 Settling accounts for the flour purchased by Holker in Maryland proved to be difficult. T h e winter of 1780-1781 was partly a repetition of the preceding year. In September the question was raised whether all the flour that had been seized had been restored. 79 In December it was rumored that the French had taken double the amount that they were entitled to.80 T h e new year opened with the fear that more seizures would be made. But Holker and L a Luzerne intervened successfully, and to meet the charge that the French had taken more than their share, Holker offered to return whatever might be desired. 81 " G o v . Johnson to the Governor of Havana, A u g . 8, 1 7 7 7 , Maryland Archives, X V I , 328-329. " O n March 23, 1778, another attempt was made, with indirect reference to Havana. Considering the dangers of the sea voyage it is curious that more Maryland trade did not follow an inland route and reach New Orleans with greater security. An isolated example of such a trip by way of the Ohio and the Mississippi was made in 1778. T h e council provided Samuel Hughes with a letter for the governor of New Orleans from Governor Johnson, begging him to use all the influence possible to ship the required articles, " u p the Ohio to Pitsburg or to North Carolina or Virginia." L o n g credit was desirable and the best form of remittance was in flour to Havana. T h e results of this trip must remain a matter of conjecture, f o r there is no record of Hughes's return. Council to S. Hughes, March 23, 1778, ibid., p. 548. " L e e to Navarro, June 27, 1780, Papeles de Cuba, legajo 1301, 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 . " N a v a r r o to Lee, Oct. 15, 1780, Maryland Archives, X L V , 146. " C o u n c i l to Smith, July 26, 1780, Hid., X L I I I , 232. Council to Smith, Sept. 2 j , 1780, ibid., 303. Council to Holker Feb. 8, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., X L V , 306. " S. Smith to Lee, Jan. 8, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., X L I I I , 400. Holker to La Luzerne,

FLOUR FOR FRANCE AND SPAIN

81

Unpleasant personalities were exchanged and Smith complained to the council that he was insulted by their attitude.92 L a Luzerne feared that Smith was very much to blame, and considered changing the agent.83 Congress persuaded the council to agree to a settlement similar to the one that had proved so successful the year before.*4 At the same time Smith forwarded a complete account which gave satisfaction to all concerned. But he immediately complicated the situation by urgent requests for more permissions to export flour.85 These new difficulties were more easily settled than the earlier ones, and the brighter prospects of the following months obviated any further disagreements. T h e French continued to make extensive purchases in Maryland and the council, while appreciating the impetus this gave to trade, regretted the heavy drain on the resources of the state.86 Paralleling these official purchases were Holker's private speculations. His friendship with Matthew Ridley proved profitable to both men. Vessels were purchased and successful voyages were made in January 1780 to France and to the West Indies.87 Terrasson wrote frequently to Holker offering lucrative commercial openings in Maryland and pressing upon him his services as consul, if D'Annemours were to be replaced.88 Rumors of these and similar interests of Holker reached Gouverneur Morris in June 1779. In them he found the explanation of the unsatisfactory accounts that Holker had submitted to him for the supplies that he had purchased. Morris referred them to the Count d'Estaing. Four thousand of the five thousand barrels of biscuit were unfit for the King's marine, and he concluded his strictures with the regret that Holker alJ a n . 9, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 4 0 1 . L a Luzerne to Lee, J a n . n , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. Holker to Lee, Jan. 28, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 409. L a Luzerne to Chase, Feb. 7, ibid., p. 4 2 1 . Holker to Lee, Feb. 9, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 422. ra Smith to Lee, Feb. 29, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 438. " L a Luzerne to Lee, Feb. i o , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 4 2 3 , and March 1 3 , 1 7 8 1 , p. 464. President of Congress to Lee, March 1 1 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 447. " S m i t h to Lee, Apr. 1 3 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 469. Holker to Lee, M a y 8, ibid., p. 489. Smith to Lee, M a y 27, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 503. " C o u n c i l to Washington, Sept. 1 9 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., X L V , 6 1 8 - 6 1 9 . " R i d l e y to Holker, Oct. 2, 1 7 7 9 , Holker Papers, VI, 1 0 2 7 . " T e r r a s s o n to Holker, J a n . 29, 1 7 8 0 , ibid., V I I I , 1 4 5 4 - 1 4 5 5 .

401. 1781,

ibid.,

1781,

82

M A R Y L A N D

AND

FRANCE

ways found it necessary to buy all his flour in Maryland when a superior quality was available in Pennsylvania. 88 Until the end of 1780 Holker continued to hold the esteem of his superiors. L a Luzerne, writing on June 29, 1780, to congratulate Rochambeau on his appointment, said : T h e ministers of H i s M a j e s t y w i l l have probably spoken to you concerning M r . H o l k e r and the nature of the services they believe that he can render to you. . . . zeal and his i n d u s t r y — o f

I will merely mention

which I

have had repeated

to you his proof. 8 0

But there were others less satisfied than Vergennes with their relations with Holker. Monsieur Plombard, the French consul at Charleston, S.C., complained that he had not received the support of the agent of the French marine. His requests had been ignored, the assistance that he had given to French sailors had not been recognized, the supplies that he had sent to the French fleet had not been acknowledged, and Holker had appeared indifferent to any matter of duty that did not bring him some pecuniary remuneration.81 The depreciation of the letters of exchange brought forth a lively protest from the French firms who had been dealing with America, and Vergennes in February 18, 1 7 8 1 , writing to L a Luzerne, blamed the situation on the speculation of the merchants. Holker had been named as the greatest culprit, but Vergennes repeated his expressions of the trust that he had in his agent's "integrity and zeal." However, he was forced to admit that Holker was in a difficult position, as he said to L a Luzerne: The King

has established a consul in A m e r i c a

as a restraining

influence on the cupidity of the large wholesale dealers. T h i s officer is by his position the protector of the general interests of commerce and the censor of such private enterprises as m i g h t prejudice these interests. B u t by an inconceivable reversal of all principles, it happens that Holker is at once, consul and agent of the F r e n c h M a r i n e , as w e l l as agent or factor for private

firms—functions

that I consider

incompatible w h e n exercised by the same person. 9 2 ** G. Morris to Holker, June 24, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., I V , 662. " L a Luzerne to Rochambeau, June 29, 1 7 8 0 , Ministre de la Guerre, Correspondance, I , 2. Plombard to Holker, Oct. 29, 1 7 7 9 , Holker Papers, V I , 1 1 0 5 . "Vergennes to L a Luzerne, Feb. 18, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 5 , folio 64.

FLOUR

F O R F R A N C E A N D SPAIN

83

But he concluded with the hope that where another man might fail in his obligations to the K i n g were he placed in a similar position, still Holker's zeal and honesty placed him above such suspicions. Rochambeau was less impressed with Holker's loyalty than Vergennes might have wished. H i s repeated criticisms may be summarized in his words of April 14, 1 7 8 1 : As for M r . Holker you have known for a long time what I think of him and I believe that you see very distinctly that he is a selfish merchant and not a loyal servant of the King. 93 Vergennes' resistance was slowly being overcome and on M a y 1 4 , 1 7 8 1 , he admitted to L a Luzenne, " I do not like to judge any one, but M r . H o l k e r ' s conduct seems to me to be sufficiently suspicious to require an explanation. It was de Castries, the minister of the marine, who finally declared an ultimatum} and L a Luzerne was told to offer H o l k e r the choice, either of resigning as consul, or of refraining from such mercantile operations as did not directly concern the interests of the French King. 9 5 This decision was communicated to H o l k e r and drew f r o m him a thirty-nine page memorial, addressed to L a L u z e r n e and containing an explanation and defense of the agent's conduct. 90 Faccd with the alternative of choosing between the commerce and the service of his Majesty, he sacrificed the latter and renounced his rights as a consul. H e r e a f t e r his relations to the trade of Maryland were merely private speculations. " R o c h a m b e a u to L a Luzerne, A p r i l 14, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 6, folios 1 7 3 - 1 7 5 . Vergennes to L a Luzerne, M a y 1 4 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 16, folio 78. " D e Castries to L a Luzerne, ibid., vol. 1 6 , folios 2 8 1 - 2 8 1 ° ° . " Holker to L a Luzerne, ibid., Sept. 26, 1 7 8 1 , vol. 18, folios 3 0 9 - 3 1 8 . Further letters in Holker's defense: ibid., vol. 24, folios 4 1 2 - 4 1 3 ; vol. 25, folios 1801 8 2 ; vol. 25, folios 2 9 0 - 2 9 0 " ; vol. 26, folio I I I . M

IV M A R Y L A N D AND T H E FRENCH MINISTERS ONTACTS between Maryland and France were not limited to the commercial activity of a Holker or a D'Annemours; nor did Maryland turn to France merely to secure ammunition for its soldiers. Evidence of closer relations than these may be found in the letters of the French ministers plenipotentiary to the Comte de Vergennes that are preserved in the Archives des Affaires Etrangères. It is the purpose of this chapter to review the efforts of these envoys to influence the action of Maryland, particularly in regard to the control of the Mississippi and to the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. On July 1 2 , 1778, two months after the ratification of the French treaties, M . Conrad Alexandre Gérard arrived in Philadelphia with the fleet of the Comte d'Estaing. The new minister was warmly welcomed by the people, and Congress expressed its pleasure by a formal reception and banquet.1 His first reports to Vergennes glowed with a cheering cordiality, but an acrid note of criticism soon became evident. Discords among the states, hostile spirits in Congress, and the beginning of a grave illness, all contributed their share in making uncomfortable his fifteen months in Philadelphia. One of the greatest of Gerard's problems was to be that of trying to please Spain by successfully accomplishing the elimination or the reduction of the two American proposals which Spain detested—the claim that the western boundary of the United States should be the Mississippi river, and the demand that 1

Henri Etats-Unis monial of Wharton, States, six

Doniol, Histoire de la participation de la France à rétablissement des d'Amérique, five volumes (Paris, 1 8 8 4 - 1 8 9 2 ) , III, 269-270. Cereadmitting the French minister to Congress, July 20, 1778, Francis editor, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United volumes (Washington, 1 8 8 9 ) , II, 653-656.

THE FRENCH MINISTERS

85

American citizens should have the right of navigation on that stream. W h e n G é r a r d was sent to Philadelphia his instructions did not cover the question of the western boundaries and the Mississippi. H o w e v e r , a general reference to the claims of the Spanish in the Floridas and the fisheries seems to have given him a feeling of responsibility for the interests of that court. 2 H i s efforts in this direction were welcomed by Juan de M i r a l l e s , w h o , as we have seen, was an unofficial representative of his Catholic M a j e s t y in Philadelphia. 3 T o g e t h e r they approached the individual members of Congress in an attempt to reconcile the conflicting interests of the U n i t e d States and Spain. 4 In January 1779, G é r a r d went so far as to declare to a committee of Congress that France w o u l d not prolong the w a r a single day in order to allow the U n i t e d States to secure the land a l o n g the Mississippi. N o r did he believe that they w o u l d be any more justified in conquering the territory that had once bel o n g e d to the K i n g of E n g l a n d than would be the Spanish were they to enter the war on the side of the French. M o r e o v e r , the minister advised the Americans to yield whatever rights they believed they had along the Mississippi so as to win the good f a v o r of the Spanish K i n g . 5 In these statements G é r a r d was acting contrary to the wishes of Vergennes, w h o had written to him in October: 1 do not know, I cannot even conjecture the intentions of the Court of Madrid on this subject. But I judge from the situation of the places, that the Americans will insist on the free navigation of the Mississippi on account of the settlements which they propose to form on the Ohio, and I assure you that it would appear astonishing to me that anyone should refuse this request. 2 M e m o i r of Instructions to G e r a r d , M a r c h 29, 1 7 7 8 , D o n i o l , op. cit., Ill, 1 5 3 - 1 5 7 . On M a r c h 27, 1 7 7 8 , Vergennes w r o t e to the C o m t e de M o n t m o r i n , F r e n c h ambassador to Spain, that G é r a r d w o u l d protect the interests of F r a n c e and Spain w i t h equal zeal. Ibid., I l l , 8. * K a t h r y n A b b e y , " E f f o r t s of Spain to M a i n t a i n Sources of I n f o r m a t i o n in the British Colonies before 1 7 7 9 , " Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XV, 56-68. 4 P a u l C . Phillips, The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution ( U r b a n a , 111., 1 9 1 3 ) , pp. 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 . ' G é r a r d to Vergennes, J a n . 28, 1 7 7 9 , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n g è r e s , Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, v o l . 7, number 56.

86

M A R Y L A N D

AND

FRANCE

Vergennes added that should there be local considerations of which he was ignorant, Gérard ought to take them into account. H o w e v e r , he must not allow Miralles to give his court any prepossessions on the subject, or make it difficult for the Americans to get what they had every right to claim. 6 But that is just what Gérard did to the court of France. H e succeeded in giving the French the false impression that the majority of conservative citizens did not care to challenge the rights of Spain in eastern Louisiana. T h e result of this misunderstanding was that, although in 1778 Vergennes was ready to admit the justice of the American claims, on July 18, 1779, he declared: W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e n a v i g a t i o n of the Mississippi, it has been p r a c t i c a l l y p r o v e d t h a t t h e A m e r i c a n s h a v e n o r i g h t at all to it since at t h e m o m e n t of the R e v o l u t i o n the b o u n d a r i e s of the thirteen

United

States d i d n o t e x t e n d as f a r as that r i v e r . I t w o u l d be an abuse

on

t h e i r p a r t w e r e t h e y t o c l a i m t h e r i g h t s of the E n g l i s h , that is t o say of a p o w e r w h o s e d o m i n a t i o n t h e y h a v e just a b j u r e d . T h e r e f o r e it is fitting

t h a t C o n g r e s s m a k e a c a t e g o r i c a l expression in this a f f a i r by

d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m a k e n o p r e t e n s i o n t o the n a v i g a t i o n of t h e Mississippi

a n d c o n f i n e t h e m s e l v e s t o soliciting t h r o u g h

g o o d w i l l of the K i n g

of S p a i n those f a v o r s that his interest

p e r m i t h i m to a c c o r d t o t h e

the will

Americans.7

These lines were addressed by way of instruction to L a Luzerne who succeeded Gérard in September, 1779. T h e new minister modified the tone of these instructions when he communicated them to Congress. 8 H i s purpose seems to have been to reconcile the differences of the two allies of France. For it will be remembered that Spain did not at once follow France into the war against England. Instead Florida Blanca had proposed mediation between England and France, meanwhile making it clear that Gibraltar was the price of Spanish support. England declined this offer, and the Convention of Aranjuez, signed by France and Spain on April 12, 1779, was an answer to Eng° Vergennes to Gérard, Oct. 26, 1778, ibid., vol. 6, number 6. This was not received by Gérard until Feb., 1779. ' Vergennes to La Luzerne, July 18, 1779, ibid., vol. 9, number 1. 8 Journals of the Continental Congress, W. C. Ford et al., Eds. (Washington, 1904- ) , X V I , 1 1 4 - 1 1 6 .

THE FRENCH MINISTERS

87

land's refusal to exchange its Mediterranean fortress for the advantages of Spanish neutrality. On June 2 1 , 1 7 7 9 , Spain declared war on England. Vergennes' desire to see Spain united with France against their common foe was realized. Spain, however, pledged itself in no way to the United States, and Vergennes found himself in the delicate position of having to choose between his two allies, who were not bound to one another. 9 In the fall of 1779, L a Luzerne found that Congress, when laying down the conditions that were to guide John J a y in his mission to the court of Madrid, was inclined to yield to Spain in regard to the Floridas, but to insist upon the claims to the Mississippi. Miralles was eager to reconcile the differences between the two countries, and urged L a Luzerne to convince his friends in Congress that it would be well to surrender all claims to the west. 10 This L a Luzerne agreed to do. H i s strongest supporter was the Maryland delegate, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer. As we shall make clear a little later, the delegates from Maryland, and Jenifer in particular, had already established a close relationship with Gérard, and this was inherited and cultivated by L a L u zerne. T h e Maryland delegates, L a Luzerne discovered, were the best disposed to the interests of Spain. T h e representatives from N e w Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania were not yet ready to yield. Jenifer now declared that Spain not only had a right to conquer any part of the western lands but was also perfectly free to conquer any of the states should they, like Georgia, fall into English hands. 11 * Samuel F . Bemis, The Diplomacy of the American Revolution (New Y o r k , 1 9 ¿ 5 ) 1 PP- 70-80. 10 Phillips, o f . cit., pp. 1 2 6 - 1 2 8 . Doniol, o f . cit., I V , 2 0 9 - 2 1 1 . J a y was accompanied to Europe hv William Carmichael, his secretary and a Maryland delegate to Congress. There is no evidence that he contributed to the rapprochement of the other delegates from his state with the French ministers. T h e following extract from a dispatch from Gérard to Vergennes, Nov. 20, 1 7 7 8 , contains one of the few references to Carmichael and incicTently to Charles Carroll. " M a r y l a n d has elected [to Congress] M r . Carmichael whom you have known M g r . by reputation and who professes to be attached to France. M r . Carroll has refused to be a member of Congress and the choice of a new president becomes uncertain." Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. j , folio 8 1 . 11 L a Luzerne to Vergennes, June 1 1 , 1 7 8 0 , ibid., vol. 1 2 , folio 74.

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

88

L a Luzerne continued this method of influencing the delegates throughout the summer of 1780. In so doing he was quite in accord with Vergennes, who had written to him on June 3, 1780, that it would be dangerous openly to advocate Spanish claims. H e was told not to express an opinion as to whether the United States had a right to the land east of the Mississippi, but to show individual members of Congress the advantages of moderating their claims and of relying more confidently on the good will of the King of Spain. 12 Opposed to what L a Luzerne called "the reasonable" opinion of the Maryland delegates was the vehement opposition of Thomas Burke of North Carolina who believed that the ambition of Spain was unjust, contrary to the rights of the thirteen states, and prejudicial to their happiness and tranquillity. Governor Rutledge of South Carolina was more amenable to the suggestions of the French minister, but L a Luzerne could not depend on him as he could on Jenifer. 1 3 From Madrid John J a y wrote early in the summer of 1780 that an obstacle to a treaty with Spain was the claim of the Americans to the navigation of the Mississippi. H e asked for further instructions.14 L a Luzerne hinted to Montmorin, the French Ambassador at Madrid, that if Spain wished Jay's instructions changed, the support of an influential member should be secured. H e added that Jenifer alone deserved this position.15 When the question of Jay's instructions was taken up at the beginning of October there were heated debates in Congress. On October 4, 1780, Congress resolved to adhere to its former instructions. On October 6, 1780, a committee composed of James Madison, John Sullivan, and James Duane was appointed to draft a letter to Jay. 1 6 During these critical weeks, young Barbé de Marbois, the secretary of L a Luzerne, was in charge of the French legation 12

Vergennes to La Luzerne, June 3, 1780, ibid., vol. 1 2 , folio 61. " L a Luzerne to Vergennes, June 1 1 , 1780, ibid., vol. 12, folio 74.. " J a y to Congress, Wharton, of. cit., I l l , 724. 15 La Luzerne to Montmorin, Aug. 3, 1780, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 3 , number 7. 16 Journals of the Continental Congress, Oct. 4., 1780, X V I I I , 900-902; Oc'. 6, 1780, ibid., p. 908.

THE FRENCH MINISTERS

89

in Philadelphia, because L a Luzerne had gone to New England to confer with the French and American commanders. Francisco Rendon, Miralles' youthful secretary and in a way his successor, knew nothing definite about the wishes of Spain.' 7 H e feared the hostility of Congress and begged Marbois to prevent belligerent instructions from being sent to Jay. Marbois planned a lightning campaign with Jenifer so that when the committee of October 6 presented the draft of their letter to Jay, the delegates would be prepared to oppose extensive western claims. 18 Marbois and Jenifer approached the members of Congress. T h e y urged them to consider the advantages of a Spanish alliance, the magnanimity of the Spanish King, and the pleasure that they would give the French King if they would moderate their demands. This last argument, Marbois assured Vergennes, carried great weight. T h e delegates from the middle states were friendly. N e w Yorkers, with a view perhaps to the development of the Great Lakes and the Hudson, were willing to yield the claims to the navigation of the Mississippi. N e w Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland were well disposed to any suggestions made by the French minister, and declared that they were in favor of a Spanish alliance. Although Virginia was adamant against any concessions, the three southern states told Marbois that, with certain reservations, they would support the interests of Spain. 19 T o convince Congress that the claims of Spain were not unjust, and to make sure that when the letter to Jay would be put to a vote all excessive claims would be eliminated, Jenifer and Marbois prepared a memoir. These "Observations on the controversial points in the negotiation between Spain and the United States" were a clear but not brilliant presentation of the rights of Spain. W h i l e showing the need that the United States had of an alliance with Spain, the authors answered, one by one, each " La Luzerne sent Montmorin a detailed account of Miralles' last illness in Washington's camp. M a y i , 1780, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 12, folios 6-9. Edward S. Corwin, French Policy ani the American Alliance (Princeton, 1 9 1 6 ) , pp. 280-281. " B a r b é de Marbois to Vergennes, Oct. 17, 1780, ibid., vol. 14, folio 23. " Professor Phillips gives a penetrating summary of Marbois' activity during these days. Op. cit., pp. 180-183.

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

9°

of the eight objections that the Americans could raise against the exclusive use of the Mississippi by the Spaniards and the ownership of eastern Louisiana. They concluded that the navigation of the Mississippi could not be claimed as a right by the Americans, but that it must be made the subject of negotiation. If the United States allowed themselves to be influenced by ambitious desires of aggrandizement, they would injure their own interests, for they would alienate Spain who was justly entitled to the land that France possessed prior to 1763.*° Marbois confidently hoped that Congress would insist on the substitution of these moderate views instead of the more grasping demands that were to be expected from the committee. On October 1 7 , 1780, the committee reported. T h e letter to J a y drafted by Madison was addressed " T o the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States at the Courts of Versailles and Madrid, explaining the reasons and principles on which the instructions to M r . J a y of the 4th instant are founded." In this paper Madison skilfully defended the claim to the western lands and to the navigation of the Mississippi by arguments which, while not incontestable, were certainly plausible. Congress accepted Madison's document.21 Marbois and Jenifer were not to reap the fruit of their strenuous campaign until the following February, after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. 22 It is now necessary to return to the congressional conflict over the "back-lands" and to Maryland's stand in regard to the Articles. In this matter, as in that of the Mississippi, the Maryland delegates, especially Jenifer, appear in the correspondence of both Gérard and L a Luzerne.* 3 20

"Observations sure les points contestés dans la négociation actuellement existence entre l'Espagne et les Etats Unis de l ' A m é r i q u e . " Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Corespondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 1 4 , folio 26. ^Journals of the Continental Congress, X V I I I , 9 3 5 - 9 4 7 . Bemis, o f . cit., pp. 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 . 22 In preparing the latter part of this chapter I have had the privilege of using documents belonging to Professor St. George L . Sioussat, and, of reading a manuscript copy of his article on "Chevalier de la Luzerne and the Ratification of the Articles of Confederation by M a r y l a n d , 1 7 8 0 - 1 7 8 1 . " It is a pleasure to acknowledge this indebtedness. a Professor Phillips was evidently unaware of the French interest in the Articles when he wrote: " T h e decision of Congress in these instructions to

T H E

F R E N C H

MINISTERS

91

Maryland, as has been shown in an earlier chapter, had refused to ratify the Articles until Congress was assured sole and exclusive jurisdiction over this territory. On December 1 5 , 1778, the assembly had summarized all its former arguments in a declaration that was laid before Congress at the beginning of the new year. In this declaration Maryland declared itself ready to do all in its power to support the war and to cooperate with the other states, provided that Congress was empowered to limit the western boundaries of the states and to use the money obtained by the sale of the western lands for the general good.24 At this time Jenifer called on Gérard to assure him of the loyalty of Maryland to the Alliance. H e confided to him that the delegates had been told to pay him an official visit in order to explain their reasons for not ratifying the Articles. 25 A few days later two delegates from Maryland called on Gérard to confirm formally what had been said confidentially by Jenifer. They wished the king to be assured of their love of independence and of their devotion to France. They then referred to the question of ratification, the real cause of their visit. A s f o r the C o n f e d e r a t i o n , the r e f u s a l to a c c e d e to it b e i n g g r o u n d e d on

unusual

circumstances

will

but

serve

to m a k e

this state

more

e a g e r to f u l f i l l its obligations, a n d they desire that I t e s t i f y to t h e i r c o n d u c t in o r d e r to w a r n the k i n g ' s m i n i s t e r s a g a i n s t

interpretations

of w h i c h it is susceptible. I n d e e d , in j u s t i c e , I m u s t s a y t h a t n o other state

has

been

equally

exact

m i l i t i a , a n d in m a i n t a i n i n g

in

levying

taxes,

in

its quota in the a r m y

assemblying complete.

the

Often

the M a r y l a n d b r i g a d e s are double the others.

Gérard added, " T h e y thanked me for the establishment of a J a y marks the end of the personal diplomacy of the French ministers. » Op. cit., p. ¿ 8 7 . M Journals of the Continental Congress, Jan. 6, 1 7 7 9 , X I I I , 2 9 - 3 0 . 21 Gérard to Vergennes, Dec. 10, 1 7 7 8 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 5, folio 1 1 5 . It has proved impossible to identify these delegates. T h e following table of Maryland delegates is not without interest here and later in this chapter. Samuel Chase 1774-1778 James Forbes 1778-1780 William Paca 1774-1779 John Henry 1778-1781 Thomas Stone 1775-1779 George Plater 1778-1781 Benjamin Rumsey 1776-1778 D. of St. T . Jenifer 1778-1782 Charles Carroll 1776-1778 Daniel Carroll 1780-1784 William Carmichael 1778-1780 John Hanson 1780-1783 Richard Potts 1781-1782

92

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

consul w h o s e ideas w o u l d be v e r y u s e f u l in these m a t t e r s w h i c h are quite n o v e l to t h e m ; t h e y s e e m h i g h l y p l e a s e d w i t h d ' A n n e m o u r s w h o fills this p o s t . "

S"ur

26

M e a n w h i l e , on D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 1 7 7 8 , t h e M a r y l a n d

assembly

h a d g i v e n a striking p r o o f of t h e t r u t h of t h e s e protestations of l o y a l t y to the F r e n c h o n the p a r t of t h e d e l e g a t e s t o C o n g r e s s . O n that d a y it w a s o r d e r e d in t h e h o u s e o f d e l e g a t e s t h a t t h e treaties of alliance a n d c o m m e r c e b e e n t e r e d on t h e j o u r n a l s o f t h e house, t h e g e n e r a l court, a n d t h e c h a n c e r y court. A resolution w a s also a d o p t e d stating that t h e h o u s e h e a r t i l y a p p r o v e d of t h e treaties t h a t h a d been ratified in C o n g r e s s a n d f o u n d t h e m to b e "equal, honourable, and w i s e . " M o r e o v e r , the delegates

were

d e t e r m i n e d " r e l i g i o u s l y to a b i d e b y , a n d f a i t h f u l l y to f u l f i l , as becomes t h e g o o d a n d t r u e allies, a l l t h e articles a n d conditions of t h e said t r e a t i e s . " 2 7 O n the s a m e d a y this resolution r e c e i v e d the u n a n i m o u s consent of the senate. 2 8 A c o p y w a s sent t o C o n gress, a n d t h e M a r y l a n d

d e l e g a t e s in P h i l a d e l p h i a

expressed

" G é r a r d to Vergennes, Dec. 12, 1778, ibidvol. 5, folio 118. T h e reference to Maryland is in a note that was added to this letter. T h e note is dated Dec. 14, 1778. 21 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, Oct. session, 1778, pp. 68-76. x Votes and Proceedings of the Senate, Oct. session, 1778, p. 33. On Sept. 2 5 j '779> Vergennes wrote to La Luzerne that it was possible that diverging interests would one day destroy the confederation. A fate which was a matter of indifference to the French whose only interest was that their allies be independent and peaceful. As a means to this end it would be well for each state to ratify the treaties. Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis , vol. 10, folio 38. On M a r c h 18, 1780, La Luzerne asked for further instruction on this point. H e informed Vergennes that the Articles of Confederation forbade any individual state f r o m entering into negotiations with any foreign prince or state without the consent of Congress, and that the action of Virginia and M a r y l a n d , in r a t i f y i n g the treaties, had given rise to inquietude. Congress had sent a copy of each treaty (omitting the secret article) to each state and the acceptance by each, gave all the necessary authenticity to the treaties as far as the states were concerned. H e foresaw trouble if the peace treaty at the end of the war would have to be submitted to each state for there was sure to be difficulty about the fisheries. Ibid., vol. n , folio 35. On J u n e 3, 1780, Vergennes informed La Luzerne that to the French, Congress was the supreme power, and therefore La Luzerne should ask Congress to force each state to ratify the treaties. It would be an encroachment on the rights of Congress were the French to solicit the individual ratifications. Ibid., vol. 1 2, folio 61. It was not until after the ratification of the Articles by M a r y l a n d that Vergennes withdrew this order. See infra. In discussing the ratification of the treaties M r . Hunter Miller does not mention Maryland's action. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States (Washington, 1931- ) , I I , 30.

