IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 7 
 
 
 i^- 
 
 &?/ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 LI 
 
 1.25 
 
 '- |||||M 11^ 
 
 : ™- iiiiM 
 
 " liis lllll 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1-4 11.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 e), 
 
 e. 
 
 e, 
 
 ($> 
 
 
 c*J 
 
 .^ 
 
 ^;. 
 
 7 
 
 y^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
6= m. 
 
 w- 
 
 &?/ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ 
 □ 
 
 n/ 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d§tach6es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality indgale de I'impresiion 
 
 □ includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition di:?ponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la moilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires; 
 
 n 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction k^tio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 SOX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Social Sciences Department 
 
 L'exemplaire film§ fut reproduit grace S la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Social Sciences Department 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, comnte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire filmg, et 3n 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim^e sont film^s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par \a second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film§s en commencant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre 
 film^s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film^ d partir 
 de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m^thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

•I 
 
 '19-JL 
 
 >4| 
 ■ftt 
 
 The 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes 
 
 AND 
 
 Anglo-American Relations 
 
i^ 
 
 A 
 
 1^ 
 
Series XVI 
 
 NOS. 1-4 
 
 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
 
 IN 
 
 Historical and Political Science 
 
 HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 
 
 History is past Politics and Politics arc present }Iistorv.-/> 
 
 eentaii. 
 
 The 
 Neutrality of tine American Lal<es 
 
 AND 
 
 Anglo-American Relations 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN, Ph. D. 
 
 S-o.nrihne Assisfanf an., Fellow iu His,o,y, Jolun Hopkins frniversi/y 
 
 THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE 
 
 Published Monthly 
 
 JANUARY— APRIL 
 
 1898 
 
-TV 
 
 
 To 
 
 PROFESSOR HERBERT B. ADAMS 
 
 Who encouraged this study 
 
Contents. 
 
 M 
 
 I. Introduction. The American Peace Policy. ..... 9 
 
 II. The Northern Lake Holndary ok a New American 
 Nation. Conditions which led to the Treaty of 
 ^783 27 
 
 III. The Struggle for the Control ok the Lakes. 
 
 1783-1815- From British to American Supremacy. . 36 
 
 IV. The Agreement ok 1S17. Reduction of Naval Forces 
 
 upon the Lakes cq 
 
 V. The Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 
 Tangled Relations and Threatened Armaments, fol- 
 lowed by a Period of Cordiality and Mutual Reliance. 
 1837-1861 gj 
 
 VI. Agitation of Lake Defenses During the American 
 
 Civil War. Confederate Operations from Canada . 136 
 VII. After THE Storm. 1861-1896. The Adjustment of Irri- 
 tating Questions and the Continuation of the Agree- 
 ment of 1817 jgg 
 
 VIII. Index . . . 
 
 191 
 
 >/ 'i 
 
. 
 
 m 
 
 ■t, 
 
 -n!sfW«**i* 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In May, 1895, I was led to begin this study of the "Neu- 
 traHty of the American Lakes" by a letter of Honorable Ed- 
 ward Atkinson to President Daniel C. Gilman, of Johns 
 Hopkins University, in which the subject was proposed for 
 investigation, and by a subsequent letter from Mr. Atkinson, 
 in which ho referred to it as "one of the most suggestive 
 events in our history." In order to obtain whatever has any 
 bearing upon the subject and its connection with Anglo- 
 American relations, I have carefully examined a large 
 amount of material. Most of my work has been done at the 
 Department of State and in the libraries of Washington, D. 
 C, Buffalo, N. Y., Detroit, Mich., and Toronto, Canada. 
 
 The principal sources of the material upon which the study 
 is based are: (i) The correspondence in the Bureau of 
 Archives and Indexes at the Department of State; this 
 includes "Notes" to and from the British Legation at Wash- 
 ington, "Instructions" to the American Legation at London, 
 "Despatches" from the American Legation at London, "Do- 
 mestic" and "Miscellaneous" letters, and Consular Reports: 
 (2) The manuscript letters of Jefferson, Madison and Mon- 
 roe in the Bureau of Rolls and Library; (3) Correspondence 
 in the Record Office at London; (4) J. Q. Adams' "Me- 
 moirs" and "Castlereagh's Correspondence;" (5) Reports of 
 Canadian Archives ; (6) American State Papers ; (7) Govern- 
 ment Documents; (8) Reports of debates in Congress; (9) 
 Parliamentary debates; (10) American and Canadian news- 
 papers and pamphlets, and the London Times. Information 
 has also been gathered from correspondence and talks with 
 people along the lakes and from interviews with officials in 
 the War, Navy, and Treasury Departments. 
 