THE FRENCH

MINISTERS

93

their lively satisfaction, which Gérard at once reported in a letter to Vergennes. 29 T h e delegates also agreed to prepare a manifesto that would fully explain to the king why they had not yet confederated. 30 Just six months after Maryland had ratified the treaties with France, Gérard forwarded to Vergennes an authentic copy of a similar act of the Virginia legislature. This gesture, the French minister declared, was most gratifying, and he hoped that the other states would follow the example of Maryland and Virginia. 31 Although united by common interests, these two states were not on friendly terms with each other. The Virginia delegates had just invited the other states to consider the confederation complete regardless of the number of the states. They hastened to assure Gérard that they had taken that step because they believed that through the Alliance the Confederation would eventually be consolidated, but that they wished to protect themselves against Maryland. 3 2 In their turn the Maryland delegates approached Gérard. They tried to reconcile their professions of allegiance to France with their refusal to complete the Confederation. They declared that their assembly had instructed them to thank him for all he had done for the state of Maryland, and that they would make " G é r a r d to Vergennes, Dec. 24, 1 7 7 8 , ibid., vol. 5, folio 1 4 1 . " G é r a r d to Vergennes, Feb. 10, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., vol. 7, folio 74. The manifesto has not been located, although Gerard said that it was enclosed with this despatch. 11 Gérard to Vergennes, June 22, 1 7 7 9 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 8, number 1 0 1 . 12 Gérard to Vergennes, March 8, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., vol. 7, folio 139. Gérard to Vergennes, March 1 2 , 1 7 7 9 , ibid., vol. 7, folio 144. Doniol, of. cit., I l l , 1 5 3 - 1 5 4 . In reply to Virginia's offer to confederate without Maryland, the delegates from the latter state on M a y 2 1 , 1779, presented again their "Instructions" of J a n . 6, 1 7 7 9 . In demanding "a sound policy founded on the principles of justice," the Maryland assembly had declared that "We are convinced policy and justice require that a country unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed by the British crown, and ceded to it by the treaty of Paris, if wrested from the common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen states, should be considered as a common property, subject to be parcelled out by Congress into free, convenient and independent governments, in such manner and at such times as the wisdom of that assembly shall hereafter direct." F o r Virginia's action see Journals of the Continental Congress, X I V , 6 1 7 - 6 1 8 ; Maryland's instructions, ibid., X I I I , 19-30, and X I V , 619-622.

94

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

the Alliance their "sole rule of conduct." The delegates tried to convince Gérard that it might be advantageous to delay ratification} in the meantime they promised to take great care that none of their citizens united with the British.33 Following these private conversations with the representatives of Maryland and Virginia, Gérard was present at an interview at which delegates from both states were present. The Virginia representatives accused Maryland of forcing the states to form rival factions. Delegates from the latter state replied that such coalitions were useful and that they were ready to unite with Virginia. That state, however, declined such an offer which would be contrary to their purpose, and they added that they had no "point de ralliement" with Maryland. Whereupon Gérard remarked that the two states were united to one another because they were both allies of the King of France. This thought profoundly impressed the delegates. They agreed to submit their disagreement to the arbitration of the King. Gérard concluded his report to Vergennes with the remark that "This purely accidental conversation probably could not serve as a base to an operation of this kind, but my aim is to let you know their attitude of mind.'"* He continued to keep in touch with the Maryland delegates, especially with the "up-right, enlightened, and highly respected" Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer who had been sent to Philadelphia to learn the opinion of Congress. The weakness, division, and venality that Jenifer discovered in that body was repeated by Gérard to Vergennes on July 9, 1779, when he gave the latter an account of a long conversation in which Jenifer consulted Gérard as to the conduct of his state in regard to the Confederation. Each state, the Maryland gentleman believed, objected to certain parts of the Articles; but they had ratified lest the Confederation fall to pieces as soon as the war was over. " D o n i o l , o f . cit., I V , pp. 1 5 4 , 1 6 6 . Cf. J e n i f e r to Gov. Johnson, J u n e 8, 1 7 7 9 , E . C. Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1 9 2 1 - ) , I V , 2 5 3 . Gérard to Vergennes, June 1 7 , 1 7 7 9 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 8, folio 1 2 9 . Doniol, o f . cit., I V , 167.

THE

FRENCH

MINISTERS

95

Only a major interest could maintain union between states who were jealous of their sovereignty, and who were separated from one another not only by great distances but also by differences of customs and of interests. H e believed that eventually several confederations would be formed whose only bond of union would be the alliance with the French. If such should be the case, he pointed out that it would be well that each state should ratify the French treaties and that the states should form an agreement to submit their difficulties to the arbitration of Louis XVI. Reverting to the question of the Articles, Jenifer, as quoted by Gérard, said that New York had offered Maryland five million acres of land, and that Virginia was apparently willing to make a similar offer, but it would not be accepted. H e believed that the leaders opposed to ratification in his state were in the pay of England, and that they showed their zeal by the care with which they fomented divisions. Gérard summed up the conversation as follows: T h e result of our i n t e r v i e w s relative to the C o n f e d e r a t i o n has been that the state of M a r y l a n d is already united w i t h the other states f o r every possible object, except the extension of t e r r i t o r y ; it m a y therefore w i t h o u t i n c o n v e n i e n c e await such circumstances as m a y r e n d e r its action useful to the g e n e r a l g o o d , m e a n w h i l e observing the measures that the other states m a y take to necessitate its acces35 sion.

One of Gérard's last dispatches to Vergennes had been devoted to the praises of Maryland. T h e leaders of that state took care to inform Gérard that their refusal to ratify did not detract from the firmness of their attachment to the Alliance. T h e war was being prosecuted with vigor in Maryland, energetic measures were adopted for recruiting troops, levying taxes, and naturalizing foreigners. This was done for the express purpose of favoring the French. Moreover, it was decided that the French minister or the French agents could export provisions " G é r a r d to Vergennes, J u l y 9, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., v o l . 9, f o l i o 1 7 . T h e l o n g section of this letter r e f e r r i n g to M a r y l a n d m a y be f o u n d in D o n i o l , of. cit., I V , 168-170.

96

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

from the state without consulting Congress. Of this permission, it has been seen, the French took full advantage.36 With L a Luzerne, Maryland's relations were even more cordial than they had been with his predecessor.37 During the winter of 1780 Maryland was anxious to keep in the good graces of the French, as can be attested by the letters exchanged by the French minister and the Maryland officials at the time of the flour controversy. On January 10, 1780, L a Luzerne wrote to Governor Lee: I t is with great confidence that I place in your hands the interests of the garrisons in the F r e n c h Islands and of the naval forces of his Majesty because I have already had proof that your dispositions, and those of the state of which you are the head, are such as w e desire from good and faithful allies. 38

When the flour belonging to the French agents was seized, it was the constant preoccupation of the Maryland officials that the French be given no reason to doubt the loyalty of Maryland to the Alliance. So it must have been with great relief that Governor Lee received the following letter from La Luzerne, who wrote on February 10,1780: T h e present uncertainty requires more union and accord than ever among the allies. I t is on you that I count for the support of M a r y l a n d . N o more satisfactory assurances could be received than those which were transmitted to me through M r . Plater and M r . Forbes. I am not unaware that in so doing they were carrying out the wishes of their constituents and that no state is more devoted to the Alliance than the state they represent. 39

Shortly after the arrival of L a Luzerne, Maryland's insistence on the surrender of the western lands received new support. On " See Chapter III. Gérard to Vergennes, Aug. 14, 1 7 7 9 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 9, folio 100. " For Gerard's complimentary farewell to Congress, see Journals of the Continental Congress, X V , 1 0 7 2 - 1 0 7 4 , 1085. He was introduced by Jenifer and Henry Laurens. It is of importance to observe that Gérard sailed for Europe with John J a y . Gérard had attempted to influence his instructions. They required, among other provisions, the free navigation of the Mississippi. Ibid., X V , 1042-1046, 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 6 . Doniol, of. cit., IV, 2 0 5 - 2 1 1 . " L a Luzerne to Governor Lee, Jan. 1 1 , 1780, Maryland Archives, X L I I I , 401. " L a Luzerne to Governor Lee, Feb. 10, 1780, ibid., p. 423. The occasion of this letter has been described in chapter I I I .

THE FRENCH MINISTERS

97

S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 1 7 7 9 , the o w n e r s of t h e V a n d a l i a a n d t h e I n d i a n a lands petitioned C o n g r e s s to protect their tracts against V i r g i n i a w h o c l a i m e d this area to the exclusion of other states. C o n g r e s s r e p l i e d b y requesting V i r g i n i a to close its l a n d office. 4 0 E n c o u r a g i n g to M a r y l a n d w a s t h e action of the N e w l e g i s l a t u r e , w h e n on F e b r u a r y

19,

1 7 8 0 , t h e y passed an

York "Act

f o r facilitating the completion of t h e A r t i c l e s of C o n f e d e r a t i o n a n d p e r p e t u a l U n i o n a m o n g the U n i t e d States of

America."

T h i s w a s r e a d b e f o r e C o n g r e s s on M a r c h 7 , 1 7 8 0 , a n d e m p o w ered the d e l e g a t e s to cede the c l a i m s of N e w Y o r k to the w e s t e r n lands.41 C o n g r e s s included a c o p y of this cession in the p a p e r s sent to the states on S e p t e m b e r

6,

1780. T h e

Maryland

instructions

40 Journals of the Continental Congress, Sept. 14, 1 7 7 9 , X V , 1 0 6 3 - 1 0 6 4 ; Oct. 30, 1 7 7 9 , ibid., X V , 1 2 2 6 - 1 2 2 9 . That the Maryland legislators wished to protect the interests of the land companies might be inferred from the statement in the Maryland instructions that the state's right in common to the western land excepted the grants made to individuals at the beginning of the war. This gesture had a special interest to investors in such companies as the Indiana or the Illinois-Wabash. Among the shareholders of the latter, at least, may be found the names of such prominent Maryland men as Thomas Johnson, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, and Samuel Chase. It may be significant that among the Frenchmen who were concerned in the fortunes of this company and consequently in the disposition of the western lands, were John Holker and Conrad Alexandre Gerard. Maryland's declaration was offered to Congress, as has been noted on Jan. 6, 1779. Ibid., X I I I , 29-30. A good account of the land companies is given by Max Savelle, in George Morgan, Colony Builder (New York, 1 9 3 2 ) , pp. 57-59, 64, 75, 9 4 - 1 1 5 - C/., pp. 81-82, 139, 208, 235. This subject is also treated by A. T . Volwiler, George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 1741-1782 (Cleveland, 1 9 2 6 ) , pp. 45-52, 265-268, 296-297. Mention must be made of the concise article by Merrill Jensen, " T h e Cession of the Old Northwest," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, X X I I I , pp.^ 27-48.

" Professor Adams stressed the importance of the pressure exerted by Maryland on the New York cession. This must be somewhat modified. New York leaders must have realized that it would be more profitable to relinquish a doubtful claim before the validity of that claim were denied. The Marchand resolution was introduced in Congress subsequent to the Forbes resolution, and it would seem that the Rhode Island motion was more objectionable to New York than the Maryland one. Moreover the Vermont agitation was a disturbing element in state politics and the support of Congress and the friendship of the other states was of more value than an extended Empire state. Herbert B . Adams, Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States (Baltimore, 1 8 8 5 ) , pp. 29-32. Cf., Beverly W. Bond, State Government in Maryland, 1777-1781 (Baltimore, 1 9 0 5 ) , pp. 32-33. For a study of the involved New York cession, see Thomas C. Cochran, New York in the Confederation (Philadelphia, 1 9 3 2 ) , pp. 65-84.

98

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

of 1779, and the Virginia remonstrance that had been read in Congress on April 28, 1780, accompanied an invitation to the land-claiming states to make acts of cession, and a special plea to Maryland to ratify. 42 At the close of October the Maryland assembly met and the question of ratification was introduced with the documents from Congress. However, before these communications could be considered, it was thought imperative to determine upon the protection of the state. Because of the recurrent rumor that the British were about to attack Maryland, defense was the question that was uppermost in every mind. Appeal had been made to Congress without result. Local resources were inadequate. As a last resort, on November 1 7 , 1780, the Maryland delegates were told to request L a Luzerne to order two frigates to cruise near the Capes of the Chesapeake in order to protect the lives and the property of the people. T h e success of the British in the South had terrified them and they hoped that the French squadron then in Rhode Island would be divided and that part of the fleet would winter in the Bay. 43 But before this plea was sent to the French minister the Virginia legislature had passed a long-deferred resolution. Following strenuous efforts by their delegates, on January 2, 1 7 8 1 , the Virginia assembly resolved that the Articles of Confederation must be preserved and the state's rights and claims to the land above the Ohio could be surrendered for the common good. It was, moreover, stipulated that this land be apportioned into new states. Private purchases from the Indians were declared to be void—a blow to speculative hopes—while all the other conditions of the act of Congress of 1780 were accepted. Maryland had not yet secured the express satisfaction of its demands, not all the states had made the complete cession, nor had any amendment been formulated recognizing its claims, yet " Journals of the Continental Congress, Sept. 6, 1780, X V I I , 806-807. The New York cession was made, ibid., X V I , 2 3 6 ; The Virginia remonstrance, ibid., X V I , 398. Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, Nov. 1 7 , 1780, pp. 24.-25.

THE FRENCH MINISTERS

99

it was hoped that the Confederation would soon be completed. 44 Three days after the adoption of the Virginia cession, in accordance with the resolution of the Maryland assembly of November 22, 1780, Jenifer wrote to L a Luzerne. T h e danger of foreign invasion that had prompted the assembly to appeal to the French had grown more serious, and Jenifer spoke first of the increasing dependence of the army on the provisions secured from Maryland and Virginia. These states, he declared, were entirely dependent on the safety of the Chesapeake Bay. Since the seat of the war was definitely in the South, the need for protection was more acute than ever. Therefore the assembly turned to the French minister for naval protection. Jenifer begged L a Luzerne to represent the needs of the state to his Majesty, to whom the people of Maryland were so devoted, because ". . . T h e disinterestedness and the magnanimity which he had always shown to the United States and the eagerness with which we manifest our gratitude on all occasions leaves us no room to doubt his kindness towards us." 45 L a Luzerne made a detailed analysis of his reaction to this request in his letter to Vergennes of February 2, 1781. H e carefully weighed the advantages and the disadvantages of the union of the colonies. Should it be necessary at the end of the war to divide the United States in favor of England, the minister wrote, this could be more easily accomplished if the Confederation were incomplete. T h e weakness of thirteen distinct republics might be "advantageous to certain Powers." Great Britain, he knew, desired such division. O n the other hand, the interests of France could best be served by union. Because union would strengthen Congress so that the operations of that body would be more 44 Cf., B o n d , op. cit., p p . 3 3 - 3 4 , f o r the influence of M a r y l a n d on this act. L a L u z e r n e ' s c o m m e n t to V e r g e n n e s , F e b . 2, 1 7 8 1 , is not flattering to V i r g i n i a . He b e l i e v e d that the state w a s slow to act because the w e a l t h y men were b u y i n g l a r g e tracts of land. T h e other states w e r e too concerned with the w a r to realize that " l a n d - g r e e d " w a s the cause o f V i r g i n i a ' s inactivity. A l l its interests were turned to w e s t w a r d expansion. T h e desire to possess this land w a s the cause of the state's r e f u s a l to a l l o w Spain to control the Mississippi. A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n g è r e s , C o r r e s p o n d a n c e P o l i t i q u e , Etats-Unis, v o l . 1 5 , f o l i o 5 1 . J e n i f e r to L a L u z e r n e , J a n . 5, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., v o l . 1 5 , folios 28-32.

IOO

M A R Y L A N D AND F R A N C E

effective, it would safeguard the Alliance; it would render unnecessary the ratification of the Alliance by the individual states. H e reminded Vergennes how often England had tried to bring about a reconciliation by representing to the Americans that Congress was powerless, a fact that they would use to good advantage in peace negotiations. Moreover, if the king assisted in the establishment of Congress he would have a special claim to its gratitude, a quality that would be difficult to find in each of the separate states. Thus he reached the conclusion that he should take advantage of the request from Maryland to urge both houses to press the cause of ratification.46 H e therefore addressed a letter to Jenifer, the president of the senate, and to Bruff, the speaker of the house. T h e former, L a Luzerne informed Vergennes, was opposed to this measure, the latter was its loyal supporter. H e assured the Maryland leaders that their request would be forwarded at once to his Majesty and to Destouches. Although he cautiously added that he could make no definite promise, still he was sure that all that could possibly be done would be done, because the king wished each one of the states to share in the benefits of the Alliance. H e then referred to the ratification problem with the suggestion that this would be accomplished before the winter was over. For a complete Confederation would strengthen the states, assure their union, and destroy any hopes of division that the English might still be cherishing.47 On January 20, 1 7 8 1 , ten days after L a Luzerne had written to Jenifer and Bruff, the Maryland house passed a resolution in favor of accession. They alleged as their motive the desire to thwart the common enemy, to promote the common cause, to conciliate the affection of the other states, to convince their "illustrious a l l y " of the unalterable resolution to support the " L a Luzerne to Vergennes, Feb. 2, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 5 , folio 5 1 . L a Luzerne to J e n i f e r and B r u f f , J a n . 1 0 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 5 , folio 28. T h e r e is apparently a contradiction here, L a Luzerne wrote to Vergennes that both J e n i f e r and B r u f f had written to him, the letter to which he refers was signed by J e n i f e r alone. L a Luzerne wrote to Destouches in regard to M a r y land on J a n . 1 6 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 5 , folio 88. 41

T H E FRENCH MINISTERS

IOI

independence of the United States, to safeguard the Alliance, and to destroy forever any fears or hopes that this state would be united to England. Whereupon a committee was named to bring in a bill on this resolution.48 L a Luzerne enclosed a copy of this resolution to Vergennes when he wrote on January 3 1 , 1 7 8 1 . H e assured the minister of foreign affairs that his letter to Jenifer and Bruff was responsible for this action. T h e assembly had made it the basis of its deliberations as soon as the delegates were convinced that the French desired the completion of the Confederation.'49 On January 27, 1 7 8 1 , the chairman of the committee, Thomas Johnson, introduced the bill empowering the delegates in Congress to ratify the Articles. 50 On January 28, 1 7 8 1 , the senate reported that the bill had been considered and that it would not pass.51 T h e next day the house begged the senate to reconsider this vote. They declared that accession was their "earnest desire," and they warned the upper house of "what consequences may flow" by delaying such a measure. 52 On January 30, 1 7 8 1 , the house received a message from the senate that upon reconsideration they had decided that because a confederation was desired by every friend of the United States, and the exigencies of public affairs required union among the states, and the powers granted to the delegates did not alter or injure their claim to the western lands, they were willing to ratify. 53 T h e instructions to the delegates were framed on February 2, 1 7 8 1 . T h e reasons for ratification were in substance those asserted in the resolution of January 20, 1 7 8 1 , but the reference to France and Spain was more explicit, for it was stated that " . . . having grounds to believe the our accession to the confederation will be acceptable to our illustrious ally, give satisfaction to his Catholic Majesty, and probably be the means of negotiating loans in " Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, J a n . 20, 1 7 8 1 , p. 94. The vote recorded was 33-7. ™ La Luzerne to Vergennes, Jan. 3 1 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 5, folio 40. 50 Ibid., p. 102. T h e vote recorded was 30-8. "Votes and Proceedings of the Senate, J a n . 28, 1 7 8 1 , p. 38. Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, Jan. 29, 1 7 8 1 , p. 1 0 3 . ™ Ibid., pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 . M Votes and Proceedings of the Senate, J a n . 30, 1 7 8 1 , p. 43.

102

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

Europe, all these motives combined, and co-operating with the pressing exigency of our affairs, have induced us to adopt the measure." T h e delegates were further instructed to urge the necessity of French and Spanish subsidies. They were to stress the importance of trade with those nations, for "Our cause is their cause." Having explained the reason for Maryland's accession, the instructions then dealt with a related problem—the navigation of the Mississippi. In the opinion of the legislature, the "strong desire" of the King of Spain to the exclusive navigation of that river should be gratified, because "a cession so important may induce that monarch to afford us powerful assistance."54 One form of this "powerful assistance" may be discovered by consulting the journal of the Maryland assembly for the preceding day, when Richard Harrison, then at Cadiz, was authorized to apply to his Catholic Majesty for ten thousand stand of arms for the state.55 On March 1, 1781, John Hanson and Daniel Carroll affixed their signatures to the Articles, and the Confederation was complete. The general rejoicing was described by La Luzerne to Vergennes: 56 T h e delegates of M a r y l a n d signed the act of the confederation yesterday, which is at last consummated after three years and a half of delay. T h e accomplishment of this work has given rise t o universal joy and the people w h o knew of the event beforehand seemed eager to give it all possible efficacy. Congress celebrated the occasion with a public banquet and the g r e a t flag of the thirteen states was unfurled. T h e cannon of the city and of the port made repeated discharges, the bells pealed, and the day closed with fireworks.57

Nor was this rejoicing confined to the city of Philadelphia. Maryland celebrated with becoming enthusiasm, and the effect M Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, Feb. 2, 1 7 8 1 , pp. 1 1 7 1 1 9 . Acts of the Maryland Assembly, Oct. session, 1 7 8 1 , chapter X L . The original as presented to Congress on Feb. 1 2 , 1 7 8 1 , is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, vol. 70, folio 4 5 3 ; Journals of the Continental Congress, X I X , 1 3 8 - 1 4 0 . Cf. Burnett, o f . cit., VI, xxxviii ff. K Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, Feb. 1 , 1 7 8 1 , p. 1 1 6 . 50 Journals of the Continental Congress, X I X , 208-223. " La Luzerne to Vergennes, March 2, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 15, folio 78.

THE

FRENCH

MINISTERS

103

on the morale of the whole country was beneficial. T h e Chevalier d'Annemours had written at once to Marbois admitting the difficulty with which the ratification had been accomplished. H e was much relieved that the uncertainty was over. 58 Lafayette congratulated Vergennes on the triumph for he believed that T h e accession of the state of Maryland to the Confederation and the relinquishment of the claim to an immense territory made by Virginia against the United States, are news that reveal to the English how much their ministers deceive themselves by futile arguments. 5 9

Vergennes, too, rejoiced at the accession of Maryland to the Confederation. H e wrote, by Rayneval, to L a Luzerne, approving all that had been done to bring about ratification.60 Philip Mazzei, agent of the State of Virginia, sent Vergennes a voluminous memorial from Florence during the summer of 1781. In it he cites as one of the most important events of the year the fact that Maryland by ratifying the Articles had completed the Confederation, and he described the pleasure that this had brought to all. 61 Of the British reaction there was immediate proof. T w o frigates shortly after the ratification appeared in the Chesapeake and committed damage in Maryland. L a Luzerne had previously attributed that state's freedom from invasion to the fact that it had not confederated. N o w he ascribed the expedition to British resentment to the accession of Maryland. 6 2 M D'Annemours to Marbois, Feb. 10, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 12, folio 2 1 6 . Maryland's demands were gradually complied with. On March 1, 1 7 8 1 , N e w Y o r k made a definite cession. Journals of the Continental Congress, X I X , 210-214. T h e problem of the western lands was entrusted to a committee (Jenifer was a member). Ibid., X X I I , 2 2 3 - 2 3 2 . A f t e r difficulties the New Y o r k cession was accepted. Ibid., X X I I I , 6 9 4 . Later Virginia made its cession. Ibid., X X I V , 3 8 4 - 3 8 6 . 19 Lafayette to Vergennes, Feb. 14, 1 7 8 1 , Stevens' Facsimiles, 1635. Cf. L a f a y ette to La Luzerne, Feb. 7 , 1 7 8 1 . " I compliment you with my whole heart on the good conduct of M a r y l a n d and V i r g i n i a . " American Historical Review, XX, j88. " D o n i o l , of. cit., I V , 4 9 J - 4 9 6 . In this dispatch Vergennes informed La Luzerne that separate ratification of the French treaties was now unnecessary. " " M é m o i r e de Filippo Mazzei sur la revolution Américaine avec lettre d'envoi à Vergennes." T h e memoir is in Italian. Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 16, folios 2 6 - 3 1 . " L a Luzerne to D e Castries, M a r c h 2 1 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 6 , folio 3 . Cf., La Luzerne to Vergennes, Feb. 2 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 5 , folio J I .

104

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

Whatever the truth of this alleged British reprisal may be, the French continued to approve highly of the actions and spirit of Maryland. In the fall of 1778 Gérard had reported to Vergennes that the Maryland delegates, more than those of any other state, were sympathetic to France. Repetitions of this belief, both by Gérard and by his successor, have been frequently noted in these pages. In the summer following the ratification of the Articles, Marbois reported to Vergennes that Maryland could be trusted to take a moderate stand on all national questions and that it was more firmly attached to the Alliance than was any other state.63 In concluding this chapter it may be observed that in contrast with the failure of Marbois and Jenifer in the summer of 1780, now, at the time of the ratification, the Maryland assembly instructed their delegates to surrender the navigation of the Mississippi to the Spanish king: a concession that Congress made in the instructions to J a y of February 15, 1781. 6 4 So it was that the two issues in respect to which the Maryland delegates and the French ministers hed been so closely related—the problem of the Mississippi and that of Maryland's accession to the Confederation—were united in the end. " M a r b o i s to Vergennes, J u l y 14, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 1 7 , folio 158. " Journals of the Continental Congress, X I X , 1 5 2 - 1 5 4 . J a y made this concession a contingent one. Bemis, of. cit., pp. 107-108.