 For valuable suggestions or information my thanks are 
 due to Professor H. B. Adams, of Johns Hopkins Univer- 
 
Preface. 
 
 sity; Hon. J. W. Foster, ex-Secrctary of State; Mr. Alvcy A. 
 Adcc, Assistant Secretary of State; Mr. Hubert Hall, of the 
 Record Office, London; Hon. F. \V. Seward, formerly As- 
 sistant Secretary of State; i\Ir. B. F. Stevens, of London; 
 Professor IF P, Judson, of the Univeri'ity of Chicago; Mr. 
 James P.ain, Jr., Chief Librarian of the Toronto Public 
 Library; Professor Goldwin Smith, of Toronto; ex-Con- 
 gressman Geo. E. Adams, of Chicago; Governor IF S. Pin- 
 gree, of Michifran; Mr. J. N. Larned, of the Buffalo Public 
 Library; Miss Mary Hawley, of the Buffalo Historical Li- 
 brary; Mr. Silas Farmer, of Detroit, Mich.; Mr. W. L. 
 McCormick, of the Marine Record, Cleveland, C>hio; the 
 mayors of various lake cities, and others. I especially desire 
 to acknowledge the courtesies extended by Mr. Andrew H. 
 Allen, Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library, Mr. S. M, 
 Hamilton, Custodian of Archives, and Mr. Pendleton King, 
 Chief of the Bureau of Archives and Indexes, in ren- 
 dering materials accessible and in furnishing facilities for 
 furthering my researches at the Department of State. The 
 ofificials of the Foreign Office and Record Office at London 
 have also assisted me in securing extracts from correspond- 
 ence which could not be obtained at WashinsTton. 
 
 Johns Hopkins University, 
 
 Baltimore, December, 1897. 
 
 J. M. CALLAHAN. 
 
\ 
 
 i 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 
 i 
 
 The Neutrality of the American Lakes and 
 Anglo-American Relations. 
 
 I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Tin-: Amkuic.w I'kace Policy. 
 
 The majestic St. Lawrence — bearing its waters over 
 opMs. by tlie sides of a thousand islands, and finally into the 
 AnLintic — drains a system of lakes which has been a grreat 
 «l!<tterminin£^ factor in American history. Orifjinally a bar- 
 trieir between Indian tribes, it later became a door to the 
 interior of a vast continent, a highway for trade, and a 
 SiwxirTtffary between two civilized nations. Along the shores 
 <cj| these lakes, the savagery of a new world met the civiliza- 
 ttSofli of an old one, struggled for a time to maintain itself, 
 thsm retreated before the ever-advancing frontier of the 
 Ant^IfO-Saxon. Here, two powerful European peoples, hos- 
 tiJ* by long tradition, struggled for su])remacy. The final 
 ooinitifict. which began near the present site of i'ittsburg. de- 
 drtJefl that the English should occupy the land and that the 
 French could not hold it vacant. Scarcely had the echoes of 
 ike victory of Wolfe over Montcalm at Quebec died away 
 w-fccm the first sounds of the .American Revolution came to 
 lie heard. The Anglo-Saxon had not won for England 
 alone, A new star was about to appear in the galaxy of 
 maliioia.'j. The Hberty-loving colonists who were battling with 
 ih^ forests and making a new life south of the lakes claimed 
 tht right to govern themselves in their new home. After 
 tight years of opposition, England consented in 1783. and 
 the United States began its career, with the lakes as its 
 iKi/irttBiem boundary. The young nation stood upon its feet. 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
10 
 
 Nciitralitv of the American Lakes. 
 
 \ \ 
 
 ii 
 
 growing strong in power and resources, putting clown insur- 
 rections and receiving respect abroad; but England con- 
 tinued to hold the lake posts till 1796, and the British traders 
 proposed to push the United States boundary to the south of 
 the lakes. American righto in the Northwest and on the 
 Great Lakes were not entirely assured until they were em- 
 phasized by fleets and diplomacy in the War of 1812. 
 