V

MARYLAND AND T H E SOLDIERS OF FRANCE 1781-1782 of 1781 the Americans were apparently no nearer victory than they were in 1776. Few men foresaw that the southern campaign suggested in the resolution passed by Congress on New Years' Day would end so gloriously in the capture of Cornwallis ten months later. 1 When Washington learned that the British troops under Arnold were advancing towards Richmond (January 3-6, 1 7 8 1 ) , he ordered Lafayette to lead the allied forces through Maryland and to pursue the enemy. H e was to act in conjunction with Destouches and with Steuben.2 : T H E BEGINNING

T h e passage of so many soldiers through Maryland would sorely tax the resources of the already well-tried state. Therefore it would be necessary not only to supply them with flour but also to provide for their transportation from the Head of E l k to Hampton Roads. Congress appealed directly to the Baltimore merchants. Timothy Pickering, quartermaster-general, and Charles Stewart, commissary-general, wrote from Philadelphia to Samuel Purviance on February 27, 1 7 8 1 . The

M a r q u i s L a F a y e t t e will pass by y o u r city in a very short

space with a very respectable detachment f r o m G e n e r a l W a s h i n g t o n . His movements will be as rapid as possible, therefore the supplies for his troops should be v e r y certain; everything in the provision w a y is sent f r o m hence, and teams to cart it f r o m Christiana to E l k ; it seems also like sending coals to N e w Castle, to send flour f r o m hence to 1 Journals of the Continental Congress, W . C. Ford et al., Eds. (Washington, 1 9 0 4 — ) , X I X , 2-3. Lafayette to Jefferson, Feb. 2 1 , 1 7 8 1 , Lafayette in Virginia, Institut Français de Washington (Baltimore, 1 9 2 8 ) , p. 2. Essential for an understanding of Lafayette's actions in 1 7 8 1 are his letters to L a Luzerne. American Historical Review, XX, 5 7 8 - 6 1 2 . Introductory note by W . G. Leland.

io6

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

Baltimore. . . . W e shall make no f u r t h e r apology at present for giving you this trouble, as we are assured of your readiness to do essential service to your country on every occasion. 3 Governor L e e gave his support to the merchants and pressed into service all the "Carriages, Teams and Drivers," and the necessary "Vessels with their H a n d s , " so that the expedition might not, through their fault, be defeated or retarded.4 Nevertheless, when Lafayette reached Maryland on March i, 1 7 8 1 , the vessels were not ready. 5 H e was impatient to be off and welcomed a suggestion made by his aide-de-camp, James McHenry

of Baltimore. W h y

should not the Marquis

appeal

directly to the Baltimore merchants? T h e y had already given marks of their loyalty and were well able to provide means of transportation.6 Accordingly M c H e n r y addressed them through his father, one of the most prominent of their number. 7 On March 6, 1 7 8 1 , he wrote: O n joining M a j o r General the Marquis de la Fayette, I was convinced of what I had before suspected, that his enterprise w a n t e d all of your assistance. H e has been greatly disappoinnted; a n d of course it has stood still for some days; and without any general exertions may be defeated in its commencement. Such is the deranged state of our treasury affairs, that public officers find a thousand inconveniences and obstacles in the execution of their duty. Scarce a wagon can be put in motion without adding to the powers of government that of private assistance. I n such a situation, it becomes the duty of individuals, a n d of particular societies of men, to contribute a certain support beyond what may be considered their proper proportion. T h i s is looked for under all governments, but expected more particularly under the republican. I need not select as an instance, the Philadelphia merchants w h o have so long kept the northern a r m y supplied with provisions. 8 T o this challenge to their civic pride, he added the suggestion that the merchants form a committee in order that they ' Robert Purviance, Narrative of Events which occurred in Baltimore Town during the Revolutionary War (Baltimore, 1 8 4 9 ) , p. 227. ' J . T . Scharf, History of Maryland, 3 vols. (Baltimore, 1 8 7 9 ) , I I , 4 3 4 . ' L a f a y e t t e to Lee, March i , 1 7 8 1 , Brown Book, V I I , letter 69. ' P u r v i a n c e , o f . cit., p. 93. 7 Scharf, o f . cit., I I , 4 3 5 . " Ibid., I I , 4 3 7 .

T H E SOLDIERS OF FRANCE

107

could provide the needed food and transportation without material injury to themselves. H e explained that the Marquis hesitated to write to them lest the request be inopportune. M c H e n r y concluded with the warning that the whole expedition against the British in the south would fail if the Baltimore merchants did not aid the French during the whole course of operations. T h e response was immediate. A public meeting was held in Baltimore. Matthew R i d l e y , Robert Purviance, and W i l l i a m Patterson were named to secure what was necessary. T h e same day the committee wrote to M c H e n r y that the merchants would spare " n o exertions within the compass of their abilities," to expedite the advance of the Marquis against the common enemy. 9 T h e next day the committee, wishing to secure the approval of the Maryland authorities, wrote to Governor L e e , enclosing copies of the correspondence. " W e beg leave to assure your Excellency," they explained, " w e are actuated solely by the warmth of our attachment to the common cause and zeal for the honor of the State. W e do not mean to weaken the national exertions of Government. . . ." 1 0 T h i s prompt and generous conduct brought the troops safely into the harbor of Annapolis on March 14, 1 7 8 1 , and won for the merchants grateful words of acknowledgment from the governor. H e assured them that whatever sums they had advanced would be paid in f u l l with interest, and that far from censuring their conduct, he bestowed upon it his highest approval. W e very much applaud the zeal and activity of the gentlemen of Baltimore, and think their readiness to assist the executive, at a time when they were destitute of the means of providing those things which were immediately necessary for the detachment under the command for the Marquis de la Fayette, justly entitle them to the thanks of the public. 11 Meanwhile Destouches with part of his fleet, had left Newport on March 8, 1 7 8 1 , and one week later he encountered the English under Admiral Arbuthnot off the Capes of Virginia. 'Committee to J . McHenry, Alexis J . Shriver, Lafayette in 10 Committee to Lee, March Lee to Committee, March

March 9, 1 7 8 1 , Red Book, X X V I I I , letter 59. Harford County (Bel Air, Md., 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 57. 10, 1 7 8 1 , Red Book, X X V I I I , letter 57. 20, 1 7 8 1 , Purviance, of. cit., zz.

io8

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

Although the issue was disputed, Destouches was prevented from entering the Chesapeake, and the French returned to Newport. This convinced Lafayette that to delay any longer in Virginia would be hazardous, so he planned to lead his men once more through Maryland. On April 8, 1 7 8 1 , he wrote to Washington from Head of E l k , explaining that the return of the British fleet had rendered his position vulnerable. H e added: I myself hastened back to Maryland; but confess I could not resist the ardent desire I had of seeing your relations, and above all your Mother at Fredericksburg. For that purpose I went some miles out of my way, and, in order to conciliate my private happiness to duties of a public nature, I recovered by riding in the night those few hours which I had consecrated to my satisfaction. I had also the pleasure of seeing Mount Vernon, and was very unhappy that my duty and my anxiety for the execution of your orders prevented my paying a visit to M r . Custis. 1 2

Meanwhile the people of Maryland viewed Lafayette's departure with alarm. T h e y feared that the failure of the French fleet to effect an entrance into the Chesapeake and the withdrawal of the land forces would leave them easy victims for the British. 13 L a Luzerne wrote confidentially to Governor L e e that another fleet would soon reach Chesapeake Bay, and he urged him to make discreet use of the information in order to rouse the flagging courage of the people. 14 The next campaign, he believed, would be decisive; moreover, since Maryland had just given signal proof of its attachment to the principles of the confederation by the ratification of the Articles, and during the whole course of the Revolution had been splendidly patriotic, he was sure that at this critical juncture the state would rally to the support of the government and of the Alliance. On March 28, 1 7 8 1 , L a Luzerne wrote to de Castries that the Chesapeake had become the focal point of the interest of the whole country. This interest, he explained, was due to the fact that "all merchants are concerned in the tobacco trade of Virginia and Mary12

L a f a y e t t e to W a s h i n g t o n , A p r i l 8, 1 7 8 1 , S h r i v e r , of. cit., p. 2 1 . L a L u z e r n e to V e r g e n n e s , M a r c h 8, 1 7 8 1 , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n g è r e s , C o r r e s p o n d a n c e P o l i t i q u e , E t a t s - U n i s , v o l . 1 5 , f o l i o 88. 14 L a L u z e r n e to L e e , M a r c h 2 3 , 1 7 8 1 , B r o w n B o o k , V I I , letter 2 7 . 11

THE

SOLDIERS

OF

FRANCE

109

land. T h e y wait with anxiety for news of the operation of the English fleet.'"5 W h e n details of Arbuthnot's victory reached Baltimore, the alarm was general. Imagination magnified the disaster which the Tories ascribed to the treachery of the French. T h e Baltimore consul described the panic of the merchants in unflattering terms. H e wrote that they "are in consternation. N o r it is precisely a general interest in the American cause that produces this sentiment, but it is their interest in commerce. A l l the battles in the world, lost or won, mean less to Baltimore, than the arrival of a vessel laden with sugar or coffee." 16 T h e next day he addressed himself in the same disillusioned strain to Lee, complaining of the treatment accorded to the French in Maryland : T h e Americans settled in France E n j o y the most unlimited L i b erty with respect both to their persons & properties. N o t one of them is Subject to any personal or pecuniary D u t y , their ships and trade find the most unbounded protection . . . their F l a g is respected there in as high a degree as any of those with which France has been in alliance for many ages, has she met with the same advantages here? 1 7

T o the harassed governor, such a question must have seemed highly inopportune. Invasion appeared to be imminent. Martial measures were the engrossing concern. Nevertheless, the watchful D'Annemours was not at all impressed. 18 H e confided to his friend Marbois that the alarm had reached its height early in April, but that it had aroused the people to nothing more noble than the desire to flee. Each man was more concerned with his own safety than he was interested in the defense of the city. N o r would the consul exonerate the citizens on the ground that means of resistance were inadequate. Arms and men, he con11 L a L u z e r n e to de Castries, M a r c h 28, 1 7 8 1 , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n gères, Correspondance P o l i t i q u e , Etats-Unis, v o l . 1 6 , f o l i o 1 7 . " D ' A n n e m o u r s to M a r b o i s , M a r c h 30, 1 7 8 1 , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n gères, Correspondance P o l i t i q u e , Etats-Unis, S u p p l é m e n t , v o l . iz, f o l i o 229. " D ' A n n e m o u r s to Lee, M a r c h 3 1 , 1 7 8 1 , B r o w n B o o k , V I I I , letter 46. " Y e t L a f a y e t t e w r o t e to Lee, A p r i l 1 7 , 1 7 8 1 , that he w a s d e l i g h t e d w i t h the a p p e a r a n c e of the m i l i t i a , and that the " o t h e r P r e p a r a t i o n s of defence made B y this T o w n do H e r Citizens G r e a t H o n o r . " B r o w n B o o k , V I I , letter 7 1 .

I IO

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

sidered, were quite sufficient to resist a hostile invasion, but the people were indifferent to everything except commerce. Only a miracle could rouse them from their lethargy. Daily accounts of burning, pillaging, and death left them apathetic. T h e British shared his strictures on this occasion. H e compared them to butchers seeking the best-fed sheep of the flock, a simile that he felt was particularly apt, for "Baltimore is very plump now. I strongly fear that it will be the object of their choice.'" 9 When reports of the perilous situation in Maryland reached Philadelphia, Congress passed an act authorizing the speedy removal of all public stores to a place of safety. 20 Governor Lee pleaded with Lafayette to come to the defense of Maryland. On April 10, 1 7 8 1 , the Marquis assured him that he would move at once to defend Annapolis, Baltimore, and Alexandria. T h e presence of the English in the Chesapeake made the passage to Annapolis dangerous, so Lafayette advanced along the eastern shore, and hastened to Baltimore. It was during this trip that he triumphed over the disaffection that was spreading among his men. Northern troops did not wish to fight in the South, and the order to advance further from their homes found them rebellious. Displaying a keen appreciation of their psychology, Lafayette acted promptly in order to avert further trouble. H e ordered the immediate execution of a Tory miller, Walter Pigot, and he followed this object lesson with a stirring appeal to the patriotism of his soldiers. So strongly did they respond to this challenge that when he offered a free pass to any man who wished to return home, not one was requested. 21 The ingenious Marquis did not rest satisfied with this initial success. News of the advance of the enemy, and urgent letters from General Greene, obliged him to hurry into Virginia. H e explained to Governor Lee: " D'Annemours to Marbois, April 7, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance, Politique, Etats-Unis, Supplément, vol. 1 2 , folio 237. Cf. Jenifer to Lee, April 8, 1 7 8 1 , Red Book, X X V I , letter 3. w Samuel Huntington to Matthew Tilghman, Act of Congress of April 8, 1781, Journals of the Continental Congress, X I X , 365-367. 21 Scharf, of. cit., II, 443. Lafayette to La Luzerne, April 22, 1 7 8 1 , American Historical Review, X X , 599-601.

T H E SOLDIERS OF FRANCE

111

. . . the fatigue of the troops, the Absolute want of shoes, and the desire of Having as many Rivers as possible Behind us to prevent desertion are the Reasons which, though with Reluctance, Have forced me to impress a large number of W a g g o n s to carry the troops as far as Potowmack. T h e distance Being But Short, and the time of their service not Exceeding t w o days, I thought I might make free use of the permission Given by Y o u r Excellency and Council to impress everything which would be necessary to forward the movements of the detachment.

He concluded with a word of appreciation and of apology: I cannot finish this letter Before I do once more Express to your Excellency the concern I feel for the inconvenience which our passing through this State Brings upon its inhabitants. Nothing makes me more unhappy than a necessity to impress Private property thereby distressing our Best Citizens. But your Excellency and Council and indeed the whole State seems so much A w a r e of the danger the Southern States are under, that upon such lively Representations of it as I have Received it Became my duty to Hasten my M a r c h By uncommon Exertions. 22

If hardened veterans were struck by the utter destitution of the troops, it is easy to imagine the distress of the Maryland belles when the Marquis told them of the sufferings endured so bravely by his men. At a ball given in his honor in Baltimore, Lafayette's charming partners sought to banish the care that haunted their distinguished guest, and they unhesitatingly assured him that the next morning they would provide for every want of his poor soldiers. While busy fingers were cutting and stitching, Lafayette made his plans for the journey to the South. If a certain romantic glamour lingers around the memory of the services rendered so graciously to the French by the Baltimore women, to the men of Baltimore is also due a tribute of gratitude. Accepting the pledge of Lafayette's private fortune, they loaned him ten thousand dollars, with which he purchased shoes, clothing, and food for his troops.23 Congress soon after passed a resolution that it entertained "a just sense of the patriotic and timely exertions of the Mer22 23

Lafayette to Lee, A p r i l 17, 1 7 8 1 , Brown Book, VII, letter 71. Shriver, of. cit., p. 28.

112

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

chants of Baltimore" and made itself responsible for the debt that Lafayette had contracted with them.24 Writing from Williamsburg, the Marquis sent an appreciative letter of thanks: B y M a j o r M c H e n r y , you will receive some papers that relate to the affair in which you have so kindly assisted me, but I claim the pleasure personally to express m y obligations to you, and beg you to be convinced that you have excited the most grateful and everlasting sentiments in m y heart. Permit me to request that my respectful thanks may be presented to the ladies of Baltimore. I am proud of m y obligations to t h e m — n o t only from a general respect to the fair sex, but more particularly because I know the accomplishments of those to w h o m I am indebted. I am happy in the ties of gratitude that bind me to them, and beg leave once more to assure you of the regard and attachment I have the honor to bear. 2 5

Lafayette then advanced to Richmond, but Lord Cornwallis, who had assumed command of the British forces on M a y 20, 1 7 8 1 , obliged him to retreat. Fear of invasion again prevailed in Maryland. On M a y 30, 1 7 8 1 , the governor begged the state's delegates to petition Congress for clothing and arms, of which Maryland was in dire need because of the extraordinary exertions that had been made to supply the southern army, the French detachment, and the local militia.26 Daniel Carroll and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, who were then in Philadelphia, pressed Congress for this relief. 27 These delegates also wrote to Washington, who assured them that he was not insensible to the danger to which Maryland was exposed, and that he would join the French to frustrate the British ambition of possessing the Chesapeake region.28 Meanwhile Lee was kept informed by Lafayette of the movements of the British. 29 Anticipating an important campaign in ** Journals of the Continental Congress, May 24, 1 7 8 1 , X X , 5 3 1 . Scharf, of. cit., II, 447. " Lee to State Delegates, May 30, 1 7 8 1 , Papers of the Continental Congress, vol. 70, folio 469. Cf. June 1 , 1 7 8 1 , folio 473. 27 Jenifer and D. Carroll to Lee, May 30, 1 7 8 1 , Red Book, V, letter 84. Jenifer and D. Carroll to Council, June 3, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., letter 86. "Washington acknowledged this request on June 1 1 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., letter 108. " L a f a y e t t e to Lee, June 25, 1 7 8 1 , Brown Book, VII, letter 66; J u l y 30, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., letter 6 5 ; Aug. 1 , 1 7 8 1 , Red Book, X V I I I , letter 1 2 6 ; Aug. 6, 1 7 8 1 , Brown Book, VII, letter 67; Aug. 10, 1 7 8 1 , Brown Book, VII, letter 64.

T H E SOLDIERS OF F R A N C E

113

the fall, in August the governor appealed to Congress for arms. H e described in glowing terms the "animating and noble spirit" which now characterized his people as it did in the first days of the "glorious contest," and "which has apparently banished every sordid, avaricious and selfish view." 30 Elaborate efforts were made at this time to convince Clinton that New York would be the American objective within the next few weeks, while Lee was cooperating with the military leaders to strike a decisive blow in the South. T h e Maryland governor wrote to Robert Morris that every request for food and transportation had been met with the "utmost cheerfulness and alacrity." 31 Success in the South depended on the timely arrival of de Grasse, who had last been heard from in the West Indies. Washington moved towards Baltimore. There had been no word from the French fleet in the Caribbean.32 L a Luzerne in Philadelphia was forced to admit the growing hostility of the country that he represented. Oblivious of the fact that this might be due to the repeated failure of the land and sea forces to coordinate action, he wrote to Vergennes that he was alarmed at the increasing coldness shown to the French, and he insisted that the machinations of Deanc, Adams, and L e e were responsible.33 There was to be a sudden change. On September 6, 1 7 8 1 , the Philadelphians gathered before L a Luzerne's house shouting for the Alliance. 34 Brigadier General Mordecai Gist, then in charge of the military forces in Baltimore, had forwarded despatches from de Grasse to Washington. 3 * The French fleet was in the Chesapeake with twenty-eight ships and more than M Scharf, o f . cit., II, 458. H Ibid., II, 459. Correspondence of General Washington and Comte de Grasse, Institut Français de Washington (Washington, 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 3. " L a Luzerne to Vergennes, Aug. 25, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 18, folio 44. " Abbé C. Robin, Nouveau Voyage dans l'Amérique Septentrionale en l'année 1781, et Campagne de l'armeé de M. le comte de Rochambeau (Philadelphie et Paris, 1 7 8 2 ) , p. 91. " G i s t to Washington, Sept. 4, 1 7 8 1 , Correspondence of Washington and Comte de Grasse, p. I J . Washington to La Luzerne, Sept. 5, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 16.

114

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

three thousand men. There was immediate evidence of a change of heart toward the French. . . . echoes of joy were heard from every quarter; some merry fellows, mounted on scaffolds and stages, pronounced funeral orations for Cornwallis, and uttered lamentations on the grief and distress of the tories. T h e people ran in crowds to the residence of the Minister of France; and "Long live Louis the Sixteenth!" was the general cry. Thus you see the people are universally persuaded of the success of this expedition. Could these flattering hopes be realised, they would hasten a peace, which in our situation, and under the wise and benevolent prince that governs us, would place France in a point of view that has been wholly unknown since the existence of her monarchy. 36

Jubilant at the happy turn of events, Washington hurried to Baltimore where he received on September 8, 1 7 8 1 , a welcoming salute from the Maryland artillery drawn up to meet him. That evening a committee of citizens tendered him a formal address of congratulations on the recent victories and on the arrival of the "fleet of our magnanimous ally." 3 7 Washington thanked the "worthy inhabitants" for their gracious words, and declared that the "active and generous part our allies are taking in our cause, with the late arrival of their formidable fleet in the bay of the Chesapeake, call for our utmost gratitude. . . ." 38 H e reached Mount Vernon on September 9, 1 7 8 1 , where Rochambeau and his aides joined him. After a brief visit to the home that he had not seen since the beginning of hostilities, Washington set out for Williamsburg. There was no time to call upon the governor of Maryland, so Washington wrote to Lee that he was pleased to find that in . . . your state a Spirit for Exertion prevails universally in such Manner as gives me the happiest Prospects of receiving very effectual support from you. Great Attention is necessary to be given to the Article of Supplies . . . particularly Flour, let me intreat your Excellency to give every . . . Relief on this Head that is within your Power. 39 " J a m e s Thacher, M.D., Military Journal (Boston, 1848), p. 37. * Scharf, of. cit., II, 458. "Ibid., II, 459Washington to Lee, Sept. 11j 1781, Shriver, of. cit.y p. 115.

THE SOLDIERS OF FRANCE

" 5

On the morning of September 5, 1 7 8 1 , de Grasse had sighted the British fleet near Cape Henry and in two hour's battle had driven it off. The English under Admiral Graves had suffered serious casualties. Unmolested, Count de Barras was able to maneuver his transports and to bring men, arms, and ammunition safely into the Chesapeake.40 Count Axel Fersen, one of Rochambeau's aides, a favorite in court and camp, was ordered to Baltimore to hasten the passage of the new troops.41 The state had done its utmost to supply every need of the American and the French forces, and before the end of September the allied troops were gathered near Williamsburg for the siege. It was the beginning of the end.42 On October 9, 1 7 8 1 , the cannonade was opened. Eight days later Cornwallis realized that he could neither resist nor escape. His suggestion of a truce was accepted by Washington and at Ul /2 past 4 p.m." he proposed terms of surrender. 43 Count de Grasse wrote at once of the great victory to Governor Lee, and Tench Tilghman started on his famous ride to Philadelphia. 44 These had been busy days for the French consul in Baltimore. H e had stationed himself at Cape Henry to provide the fleet with flour and with cattle. Marbois had left Philadelphia to facilitate the passage of troops and provisions at the Head of Elk. 4 5 Shortly after the capitulation of Cornwallis, D'Annemours wrote to Vergennes that at last the rumors spread by the Tories could be categorically denied. For a long time propaganda had been circulated in Maryland that the intention of the French 40

Correspondence of Washington and Comte de Grasse, pp. 23-24. " Washington to de Grasse, Sept. 1 5 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 3 1 . " L e e to Washington, Sept. 19, 1 7 8 1 . The state authorities had difficulty in securing provisions for the militia because the people of Maryland preferred to sell their meat and flour to the French agents who were able to pay with "hard money." Scharf, of. cit., II, 464. 41 Cornwallis to Washington, Oct. 17, 1 7 8 1 , Correspondence of Washington and Comte de Grasse, p. 95. Washington to Cornwallis, Oct. 1 7 , 1 7 8 1 , loc. cit. Cornwallis to Washington, Oct. 1 7 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., p. 96. 44 De Grasse to Lee, Oct. 18, 1 7 8 1 , Brown Book, VII, letter 75. A horse properly caparisoned and a valuable sword were awarded by Congress to Colonel Tench Tilghman for his "merit and ability." Journals of the Continental Congress, X X I , 1 0 7 2 , 1082. "D'Annemours to Vergennes, Oct. 22, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Mémoires et Documents, Etats-Unis, vol. 4, folio 8.

116

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

government had not been to assist the allies in an effective manner but merely to weaken the English and the Americans by a prolongation of hostilities that would prove disastrous to both. T h e avowed purpose of the Court of Versailles, so declared the Tories, was to weaken the victors of the Seven Years' W a r and to enable France to recoup its losses. T o support these charges, the frequent failures of the French fleet and the inadequate aid granted by the King were adduced. This growing gloom of suspicion and of distrust was dispelled by the timely arrival of de Grasse, Rochambeau, Lafayette, and de Barras, so that doubts and animosity yielded "to a growing universal spirit of gratitude." 46 Maryland gave expression to this gratitude when Washington stopped in Annapolis on November 21, 1781. 47 T h e assembly then in session offered him a vote of thanks. Thomas Cockey Deye, speaker of the house, and George Plater, president of the senate, took advantage of the opportunity to praise the French troops. W h i l e w e pay this j u s t t r i b u t e t o y o u r E x c e l l e n c y ' s

distinguished

m e r i t , w e f e e l a p e c u l i a r pleasure in a c k n o w l e d g i n g the p o w e r f u l assistance a f f o r d e d us by o u r g e n e r o u s a l l y , the s i g n a l p r o o f s of skill a n d b r a v e r y e x h i b i t e d by his officers a n d soldiers, a n d their strict discipline a n d e x e m p l a r y b e h a v i o u r in t h e i r m a r c h t h r o u g h this state.

In his reply Washington commented upon the pleasure that he always felt when the French were praised. H e concluded with the "warmest wishes for the prosperity of the State which has ever stood among the foremost in her support of the common cause." 48 This frequently asserted loyalty to the Alliance caused the Maryland assembly to view with alarm the reports circulated by the Tories that the French intended to detach several of the states to form the nucleus of a Bourbon state in America. T h e assembly requested its delegates to call on L a Luzerne and to inform him that they would prefer to ignore entirely such false " hoc. cit. "Washington to Lee, Nov. 16, 1781, Brown Book, I, letter 45. * Scharf, of. cit., II, 464.

T H E SOLDIERS O F FRANCE

117

statements but that they feared that the King might receive an unfavorable impression, however slight, concerning the real sentiments of the people of the state. In order to give his Christian Majesty an unbounded proof of their lively sentiments of gratitude, they were determined to give passage, residence, and all needed aid to the army and to the navy of France, whatever be the number in which they should come to Maryland. L a Luzerne assured them that he would transmit this message to his master, who would esteem this mark of confidence.4" A f t e r the victory at Yorktown, Lafayette returned to France for a visit. Count de Rochambeau was in charge of the troops in Williamsburg. D'Annemours took advantage of the opportunity to g o to Virginia. From Richmond he wrote to de Castries on December 4, 1781, that "selfish interests" occupied the attention of the people. In other states he had found that commerce was the matter of the most concern, but the Virginians thought only in terms of land. Because of their charter rights and their unlimited ambition, he believed that they would make the state the dominant power in the South just as soon as the cessation of the war should remove all need of a confederation. Seven years of travel and of observation in this country had convinced him that the southern states would eventually find their fortune in trade, while the North, because it is a "lineal descendant of a Power that has depended on the sea will always think that its future lies in a naval supremacy." H e concluded in a prophetic strain that he believed that "America will not be a great "naval power for centuries." 50 Governor Lee had often urged L a Luzerne to visit Annapolis, but the invitation had never been accepted. On March 7, 1782, the French minister wrote to Vergennes that this refusal was " L a Luzerne to Vergennes, Nov. 23, 17X1, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 19, folio 88. In his answer of Jan. 31, 1782, Vergennes wrote laconically in the margin besides a summary of the statement that the French wished to detach several states, " W e would not have renounced the reconquest of Canada, if we had the intention of establishing ourselves on the North American continent." Ibid., vol. 20, folios 218-224. ""D'Annemours to de Castries, Dec. 4, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, Supplément, vol. 4, folio 11.

n 8

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

due to the fact that no political end would justify such a trip. "The state shows great power and although it is torn by party strife, on an occasion of public interest it is strongly united. How desirable it would be if Virginia, so much more powerful, would contribute to the general defense with similar courage and patriotism."51 A visit to Virginia revealed to La Luzerne why that state, once the strongest in the Confederation, had become the weakest. " I t is due," he believed, "to the continual emigration of the people westward, where the land is cheap and extremely fertile.. . ." "Kutuk" and the neighboring districts were attracting men from the coast, leaving that section powerless against a hostile invasion. La Luzerne spoke frankly "in public and in private," but the people seemed "land-mad" so he returned to Philadelphia very much discouraged.52 During his absence Marbois, the chargé d'affaires wrote to Vergennes that the delegates to Congress from New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland were "the best disposed to receive the impressions that the Minister of the King sees fit to give them."53 One of these "impressions" may have been responsible for the action of the Maryland assembly when it was learned that a bill had been introduced into Parliament to allow the King of England to conclude peace with the "revolted colonies." The Maryland delegates agreed that such offers must be summarily rejected because they would not be consonant with the alliance.54 La Luzerne informed Vergennes of this unanimous resolution on May 22, 1782.55 Franklin repeated the same fact to him in 111 L a Luzerne to Vergennes, March 7, 1782, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 20, folio 121. 52 La Luzerne to Vergennes, A p r i l 20, 1782, ibid., vol. 21, folio 25. " M a r b o i s to Vergennes, March 21, 1782, ibid., vol. 21, folios 441-452. Marbois throws an interesting light on the influence of the French minister, "Delaware in particular has recently detached itself from the 'Eastern League.' T h i s change is due in part to M . de L a Luzerne, who informed M r . Dickinson that the delegates from that state were influenced by the men from New England." A change in the policy of the Delaware delegates was immediately evident. " T h i s incident is related in detail by Scharf, of. cit., II, 483. 55 L a Luzerne to Vergennes, M a y 22, 1782, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 21, folio 67.

THE

SOLDIERS

OF

FRANCE

119

J u l y ; adding a comment reminiscent of old rancors, that such an action surprised him, for " M a r y l a n d was esteemed the least hearty in the cause."56 N o shadow of any defection of Maryland from the alliance was apparent in the proclamation of the governor announcing the birth of the Dauphin of France. T h e governor said: I cannot doubt that the citizens of this State will unite in the joy which an occasion so nearly effecting the happiness of our ally will not fail to inspire, while they experience a n e w source of satisfaction on the birth of a prince from w h o m w e have every reason to expect a continuance of the blessings of our alliance—the same lively attention to the injured and oppressed, and all those great qualities which have excited our admiration and gratitude, and which so eminently distinguish his illustrious father. 57

O n June 25, 1782, this auspicious event was celebrated at Independent Springs. A f t e r an "elegant dinner" there were toasts, and the Chevalier d'Annemours acknowledged the tribute in the name of the King. T h e entertainment closed "with that harmony and good humor, which, in a peculiar manner distinguished the day." 58 Felicitations were also tendered to Count de Rochambeau early in August, when he reviewed the five thousand French troops recently arrived in Baltimore from Virginia. T h e regiments included the Bourbonnois, Deux-Ponts, Saintonge, and Soissonnois. On August 11, 1781, the governor received Rochambeau and his staff at Annapolis. In expressing the gratitude of the state to its distinguished visitors, he made special mention of the "ready protection afforded by your Excellency to the commerce of Maryland," and to the "decorum and exemplary discipline observed by your troops on their march through the State." Rochambeau replied that he had been favorably impressed with the very cordial reception which all classes had shown to the French, and he assured the governor that the King would not be insensible to "the great j o y " they evinced at the birth " F r a n k l i n to Vergennes, J u l y 6, 1782, ibid., " P u r v i a n c e , of. cit., p. 98. Ibid., p. 99.

v o l . 21, f o l i o 392.

120

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

of the Dauphin, and to the warmth with which they had supported the Alliance, which they wished to be perpetual.59 General L a Valette was ordered to remain in Baltimore with five hundred men; the others were to march to Philadelphia before the end of August. 60 While the state officials were providing food and shelter for the troops, the visitors were doing much to establish friendly relations with the people. Rochambeau wished his men to ride over the country in order to know the people and to study their ways. 61 T h e English had encouraged the Americans to believe that the French were light, fickle, unreliable, but the excellent discipline of the troops, their courtesy and their moderation destroyed this prejudice in Maryland. Here, as elsewhere, all were astonished to find the allies so courteous, so courageous, so reserved. 62 This harmony between the French troops and the people of Maryland was largely due to the tact of Governor Lee. On November 22, 1782, the assembly acknowledged this achievement of the chief executive, mentioning that his "polite treatment of the officers of His Most Christian Majesty had done honor to the State." Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer and William Paca were nominated to succeed Lee, who was ineligible for another term because of the constitutional clause limiting the governor's tenure of office to three years. Paca was elected.63 " Scharf, of. cit., I I , 484. "Ibid., I I , 4 8 J . " Comte de M o r e , Mémoires (Paris, 1 8 9 8 ) , p. 1 0 5 . " R o b i n , of. cit., pp. 3 0 - 3 2 . " S c h a r f , of. cit., I I , 487.

de Charles Albert

Chevalier

de

Pontgibaud,

VI

A MARYLAND AGENT IN FRANCE, HOLLAND, A N D ENGLAND

T

H E QUESTION

of finance was acute in Maryland in 1781.

Every effort had been made the year before to solve the problem of a balanced budget. It had been necessary to repeal the law that made it obligatory to accept paper money instead of specie.1 Taxation, which had always been inadequate, was increased because of the larger congressional requisitions.2 T h e confiscation of the property of the absent British subjects was proposed in the spring, but so powerful were the interests of the opponents of this measure that it is not likely that this source of revenue would have been resorted to, had public opinion not been aroused against the English by the refusal of the holders of the Bank stock to honor bills of credit drawn against them by the state. 3 Officers were named for each county to collect the subscriptions of those who wished to contribute to the loan then being introduced by Congress. But these combined efforts did not relieve the state of the burden that the war had brought upon it, and the council decided to make an attempt to secure in Europe the money so difficult to obtain in America. Matthew Ridley, a prominent Baltimore citizen, a member of the firm of Ridley and Pringle, had recently returned from France. H e had been in business in Nantes and had friends in Rouen and in Paris. It was he who was selected to be the agent of the state. H e was authorized to secure a loan in France, Spain, and Holland} to negotiate the purchase of arms, ammunition, and supplies; and to transact such business as the state might think fit to entrust to him during his sojourn in Europe. 4 Acts of the Maryland Assembly, June session, 1780, chapter X X V I I I . Ibid., March session, 1780, chapter X X V . ' B e n j a m i n Franklin to Governor Lee, A u g . IT, 1780, Blue Book, II, 43. Acts of the Maryland Assembly, October session, 1780, chapter X L V . 'Ibid,, October session, 1780, chapter LI. Commissioners to the President of Congress, Nov. 7, 1778, Francis Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Cor1 2

122

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

Ridley began his official mission under favorable auspices. Governor Thomas Sim Lee wrote to L a Luzerne in Philadelphia, asking him to write to Vergennes of the need of the state of Maryland, to recommend Matthew Ridley to the proper officials and to assist him to reach France.5 In his letter to Vergennes, dated April 9, 1781, La Luzerne outlined Ridley's purpose in going to France: M r . L e e has just represented to me the necessity of immediately putting his state in a strong position to resist a hostile attack. He asked me to assist M r . Ridley in the execution of the commission of which he is charged. I have assured the Governor that I would acquaint you with his request.

La Luzerne had prudently given Lee no definite answer, nor did he promise that the French government would assist him, but he added, Nevertheless I believe that the requests of this state and those of Virginia deserve to be considered with attention. I t is not probable that the help they desire can be given to them sufficiently soon so that they may be able to use it in the coming campaign but if the w a r is to continue then arms will be needed.

H e spoke at length of the recent accession of Maryland to the confederation and reminded Vergennes that after years of delay the state had ratified only because of the influence that the French were so fortunate as to be able to exert among the leading citizens. T h e eagerness with which M a r y l a n d acceded to the confederation as soon as it was given to understand that such an action would be agreeable to the K i n g , deserves, perhaps, to be rewarded by special favors, in preference to the other states.

The South, he believed, would probably be the scene of the next campaign, and it would be well to provide the state with arms. H e then introduced the question: Was it advisable to deal directly with the states rather than with Congress? T o his own query he replied by stressing the many previous debts of Conresfonience of the United States, 6 vols. (Washington, 1889), II, 831. Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser March 9, 1779. ' La Luzerne to Lee, April 9, 1 7 8 1 , Maryland Archives, X L V I I , 175.

A MARYLAND

AGENT

ABROAD

123

gress, its present weakness, its future disability. H e believed that it would be safer and easier to secure payment from the states after the war. But the jealousy of the states and the suspicions of Congress made the situation a delicate one, and L a Luzerne suggested that some of the difficulties might be obviated if the arms were delivered to Congress for the use of the forces of the two states. Later the surplus could be sent to Maryland and to Virginia, and the state governments could divide what remained, among the soldiers of the local militia. But he wished that it be expressly stipulated that the states, and not Congress, were responsible for the debt. T o facilitate the shipment of the supplies from France L a Luzerne advised that the affair be entrusted to a private company secretly guaranteed by the King. H e also hinted that it would be to the advantage of France if Maryland should repay the loan in tobacco. H e concluded with an observation that is of particular interest: T h i s incident as well as the accession of Maryland to the confederation proves to me, Monseigneur, that individual states will be inclined to enter into more direct relations with the Minister of the K i n g , than by w a y of Congress. Circumstances may arise when such contacts will be useful; I will however act with all the circumspection that is needed because of the jealousy that one party in Congress shows at every contact between the Minister of the K i n g and the individual states.6

Vergennes must have been favorably impressed with the justice or the merits of the Maryland request, for on April 16, 1781, he wrote to the minister of war, the Marquis de Ségur, that he hoped he would find it possible to give the necessary orders to expedite the shipment of the five thousand guns ordered for that state.7 W h i l e de Ségur was occupied with the question of supplies and ammunition, Vergennes turned his attention to the monetary aspect of Ridley's mission. Accordingly he requested de Fleury, the controller of finance, to await Ridley's memorial, " R i d l e y to Governor Lee, A p r i l 23, 1 7 8 1 , Maryland Archives, X L V I I , 202-203. La Luzerne to Vergennes, A p r i l 9, 1 7 8 1 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 16, folio 43. 7 Vergennes to de Ségur, A p r i l 16, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 16, folio 176.

124

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

which was presented in due course, after having been delayed by the time that elapsed between the appointment of the agent and his arrival in France. 8 Meanwhile L a Luzerne continued to remind Vergennes of the merit of the Maryland mission, assuring him that although he would carefully refrain from giving either Maryland or Virginia any assurance that they would receive the goods that they had asked for, still he could not help hoping that arms and clothing would soon reach them. Alluding to the jealousy that might be aroused, he suggested that part of the goods be given to Congress and that Washington divide the remainder between Maryland and Virginia. Congress could then reimburse the two states for what had been taken from their order.® Despite these friendly interventions, difficulties soon arose. Congress became alarmed when, in the fall of 1781, it was rumored that the King intended to allow Maryland and Virginia to use part of the Dutch loan for private state supplies. It soon became apparent to the watchful L a Luzerne that Congress could and in all probability would commandeer such supplies and distribute them at its own discretion. L a Luzerne then diplomatically hinted that the King had never intended to favor individual states at the expense of Congress, and that the goods would be sent to that body with the suggestion that they be given to Maryland and to Virginia, if they were not needed at that time by the continental forces. T h i s solution, he ruefully admitted to Vergennes, pleased no one, not even the two states concerned. 10 Shortly afterward he was frigidly informed that the Confederation would in no wise consider itself bound by the pecuniary obligations incurred by any state. 11 Towards the close of the year Ridley, irked at the apparent apathy of France, prepared a memorial which he addressed to Vergennes on December 25, 1781. H e stated the terms of his commission and then outlined the early activity of Maryland during the war. H e felt that France had not quite understood the " V e r g e n n e s to J o l y de F l e u r y , A u g . 1 2 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., v o l . 18, f o l i o s 86-87. 9 L a Luzerne to Vergennes, Sept. 18, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., v o l . 18, f o l i o 109. 10 L a L u z e r n e to Vergennes, N o v . 25, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., vol. 19, folio 93. 11 Cf., ibid., v o l . 19, f o l i o 100.

A MARYLAND AGENT ABROAD

125

motives that had prompted the state to delay the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, so frequently had he been questioned about it since his arrival in Paris, and he repeated the whole story of the excessive claims of Virginia, the great value of the western lands, the selfishness of the "sea-to-sea" claims, and the sterling patriotism of Maryland, who had been "actuated by the purest Motives in her Conduct." H e then explained that Maryland has, however since Signed the Confederation principally because She was given to understand that this Court was uneasy at her not having done it. So far she Sacrificed her feelings to those of her Friends. But before she had signed the Confederation, she adofted and Sufforted every resolve of Congress.

The number of men she had maintained in the field was greater in proportion to her size than any of the other states, her expenses had consequently been larger, her shores had been ravaged, her commerce interrupted, hence this plea which would enable the state to adopt such regulations in her taxes, as to discharge any obligations she might now enter into, and would prevent her from being troublesome in this way again. H e pointed out that Maryland had no foreign debt, ranked among the richest states in the value of productions, was constantly increasing in population, had loyal and orderly citizens, and a firmly established government. The agent dared "assert that there is not a State more warmly attached to France than that of Maryland, or which has more rigidly adhered to the principle of preventing all illicit Commerce with the English; Striking Instances of which he could give, were it not lengthening too much the present Memorial." H e then alluded to the repayment of the loan. T h e taxes are chiefly laid in Tobacco and Flour; of which Articles Considerable Quantities have been received and applied to the purposes of the W a r . And these are the two productions by which the Government proposes to pay the Interest on the Sums to be borrowed. T h e Troops, or the Navy of France in America during the war must draw their supplies from thence. Sending Specie for the purpose of making purchases is attended with inconvenience and risque. By so much as the Flour contracted for amounted to B y so much the Amount of Sfecie to be sent to America might be reduced. T h e

126

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

money borrowed will in all probability be entirely laid out in the Manufactures of this country and as Bills of E x c h a n g e will be taken for the A m o u n t of the T o b a c c o and F l o u r delivered in A m e r i c a , to remit for the Interest in France, it fixes the whole amount at the full far of Exchange.12,

Meanwhile there were others who had interposed difficulties. L a Luzerne's answer to the objection that the state was burdened with debts, and that the agent would be no more reliable than others of whom they had costly experiences, was received shortly after. H e declared that the state of Maryland had fewer debts than the majority of the other states, that her finances were in fairly good order and that the companies dealing with M r . Ridley would find him far above the average of similar agents. 13 A t this time Joly de Fleury, in a dispassionate review of the requests of Maryland, marveled that a state so rich in resources should have to come all the way to France for money for supplies. Vergennes had written to him immediately upon the receipt of Ridley's memorial, summarizing its contents and urging the controller of finance to consider it favorably, and perhaps to arrange a contract with the Farmers General. H e concluded with the words: T h e motives which I have, make me desire that this plenipotentiary should succeed in his mission; but it is entirely up to you to judge of the assistance that you are able to give him to reach this end. 1 4

In his answer Joly de Fleury admitted that the request of Maryland was reasonable and that it could easily be granted. But he suggested that if reasons were wanted for rejecting the appeal, provided that it were not politically expedient to grant it, he would suggest that there were inconsistencies in the memorial. T h e solvency of Maryland as described by Ridley was not convincing. If France were to extend aid to one individual state, how could she refuse the other twelve in the event that each of them were to seek loans? H o w could Maryland think that she 12 M e m o i r e de R i d l e y , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., v o l . 1 9 , f o l i o s 3 9 7 - 3 9 8 . T h e o r d e r is dated, A u g . 25, 1 7 8 1 , and may be f o u n d in v o l . 18, f o l i o s 1 5 5 - 1 5 6 . " L a L u z e r n e to Vergennes, O c t . 1 9 , 1 7 8 1 , ibid., v o l . 1 9 , f o l i o 4 1 . " V e r g e n n e s to J o l y de F l e u r y , D e c . 28, 1 7 8 1 , ibid., v o l . 1 9 , f o l i o s 399-

A M A R Y L A N D AGENT ABROAD

127

deserved preferential treatment? Why did she not seek aid from Congress? Would it not have been possible for her to have shared in the money sent by France to the Confederation? H a d Ridley been sufficiently recommended by L a Luzerne? Under the circumstances would it not be more discreet to submit this situation to the King's council rather than to the minister of finance? H e concluded with the reflections at which he had arrived after mature consideration and bitter experience, that there was little or no confidence to be placed in the solvency of the United States, that they lacked the power and the will to live up to their engagements, and that their whole aim seemed to be to extort from France all they could get. 15 Again Vergennes with consummate patience justified the course taken by Maryland and the reasons adduced by its agent in presenting the request to the Court. Paragraph by paragraph he refuted the objections of J o l y de Fleury. H e pointed out that the ravages of war prevented Maryland from utilizing her resources. H e believed that the state was in a peculiar situation and deserved special consideration from the Court. H e offered to meet de Fleury and to eliminate any further difficulties that might arise, but said he was determined that help should be given to Maryland, and he hoped that the necessary measures would soon be taken. 16 D e Fleury acceded to Vergennes' insistence and entered into negotiations with Ridley concerning the eventual settlement of the debt. 17 Thus it seemed that at last there were definite prospects of a successful completion of the Maryland mission. Unfortunately an agent of Virginia who was in Paris at this time, being apprised of Ridley's influence and success, determined to profit by the latter's connection with Vergennes. Just how he intended to do this is not quite clear, but the incident came to the knowledge of that minister, and coupled with the jealousy of other 15

Observations sur la demande d'aide de la France faite par l'Etat du Maryland, avee lettre de M . J o l y de Fleury, Jan. 3, 1782, ibid., vol. 20, folios 3233 ;< 1

Vergennes to J o l y de Fleury, Jan. 1 1 , 1782, ibid., vol. 20, folios 83-84. " R i d l e y to Rayneval, J a n . 18, 1 7 8 2 , ibid., vol. 20, folios 1 1 4 - 1 1 4 " ' . Ridley to J o l y de Fleury, Jan. 1 8 , 1 7 8 2 , ibid., vol. 20, folios 1 1 3 - 1 1 3 " ° .

128

M A R Y L A N D AND F R A N C E

Americans, who misinterpreted the help about to be accorded by the King to Maryland, caused Vergennes with one magnificent gesture to wash his hands of the whole affair. Determined, as he wrote to L a Luzerne, to have nothing more to do with such matters again, he regretted that this would force him to countermand the orders already given in favor of Mr. Ridley. 18 In spite of this ultimatum Ridley continued his mission, directing his efforts in new fields. His private speculations received more attention and he visited Calais.19 Information received from London was relayed in guarded terms to his Baltimore partners, for he had maintained his connection with the firm of Ridley and Pringle. He sent for his wife and small son.00 It cannot be said that the American agents made a favorable impression on the French statesmen with whom they came in contact. Vergennes stigmatized them in scathing sentences, " . . . their conceit prevents them from rendering any real service to their country; their manners are scarcely cordial ; and they refuse to adapt themselves to the ways of the country to which they owe so much." He concluded with an expression of surprise that they never seemed to grasp the fact that the two qualities that they belittled so often in Mr. Franklin were the two reasons that inspired the ministers of the King with such complete confidence in him—his prudence and his calm.21 In an interesting "minute autograph" to Lafayette Vergennes wrote and crossed off the following opinion: " I n truth Congress has sorry agents. I believe that they are more concerned with their private speculations than with the interests of their principals." In the final draft of the letter he permitted no more than the following modified stricture: " I indeed fear that the American agents are not above the reproach of negligence."22 Gérard's experiences had been similar; he too had found that personal interests and mercantile "Vergennes to La Luzerne, Mar. 23, 1 7 8 2 , ibid., vol. 20, folio 1 4 0 ; and Jan. 23, 1782, ibid., vol. 20, folio 52. " R i d l e y to Barclay, Nov. 12, 1 7 8 2 , and Nov. 29, 1 7 8 2 , Ridley MSS. 'Ridley to Barclay, Dec. 14, 1782, ibid. " Vergennes to La Luzerne, Feb. 1 5 , 1 7 8 4 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 24, folios 1 3 6 - 1 3 7 . 22 Vergennes to Lafayette, June 3, 1780, ibid., vol. 12, folios 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 .

A MARYLAND AGENT ABROAD

129

cupidity constituted the distinctive characteristic of the Americans.23 T h e rumor of the English recognition of American independence changed the business situation in France and many merchants returned to England. Despite this exodus Ridley, after being joined by his wife and son, took a small villa in Auteuil where new cares befell him. His wife and child fell seriously ill. His clerk proved undeserving of trust. T h e mission that had begun so promisingly was rapidly assuming the foreboding aspect of failure. O n January 3, 1783, he wrote: " I am as miserable as Anxiety can make me. Such a House as we have here you never saw. W e t from T o p to Bottom. T h e Water since the Thaws pouring in Streams off the Walls." 2 4 T o add to his difficulties, the certainty of peace no longer made his mission so urgent. Governor William Paca wrote that his accounts were not in a satisfactory condition and requested the agent to forward more complete information about his transactions} papers had been lost and they must be replaced. T h e Maryland assembly was not pleased with the check to its request, and this added to Ridley's difficulties.25 This implied censure was undeserved, for Ridley had been active in Holland. Unable to procure a loan from the French, he had turned to the Dutch. His first arrangement did not meet with the approval of the Maryland assembly but his second attempt was more fortunate.126 Through Messrs. Van Staphorst of Amsterdam he borrowed in the name of the state 270,000 florins.27 H e then returned to France to buy arms and clothing. Franklin interrupted these purchases with the request that Ridley M Notes from the despatches of Gérard to Vergennes, French Legation Papers, vol. II, cahier i , p. 7. 24 Ridley t o — , Jan. 3, 1784, Ridley MSS. 25 Paca to Ridley, Jan. 9, 1783, Maryland Archives, X L V I I I , 340. 28 Cf. the similar experiences of the Pennsylvania agent, "James Searle: Radical Business M a n of the Revolution," Mildred E . Lombard, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, L I X , 282-294. 27 Franklin to Ridley, March 28, 1783, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 23, folio 385. Paca to Intendant, Feb. 7, 1783, Maryland Archives, X L V I I I , 354. Paca to the Assembly, M a y 6, 1783, ibid., pp. 407-409.

I30

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

assist him in some of the multifarious interests confided to him. Vergennes at first was opposed to such a plan, but Franklin overruled his objections and Ridley prepared a memorial in behalf of a Virginia trader, Benjamin Putnam, who had sent a vessel to Guadeloupe. There it was seized and the cargo disposed of according to French law. Putnam contended that the whole procedure had been irregular, especially the manner in which the sloop had been condemned and the slaves had been sold.®8 Ridley, now well accustomed to the ways of the French court, followed his memorial to Vergennes by an appealing statement of the case to Rayneval, asking him to lend his support to the claim.29 Awaiting an answer to the Putnam case, Ridley proceeded to spend the Dutch florins to purchase French guns. As the Maryland assembly had foretold, his orders were welcomed, and being able to make a cash payment he bargained advantageously for the state. When the arms were ready to be shipped he was warned that the Farmers General were waiting to charge him an exorbitant duty if he should attempt to move the guns from Maubeuge (Avesnes) to Rouen, the port of embarkation. Ridley appealed to Vergennes to exempt him from this charge. In his letter he stressed the fact that, prevented from borrowing money from his Most Christian Majesty, he had secured the sum required in Holland, but that he had returned to France to purchase arms and clothing in order that he might give expression to the constant desire of Maryland to do all in its power to further the prosperity of the French. 30 Vergennes, as minister of foreign affairs, felt that this was not a matter that came under his jurisdiction, so he wrote to d'Ormesson, the controller of finance, suggesting that under the circumstances it would be most politic to favor the request of the agent of a state so devoted " E s t i m a t e of the value of B. Putnam's vessel, A p r i l 3, 1 7 8 3 , Archives des A f f a i r e s Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, v o l . 24, folio 1 5 . " R i d l e y to R a y n e v a l , A p r i l 3, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 24, f o l i o 1 5 . " R i d l e y to Vergennes, A p r i l 8, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 24, folios 47-47'*°. Ridley supported his claim with a memorial written to Vergennes by John H o l k e r , the father of the former Philadelphia consul and the agent of the French marine.