 With the close of that war came the almost imiversal de- 
 sire for peace. In England, a few wanted to send Wellington 
 to America to direct a continuation of the war. In America, 
 a few favored the conquest of Canada. Ikit the thinking 
 people received the news of peace with gladness. Jefferson 
 wrote that Quebec and Halifax would have been taken, but 
 that peace and reconciliation were better than conquest by 
 war. It was a time for repression of passion rather than for 
 the perpetuation of hatred. Jefferson's advice concerning 
 the "inscription for the Capitol which the British burnt" was 
 that it "should be brief and so no passion can be imputed to 
 it." The same spirit is seen in measures advocated by Madi- 
 son and Monroe. 
 
 The leaders of the hour were men who had no interest to 
 gain at the expense of public peace. They endeavored to 
 cultivate an intelligent public sentiment. The elements 
 which entered into their public actions will bear the close 
 scrutiny of their critics. They consulted only the interests of 
 the country and of humanity, and gave intelligent guidance 
 to the fundamental good sense of the people. 
 
 By the Treaty of Ghent, concluded amidst the festivities of 
 Christmas Eve in 18 14, the lake boundary and the Northwest 
 were secured to the United States, and the gates of the temple 
 of Janus were closed, leaving two kindred peoples to live 
 under separate governments on opposite sides of the lakes. 
 But continued peace could not be guaranteed by proclama- 
 tion. There was no great danger of a collision directly 
 with the powers across the Atlantic ; for after the downfall of 
 Napoleon, when Europe was mourning for her children, and 
 when nature and art had been blighted and defaced by war, 
 
hitroiudion — The American Peace Policy. 
 
 11 
 
 there was a reaction against the idea of future hostiHties. 
 But with rival navies, recently built upon the lakes, there was 
 clanger of future collisions in that quarter which might also 
 endanger our peace with England. 
 
 While Jefferson was trying to "eradicate the war feeling 
 which the newspapers had nourished," the authorities at 
 Washington applied their minds to secure effective arrange- 
 ments which would lessen the possible sources of future mis- 
 understanding and accelerate the return of fraternal feeling 
 and action. They saw that if the peace was merely to lead to 
 a perpetual race in naval construction such a peace would 
 only be temporary and expensive. This led to earnest solici- 
 tation, by the United States, to secure disarmament. 
 
 During the war each party had struggled to secure the 
 control of the lakes. In the negotiations for peace the Brit- 
 ish proposed that they should have military control of these 
 waters, and thus prevent the expense of rival armaments. 
 This proposition of a "one-sided" disarmament probably 
 suggested to the United States commissioners the idea of 
 making it mutual; but their instructions at that time did not 
 permit them to make such an oiTcr. as past conditions had 
 made it appear necessary for the United States to keep a 
 superiority of naval forces on the lakes. After the peace, 
 however, it was clear that mutual disarmament was the only 
 assurance against collision and continued sources of misun- 
 derstanding. 
 
 A study of the diplomacy by which this was secured, its 
 immediate wholesome effect, together with the later interna- 
 tional relations and diplomatic questions that have influenced 
 the pulse of public sentiment and are in any way connected 
 with the subsequent history of that subject, cannot be other- 
 wise than useful to a nation that seeks to know itself in order 
 to govern itself through rclial)le leaders. , 
 
 In accordance' with instructions from the United States 
 Government, John Ouincy Adams proposed to Lord Castle- 
 reagh, at London, in January, 1816, that some measure of 
 this kind should be accepted by both governments, in order 
 
■ 1( 
 
 12 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 to avert the threatened evil of rival naval forces upon the 
 lakes. Castlereaji^h received the proposition in a friendly 
 spirit, but was inclined to be cautious. After fiery speeches 
 in Parliament, the British ministry at last decided to meet 
 the proposition "so far as to avoid anything like a contention 
 between the two parties." Since Mr. Adams had been piven 
 no instructions as to the precise nature of the proposed ar- 
 rangement, Lord Castlereagh, on April 23, 1816, instructed 
 j\Ir. Bagot at Washington "to take ad referendum any such 
 proposal as the American Secretary of State might make." 
 