A

MARYLAND

AGENT

ABROAD

131

to France, and that it would at the same time encourage the American trade.31 In his reply d'Ormesson declared that he saw no necessity for an exception to be made to well-established tariffs, and cited the ordinances of 1671 and 1687, and the arrêt of March 2, 1728. He conceded that the payment of the duty under one of these regulations might, as an extreme favor, remove the obligations of the others.32 Vergennes' appeal to de Ségur, the minister of war, was more successful and the duties were remitted.33 But on the same day that Vergennes wrote to John Holker, who had supported the Maryland agent's claim, and to Ridley, that the guns could be shipped duty free, d'Ormesson informed him that the Farmers were even then exacting the impost.34 This stubborn insistence exasperated Vergennes and drew from him a heated expostulation addressed to d'Ormesson: T h e conduct of the F a r m e r s General in regard to M r . Ridley can only inspire the Americans with disgust. I admit, Sir, that it seems particularly grave to me because it is diametrically opposed to the system of freedom and favor that w e are attempting to establish in our relations with the United States. 35

As a palliative Vergennes did all that he could to further Ridley's interests in the Putnam case, and kept him informed of the intricate and vexatious legal formalities that delayed a decision.36 Ridley's relations with the Farmers General were to be complicated still more by the arrival at Bordeaux of the hethé in the spring of 1783. Ridley, to whom the vessel was consigned, Vergennes to d'Ormesson, A p r i l 1 6 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 9 5 . D'Ormesson to Vergennes, ibid., vol. 2 4 , folios 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 . " V e r g e n n e s to d'Ormesson, M a y 1 1 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 2 0 3 . T h e visé is on folio 2 0 5 . 34 Vergennes to Holker, M a y 2 4 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 2 3 8 . Vergennes to Ridley, M a y 2 4 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 2 4 5 . D'Ormesson to Vergennes, M a y 2 4 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 2 4 6 . Vergennes to d'Ormesson, M a y 2 4 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 2 3 7 . 85 Vergennes to d'Ormesson, June 6, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 3 0 5 . 39 De Castries to Vergennes, June 8, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 309. Vergennes to Ridley, June 20, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 3 6 9 . 31

32

132

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

was absent, and his agents, French and Nephews, unable to act without his orders, made a declaration of the vessel, mentioning among other articles in the cargo some tobacco. The Farmers General insisted that it would have to be weighed, and when it was landed for this purpose they declared that the cargo was now no longer intact, the vessel could not leave Bordeaux, and that the merchandise would have to be sold. When this was done Ridley suffered a great loss, and he was particularly distressed because the tobacco had been priced very low by the Farmers. 37 This occasioned another preparation of memorials and the exchange of notes between Ridley, Vergennes, d'Ormesson, and the Farmers. Even Lafayette was drawn into the discussion, interceding for Ridley and denouncing the Farmers General, although d'Ormesson was untiring in their defense. T h e affair was not settled until the winter of 1784. Ridley did not receive the indemnification he asked.38 Although throughout the discussion d'Ormesson refused to admit the justice of Ridley's claim, he finally confessed to Vergennes that the incident was sure to keep many Americans from France and that trade with that country must be put on a permanent basis at once. H e told Vergennes that Ridley's memorial had suggested to him the necessity of inserting a clause in the treaty on which Vergennes was then engaged or of issuing an arrêt of which the execution would be more prompt. 39 While trying to secure some compensation for the Lethé, Ridley was not neglecting the business of the state. Only part of the arms had been shipped and in July 1783 he asked Vergennes for passports for 2,500 guns. At the same time he represented a new difficulty. At Rouen he had ordered clothing to be made for the Maryland troops 5 many poor women were employed on the work and they were well paid with the funds he had borrowed in Amsterdam. Although these goods, at the " R i d l e y to Vergennes, A u g . 2 5 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 5 , folios 2 2 3 - 2 2 6 . " D ' O r m e s s o n to Vergennes, J u n e 2 4 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 4 , folio 3 9 0 . Ridley's memorial of June 2 4 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 24, folio 3 9 1 - 3 9 2 . Vergennes to de Castries, J u l y 1 8 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 5 , folio 5 2 . Vergennes to Ridley, J u l y 2 9 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 j , folio 1 0 4 . Vergennes to de Castries, J u l y 3 1 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 5 , folio 1 1 7 . Ridley to Vergennes, A u g . 2 5 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 2 5 , folios

22^-226.

D'Ormesson to Vergennes, Oct. 2 3 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 26, folios 4 3 - 4 4 .

A MARYLAND AGENT ABROAD

133

time the order was given, were destined not for commerce but for the common cause, Ridley was forced to pay duty on them. In his request for a refund he again based his plea on the friendship of Maryland for France, because it was loyalty alone that dictated that the purchases should be made in that kingdom when the goods could have been procured more cheaply in a foreign land.*0 Vergennes repeated these arguments to d'Ormesson and assured Ridley that he was following his three sets of claims: the Putnam case, the passports for the guns, and the rebate of the Rouen duties. 41 A month later Vergennes again wrote to d'Ormesson asking him to do justice to Ridley, pointing out the inconsistency with which the Maryland agent had been treated: It would seem unfortunate that for a minor advantage and to wish to support the Farmers General (who seem to me to have acted most irregularly in this affair), we should inspire the Americans with fear and that we should drive them from our ports, while the Government is directing all its efforts to attract them to us and to fill them with confidence.42 Domestic sorrows added their weight to the burden of Ridley's last winter at Auteuil. In the beginning of 1784 his small son died suddenly. A t first he had hoped to keep this sad fact from Mrs. Ridley who was very ill, for he felt that she could not endure such a blow. But her repeated queries about the child unnerved the father and he was forced to tell her of their loss.48 O n January 28, 1784, he wrote again to Vergennes asking that his claims be adjusted. 44 Although Vergennes acted at once nothing was accomplished, and after Ridley's return to Paris f r o m Rouen in March he appealed to Rayneval. 45 W i t h his un40 Ridley to Vergennes, July 22, 1783, ibid., vol. 2 j , folios 78-79. " Vergennes to d'Ormesson, Aug-. 24, 1783, ibid., vol. 25, folios 246-246"°. Vergennes to Ridley, A u g . 24, 1783, ibid., vol. 25, folios 199-199* 0 . Vergennes to de Castries, A u g . 24, 1783, ibid., vol. 25, folios 200-200"°. 43 Vergennes to d'Ormesson, Sept. 13, 1783, ibid., vol. 2 j , folios 270-271. " Ridley to — , Jan. 13, 1784, Ridley M S S . 44 Ridley to Vergennes, Jan. 28, 1784, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 27, folio 70. " V e r g e n n e s to Calonne, Feb. 8, 1784, ibid., vol. 27, folio n o . Ridley to Rayneval, March 7, 1784, ibid., vol. 27, folio 194. Vergennes to Calonne, M a r c h 31, 1784, ibid., vol. 27, folio 235. Ridley to Barclay, March 31, 1784, Ridley M S S .

134

M A R Y L A N D

A N D

F R A N C E

failing courtesy Vergennes did all that he could to satisfy the Maryland agent, but Ridley apparently left France without securing what he wished.48 Towards the end of 1784 Ridley considered the advisability of shifting the scene of his activities to England. At that time he had no immediate business to transact in France, and his Auteuil experiences had not endeared him to the country. Financially he was in a sorry plight. In the fall he wrote to John Holker of Philadelphia, begging him to pay him what he owed him as his English affairs were not prospering.47 In London he was active in the American trade, and on hearing of an attempt to transport convicts to Baltimore, he wrote to warn the Maryland council.48 Throughout 1785 there is a constant plea for money.49 The Maryland council was trying to repay the 270,000 florins borrowed by Ridley from Messrs. Van Staphorst and the two years' interest that was now due, but the terms of the contract required elucidation.50 He left Paris in April 1785 expecting to sail for Baltimore at once, but in June he wrote again to Holker that he needed money and that Holker must help him.51 The next fall he had not yet reached Baltimore.52 Thoroughly disillusioned he confessed that he was Melancholy and musing

and heaving many

Sighs, to think

how

c h a n g e d m y S i t u a t i o n is t o w h a t it o n c e w a s — T i m e the P h y s i c i a n , f o r m o s t past ills, b e g i n s to w o r k o n m i n e ;

but t h a t of the l a c k

of

m o n e y c o n t i n u i n g I c a n e x p e c t n o c u r e until the ill is r e m o v e d . B *

Shortly after he borrowed the money to return to Maryland. " R i d l e y to Barclay, N o v . 1 9 , 1 7 8 4 . , ibid. " R . Morris to J . Holker, Sept. 30, 1 7 8 4 , Robert Morris Letter Book , p. 2 7 4 . " Woolsey to George Moore, Dec. 2 5 , 1 7 8 4 , Woolsey and Salmon Letter Book. * Ridley to Barclay, Jan. 1 8 , 1 7 8 5 and J a n . 1 1 , 1 7 8 5 , Ridley M S S . " J e n i f e r to Van Berchel, March 3 1 , 1 7 8 5 , Intendant's Office Letter Book. Jenifer to McHenry and Hindman, A u g . 1 9 , 1 7 8 5 , ibid. Jenifer to Van Berchel, Sept. z i , 1 7 8 5 , ibid. Jenifer to Van Berchel, Oct. 1 3 , 1 7 8 5 , ibid. Jenifer to W . Duce, Oct. 1 3 , 1 7 8 5 , ibid. 111 Sabatier and Sons to Holker, M a y 1 8 , 1 7 8 5 , Holker Papers, vol. 29. Ridley to Holker, June 28, 1 7 8 5 , ibid., vol. 29. M J . Hunt to Holker, Sept. 1 7 , 1 7 8 5 , ibid., vol. 29. M Ridley to Barclay, J a n . 1 8 , 1 7 8 5 , Ridley M S S .

VII

T H E DECLINE OF FRENCH INFLUENCE IN MARYLAND Revolutionary War hostility to the Roman Catholics in Maryland was less intense. A chapel was opened in Baltimore for the French troops stationed there during the months that followed the victory of Yorktown. Mass was celebrated and a French military band accompanied the service to the great interest of the citizens.1 On March 27, 1785, Marbois wrote to Vergennes concerning the status of Roman Catholics during the Confederation. H e explained that several members of that religion had been elected to Congress and to the Maryland assembly, for it was now generally supposed that Roman Catholics were not subject to any foreign power. 2 FTER T H E

It is interesting to notice that mention is often made of the earnest efforts made by the French in 1783 and 1784 to establish one of their nationals as bishop of the American Roman Catholics. Although Maryland was not actively concerned in this problem, it seems necessary, because of the admitted prominence of members of that faith in the state, to observe that a reexamination of the evidence apparently destroys the story of the alleged interference. This conclusion is quite in accord with the French attitude of laissez faire that the Maryland history of the period reveals. An examination of the available documents supports the statement that the suggestion of placing a French ecclesiastic over the Roman Catholics in the United States emanated from Rome and not from Versailles. In the instructions of January 1 5 , 1783, ' There is an interesting study of the effect of the Revolution on the religious life of the United States in Howard M u m f o r d Jones, America and French Culture, 1750-1848, (Chapel Hill, 1 9 1 7 ) , pp. 350-387. ' M a r b o i s to Vergennes, March 27, 1 7 8 5 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 29, folio 7.

136

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

to the Papal Nuncio in Paris it was suggested that freedom of religion be inserted in the peace treaty through the good offices of the King of France, as had been done in the treaty of Ryswick in 1697, and of Paris in 1763. A t the same time it was suggested that an ecclesiastic be placed at the head of the Church who would be either an American or a member of a nation most favorable to that country.® T h e Nuncio addressed himself to Franklin, who was then in Paris. In his reply Franklin declared that the Court of Rome was free to take the initiative in the selection of a Church head because Congress had left the question of religion to the discretion of each state, and the spiritual affairs of the Roman Catholics in the United States could easily be directed by a French clergyman residing in France and acting through a suffragan residing in America. 4 L a Luzerne took advantage of the Annapolis session of Congress (December 1783-June 1784) to learn the opinion of the delegates in this regard and to inquire into the conditions of the Catholics in Maryland. As a result of his investigations he was able to assure Vergennes that Congress had no jurisdiction in such matters. H e added that in Pennsylvania, or more especially in Maryland, an ecclesiastic such as Franklin had mentioned would be welcomed provided that he assumed no temporal authority. 5 Franklin forwarded to the Nuncio the instructions that he had received from Congress. H e explained that the government would not hinder the appointment of a church official.6 T h e ' C . R . Fish, editor, " D o c u m e n t s relative to the A d j u s t m e n t of the R o m a n C a t h o l i c O r g a n i z a t i o n in the United States to the Conditions of N a t i o n a l I n dependence, 1 7 8 3 - 1 7 8 9 , " American Historical Review, X V , 803. T h e s e documents are translated in the Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, by E . I. M c D e v i t t , X X I , 1 8 6 - 1 9 0 . F o r a t h o r o u g h s u m m a r y of a l l previous studies of this subject, Jules A . Baisnee, France and the Establishment of the American Catholic Hierarchy. The Myth of Trench Intervention. (1783-1J84), ( B a l t i m o r e , 1 9 3 4 ) . T h e Instructions to the N u n c i o in Paris ( D o r i a P a m p h i l i ) , J a n . I J , 1 7 8 3 , are g i v e n in Fish, of. cit., pp. 801-804. 4 T h e P a p a l N u n c i o to the C a r d i n a l P r e f e c t of the P r o p a g a t i o n of the F a i t h , Sept. 1, 1 7 8 3 , enclosure B , Fish, of. cit., p. 807. L a L u z e r n e to Vergennes, Jan. 3 1 , 1 7 8 4 , Fish, of. cit., p. 8 1 1 . 6 F r a n k l i n to the N u n c i o , A u g . 18, 1 7 8 4 , ibid., p. 823.

D E C L I N E OF FRENCH I N F L U E N C E

137

wishes of the American members of the clergy having been ascertained, on November 14, 1784, John Carroll of Maryland was selected to be prefect-apostolic. Thus it was that the church in the United States ceased to be under the jurisdiction of the Vicars Apostolic of London. Five years later Carroll was selected to be the first Roman Catholic bishop of this country. He v/as consecrated on August 15, 1790, at Lulworth Castle by Bishop Walmesly, senior Vicar Apostolic of England.7 The rescript of the act of the congregation that appointed Carroll declared, "Civitatem Baltimori a-ptissimam esse -pro sede efiscofali."% There is no evidence that the French authorities took any further interest in this matter.9 English recognition of American independence marked the triumph of the alliance and the beginning of its decline. In Maryland the influence of the French had culminated in the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in March 1781. The next two years witnessed an increasing enthusiasm for things French, so that what the minister in Philadelphia had accomplished in the case of certain political leaders, Lafayette, Rochambeau, and their legionnaires achieved among the people. This friendship, though strong, was not destined to grow, and during the years that followed the peace of 1783 the court of Versailles ceased to exercise a decisive influence on Maryland affairs despite the occasional manifestations of French popularity and notwithstanding the efforts of the French to win and to hold the foreign trade of Maryland. Rumors of peace hindered trade in the early months of 1783. Thomas Barclay wrote from L'Orient on January 22, 1783, that he was sending the supplies ordered by Congress because no one was sure how Parliament would act.10 In March the same indecision was felt in Philadelphia. Robert Morris wrote to Ridley and ' Peter Guilday, The Life and Times of John Carroll, Archbishof more, ('73S~'8'5), (New York, 1 9 2 2 ) , pp. 1 7 8 - 2 0 1 , 2 1 2 - 2 1 4 . ' Extract from the Acts of the Congregation of the Propagation of Sept. 14, 1789, Fish, of. cit., pp. 826-827. T h e decree is dated Sept. and may be consulted ibid., p. 828. ' Baisnee, of. cit., p. 1 7 5 . " B a r c l a y to Congress, Jan. 22, 1783, Papers of the Continental vol. 93.

of Baltithe Faith, 1 7 , 1789, Congress,

138

M A R Y L A N D

AND

FRANCE

Pringle of Baltimore that the uncertainty of peace or of war prevented him from concluding any trade agreement with them. 11 Three weeks later the Trtumfh, a French vessel belonging to the Count d'Estaing, brought the news that the treaty of peace had been signed on January 20, 1783. The purpose of the alliance had been achieved.12 Following closely upon news of the treaty of peace came English vessels laden with goods. Trade had become "the mania of the moment." In Maryland the Tories were the first to receive overtures from the English merchants.13 Within a short time ties of race, language, and custom drove trade back to its old channels. Maryland vessels were consigned to British rather than to French ports. Even those firms that had established themselves in France during the American Revolution returned to England. So quickly was this effected that in October 1783 a Baltimore firm which was seeking connections with French firms in L'Orient, Nantes, and Bordeaux declared it difficult to continue to trade with that country because "scarce an American house remains in France." 14 Nor did the French houses succeed in holding the trade that they had acquired during the war. 15 Discounting the possible element of propaganda in the following extract from London, that was printed in the Maryland Gazette, it is apparent that the Franco-American trade had reached a critical state. T h e very period is n o w arrived of the inhabitants of this country profiting by the A m e r i c a n trade. T h e F r e n c h merchants are so much in arrears, the french houses are so much in arrears that they have stopped their connections w i t h some of the first houses of the continent; and the present deranged state of the A m e r i c a n

legislature

has combined to render their debts still more precarious. O f 11

E.

con-

Morris to Ridley and Pringle, March 3, 1 7 8 3 , Robert Morris Letter Book

u S. F. Bemis, The Diplomacy of the American Revolution (New York, 1 9 3 5 ) , chapter X V I , " T h e Point of Independence." " J . S. Wallace to James Galloway, March 30, 1 7 8 3 , Galloway Papers. Robert Donald to Neil Jameison, March 30, 1 7 8 3 , Jameison Papers. Benjamin Olton to Thomas Ringgold, Aug. 10, 1 7 8 3 , Galloway Papers. "Woolsey and Salmon Letter Book, Oct. 20, 1 7 8 3 . " Cruger, Lediard and Mullett to James Galloway, March 1 7 8 3 , Galloway Papers. Woolsey and Salmon Letter Book, April 30, and May 12, 1 7 8 3 .

DECLINE OF FRENCH INFLUENCE

139

sequence trade intercourse between France and America is now stopt.16

T h e Chevalier d'Annemours did all that he could to further trade between Maryland and France. One of the obstacles he attempted to remove was the unsatisfactory form of the law that enabled unprincipled merchants to defraud French traders unskilled in its subtle technicalities. His aim was to strengthen the Maryland market, which since the Alliance had been a good one for silks, fine materials, jewelry, mirrors, dried fruits, and oil. H e recommended wine from Bordeaux, although he admitted that really fine wines were a luxury not yet appreciated by the Americans. Brandy, he hoped, would eventually replace the then popular rum. England still supplied the colony with hardware, metal goods, heavy fabrics, and furniture, so he urged the superiority of similar French products. H e had advised the Maryland merchants to buy materials from Lyons instead of importing Irish linens. Their flour, he had assured them, would find a good market in French ports. The great number of navigable rivers in Maryland, the miles of forest land, and the richness of its mines, had long convinced him that the state could enjoy a monopoly of the exportation of iron. T h e trade of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark would suffer if local initiative should develop the industry. H e was indefatigable in urging closer Franco-American commercial relations, sparing neither time nor trouble to bring the two nations together, for he believed that by the use of French captains and the cooperation of the consuls this trade could be doubled." Lafayette shared D'Annemours' desire to encourage trade. H e was in Maryland at the end of August 1784, and the Baltimore merchants entertained him at a banquet given in his honor. In "Maryland Gazette, Oct. 10, 1783. The extract is dated August 6. D'Annemours to Vergennes, July 24, 1 7 8 3 , Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Mémoires et Documents, Etats-Unis, vol. 14, folio 7 1 . There is an excellent description of Maryland trade on folios 72-76. On September 20, 1 7 8 3 , d'Annemours wrote a fifteen page treatise in order to persuade Vergennes to encourage Franco-American trade. Ibid., vol. 1 4 , folios 162-169. At Vergennes' request he prepared another memorial on Maryland trade, ibid., vol. 1 7 , the most useful folios are 4 - 1 3 . 17

140

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

reply to an address from the prominent citizens, he congratulated them: Y o u r affectionate welcome makes me feel doubly happy in this visit, and I heartily enjoy the flourishing situation in which I find the town of Baltimore. Amidst the trying times which you so kindly mention, permit me with a grateful heart to remember, not only your personal exertions against a threatening attack, but also a f o r m e r period when, by your generous support, an important part of the a r m y under my command was forwarded—that a r m y to whose perseverance and bravery, not to any merit of mine, you are merely indebted. Alluding to the development of trade relations between France and America, a matter in which he was actively interested, he continued: I n the enfranchisement of your ports and their peculiar situation, it was pleasing to France to think a new convenience is thereby offered to a commercial intercourse, which every recollection must render pleasing, and which from its own nature and mutual goodwill, cannot fail to prove highly advantageous and extensive. Y o u r friendly wishes to me, gentlemen, are sincerely returned, and I shall ever rejoice in every public and private advantage that may attend the citizens of Baltimore. 1 8 On November 29, 1 7 8 4 , Lafayette was again in Annapolis, where the assembly then in session gave him an elaborate banquet and a ball. In expressing his appreciation he concluded with the hope . . . that the State, ever mindful of the public spirit that she has conspicuously displayed, will to the fullest extent improve her natural advantages, and in the Federal U n i o n , so necessary to all, attain the highest degree of particular happiness and prosperity. 19 This reference to the "natural advantages" of Maryland must have been most pleasing to the assembly, because the problem of internal improvements was then being mooted. T h e navigation of the Potomac, so strenuously promoted by George Washington, was supported by some of the leading men of the state. This interest seems to have been general. Madison notes that he made "Maryland 19

Gazette, Aug-. 24, and Sept. 3, 1784.

Ibid., Dec. z, and Dec. 9, 1784..

DECLINE OF FRENCH INFLUENCE

141

the development of the Mississippi the reason for his trip to Baltimore, so eager was he to discuss this question with the Marquis. There he observed that wherever Lafayette passes, " H e receives the most flattering tokens of sincere affection from all ranks." 20 T h e French were not the only visitors to appear in Maryland after the cessation of hostilities. The well-loved Sir Robert Eden upon his return was feted in a way that revealed that a latent love of titles still lingered in the democratic state. But the enthusiasm with which he was welcomed slowly waned, then vanished entirely, when the former governor disposed of vacant lands, granting patents and accepting fees as if he were the chief executive of the old British colony. Governor Paca supported the council in a prompt repudiation of such conduct. Thereupon the debonair Sir Robert desisted and quietly established himself in the midst of his friends in Maryland. 2 1 Another English visitor was less warmly welcomed. Henry Harford, the illegitimate son of the last of the Lords Baltimore, came to see how his claim would be recognized in the new state. T h e decisive answer of the assembly to his memorial of December 1785 left him no reason to hope for any recognition, and the conduct of the citizens must have convinced him of the futility of further pressing his suit.22 In the wake of these distinguished figures came numbers of Tories or Loyalists. Many of them might have been well received had they discreetly taken their stand in support of the new order. Unfortunately they adopted a belligerent attitude, and roused the citizens of Baltimore to action. On June 2 1 , 1783, "in the interests of harmony and tranquility" they petitioned the 20 Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 7, 1784, The Writings of James Madison, G. Hunt, editor, nine volumes (New York, 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 0 ) , II, 77-79. 21 James T . Scharf, History of Maryland from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 3 vols. (Baltimore, 1 8 7 9 ) , I I , 502-503. a " A n Act for Confirming and carrying into Execution certain Articles of Agreement made between the Devisee and Heirs at L a w of FREDERICK Lord BALTIMORE deceased, respecting the Province of Maryland in America, and for the establishing and vesting the said Province in Henry Harford, Esquire, and his Heirs, upon the several Payments, Terms, and Conditions, and in Manner therein mentioned." 21 Geo. I l l 1 7 8 1 . There is a copy of this act in the M a r y land Historical Society in Baltimore.

142

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

assembly for a law embodying their fixed sentiments that all those who have "opposed the Establishment of the Independence of America should not participate in the advantages thence accruing, and ought not to reside among us."23 But this hostility passed and the moderates so succeeded in maintaining control that in 1788 the British were only able to complain that their merchants had not been able to collect the pre-war debts. This was a trifling disability in comparison with the unjust treatment the Tories received in New York and in Virginia.24 T h e Chevalier d'Annemours had frequently observed that Maryland men were more concerned about trade than any other interest. This statement was particularly true during the Confederation, when the action of the French government in regard to tobacco was considered more vital than the possible interference in the establishment of church hierarchy. Before the war Maryland, as a British colony, had not been permitted to ship direct to European ports, so that the planter did not come into actual contact with the Farmers General, a body who had enjoyed a monopoly of the tobacco trade in France since the days of Louis X I V . During the American Revolution, as has been shown, the importation of tobacco was encouraged by the commissioners, and the Maryland and Virginia merchants were eager to establish this trade on a firm basis. In the spring of 1783 they formed an agreement to supply the Farmers General with tobacco.25 That organization was something of an enigma to the Americans, and L a Luzerne told Vergennes that the English were circulating disturbing rumors that French ports were closed to the importation of tobacco. T h e monopoly was surrounded with much mystery and it was said that those who traded with the Farmers were at their mercy. As a consequence " Scharf, of. cit., II, 503-504. T h e general attitude of intolerance may be gauged by the article signed "Recollective" in the Maryland Gazette of Sept. 5, 1783. Cf., Maryland Journal, Jan. 2, 1784. " Kathryn L. Behrens, Paper Money in Maryland: 1727-1789 (Baltimore, 1 9 1 3 ) , chapter I X , " T h e Bank Stock Controversy," pp. 88-94. " M e m o i r of Besson de Salmone, A p r i l 18, 1783, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, vol. 24, folios 107-110'°. Cf., the plan recommended by Lafayette to Vergennes, July 17, 1783, to unite old soldiers from New Jersey, New Y o r k , and Pennsylvania, to form a mercantile house in France. Ibid., vol. 25, folios 46-46'°.

DECLINE OF FRENCH INFLUENCE

143

28

few vessels were consigned to France. Nor were those who made the trip well received.27 The Farmers had large supplies of tobacco in their warehouses, so they had not purchased a leaf between January and April 1783. 28 Lafayette, it will be remembered, appealed to Vergennes on behalf of Matthew Ridley, the Maryland agent.29 Similar grievances prevented the trade with France from developing as d'Annemours desired. The citizens of Elk Ridge, Maryland, were so incensed over this treatment that they resolved in a public meeting that "no exclusive privileges ought to be given to any Nation in respect to commerce other than what the goodness and cheapness of their commodities may entitle them to."30 Early in 1784 the French King took the necessary steps to secure the American trade. It was announced to Congress that the free ports of L'Orient, Bayonne, Dunkirk, and Marseilles would be opened. The Farmers General were ordered to show a preference for American tobacco. Special treatment was promised to all vessels from the United States. Nevertheless trade did not go to France, because two essential conditions were lacking: the admission of the Americans to the French West Indies, and an open market for tobacco.31 Trade with the islands was provided for in the arrets of May and of August 1784, but the French merchants protested loudly and a more restricted policy had to be adopted. The second factor essential to the development of trade, the free introduction of tobacco, was checked in 1785. Jeiferson, the American minister to the Court of Versailles, wished the governors of Maryland and Virginia to come to an understanding with the Farmers so that tobacco could be brought 26

La Luzerne to Vergennes, May 6, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 24, folio 104. M . de Lage to M . Le Normant d'Etiole, May 26, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 24, folios 250-250™. 28 D'Ormesson to Vergennes, July 22, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., vol. 25, folio 87. "Observations on the purchase of American tobacco by the Farmers General," ibid., vol. 25, folios 85-86. 29 See p. 140. ,0 Maryland Gazette July 4, 1 7 8 3 . "Jefferson to Monroe, June 17, 1 7 8 5 , The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, A . A. Lipscomb, editor-in-chief, twenty volumes, (Washington, 1 9 0 3 ) , V, 16-20. 21

144

M A R Y L A N D AND FRANCE

direct to France and not pass first through England. T h i s effort was unfruitful because of the contract made by Robert Morris with the Farmers. This guaranteed for him the right to supply France with all the tobacco needed, a monopoly that he was to enjoy from 1785 until 1 7 8 7 . " In the spring of 1786 Lafayette introduced Jefferson to those who were interested in tobacco and asked Vergennes to appoint a committee to investigate this trade. 33 On M a y 27, 1786, Jefferson reported all that had been accomplished. It had been proved that the Farmers General were too strong to be openly attacked, although their contract with Morris was prejudicial to both countries. T h e committee did succeed in modifying the conditions of this contract so that no contracts could be made for tobacco until the vessels with this commodity had reached France. 34 Unrest was in the air, and Jefferson wrote on August 6, 1787, " I t is evident, I think, that a spirit of this country is advancing towards a revolution in their constitution." H e continued, "Since writing thus far, I have received an intimation, that it will be agreeable, not to press our commercial regulations at this moment, the ministry being too much occupied. . . .'" 5 H e was more successful in bringing to a conclusion the negotiations leading to the consular convention of 1788, but local difficulties were more and more absorbing the attention of French officials to the exclusion of interest in the republic across the sea.36 ** T h r e e articles of F r e d e r i c k L . Nussbaum contain the best treatment of tobacco d u r i n g the C o n f e d e r a t i o n . " T h e R e v o l u t i o n a r y V e r g e n n e s and L a f a y e t t e Versus the F a r m e r s G e n e r a l , " Journal of Modern History, III. "American T o b a c c o and F r e n c h Politics, 1 7 8 3 - 1 7 8 9 , " Political Science Quarterly, XL. " T h e French C o l o n i a l A r r ê t of 1 7 8 4 , " South Atlantic Quarterly, XXVII. " L o u i s G o t t s c h a l k , " L a f a y e t t e as C o m m e r c i a l E x p e r t , " American Historical Review, X X X V I . Cf., L a f a y e t t e to Vergennes, June 1 2 , 1 7 8 3 , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, v o l . 24, f o l i o 332, a n d June 1 7 , 1 7 8 3 , ibid., v o l . 24 f o l i o s 3 5 4 - 3 5 5 . D e Castries to Vergennes, J u n e 22, 1 7 8 3 , ibid., v o l . 24, f o l i o 286. " J e f f e r s o n to J a y , M a y 24, 1 7 8 6 , Jefferson Papers, 3 6 0 6 - 3 6 0 7 . " J e f f e r s o n to Vergennes, M a y 3 1 , 1 7 8 6 , The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, V , 3 4 4 - 3 4 5 . Jefferson to J a y , A u g . 6, 1 7 8 7 , ibid., p p . 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 . " M e m o i r c o n c e r n i n g the consular convention sent to V e r g e n n e s by de Castries, M a y 29, 1 7 8 3 , A r c h i v e s des A f f a i r e s E t r a n g è r e s , Correspondance P o l i t i q u e , Etats-Unis, v o l . 24, f o l i o s 2 5 8 - 2 6 2 . L a L u z e r n e to V e r g e n n e s , July

DECLINE

OF

FRENCH

INFLUENCE

145

T h e French consul in Baltimore, the Chevalier d'Annemours, was an observant spectator during these months and in his reports to the Marquis de Castries he draws an unflattering picture of Maryland. It was apparent, he believed, that independence had been won at a time when a form of government based on public virtue was bound to fail because selfishness was rampant and greed for money the prevalent vice. L o v e of the general good is in America only a vague word and the people have less understanding of it than the members of the most absolute monarchy. In the legislature members unaccustomed to law making are guided either by personal interest or by precedents drawn from foreign lands and other times that are little adapted to this country, so much does it differ from all other parts of the world. Such laws are neither respected nor enforced. A f t e r the war the legislature should have done all in its power to favor agriculture so that manufactured articles might be secured from Europe in exchange for food stuffs. Scarcely had peace been declared than the desire of commerce inflamed the cupidity of Americans and the British firms. T h e market was glutted and profits disappeared. In Maryland there remained as the result of the post-war commercial orgy, immense debts to English merchants, scarcely twenty per cent of which will be paid. H i g h taxes have contributed to the general poverty. 37 In this long letter there is no mention of the coming convention or any hint of French interest in Maryland's adhesion to the new form of government. O n April 24, 1787, he wrote again to de Castries. After a detailed discussion of the paper money contest then engrossing men's attention, he added: I must not leave you unaware, Sir, that the public does not expect any improvement from the Philadelphia convention. Indeed if public 1 5 , 1783, ibid., v o l . 25, f o l i o 16. Among- the Jefferson Papers in the M a n u scripts Division of the L i b r a r y of Congress there is a twenty-three page d r a f t of this Convention in Jefferson's handwriting, under date of N o v . 14, 1788. " D ' A n n e m o u r s to de Castries, Jan. 24, 1 7 8 7 , Archives des A f f a i r e s Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, supplément, v o l . 4, folios 2 1 4 -

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

146

virtue has failed to support the political edifice as it w a s first raised, could it be supposed that n e w regulations w o u l d be better observed ? 3 8

His report of June 1 , 1787, is in the same vein. After describing the recent legislation, he spoke of the disregard with which the treaty of peace had been treated in Maryland. H e did not believe that the mere act of making the treaty " a supreme l a w " would remedy the situation. Once again there was no mention of the new Constitution.39 From these reports it is clear that nothing indicates French participation in or even appreciation of the work of the convention in Maryland. There is no sign of the foreign interference among state leaders such as had taken place at the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. This conclusion is quite in accord with the attitude of the Court to the whole question of the formation of a new constitution. T h e Comte de Moustier was sent to America as French Minister in the fall of 1787. His instructions contained the remark that he would have observed that the Americans are framing a new constitution: This

object interests but slightly

the policy

of the K i n g .

His

M a j e s t y thinks, on the one hand, that these deliberations will have no success because of the divergence of the affections, interests, and principles of

the

different provinces;

on the other hand, that it

suits F r a n c e that the U n i t e d States remain in their present condition, because should they consolidate as they are able, they w o u l d soon achieve a strength and p o w e r w h i c h they w o u l d probably be v e r y eager to abuse.

Lest the last phrase mislead the new Minister, the instructions continued: I n spite of this last reflection the K i n g ' s M i n i s t e r must take care to conduct

himself

most passively,

showing

himself

neither f o r

nor

against the n e w arrangements w h i c h are being m a d e ; and w h e n he is questioned he must speak only of his o w n desires and of the wishes of the K i n g for the prosperity of the U n i t e d States. 4 0 " D'Annemours to de Castries, April 24, 1 7 8 7 , ibid., yo

vol. 4, folio 269-

270 . " D ' A n n e m o u r s to Castries, June 1 , 1 7 8 7 , ibid., vol. 4, folios 2 7 1 - 2 7 3 " . 10 "Correspondence of the Comte de Moustier with the Comte de Montmorin, 1 7 8 7 - 1 7 8 9 , " introductory remarks by Henry E. Bourne, American Historical Review, V I I I , & I X . T h e instructions are given V I I I , 7 1 0 - 7 1 4 .

DECLINE OF FRENCH INFLUENCE

147

The ceremonial to which he was then asked to conform perplexed him, for it required him to make to Congress a statement of his policy, and while his instructions prevented him from making a definite stand in regard to the new Constitution, his arrival had been considered as a sign of the interest the French king was taking in the formation of a new government. The dilemma seemed all the more vital because some leaders were circulating rumors that his Majesty had lost all interest in the republic. Moustier found that the popularity of the new government argued well for its success, and he hesitated to allow the belief to spread that the King was opposed to it.41 Montmorin's answer to this difficulty was categorical. There must be no interference. However, he explained to Moustier that Louis' reserve as to the internal affairs of the United States was "the expression of the King's respect for their independence, not a sign of his indifference."42 This was the attitude that he maintained until the establishment of the constitution was assured 5 then Moustier graciously gave his Majesty's approbation and took part in the official celebration in honor of the new régime.43 Hostility to the French, so pronounced in Maryland prior to the American Revolution, was not modified during the course of that struggle because of any religious or social sympathies but because of the desire of the new state to secure arms, clothing, and money from France. These first ventures in trade were followed by friendly advances on the part of the French. They led to the appointment of the Chevalier d'Annemours, the consul general of Baltimore, and to the Maryland interests of that other Frenchman in Philadelphia, John Holker, who for several years combined the two charges of consul and agent for the marine of his Most Christian Majesty. The flour controversy of 1779-1780 marked the culmination of this aspect of French interest in Maryland. Because of the Franco-Spanish situation, and the close relations of Gérard and Miralles, L a Luzerne and Rendôn, Maryland 41

Moustier to Montmorin, Feb.

12, 1788, ibid.,

** Montmorin to Moustier, June 23, 1788, ibid., " M o u s t i e r to Montmorin, A u g . 2, 1788, ibid.,

VIII,

721-724.

VIII, 727-730. I X , 86-88.

148

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

not only provided the army and the navy of France with food, but also shipped rich cargoes of wheat to Cuba. Besides supplying the French with flour, Maryland generously provided food, clothing, and transportation for Lafayette's troops. T h e discipline and courtesy of the legionnaires when they marched through the state, and when they were quartered in Baltimore won the admiration of the people. None of the bitter hostility of French and Indian W a r days was apparent in the cordial relations of the allies. Maryland, like some of the other states, hoped to balance its budget with a European loan, and to provide its militia with foreign uniforms and guns. For this purpose the assembly commissioned Matthew Ridley to buy and borrow in Europe. Vergennes was well disposed to regard this agent kindly because of Maryland's relations with the French ministers, and the state's repeated professions of loyalty to the alliance. However, the interest of the French ministers in Maryland was not limited to the mere desire to secure provisions. It may be traced to the desire of the French to control delegates in order to influence the decisions of Congress and to strengthen the power of that body. It succeeded because the Maryland attitude to western lands and to the navigation of the Mississippi was congenial to the French ministers, and because this same attitude had isolated Maryland and made that state welcome the support of Gérard and of L a Luzerne. This mutual interest culminated in the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, in the instructions of the assembly to acquiesce to the wishes of the Spanish king, and in the state's enthusiastic share in the Yorktown campaign. This interest of the French minister and of the Comte de Vergennes in Maryland's action at the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation is in marked contrast with the indifference of their successors when the Constitution of 1787 was under discussion. French officials were growing more and more absorbed in the problems of their own Revolution. Maryland was turning back to English thought and English trade. With this transition comes to an end the rapprochement of Maryland and France that has formed the subject of this monograph.

BIBLIOGRAPHY aim of this study has been to weave several different strands into a single fabric, the sources may be divided into three main groups—those of the history of the United States during the American Revolution and the Confederation, those devoted to a study of Maryland throughout the same period, and those that deal with the foreign interests of that state. In the first group alone are the printed sources sufficient. The published material of the American Revolution includes such collections as the American Archives, the Journals of the Continental Congress, series of Diplomatic Correspondence, and collections of the writings of statesmen. For this monograph these sources have been supplemented by manuscript material in the Division of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress and in the Maryland Historical Society. Secondary works of European and American scholars were used to complete the background of the study. There are excellent monographs on nearly every aspect of Maryland history except that of the foreign contacts of the state. Biographies of revolutionary leaders are usually disappointing combinations of patriotic sentiment and family pride. State histories are numerous, but the modern writers cling closely to the facts and interpretations of earlier historians, who rarely cited authorities. For this reason it has been necessary to turn to manuscripts in the state's archives. The Maryland Historical Society has been enterprising in printing documentary material, and the volumes of the Maryland Archives are indispensable to the student. As is noted in the bibliography, these books must be supplemented with the unprinted material that is in that repository. There too may be consulted the printed journals of the Maryland house and senate. Valuable documentary material in many instances has been reprinted in the Maryland Historical Magazine. Newspapers were found to be most complete in the INCE T H E

S

150

MARYLAND

AND

FRANCE

State Library at Annapolis. T h e L a n d Office at Annapolis yielded no important information. Equally disappointing was the examination of Maryland diocesan records and the papers of Georgetown University. Proof of European interest in Maryland is to be found in many of the collections in the Division of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress. T h e Institut Français of Washington has printed valuable sources in this connection. Transcripts and photographic reproductions make it possible to study the documents in foreign archives, especially those of the Archives des Affaires Etrangères and the Correspondance du Ministre de la Guerre. There is now the Guide to the Diplomatic History of the United States, 7775-/921, edited by S. F . Bemis and G . G . Griffin (Washington, 1935). T h e first part of this valuable book contains bibliographical information topically and chronologically arranged j the second part includes remarks on the sources and an analysis of printed state papers and manuscripts. T h e Carnegie Institute has prepared guides to the papers useful to students of American history in foreign archives. For the documents in the Library of Congress there are printed guides, manuscript inventory lists, and an unfinished card catalogue. In the selected bibliography that follows, brief comment has been made of the most important collection of manuscripts that bear on the subject of this study, even of those it was not found necessary to cite in the text. In the lists of books, note is made only of such works as were of particular value in the preparation of this monograph. MANUSCRIPTS DIVISION O F M A N U S C R I P T S , L I B R A R Y O F C O N G R E S S

Archives

des Affaires

Etrangères

T h e papers in the Archives des Affaires Etrangères are divided into several fonds. O f these, the Correspondance Politique and the Mémoires et Documents are the most valuable for this study. Copies of these fonds may be consulted in the Division of Manuscripts of the Library of Congress. T h e s e collections constitute the most important single source for this study.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Correspondance Politique : T h i s fonds contains the correspondence between the French F o r e i g n Office and its agents. It is arranged according to countries, and within each national group a chronological division is followed. O n l y rare references to Maryland are found in the volumes of the series marked " A n g l e t e r r e , " " E s p a g n e , " " F r a n c e et Divers E t a t s , " " H o l l a n d e , " "Prussie," " R u s s i e . " T h i r t y - f i v e volumes of E t a t s - U n i s papers offer a rich source for F r a n c o - A m e r i can relations. T h e Stevens' Facsimiles have been boxed with these transcripts. T h e t w o collections are mutually complementary, but documents are occasionally duplicated. References to M a r y l a n d abound. In Vergennes' correspondence alone there are more than 125 letters dealing with the problems of that state or of its agents. Particularly illuminating are the reports sent by Gérard, L a L u z e r n e , and Marbois to the French Foreign Office. These reports contain detailed accounts of the political problems of Congress and of the progress of the Revolution. Correspondance Politique, Supplément: T h i s series contains reports of a more limited interest. Most helpful were the letters of the French consuls general, notably those of the Chevalier d'Annemours of Baltimore. Volumes 3, 4, 1 1 , and 12, were the most useful for this study. Mémoires et Documents: T h i s fonds contains the memorials written in the French government offices for the guidance of the ministers, and those sent to the Foreign Office by French agents within and without the kingdom. T h e geographical classification adopted for this series is confusing; sometimes it would seem to refer to the place of the origin of the document, sometimes to its subject-matter. T h o s e papers marked " A m é r i q u e " are useful for French colonial problems, trade, boundaries, and questions of administration. T h e great bulk of the documents refer to the pre-revolutionary period. A f t e r 1 7 7 5 , such papers as had reference to the United States were classified as " E t a t s - U n i s . " Volumes I , 2, 7, 14, and 1 7 , contain important material for M a r y l a n d . A third group is marked " F r a n c e . " It is of little value for this study. Isolated facts relating to commerce were found in volumes 2005, 2009, and 2010. Detailed information about these fonds in the Paris Archives may be found in the following guides: Inventaire Sommaire des Archives du Department des Affaires Etrangères, Mémoires et Documents— France. Paris, 1883. Inventaire Sommaire des Archives du Defartement des Affaires Etrangères, Mémoires et Documents—Fonds Divers. Paris, 1 8 9 2 . F o r the complete series of the papers classified as Amérique, see pp. 4 1 - 5 2 ; for the special group the Etats-Unis, see pp. 2 1 9 - 2 2 3 . W h e n these volumes were printed the Archives were open only for papers belonging to the years prior to 1 8 1 5 . A t the time of the publication of the latter volume, the Archives were opened to

152

M A R Y L A N D AND

FRANCE

the year 1 8 3 0 , so a supplementary book was published in order to cover the additional fifteen years and to include recent acquisitions: Inventaire Sommaire des Archives du De fortement des Affairs Etrangères, Fonds France et Fonds Divers, Supplément. Paris, 1896. Also ùseful is the triple Index. The transcripts and the photostats in the Library of Congress are not yet fully indexed. T h e documents taken from the Archives des Affaires Etrangères are numbered according to a double system. References in Doniol are made to the numbers given to each document when it was filed in the Foreign Office. Since then a new classification has been attempted. In this study citations are made from the Library of Congress copies of the documents, some of which apparently retain the old numbers. Archives of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster, London In this group in the Library of Congress there are nineteen unbound manuscripts, 1 6 3 3 - 1 7 9 1 . For this study three manuscripts are useful. They contain no evidence that the French used the religious allegiance of the Maryland Catholics as a lever for political interference. No. i l l December 19, 1 7 7 0 . Printed pastoral letter to the Roman Catholics in the West Indies. No. 207 1 7 7 6 . Statistics of the Roman Catholics in Maryland and in Pennsylvania. No. 208 1 7 7 6 . Number of Jesuits in Maryland and in Pennsylvania. C f . P. K . Guilday, "Guide to materials for American Church History in the Westminster Diocesan Archives, 1 6 7 5 - 1 7 9 8 , " in the Catholic Historical Review, V. Sylvanus Bourne Papers Sylvanus Bourne of Barnstable, Massachusetts, was long associated in business with Jonathan Meredith and John White of Baltimore. Their papers form practically one collection. William Taylor of Baltimore also belonged to this group, but his papers have been preserved separately. T h e letters exchanged by these men during the American Revolution and the Confederation are of less value than are those that belong to the years 1 7 9 7 - 1 8 1 3 . John Leeds Bowman Papers There are three volumes in this collection. Not very important for this study. Chiefly valuable for the history of the Eastern Shore. Charles Carroll of CarroUton In the Library of Congress there is a scrapbook containing 1 1 3 papers of a miscellaneous character. The letters to members of the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

!53

family and to John W h i t e are irrelevant to this study. T h e accounts of personal expenditures are not of value. T h e r e is also a typewritten copy of the calendar of Carroll Papers in the Maryland Historical Society. T h i s was made by L . H . Dielman in 1 9 1 5 . In none of these documents is there any conclusive proof that Carroll was instrumental in securing aid from France. Continental

Congress

Papers

T h e official papers of 1 7 7 4 - 1 7 8 9 are divided into 189 groups and are found in approximately 490 volumes. Reference is repeatedly made to these papers in the Journals of the Continental Congress edited by Hunt, F o r d , and others. T h e following volumes were most useful for this study. 70 M a r y l a n d and Delaware State Papers, 1 7 7 5 - 1 7 8 7 , 2 vols. Copies of many of the letters sent by Maryland to Congress may be found in the Maryland Archives. T h e correspondence covers a wide variety of subjects, but it is most useful for the military affairs of the state. 88 Letters of W i l l i a m Carmichael, secretary of legation and chargé d'affaires in Spain. 2 vols. Most of these letters are concerned with the routine problems of a chargé d'affaires. T h e r e are practically no references to Maryland. 90 Letters of W i l l i a m Bingham, agent at Martinique; Samuel Parsons; W i l l i a m L e e ; and Jonathan Williams. 2 vols. T h e letters from W i l l i a m Bingham are the most valuable in this group. T h e y contain important information about the W e s t Indies trade, the friendship of the French and the Dutch for the Americans. 91 Letters of T h o m a s Barclay, consul general in France . . . commissioner to settle the accounts of the public agents in Europe; and of John L a m b , commissioner to T u n i s . 2 vols. T h i s collection is of interest because of the light it throws on the relations of the consul general with the French mercantile houses. 94 Letters of C o n r a d A . Gérard, minister to the United States from France. T h i s is an indispensable source for the relations of the minister to Congress, but it is unilluminating in regard to the interest of France in Maryland. 95 Letters from la L u z e r n e , the second minister to the United States from France. 2 vols. Although these letters do not add to the information concerning the actions of the French M i n ister in the individual states, they are indicative of his interest in the general affairs of the United States. 96 Letters of: Jean Holker, agent of marine and consul from F r a n c e ; Barbé Marbois, chargé d'affaires from F r a n c e ; de la Forest, vice consul general from France ; and C o u n t de Mous-

MARYLAND

154

AND

FRANCE

tier, successor to la L u z e r n e . T h e letters of Holker are the most important in this volume for this study. W h i l e not directly concerned with his M a r y l a n d interests they reveal the diversity of his commercial activity. Captain Edward

Dixon

Papers

I n this collection are included ledgers, daybooks, account books, and miscellaneous material for the years 1 7 4 3 - 1 7 9 6 . Captain Dixon w a s a trader of Port Royal, Virginia. His papers are valuable for the Virginia trade. French

Legation

Papers

T h i s collection contains three boxes of the photostat negatives of the Minutes of the French Legation in the United States. T h e originals are in the possession of M r . William Smith Mason of E v a n ston, Illinois. T h e r e are sixteen cahiers in the Library of Congress, totaling approximately one thousand pages. T h e y contain papers dated from 1 7 7 7 to 1 7 9 5 . B u t there are occasionally copies or extracts from earlier documents. T h e most important cahiers for this study are : Box I. 1 Extraits divers, 1 7 7 7 - 1 7 9 5 . T h e s e are miscellaneous notes from letters received by the consuls and memorials written by Frenchmen that were sent to the consulate. T h e material is not arranged chronologically, nor is the date 1 7 7 7 entirely accurate, for there are extracts made from earlier memorials. 2 Copies of Rochambeau's correspondence ; reports on the Federal Constitution, the navigation of the Mississippi, and the fisheries. 3 and 4 Extraits du Journal de M . de Moustier, Feb. 8, 1 7 8 8 - M a y 1 , 1 7 8 9 . T h i s journal abounds in references to the commerce, Indians, and the Mississippi question. B o x I I . 1 •—6 These six cahiers contain extracts from the most important letters received at the French Legation during the period 1 7 7 8 - 1 7 8 9 . T h e transcripts of the originals of these letters are in most cases in the papers of the A r chives de A f f a i r e s Etrangères, in the Library of Congress. The Galloway,

Maxey,

Markoe

Papers

T h i s large collection includes thirty-seven portfolios of correspondence dated from 1 7 3 8 until 1 8 2 0 , and seventy-five volumes of accounts covering the years I 7 1 8 - 1 8 1 0 . F o r this study the letters of Samuel G a l l o w a y , 1 7 7 5 - 1 7 8 3 , in vols. 1 3 - 1 8 , are useful for an account of M a r y l a n d trade.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Mordecai

Gist

155

Papers

T h i s collection consists of a 194-page folio volume of Force transcripts of letters written by Gist during the years 1 7 7 7 - 1 7 7 9 . T h e letters addressed to S. Chase and to W . Smith reveal Gist's anxiety about n e w recruits, and the difficulty with which he secured food and clothing for the M a r y l a n d troops. Journals of the Reverend

Thomas

Hawkins

T h e s e t w o manuscript diaries, 1 7 8 2 - 1 7 8 5 , of a Maryland M e t h o dist preacher deserve to be cited for the picture they give of a zealous, sincere, charitable clergyman. A picture that is in striking contrast with the " M a r y l a n d parson" as he is usually portrayed in the standard histories. John Holker

Papers

T h e r e are forty volumes of letters in this collection covering the years 1 7 7 7 - 1 8 2 2 . T h e s e papers are second in importance for this study, only to the transcripts of the Archives des Affaires Etrangères. John Holker was consul general of the French and agent of the marine. His extensive relations with merchants in Europe and in A m e r i c a make a study of his correspondence essential to an understanding of the commercial side of the American Revolution, and of the importance of French trade. Letter Book of Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer T h i s letter book, dated M a r c h 3 1 , 1 7 8 5 to M a y I , 1 7 8 7 , contains copies of the letters sent by Jenifer while he was Intendant of M a r y land. T h e r e are interesting details about the disposition of land and the solution of problems raised in connection with the M a r y l a n d Indians. F o r this study the letters exchanged with de Berchel, the Dutch Minister in N e w Y o r k , reveal the difficulties with which M a r y l a n d closed the account of the money borrowed for the state in Holland by M a t t h e w Ridley. Neil Jameison

Papers

T h i s group of papers is composed of twenty-three volumes of Jameison's invoices, orders, accounts, and correspondence for the years 1 7 5 7 - 1 7 8 9 . T h i s merchant was the Virginia resident partner of a G l a s g o w firm. His papers dated from 1 7 5 7 to 1 7 7 6 show the workings of the colonial system in the trade between Maryland and E n g l a n d . I n 1 7 7 6 he was forced to join L o r d Dunmore's fleet because of his T o r y sentiments. Although Jameison continued to export tobacco during the A m e r i c a n Revolution, his reports have no value for the M a r y l a n d trade history because he remained in N e w Y o r k until the end of the w a r .

MARYLAND

I56

Thomas Jefferson

AND

FRANCE

Papers

T h i s group of papers has been thoroughly calendared for the use of students. Besides the Calendar of the Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson ( W a s h i n g t o n , 1 8 9 4 , 1 8 9 5 , 1 9 0 3 ) , there is also a card catalogue for all the papers that belong to the first part of his career. Maryland

and Virginia Mercantile

Accounts

T h i s collection affords a rich and as yet unexploited field for the study of Chesapeake trade. T h e r e are 181 volumes of accounts for the years 1 7 5 3 - 1 8 3 4 , belonging to the Scotch firms which were established in both states. Although full of interesting facts (e.g., the extent to which tobacco was used as " m o n e y " during the American Revolut i o n ) , the material is difficult to use because there are few letters, and most of the papers are in the form of order books, invoices, etc. Maryland

Papers

A m o n g the documents in the Maryland section of the Division of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress there is little material that could be used for this study. T h e printed volumes of the Maryland Archives were found to be more complete than the Force transcripts of the Council Proceedings, 1 7 7 3 - 1 7 7 6 ; the Council of Safety Journal, J a n . - M a r . , 1 7 7 6 ; the Council of Safety Letters, J a n . - O c t . , 1 7 7 6 . T h e r e are three portfolios of Maryland Broadsides, 1 7 3 2 1789. T h e y are not of much importance. T h e most valuable single volume is the Journal of the Baltimore Committee of Safety, 17 741776. Ministre

de la Guerre,

Paris

T h i s is a copy of four volumes of the correspondence between M . le Comte de Rochambeau and the Chevalier de L a L u z e r n e , 17801 7 8 3 . T h r e e facts stand out in these letters: the difficulty that the French experienced in securing food for their troops, the jealousy of the American military men, and the very high opinion that Rochambeau entertained of George Washington. Robert Morris

Papers

In this collection the fifteen volumes of letters were found to be extremely useful when used in conjunction with the John Holker Papers, especially for the years 1 7 7 8 - 1 7 8 1 . M a n y Maryland firms traded with these t w o men. A f t e r the American Revolution the references to M a r y l a n d are rare. T h e r e is disappointingly little about Morris' tobacco contract with the Farmers General.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

John de Neufville and Sons Papers In this group of documents, the volume of letters to American merchants is the most important for this study. These letters are dated 1 7 8 0 - 1 7 8 5 . There are six letters showing the efforts of that firm to cultivate the trade between Maryland and Holland. A complete account is given of the loan made by the Dutch to Congress and to South Carolina. Papeles frocedentes de la Isla de Cuba Among the transcripts of documents in the Spanish Archives, that section of the Archives of the Indies at Seville entitled "Papeles procedentes de la Isla de C u b a " is of most importance to the historians of the United States. These papers derive their name from the fact that they formed a part of the Archivo General de Cuba at Havana, whence they were shipped to Seville in 1 8 8 3 . Copies of such documents as pertain to the history of the United States are in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress. There are two printed guides to this material: W . R . Shepherd, Guide to the Materials for the History of the United States in Spanish Archives, Washington, 1 9 0 7 ; and R . R . Hill, Descriptive Catalogue of the Documents relating to the History of the United States in the Papeles Procedentes de Cuba deposited in the Archivo General de Indtas at Seville, Washington, 1 9 1 6 . A more useful tool for the student working in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress is the card index made by M r . Hill when he was arranging for the transcripts that were to be made for that institution. T h e most important legajos for this study were: legajos 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 9 0 , and 1 3 0 1 , Miralles correspondence legajos 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 5 4 , Rendon correspondence legajo 1 3 0 1 , Maryland. Matthew Ridley, and Ridley and Pringle Papers Matthew Ridley, a member of the Baltimore firm of Ridley and Pringle, was sent to Europe to secure arms and money for the state of Maryland in 1 7 8 1 . These letters written during this trip, 1 7 8 2 1 7 8 5 , are a valuable source for the personal side of his mission. T h e Ridley Papers in Harvard Library are part of the Sparks Transcripts. In the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society is a large collection of diaries, letters, and ledgers. B. F. Stevens's

Collection

T h i s well-known group of documents is divided into three sections. ( 1 ) T h e Facsimiles of Manuscripts in European Archives relating

MARYLAND

I58

AND

FRANCE

to America, 1 7 7 3 - 1 7 8 3 , 25 vols. ( 2 ) Index to American M a n u scripts in European Archives. ( 3 ) T h e Peace Transcripts. I n the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress the Facsimiles and the Peace Transcripts have been arranged chronologically with the transcripts of the Archives des Affaires Etrangères, q.v. William

Taylor

Pafers

O f the sixty-six porfolios in this collection, the early letter books are important for the Revolutionary M a r y l a n d - D u t c h trade. T a y l o r was connected with Sylvanus Bourne of Massachusetts, q.v. Woolsey

and Salmon Letter

Book

T h i s volume of mercantile letters written by George Woolsey in Baltimore, to his partner, George Salmon in Dublin, and to the firms with which they traded in England, France, and the W e s t Indies, contains detailed information about the Maryland trade. MARYLAND

HISTORICAL

SOCIETY

T h e most useful papers for general Maryland history are to be found in the B r o w n , Black, Blue, and Red Books. T h e y throw light on the activity of the French in M a r y l a n d during the Revolution. It is a disappointment that the large manuscript collections are lacking in references to the foreign interests of the state. Occasionally information was found in the following groups of papers: Hill Papers Gilmor Pafers Calvert Pafers Bordley Pafers Tilghman Pafers Carroll Pafers PRINTED DOCUMENTS Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Corresfondance Politique, in the Refort of the Public Archives, IQI2-IÇI3. Ottawa, 1914. T h e s e abstracts from the letters in the French Foreign Office are concerned with the most important incidents in the FrancoAmerican relations of 1 7 7 8 - 1 7 8 1 . Doniol, Henri Histoire de Etats-Unis documents. volume was

la farticifation de la France à l'établissement des de l'Amérique; correspondance diflomatique et 5 vols. Paris, 1 8 8 4 - 1 8 9 2 . A supplementary sixth published in 1899.

T h i s work frequently referred to as "monumental" and "definitive" may be analyzed as follows: ( 1 ) the author's

BIBLIOGRAPHY

x

59

narrative, ( 2 ) documentary material set in the narrative, ( 3 ) footnotes containing additional manuscript material, ( 4 ) important documents quoted in extenso at the end of each chapter. T h e value of this work is obvious. Its limitations, often minimized if not ignored, are due to the strong French bias of the author, the citation of many documents apart from their context, the omission of all contrary evidence, the acceptance of ministerial reports at their face value, the absence of corrective or corroborating documents from Spanish, E n g lish, or Dutch archives. Durand, John New Materials for the History New Y o r k , 1 8 9 9 .

of the American

Revolution.

This is a convenient manual of documents connected with Franco-American diplomacy. Here may be found translations of some of the material in Doniol and in Lomenie's Beaumarchais. Force, Peter American Archives, Fourth Series, 6 vols., Washington, 1 8 3 7 1 8 4 6 . Fifth Series, 3 vols., 1 8 4 8 - 1 8 5 3 . T h e first, second, and third series have never appeared. T h e fourth series contains the important documents for the period from the King's message to Parliament on March 7, 1 7 7 4 , until the Declaration of Independence. T h e fifth series was planned to cover the years between July 6, 1 7 7 6 , and September 3, 1 7 8 3 , but it has never been carried beyond the year 1776. Hening, William Waller, compiler The Statutes at Large; being a Collection ginia. 1 3 vols., Richmond, Va., 1 8 2 3 .

of the Laws

of Vir-

Journals of the Continental Congress. Hunt, Ford, Fitzpatrick, and Hill, editors, Washington, 1 9 0 4 3 1 vols. This Library of Congress edition of the journals supersedes all earlier works. One of the most useful features of this edition is the citation of relevant documents in the Papers of the Continental Congress. MacPherson, David Annals of Commerce, Containing the Commercial Transactions of the British Empire and other countries, from the earliest

i6o

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

accounts to the meeting of the Union Parliament 1801. 4 vols., London, 1805.

in

January,

Maryland Archives I - X V I I , X I X - X X X I I , William Hand Browne, editor X X X I I I - X X X V , Clayton Coleman Hall, editor X V I I I , X X X V I - X L V , Bernard Christian Steiner, editor X L V I - L I , J . Hall Pleasants, editor V I , Correspondence of Governor Horatio Sharpe (1), >753~ 1 757• I X , Correspondence of Governor Horatio Sharfe (2), 17571761. X I , Journal of the Maryland Convention, July 26-Aug. 14, 177Si Journal and Corresfondence of the Council of Safety 6 (Ó, Aug- 29> '775-July , ¡776X I I , Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Safety (2), July 7-Dec. 31, 1776. X I V , Correspondence of Governor Horatio Sharpe (3), 17611771. X V I , Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Safety, Jan. i-Mar. 20, 1777; Journal and Correspondence of the State Council (3), March 20, 1777-March 28, 1778. X X I , Journal and Correspondence of the State Council (4), April 1, 1778-Oct. 26, 1779. X X X I , Proceedings of the Council (10), 1753-1761; Correspondence of Governor Sharpe (4), 1754-1765. X X X I I , Proceedings of the Council ( n ) , 1761-1770-, Minutes of the Board of Revenue, 1768-1775; Opinions on the Regulation of Fees; Instructions to Governor Eden, March 3, H73X L I I I , Journal and Correspondence of the State Council (5), Oct. 27, 1779- Nov. 11, ij8o. X L V , Journal and Correspondence of the State Council (6), July 1, 1780-November 13, 1781. X L V I I , Journal and Correspondence of the State Council (Letters to the Governor and Council) (7), 1781. X L V I I I , Journal and Correspondence of the State Council of Maryland (8), 1781-1784. T h e Revolutionary papers in the Maryland Historical Society have been preserved in the Red, Blue, Brown, and Black Books. The most important of these papers have been printed with the official journals, etc., in the above series. For most purposes it is not necessary to go behind the printed pages for supplementary material. Since the publication of the volumes

BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

dealing with the years prior to 1 7 7 9 additional papers have been found that throw further light on the first years of the Revolution in Maryland. Maryland Laws Bacon, Thomas, Laws of Maryland at large with proper Indexes. Annapolis, 1 7 6 5 . Laws of Maryland, Made Since 1763. Annapolis, 1 7 8 7 . Kilty, William, The Laws of Maryland, to which are prefixed the original charter. 2 vols. Annapolis, 1 7 9 9 - 1 8 0 0 . General Public Statutory Law and Public Local Law from the Year 1692-1839, with a copious Index. 3 vols. Baltimore, 1 8 4 0 . Maryland Legislature Votes and Proceedings of the Lower House of the Assembly: September 1 7 7 0 ; November I 7 7 0 ; October I 7 7 1 ; J u n e , October, November, 1 7 7 3 ; (photostat copy) October 1 7 7 3 ; November 1 7 7 3 ; March 1 7 7 4 . Proceedings of the Conventions of the Province of Marylandt held at the city of Annapolis, June 1774-July 1 7 7 5 ; December 1 7 7 5 ; May 1 7 7 6 ; June 1 7 7 6 ; August 1 7 7 6 . Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, June 1 7 7 7 ; October 1 7 7 7 . Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates and of the Senate, .1777-1778. Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, February 1 7 7 7 . Votes and Proceedings of the Senate, February 1 7 7 7 - 1 7 8 1 . Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates, October 1 7 7 8 ; July 1 7 7 9 ; November 1 7 7 9 (this really includes May 1 7 8 0 ; photostat copy);

IÓ2

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

March 1 7 8 0 - 1 7 8 2 . Votes and Proceedings of the Senatey November 1 7 8 1 ; November 1 7 8 2 ; April 1 7 8 2 . Votes and Proceedings of the Senate and the House of Delegates, April 1783-November 1 7 8 4 ; November 1785-November 1 7 8 6 ; April 1778-November 1 7 8 8 ; November 1789-November 1 7 9 2 . Miller, Hunter, editor Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Washington, 1 9 3 1 This official edition of treaties is made from original texts or facsimiles. The documents are given in the original and a translation when the text is not in English. The historical notes add to the value of the work. Morison, Samuel E . Sources and Documents Illustrating the American Revolution, 1J64-1J88. Oxford, 1 9 2 3 . This collection supersedes Durand's compilation especially for the British side of the American Revolution. North Carolina Colonial Records William L . Saunders, editor, and others. 30 vols., Raleigh, 1886-1914. BIOGRAPHICAL

MATERIAL

In this section has been included such closely related material as collections of correspondence, writings, memorials, journals, and biographies. Adams, Charles F . The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations. 10 vols., Boston, 1 8 5 0 - 1 8 5 6 . Andrews, Evangeline W . and Charles M., editors Journal of a Lady of Quality. New Haven, 1 9 2 1 . This is the charming narrative of Janet Schaw's journey from Scotland to the West Indies, North Carolina, and Portugal in the years 1 7 7 4 - 1 7 7 6 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY " T h e Chevalier d'Annemours" Maryland. Historical Magazine,

163

V.

This biographical sketch was compiled at the instance of the French Ambassador, M . Patenotre. It is based on documents in the French Foreign Office, Maryland newspapers, the Journals of Congress, etc. This has been translated in part by H . F . Thompson, ibid., I. Balch, E . W . , translator Narrative of the Prince de Broglie. Magazine tory, I.

of American

His-

This is one of the most interesting of the French journals of this period in spite of a captious insistence on trivialities. Baldwin, Simeon E . The Life and Letters [1918?]

of Simeon

Boucher, Jonathan, editor Reminiscences of an American New York, 1925.

Baldwin.

Loyalist,

New Haven, n.d.

1738-1789.

Boston and

This is the autobiography of the Rev. Jonathan Boucher, the Rector of Annapolis, and afterwards the Vicar of Epsom, Surrey, England. In spite of a tendency to megalomania the author shows that he played an important part in colonial politics. Brent, Daniel and John C . Biographical sketch of the Most Reverend more, 1 8 4 3 .

John Carroll.

Balti-

T h e chief value of this work lies in the fact that the authors were well acquainted with Father Carroll. Burnaby, Andrew Travels Through the Middle Settlements in North America, in the years 1759 and 1760; with observations ufon the state of the colonies. N e w Y o r k , 1 9 0 4 . This is a reprint from the third edition of 1 7 9 8 , edited by R . R . Wilson. Burnaby's remarks are most unfavorable to the English colonies. Burnett, Edmund C . "Observations of London Merchants on American T r a d e in 1 7 8 3 . " American Historical Review, XVIII.

MARYLAND AND

164

Letters of Members 1921—

FRANCE

of the Continental

Congress.

Washington,

This collection represents high scholarship and exhaustive research. It replaces all earlier collections of letters of this period. Carter, Clarence E . "Documents relating to the Mississippi Land Company, 1 7 6 3 1 7 6 9 . " American Historical Review, X V I . Chastellux, François Jean, Marquis de Voyages de M. le marquis de Chastellux dans l'Amêrique septentrionale dans les années, 1780, 1781, et 1782. 2 vols., Paris, 1786. These travel notes were made by the Marquis, who fought under Rochambeau. T h e y have been used by many subsequent "travelers." Sabin says: "Nothing escapes the eager eye and minute attention of this lively writer, and he gives the most graphic account of the Revolutionary era." Delaplaine, E d w a r d S. Life of Thomas Johnson ( 1732-18iq). N e w Y o r k , 1 9 2 7 . Also published serially in the Maryland Historical Magazine, XIV, et seq. Dexter, Franklin B . , editor The literary Diary of Ezra York, 1 9 0 1 .

Stiles, D.D.,

LL.D.

3 vols., N e w

Edgar, Matilda (Ridout) L a d y A Colonial Governor in Maryland, Horatio S harpe and His Times, 1753-1773. London, 1 9 1 2. T h i s is an attractive, well-informed account of Sharpe's years in Maryland. Although free from all references to sources, it is apparently based on the Sharpe Correspondence, contemporary newspapers, and private collections of documents. Eddis, William Letters from America, historical and descriptive, comprising occurrences from 176Ç-1777. London, 1 7 9 2 . T h e best contemporary account of the rise of the Revolution in Maryland may be found in these forty letters from the royal surveyor of customs at Annapolis. Fay, Bernard Benjamin

Franklin.

2 vols., Paris,

1930-1931.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

O n e of the outstanding biographies of Franklin. Bibliographie critique des ouvrages français relatifs aux Unis ( 1JJ0-1800). Paris, 1925.

Etats-

T h e first section of this book contains a list of works arranged in chronological order ; the second is a critical analysis of each work. Field, T h o m a s Meagher, editor Unpublished Letters of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, and of his father, Charles Carroll of Doughoregan. N e w Y o r k , 1 9 1 2 . Fish, Carl Russell, editor "Documents relative to the adjustment of the Roman Catholic Organization in the United States to the Conditions of National Independence, 1 7 8 3 - 1 7 8 9 . " American Historical Review, X V . These documents have been translated in the Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, X X I . For a critical comment on these papers see Baisnée, of. cit. Franklin, Benjamin The Complété Works of Benjamin Franklin. Bigelow, John, editor. 10 vols., N e w Y o r k , 1887-1888. The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Smyth, A . H., editor. 10 vols., N e w Y o r k , 1907. T h e latter is the best of the collections of Franklin's writings. If not otherwise specified, references in the text are to this collection. Goddard, Henry P. Luther Martin: the "Federal Bull-Dog." (in Maryland Historical Society, Fund publications, v. 2 4 ) , Baltimore, 1887. Gottschalk, Louis Lafayette Comes to America.

Chicago, 1935.

T h i s is a thoroughly documented study of the first twenty years of Lafayette's life. T h e traditional " h e r o " is discarded. T h e bibliographical comments are of great value. Guilday, Peter Keenan The Life and Times of John Carroll, Archbishop (1735-181$). N e w Y o r k , 1922. G u r n , Joseph Charles Carroll of Carrollton,

1J3J-1832.

of

Baltimore

N e w Y o r k , 1932.

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

Hayden, Horace Edwin A Biographical Sketch of Oliver Pollock, Esq. Harrisburg, Pa., 1883. Until Pollock receives a definitive biography based on the material in the Pennsylvania Historical Society, the Division of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, the Archives des Affaires Etrangères, and the Papeles procedentes de la Isla de Cuba and de Santo Domingo, this is the most concise single account of the Revolutionary patriot and financier. Henry, William Wirt Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches. 3 vols., New York, 1 8 9 1 . Jefferson, Thomas The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Washington, H. A., editor. 9 vols., New York, 1859. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Ford, Paul L . , editor. 10 vols., New York, 1899. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by the Jefferson Memorial Association. A. A. Lipscomb, editor-in-chief. 15 vols., New York, 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 1 0 . Unless otherwise specified this is the edition that is cited in the text. Johnson, Allen, and Dumas Malone, editors Dictionary of American Biography. New York, 1928-. "Journal of a French Traveler in the Colonies, 1 7 6 5 . " American Historical Review, X X V I , X X V I I . A criticism of this journal and a discussion of the identity of the author may be found on pp. 30 ff. Kalm, Pehr Travels into North America. 3 vols., London, 1 7 7 0 - 1 77 I. This book is valuable for its geographical comments. Kite, Elizabeth S. Beaumarchais and the War of American Independence. Boston, 1 9 1 8 .

2 vols.,

Lafayette in Virginia Unpublished letters from the original manuscripts in the Virginia State Library and the Library of Congress. Institut Français de Washington. Baltimore, 1928.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

"Letters from Lafayette to Luzerne, 1 7 8 0 - 1 7 8 2 " American Historical Review, X X , 3 4 1 - 3 7 6 , 5 7 7 - 6 1 2 . These valuable letters from the Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique, Etats-Unis, Supplément have been ably edited by Waldo G . Leland and Edmund C . Burnett. Lee, Richard Henry The Letters of Richard Henry Lee. Ballagh, James C . , editor. 2 vols., New York, 1 9 1 1 - 1 9 1 4 . Lombard, Mildred E . " J a m e s Searle: Radical Business Man of the Revolution." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, L I X . Loménie, Louis de Beaumarchais and His Times. New Y o r k , 1 8 5 7 . This biography is based on Beaumarchais' papers. It is the standard life. Madison, James The Writings of ]ames Madison, Hunt, Gaillard, editor. 9 vols., New York, 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 0 . Meng, John J . The Comte de Vergennes ; European Phases of His Diplomacy, (ijj4-1780). Washington, 1 9 3 2 .

American

Mereness, Newton D., editor Travels in the American Colonies. New York, 1 9 1 6 . Michaux, André "Journal de André Michaux." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, X X V I . Sargent, C . S., editor. This secret agent of the French government visited Maryland in the post-Revolutionary period. Monaghan, Frank French Travellers in the United States, / 7 Ö 5 - / 9 3 2 . New York, *933Moré, Comte de Mémoires de Charles Albert Chevalier de Ponùgibaud, publiés pour la Société d'histoire contemporaine par M. Geoffroy de Grandmaison et le chevalier de Ponùgibaud. Paris, 1898.

i68

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

Morris, Gouverneur Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris. Morris, A . C., editor. 2 vols., New York, 1888. Moustier, Comte de "Correspondence of the Comte de Moustier with the Comte de Montmorin, 1 7 8 7 - 1 7 8 9 . " American Historical Review, V I I I , and I X . Introductory remark by H. E . Bourne, editor. Nolan, J . Bennett, editor Lafayette in America, Day by Day. Institut Français de Washington, cahier V I I . Baltimore, 1934. Oberholtzer, Ellis P. Robert Morris, Patriot and Financier. New York, 1 9 0 3 . Robin, Abbé Claude C. Nouveau Voyage dans l'Amérique Septentrionale en l'année 1781y et Camfagne de l'armée de M. le comte de Rochambeau. Philadelphie et Paris, 1 7 8 2 . Fay: "Récit pittoresque et sentimental." Robinson, James A., editor " A Projected Settlement of English speaking Catholics from Maryland in Spanish Louisiana." American Historical Review, XVI. Rowland, Kate M . Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. 2 vols. New York, 1898. This biography is a mine of scholarly information about the Carrolls. In spite of more recent studies it remains the most satisfactory work. Sanderson, John, and others Biographies of the Signers to the Declaration of 5 vols., Philadelphia, 1828.

Independence.

Schoepf, Johann David Travels in the Confederation (1783-1784). Translated and edited by Alfred J . Morrison. 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1 9 1 1 . Scudder, H. E . , editor Recollections of Samuel Breck with passages from his note book. Philadelphia, 1877. Sée, Henri "Commerce between France and the United States, 1 7 8 3 1 7 8 4 . " American Historical Review, X X X I . A succinct summary of existing conditions prefaces the publication of pertinent documents.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sparks, Jared, editor The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American 12 vols., Boston and N e w Y o r k , 1 8 2 9 - 1 8 3 0 .

Revolution,

T h i s collection has been supplanted by W h a r t o n ' s more recent work. Steiner, Bernard C . Li je and Correspondence Life and Administration

of James McHenry. of Sir Robert Eden.

Sumner, W i l l i a m G r a h a m The Financier and the Finances 2 vols., N e w Y o r k , 1 8 9 1 . T h a c h e r , James Military Journal.

Cleveland, 1 9 0 7 . Baltimore, 1898.

of the American

Revolution.

Boston, 1848.

Washington, George The Writings of George Washington. vols., N e w Y o r k , 1 8 9 1 - 1 8 9 3 . The Writings of George Washington, John C . , editor. Washington, 1 9 3 1 -.

Ford, W . C . , editor. 14 1J45-17ÇQ.

Fitzpatrick,

T h i s edition supersedes all earlier collections of Washington's writings. Correspondence of General Washington and Comte de Grasse. Institut Français de Washington. Washington, 1 9 3 1 . W a r v i l l e , Brissot de New Travels in the United States of America in M. DCC. L. XXXVIII. Second edition corrected. London, 1 7 9 4 . ( V o l u m e I I ) New Travels in the United States of America; including the Commerce of America with Europe; particularly with France and Great Britain, n.d. W h a r t o n , Francis Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 6 vols., Washington, 1889.

of the United

States.

T h e s e volumes contain useful information for a general picture of the Franco-American relations during the Revolution. W i t t , Cornélis de Thomas Jefferson; caine. Paris, 1862

étude historique

sur la démocratie

améri-

Besides the scholarly essay on American democracy this study contains valuable documentary material. T h e correspondence

170

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

of Baron Kalb with the French Foreign Office was particularly helpful. Wright, M . W . Memoirs of Count de Rochambeau relative to the War of Independence of the United States. Paris, 1 8 3 8 . This memoir has been "Extracted from the French and translated." W y c k o f f , Vertrees J . Tobacco Regulation in Colonial Maryland. Johns Hopkins Studies, N e w Series, no. 2 2 .

Baltimore, 1 9 3 6 .

[Department of State] The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of Americay from the signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, 10th September 1783, to the Adoption of the Constitution, March 1789. . . . 7 vols. Washington, 1 8 3 3 - 1 8 3 4 . MONOGRAPHS AND SPECIAL STUDIES Abbey, Kathryn " E f f o r t s of Spain to Maintain Sources of Information in the British Colonies before 1 7 7 9 . " Mississippi Valley Historical Reviewy X V . A n interesting account of the efforts of Josef de Galvez, minister of the Indies, to send secret agents from Havanna to Florida, Jamaica, and to the North American British colonies. Adams, Herbert Baxter Maryland's Influence in Founding a National Commonwealth. Baltimore, 1 8 7 7 . Maryland Historical Society Fund publication, no. 1 1 Maryland's Influence Upon Land Cessions to the United States. Baltimore, 1 8 8 5 . Johns Hopkins Studies, I I I series, no. 1 . These two studies of Maryland's refusal to ratify the Articles of Confederation until the other states should yield their western claims are based exclusively on printed sources. B . Bond, op. cit., chapter I I . , corrects certain omissions made by Adams citing documents found in the Maryland archives. In' chapter I V of this study further emendations are suggested in the light that is thrown on the question of ratification by the correspondence of Vergennes with Gérard and with L a Luzerne, Archives des Affaires Etrangères. Andrews, Charles M . The Colonial Period. New Haven, 1 9 2 4 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

Andrews, Matthew Page History of Maryland: Province and State. New York, 1 9 2 9 . In this history stress is laid upon the colonial period. Interest is heightened by the attempt to eliminate interpretation by allowing the characters to make their own statements. It is to be regretted that there are no references to the foreign sources that the author says he has consulted. Tercentenary History of Maryland. 4 vols., Chicago, 1 9 2 5 . Baisnée, Jules A . France and the Establishment of the American Catholic Hierarchy. The Myth of French Intervention. ( 1783-1784). Baltimore, 1 9 3 4 . Institut Français de Washington. Balch, Thomas The French in America during the War of Independence of the United States, 1777-1783. 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1 8 9 1 - 1 8 9 5 . T h e first volume gives an account of the French forces in the Revolutionary struggle. This has been superseded by more recent and better documented works. T h e second volume contains information about individual soldiers that is not available elsewhere. Bancroft, George History of the United States from the Discovery of the Continent [to 178p], 6 vols., New York, 1 8 8 3 - 1 8 8 8 . Author's last revision. Beer, George L . Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. New York, 1 8 9 3 . British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765. New York, 1 9 0 7 . Based on the material in the British Public Record Office and discusses the imperial control of commerce from the English point of view. Behrens, Kathryn L . Paf er Money in Maryland, 1727-178Q. Baltimore, 1 9 2 3 . Johns Hopkins Studies, X L I series, no. 1 . A carefully prepared study of one aspect of C . P. Gould's Money and Transportation in Maryland. Bell, Herbert Clifford Studies in the Trade Relations of the British West Indies and North America, 1763-1773, 1783-1793. Philadelphia, 1 9 1 7 .

172

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

Bemis, Samuel Flagg The Hus5ey-Cumberland Mission and American Independence. Princeton, 1 9 3 1 . This is a study of Anglo-Spanish diplomacy during the Revolution. The Diplomacy of the American Revolution. New York, 1 9 3 5 . A recent diplomatic history of the Revolution based on European as well as American sources. "British Secret Service and the French-American Alliance." American Historical Review, X X I V . In this well-documented article, the author shows how W . Eden, later Lord Auckland, used American-born British subjects to spy on the American commissioners in Paris. Of particular value for this study are the comments on two Marylanders: Joseph Hynson and William Carmichael. Benson, Adolphe B. Sweden and the American Revolution. New Haven, Ct., 1926. Black, John William Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. Baltimore, 1892. This study of the causes of Maryland's failure to cooperate in the French and Indian War is based largely on Sharpe's Correspondence. Bond, Beverley W . , J r . State Government in Maryland!, ijjj-iy81. Baltimore, 1905. Johns Hopkins Studies, X X I I I series, no. 3-4. This concise analysis of a period of the Revolution in Maryland is based on manuscript material in the Maryland Historical Society, much of which has since been published in the Maryland Archives. Unlike most Maryland historians, Mr. Bond has not neglected to note the foreign contacts of the state, although the treatment of this subject is necessarily incomplete. Bowen, C. W . " A French Officer with Washington and Rochambeau." Century, L X X I I I . An interesting account of Baron de Closen. Bozman, John Leeds The History of Maryland from its First Settlement in 1633 to the Restoration in 1660. 2 vols., Baltimore, 1 8 3 7 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY Browne, William H . Maryland, the History of a Palatinate.

!73 Boston, 1 8 8 4 .

T h e eighteenth century in general and the last quarter in particular are treated too briefly to be of much use to the student. Burnett, Edmund C . " T h e Continental Congress and Agricultural Supplies." Agricultural History, I I . Campbell, Thomas J . The Jesuits, 1534-1Ç21. Carlson, Knute E m i l Relations of the United 1921.

New York,

1921.

States with Sweden.

Allentown, Pa.,

Chinard, Gilbert Les amitiés américanes de Madame d'Houdetot. Paris, 1 9 2 4 . This is one of several scholarly studies by this author showing the social and cultural relations of France and America during the second part of the eighteenth century. Circourt, Adolphe de Histoire de l'action commune de la France et de l'Amérique ;pour Vindependence des Etats-Unis. 3 vols., Paris, 1 8 7 6 . This is an elaboration of pertinent sections of Bancroft's History supplemented by his European transcripts that are now in the N e w York Public Library. Cochran, Thomas C . New York in the Confederation.

Philadelphia, 1 9 3 2 .

Coe, Samuel G w y n n The Mission of William Carmichael to Spain. Baltimore, 1 9 2 8 . Johns Hopkins Studies, X L V I series, no. 1 . This study is based on Carmichael's papers in the Papers of the Continental Congress, the Jefferson Papers, and the Stevens' Facsimiles. T h e first chapter contains some useful biographical information about this "highly unsuccessful minister." Corwin, E d w a r d S. French Policy and the American Alliance of i j j 8 . Princeton, 1916. This skilful analysis of French aid is based on Doniol. T h e facts and interpretation have been corroborated by extended research in English and Spanish archives.

»74

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

Davis, George Lynn-Lachlan The Day-Star of American Freedom. Baltimore, 1855. T h e history of the act of toleration that claims that all honor is due to the Maryland Catholics. There is good biographical material here for the old Maryland families. Dunbar, Louise B. A Study of Monarchical Tendencies 1776-1801. Urbana, 111., 1923.

in the United States

from

Duniway, Clyde Augustus "French Influence on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution." American Historical Review, I X . Eckenrode, Hamilton James The Revolution in Virginia. Boston, 1916. T h i s history is based on unprinted documents in state archives. No foreign aspects of the Revolution are mentioned. Edler, Friedrich The Dutch Republic and the American Revolution. Baltimore, 1911. Johns Hopkins Studies, X X I X series, no. 2. T h i s is a careful study of the Bancroft transcripts and the important printed collection of documents. Fay, Bernard L'Esprit révolutionnaire en France et aux Etats-Unis à la fin du XVIIP siècle. Paris, 1925. This is a scholarly survey of Franco-American culture during two Revolutions, 1774-1799. It has been translated by R. Guthrie, Revolutionary Spirit in France. New York, 1927. Fisher, Willard Clark "American T r a d e Regulations before I 789." American cal Association Annual Report, vol. I l l , 1899.

Histori-

Fogdall, S. J . M . P. Danish-American Diplomacy, 17J6-IÇ20. University of Iowa, 1922. Although Maryland traded extensively with St. Croix, a Danish island in the Caribbean, there is no evidence that direct communication with Denmark was attempted. Giddens, P. H . "Maryland and the Earl of Loudoun." Maryland Magazine, X X I X .

Historical

BIBLIOGRAPHY Giesecke, Albert Anthony American Commercial 1910.

Legislation Before

175 178g.

New York,

Gottschalk, Louis "Lafayette as Commercial Expert." American Historical Review, X X X V I . This article contains evidence of Lafayette's interest in tobacco. Gould, Clarence P. Land System in Maryland, 1720-1765. Johns Hopkins Studies, X X X I series, no. 1 . Baltimore, 1 9 1 3 . Money and Transportation in Maryland, 1720-1765. Johns Hopkins Studies, X X X I I I series, no. 1. Baltimore, 1 9 1 5 . Gray, Lewis Cecil History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 2 vols. Washington, 1 9 3 3 . Greene, Evarts Boutell The Provincial Governor in the English America. New York, 1898.

i860.

Colonies of North

Hale, Edward Everett, Jr., and E . E . Hale Franklin in France. 2 vols., Boston, 1887-1888. These volumes contain copies of valuable manuscripts from French and English archives. This is practically the first well-documented account of Franklin's diplomatic activity. It is especially valuable for the peace negotiations. Hanna, Hugh Sisson A Financial History of Maryland ( 1789-1848). Johns Hopkins Studies, X X V series, nos. 8, 9, 10. Baltimore, 1907. Haworth, Paul Leland "Frederich the Great and the American Revolution." can Historical Review, I X .

Ameri-

Hinsdale, B. A . The Old Northwest. New York, 1888. James, James A . "Oliver Pollock, Financier of the Revolution in the West." Mississippi Valley Historical Review, X V I . Jameson, James Franklin "Saint Eustatius in the American Revolution." American torical Review, 1903.

His-

I76

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

Jensen, Merrill " T h e Cession of the Old Northwest." Mississippi Valley torical Review, X X I I I . Johnson, Emory R., et al. History of Domestic and Foreign States. 2 vols., Washington, 1 9 1 5 .

Commerce

of the

His-

United

Jones, Howard Mumford America and French Culture, 1750-1848. Chapel Hill, N . C . , 1927. This analysis of the cultural relations of the United States with France is a stimulating, if somewhat amorphous study. T h e references to Maryland are suggestive rather than exhaustive. Kapp, Friedrich Friedrich der Grosse und die Vereinigten Staaten von A merika. Leipzig, 1 8 7 1 . Leben des Amerikanischen Generals Johann Kalb. Stuttgart, 1862. Kite, Elizabeth S. " T h e Establishment of the American Hierarchy: Diplomatie Sidelights." Ecclesiastical Review, Nov., 1 9 3 3 . Labaree, Leonard Woods Royal Government in America. New Haven, Ct., 1930. Lincoln, Charles Henry The Revolutionary Movement Philadelphia, 1 9 0 1 .

in Pennsylvania,

Lingelbach, William E . "Saxon-American Relations, 1 7 7 8 - 1 8 2 8 . " American cal Review, X V I I . Lockitt, Charles Henry The Relations of French and English Society London, 1920.

1760-1776.

Histori-

(1763-17Ç3).

Mathiez, Albert "Lafayette et le Commerce Franco-Américain à la Veille de la Révolution." Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française, nouvelle série, I I I . McClellan, W . S. Smuggling in the American Colonies at the outbreak of the Revolution with especial Reference to the West Indies Trade. Williams College, 1 9 1 2 .

BIBLIOGRAPHY M c M a h o n , John V . L . An Historical View of the Government 1831.

177

of Maryland.

Baltimore,

A n analysis and narrative of the history of the government of Maryland from the earliest years until 1825. Although not edited according to present canons of historical criticism, the copious footnotes make this work still valuable. McSherry, James History of Maryland.

Baltimore, 1 8 4 9 .

A n incomplete summary of B o z m a n and M c M a h o n . Mereness, N e w t o n D . Maryland as a Proprietary

Province.

New York, 1901.

T h i s study is of great value for the early history of the state. Nevins, Allan The American States during 1 j 8 ç . New York, 1924.

and after the Revolution,

IJ7S"

T h i s is a correlation of monographs, state histories, and printed state records. It is a very suggestive study, pointing to wide areas of state history that are as yet unexplored. Nussbaum, Frederick L . " T h e Revolutionary Vergennes and Lafayette Versus the F a r m e r s G e n e r a l . " Journal

of Modern

History,

III.

A f t e r 1 7 8 3 Vergennes, abetted by Lafayette in his desire to encourage Franco-American trade, attacked the Farmers General. " A m e r i c a n T o b a c c o and French Politics, 1 7 8 3 - 1 7 8 9 . " Political Science Quarterly, X L . " T h e French Colonial A r r ê t of 1 7 8 4 . " South Atlantic Quarterly, X X V I I . T w o admirably documented studies of the economic relations of France and America during the Confederation. Pargellis, Stanley M . Lord Loudoun in North

America.

N e w Haven, 1 9 3 3 .

Pennypacker, Samuel W . "Bibber's T o w n s h i p and the Dutch Patroons of Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, X X X I . Perkins, James B. France in the American

Revolution.

Boston, 1 9 1 1 .

I78

MARYLAND AND

FRANCE

Petrie, George Church and State in Early Maryland. Johns Hopkins Studies, X series, no. 4. Baltimore, 1892. Phillips, Paul C . The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution. bana, 111., 1 9 1 3 .

Ur-

This analysis of the importance of the Mississippi Valley, 1 7 7 6 - 1 7 8 4 , is based on Doniol and documents in the Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance Politique. It is a convincing piece of research and reveals the influence of Gerard and of L a Luzerne. Purviance, Robert A Narrative of Events which occurred in Baltimore Town during the Revolutionary War. Baltimore, 1849. T h e chronicle of Revolutionary events covers 106 pages of the text. It is followed by 125 pages of letters that were in the possession of the family at the time of publication. Ragatz, Lowell J. The Fall of the Planter Class in the British Caribbean, 1833. N e w York, 1928.

1763-

Ratchford, B. U. " A n International Debt Settlement: T h e North Carolina Debt to France." American Historical Review, X L . A brief correlation of the facts of the Revolutionary indebtedness of a state during the American Revolution, based on the Records of North Carolina and the Archives des Affaires Etrangères. Renaut, Francis P. Les Provinces-Unies et la guerre d'Amérique 2 vols., Paris, 1924-1925.

(

1JJ5-1784).

This is one of many volumes meant for the general reader that the author has written in this field. Although smooth in style and interesting in matter, there is occasionally a tendency to generalize too broadly and to present too few references. Rowland, Kate M . "Maryland Women and French Officers." Atlantic LXVT.

Monthly,

T h i s article contains a delightful account of the reception given to the French troops in Maryland at the close of the American Revolution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

Russell, William T . Maryland; the Land of Sanctuary. Baltimore, 1 9 0 7 . A scholarly study supported by constant references to sources. There are twenty-four appendices containing valuable documents and extracts of unpublished records in the Archiépiscopal Library of Baltimore. A more objective treatment of the subject might have added more weight to the author's conclusions. Scharf, James Thomas History of Maryland from the Earliest Day. 3 vols., Baltimore, 1 8 7 9 .

Times to the

Present

This long, diffuse history is based on original material. Whenever it has been possible to check the documents quoted in the text (Scharf rarely gives references), these have been found to be accurate. Schlesinger, Arthur M . The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 17631776. New Y o r k , 1 9 1 8 . Columbia University, Studies in history, economics, and public law. Shriver, J . Alexis Lafayette in Harford County. Bel Air, Md., 1 9 3 1 . This privately printed monograph includes, besides a detailed account of Lafayette's passage through Harford County, a useful collection of historical documents, a bibliography, and, as illustrations, reproductions of Lafayette's bond to the Citizens of Baltimore, and—from Niles' Register—a list of the citizens of Baltimore who advanced money for the Marquis. Silver, J . A . Provisional Government of Maryland, 1774-1777. Johns Hopkins Studies, X I I I series, no. 1 0 . Baltimore, 1 8 9 5 . T h e best study of the early years of the Revolution in Maryland. T h e author shows the development of the autonomy of the state and its final expression in the constitution of 1 7 7 7 . Sioussat, St. George L . Economics and Politics in Maryland, 1720-1750, and the Public Services of Daniel Dulany, the Elder. Johns Hopkins Studies, X X I series, no. 6-7. Baltimore, 1 9 0 3 . Spalding, Henry S. Catholic Colonial Maryland.

Milwaukee, 1 9 3 1 .

i8o

M A R Y L A N D AND

FRANCE

Steiner, Bernard C . "Maryland's Adoption of the Federal Constitution." Historical Review, V . "Maryland Privateers in the American Revolution." Historical Magazine, I I I .

American Maryland

Stephenson, Orlando W . " T h e Supply of Gunpowder in 1 7 7 6 . " American Historical ReviewXXX. A bare compilation of facts that prove conclusively that the American supply of powder at the beginning of the Revolution must have come from foreign sources. T h e extent and importance of French aid is stated on pp. 2 7 9 - 2 8 1 . Turner, Frederick J . " T h e Policy of France toward the Mississippi Valley in the Period of Washington and Adams." American Historical Review, X. This presents a much-disputed aspect of the Franco-American alliance. Urtasún, Valentín Historia diplomática de América. Primera parte, La emancipación de las Colonias británicas, tomo -primero, La Alianza Francesa. Pamplona, 1 9 2 0 and 1924. A well-written study of the diplomatic relations of the early part of the American Revolution. T h e absence of citations to Spanish and French source material is disappointing. Van Tyne, Claude H. "French Aid Before the Alliance of 1 7 7 8 . " American Historical Review, X X X I "Sovereignty in the American Revolution." American Historical Reviewy X I I . These two articles are necessary for a right understanding of the importance of French aid. T h e second study points out how independent Maryland was in its relation with Congress; whenever there was a difference of opinion, the latter was forced by the state to yield. Winsor, Justin, editor Narrative and Critical History of America. 8 vols., Boston, 1884-1889. Recent research has carried the student far beyond the once authoritative text, but the editor's critical bibliographical comments are still invaluable as a guide to early material.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I8I

Wood, G . C. Congressional Control of Foreign Relations during the can Revolution, IJJ4-IJ8Ç. Allentown, Pa., 1 9 1 9 .

Ameri-

NEWSPAPERS Annapolis Maryland Gazette A weekly established in 1 7 4 5 by Jonas Green. T h e Stamp A c t in 1765 interrupted its publication, but it was resumed. In 1789, William Rind became a partner. Baltimore Maryland Journal and Baltimore Published from 1 7 7 3 until 1 7 9 7 .

Advertiser

Baltimore Dunlaf's Maryland Gazette Established in 1 7 7 5 and continued until 1 7 7 8 . Baltimore Maryland Gazette A continuation of Dunlaf's Maryland Gazette. It was published weekly and semi-weekly, 1 7 7 8 - 1 7 7 9 , 1 7 8 3 - 1 7 9 1 .

INDEX A c a d i a n s , in M a r y l a n d , » 4 - 2 5 ; in Louisiana, 28-29. Adams, brings French goods to Georgia, j o . A d a m s , J o h n , opinion of T . Johnson, 16 ; relations w i t h L e m a i r e , 51 ; machinations a g a i n s t the F r e n c h , Aiguillon, A r m a n d , D u c d', French f o r e i g n minister, 32. A l e x a n d r i a , L a f a y e t t e a g r e e s to def e n d , 1 1 o. Alliance with France, ratified by C o n g r e s s , 49 ; ratified b y M a r y l a n d , 9 2 ; F r e n c h ministers discuss need of separate ratification o f , 9 1 n. ; V i r g i n i a ratifies, 9 3 ; separate ratification unnecessary, 100, 103 n . ; p u r pose o f a c h i e v e d , 1 3 g . Anglican C h u r c h , disestablished in M a r y l a n d , 15. A m s t e r d a m , M a r y l a n d b o r r o w s money in, 1 2 9 , 1 3 2 . A n n a p o l i s , decline o f , 4 ; resists T o w n shend A c t , 7 ; delegates meet to form new government in, 15; visited b y the " U n k n o w n , " 3 0 ; L a fayette passes t h r o u g h , 1 0 7 ; L a f a y ette a g r e e s to d e f e n d , i i o ; reception g i v e n to W a s h i n g t o n in, 1 1 6 ; C o n g r e s s meets in, 1 3 6 ; L a f a y e t t e w e l c o m e d to, 140. Annemours, Chevalier Charles François A . L . P . d ' , and the " U n k n o w n , " 30 n . ; c h a r a c t e r and career o f , 394 5 ; reports m o t i v e o f Alliance, 4 8 - 4 9 ; consul in M a r y l a n d , 5 4 - 5 8 ; relations w i t h H o l k e r , 6 3 - 6 4 ; Smith turns to, 7 3 ; and T e r r a s s o n , 8 1 ; a c t i v i t y o f , 84 ; M a r y l a n d men pleased w i t h , 9 2 ; a n d the ratification of the A r t i c l e s , 103 ; criticizes B a l t i m o r e citizens, 1 0 9 ; at C a p e H e n r y , 1 1 5 ; denounces V i r g i n i a , 11 7 ; at Independent S p r i n g s , 1 1 9 ; furthers trade, 1 3 9 ; and interests o f

Maryland, 142; description of M a r y l a n d in C o n f e d e r a t i o n , 1 4 J 1 4 6 ; significance o f appointment o f ,

147" A n t i l l o n . " See D . D u l a n y . A p p a l a c h i a n plateau in M a r y l a n d , 1. A r b u t h n o t , A d m i r a l M a r r i o t t , meets Destouches, 1 0 7 ; results of victory o f , 109. A r m s , i m p o r t a t i o n of f r o m France, 35, 4 9 ; f r o m West Indies, 3 7 ; e f forts o f South C a r o l i n a to secure ships o f w a r and a r m a m e n t in E u rope, 5 0 ; e f f o r t s of V i r g i n i a to purchase in E u r o p e , 51 ; o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 5 1 ; of M a r y l a n d , 53-54, 102, 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 , 1 3 0 - 1 3 4 ; M a r y l a n d petitions C o n g r e s s f o r , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 . Arnold,

Benedict,

near

Richmond,

•OS-

Association, A r t i c l e s o f , enforcement o f , 9. A u t e u i l , M . R i d l e y takes v i l l a in, 1 2 9 ; result of R i d l e y ' s experiences in, 1 3 4 . B a l t i m o r e , g r o w t h o f , 4 ; French Neutrals in, 2 4 ; visited b y the " U n known," 31; independence of merchants o f , 5 5 ; F r e n c h captains in, 5 9 ; L a f a y e t t e seeks aid f r o m , 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; D ' A n n e m o u r s ' criticism o f , 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 ; L a f a y e t t e agrees to d e f e n d , 1 1 0 ; helps L a f a y e t t e , m 1 1 2 ; W a s h i n g t o n a d v a n c e s to, 11 31 1 4 ; C o u n t Fersen in, 1 1 5 ; French troops in, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 ; C a t h o l i c chapel in, 1 3 5 ; w e l c o m e s L a f a y e t t e , 1 3 9 1 4 1 ; resists T o r i e s , 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 ; discipline of F r e n c h troops i n , 148. B a n c r o f t , E d w a r d , and the disclosure o f F r e n c h t r e a t y , 4 9 n. B a n k o f E n g l a n d , M a r y l a n d ' s stock in, 1 2 1 ; and collection o f p r e - w a r debts, 1 4 2 . B a r b a r y pirates, in treaties o f 1 7 7 8 ,

184

MARYLAND AND FRANCE

4 7 ; in the "plan of 1 7 7 6 , " 38. Barclay, Thomas, reports on trade conditions, 137. Barras, Count de, enters Chesapeake, 1 1 5 ; importance of help of, 116. Bayonne, free port of, 143. Beaumarchais, Pierre A . C. de, aids Americans, 34; relations with Deane, 39; proposed for American mission, 45-46. Bermuda, asks for grain, 68-69. Bladens, in colonial Maryland, 7. Blankets, ordered for Maryland troops, 37. Bonvouloir, Achard de, sent to America as secret agent, 33. Bordeaux, Lethe arrives in, 1 3 1 - 1 3 1 ; difficulties of trade with, 138; wine from, 1 39. Boston, Maryland helps poor of, 1 1 ; K a l b in, 32; D'Annemours sails to, 4 4 ; Vernet taken to, j o ; merchants o f , 5 5 ; attitude to French in, 61 n . ; de Valnais, French consul in, 63. Boston Port Bill, reaction to, in M a r y land, 10. Boullange, M . , offers to serve Holker, 61 n. Bourbon state in America, rumors of, 116. Bourbonnois regiment, in Baltimore, 119. Braddock, General, appointment o f , 5 - 6 ; defeat of, 25. Bretigny, Marquis de, seeks foreign aid for the Carolinas, 51. Brest, mentioned in D'Annemours' memoir, 4 1 . B r u f f , William, asks French minister f o r aid, 100-101. Bruges, John Carroll in, 26 n. Burgoyne, General John, army of, 67 n.; results of defeat of, 47. Burke, Thomas, opposes French minister, 88. Burney, Captain, appeals to Holker, 59 n. Cadiz, Contembe rebukes Holker from, 60; R. Harrison at, 102. Calais, Ridley visits, 128. Calvert, Cecilius, and Governor Sharpe, 14.

Calverts, character of the, 5 ; friends of the Carrolls, 26. Canada, Congress sends mission to 10 n. ; not desired by the French, 1 1 7 . Cape Comfort, as boundary, 19. Cap François, flour sent to, 73. Cape Henry, French victory near, 1 1 5 . Caribbean, D'Annemours' knowledge of, 41 ; French fleet in, 1 1 3 . Carmichael, William, active in French-American circles, 5 2 ; goes to Spain as Jay's secretary, 87 n. ; represents M a r y l a n d in Congress, 91 n. Carolinas, luxuries needed in, 4 4 ; packets for, 62. Carroll, Charles, of Carrollton, and fee controversy, 9 ; goes to Canada on mission, 10 n.; and William Paca, 1 7 ; early years o f , 26-27; "Chapter of Lamentations," 7 1 ; refuses to go to Congress, 87 n . ; in Congress, 91 n.; interested in Illinois-Wabash Co., 97 n. Carroll, Charles, Senior, Maryland interests of, 26-27. Carroll, Daniel, in Congress, 91 n.; signs Articles, 102; presses Congress for aid f o r M a r y l a n d , 11 2. Carroll, John, Canadian mission, 10 n.; early years, 26; consecrated Bishop of Baltimore, 137. Carrolls, and the French, 23 n. ; visited by the " U n k n o w n , " 31. Castries, Marquis de, dissatisfied with Holker, 83 ; and tobacco trade, 108109; D'Annemours to, 1 1 7 ; 145146. Cecil County, French flour seized in, 74Charles County, home of Jenifer, 8. Charles III, of Spain, and American aid, 33-34; and secret clause of treaty, 49. Charleston, results of loss of, 7 7 ; Plombard, the French consul in, 82. Chase, Samuel, relations with M a r y land men, 8 ; goes to Canada on mission, 10 n.; and M a r y l a n d independence, 14 ; and W i l l i a m Paca, 17 ; hostility to French, 75 ; in Congress, 91 n.; interests in Illinois-Wabash Co., 97 n.

INDEX Chaumont, Leray de, aids Americans, 45-47 ; Holker encourages Americans to trade with, 60. Chesapeake Bay, importance of, 2, 4 ; British invasion of, 1 3 ; described by D'Annemours, 43-44; French trade to, 5 4 ; English in ( 1 7 7 9 ) , 5 6 ; English in ( 1 7 8 0 ) , 98; need of French to protect, 9 9 - 1 0 1 ; damage caused by English in, 1 0 3 ; Destouches driven from, 1 0 8 ; French fleet in 1 1 3 ; de Barras enters, 1 1 5 . Chester, river in Maryland, 2. Choptank, river in Maryland, 2. Christiana, provisions from, 105. Choiseul, Etienne-François, Duc de, policy of revenge of, 29-32; and Gérard, 39. Civil War, d'Annemours foretells victors of, 44. Clement X I V , Pope, suppresses the Sociity of Jesus, 45 n. Clinton, Sir Henry, deceived as to campaign, 1 1 3 . Coffee, importance of trade in, 109. Commerce, influence of Chesapeake Bay upon, 2 ; growth of, to be reported by Holker, 47 ; desire of France to trade with Maryland, 54-5 j ; Holker and the development of, with France, 58-64; exportation of flour to the West Indies, 71 ; tobacco trade in Maryland and Virginia, 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 ; increase of, between Maryland and England after Revolution, 1 3 8 ; decline of, between Maryland and France after Revolution, 1 3 8 - 1 4 0 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 . Confederation, Articles of, Maryland refuses to ratify, 17 ; action of the states in regard to, 22-23; French ministers and ratification of, 84, 90-104; Virginia offers to complete without Maryland, 93 ; importance of Maryland's action, 1 0 8 ; significance of Maryland's action, 1 2 2 1 2 3 ; Ridley explains Maryland's refusal to ratify, 1 2 5 ; French interest in Maryland culminates in ratification of, 1 3 7 ; significance of Maryland's refusal to ratify, 148. Connecticut, claims western lands, 1 8 ;

185

Congress asks grain and pork from, 7

Constitution of Maryland, provisions of, 1 5 - 1 6 . Constitution of United States, and Maryland constitution, 16. Constitutional Convention, French interest in, 1 4 5 - 1 4 7 . Council of Safety. See Provisional government of Maryland. Convention of Aranjuez, signed by France and Spain, 77; results of, 86-87. Consul of Cadiz, brings French goods to Georgia, 50. Continental Congress, first, meets in Philadelphia, 1 2 ; resolutions of, 12 ; relations of with Maryland on the problem of western lands, 182 3 ; appoints committee of secret correspondence, 34-35; passes resolution fitting out armed cruisers, 3 5 ; and independence, 3 5 ; and trade with France, 3 8 ; ratifies treaties of 1 7 7 8 , 49; proposes embargo on wheat, 66; urged to conclude alliance with Spain, 88-90; urges Maryland to ratify Articles of Confederation, 98 ; assumes debt of Baltimore merchants, 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 ; Maryland petitions for supplies and arms, 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 ; debts and debility of the, 1 2 2 - 1 2 3 . Cornwallis, Earl of, campaign against, 1 0 5 ; repulses Lafayette, 1 1 2 ; mock funeral oration of, 1 1 4 ; surrender of, 1 1 5 . Cromwell, commercial policy since time of, 3. Cuba. See Havana, Navarro, etc. Custis, Jack, Lafayette visits, 108. Dauphin, celebration in Maryland for the, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 . Deane, Silas, at the Court of Versailles, 38-39; signs treaties of 1778, 4 7 ; and W. Carmichael, 49 n., 5 2 ; machinations against the French, 113. Declaration of Independence, made by Maryland, 1 4 - 1 5 ; and Articles of Confederation, 17.

MARYLAND AND FRANCE Defense, drives British from the Chesapeake, 1 3 . Delaware, ratifies Articles, 2 3 ; Congress asks grain from, 69; Holker in, 76; and navigation of Mississippi, 87, 89; Marbois finds French supporters in, 1 1 8 . Delaware, river, and Triassic soil, 4 ; enemy on the, 59. Denmark, trade of, 1 39. Destouches, Admiral, La Luzerne promises Maryland aid from, 1 0 0 ; is expected to act with Lafayette, 105 ; unable to enter Chesapeake, 107-108. Deux-Ponts, regiment in Baltimore, 119. Deye, Thomas Cockey, praises French, 116. Dickinson, John, acts on suggestion of La Luzerne, 1 1 8 . Digges, George, seeks French aid, 5 1 . Digges, Thomas, seeks French aid, 52. Diggeses, visited by the "Unknown," Dolphin, brings flour to Gérard, 70. Duane, James, confers with Gérard, 67 n.; drafts letter to J a y , 88-90. Dulany, Daniel, the Elder, public services of, 8 n. Dulany, Daniel, character and career, 7-8 j and fee controversy, 9. Dulanvs, visited by the "Unknown," Eddis, William, and Boston Port Bill, 1o-11. Eden, Sir Robert, governor of colonial Maryland, 7 ; problems of, 9; death of Lord Baltimore, 10 ; last days as governor, 13 ; returns to Maryland, 1 4 1 . Elk Ridge, public meeting at, 143. Embargo proposed by Congress, 66. Estaing, Count d', provisions for, 81 ; arrives in America, 84; vessel of brings news of peace treaty, 138. Eymalt, Captain, appeals to Holker, 59

Falmouth, firms in appeal for flour, 68.

Family Compact, importance of, 34.

Farmers General, seek American tobacco, 36; contract with Ridley, 1 2 6 ; duty on Ridley's purchases, 1 3 0 - 1 3 3 ; and tobacco, 142-144. Fay, M. Bernard, and identification of the "Unknown," 30 n.; on motives of French aid, 48. Fee Controversy, 9-10. Fersen, Count Axel, ordered to Baltimore, 1 1 5 . "First Citizen." See Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Fisheries, in Gerard's instructions, 85; in peace treaty, 92. Flanders, in D'Annemours' memoir, 4