 During the spring and summer of 1816 Mr. Monroe was 
 anxious that the question of naval forces should be settled 
 before all others. The action of British officers in boarding 
 American vesseU- made it the foremost question, and Presi- 
 dent Madison favored a "clean sweep" of all warlike vessels, 
 even down to revenue cutters. But Mr. Bagot could not be 
 rushed. He finally decided to open negotiations, and on 
 August 2 Mr. Monroe submitted to him the "precise pro- 
 ject." This provided for limiting the force on the lakes to 
 one vessel on Lake Champlain. one on Lake Ontario, and 
 two on the upper lakes, each of 100 tons burden, and with 
 one eighteen-pound cannon. This force was to be restricted 
 in its duty to the protection of the revenue laws, the trans- 
 portation of troops and goods, and such other services as 
 would not interfere with the armed vessels of the other party. 
 Mr. Bagot avoided discussions upon the terms proposed, 
 but he suspected that the United States had some secret 
 object in making the restrictions upon the vessels to be 
 retained. He could not conclude a definite arrangement 
 until he had submitted the matter to his government, but was 
 willing to give effect to a mutual suspensioti of construction 
 (except where it was necessary to complete vessels already 
 begun). 
 
 When Mr. Bagot's letter reached England the cabinet was 
 scattered, and it was not until January, 1817, that Castle- 
 reagh replied that they were ready to accede to the proposi- 
 tions of Monroe. The delays, surprises and uncertainties in 
 
Introduction — The Americayi Peace Policy. 
 
 13 
 
 the negotiations led Mr. Adams to fear (in November) that 
 the Americans were simply being amused, and he did not like 
 to be made a fool. But the growing promptness of the Brit- 
 ish Government had already become apparent in the orders 
 which were sent out to repress the conduct of British offi- 
 cers on the lakes. 
 
 The reciprocal and definite reduction of these forces did 
 not occur until next year, and after Monroe had become 
 President. It was then completed by the exchange of notes 
 between Mr. Bagot and Mr. Rush, who was acting as Secre- 
 tary of State until Mr. Adams should arrive from London. 
 This agreement became effective at once, though there is no 
 evidence that Great Britain gave to it the formalities of a 
 treaty.' It was not till a year later, April, 1818, that Monroe 
 formally notified the Senate of the arrangement, and ob- 
 tainea its approval and consent, after which it was declared 
 by the President's proclamation to be in full force. 
 
 It provided that all naval vessels, except the four allowed 
 by the agreement (with restricted duties), should be forth- 
 with dismantled, and that no other vessels of war should be 
 built or armed upon the lakes ; but it was also provided that 
 either party could abrogate the agreement by giving six 
 months' notice. 
 
 The arrangement made no provision in regard to revenue 
 vessels, but both parties now seem to consider that these are 
 not a part of the navy and are not included under the limita- 
 tions of the agreement. The original intention of President 
 Madison was to reduce cutters to the "minimum of size and 
 force, if allowed at all." In 1857 and 1858 the British Gov- 
 ernment evidently considered that revenue cutters came 
 within the limitations of the agreement. In 1864 Mr. Seward 
 was "not prepared to acknowledge that it was the purpose of 
 the agreement to restrict the armament or tonnage of ves- 
 sels designed exclusively for the revenue service." ' In 1865, 
 
 ' In 1864-5 ^otli Seward and Palmervton spoke of the arrangement 
 as an " informal " one. 
 
11 
 
 14 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 however, Mr. Seward, in reply to a note from the British 
 minister concerning such vessels, stated that ''their arma- 
 ment, if any, will not be allowed to exceed the limit stipu- 
 lated in the conventional arrangements." 
 
 Questions have arisen at different times as to whether the 
 agreement applies to all of the Great Lakes. In 1864 the 
 Assistant Secretary of the Treasury was not sure that it 
 included Lake Erie as one of the "upper lakes." When the 
 military canal from the Mississippi to Lake ^Michigan was 
 proposed to Congress during the Civil War there was some 
 doubt whether this lake came under the provisions of the 
 agreement of 1817. The agreement has not only been treated 
 as applying to all these lakes, but it would probably also be 
 interpreted as applicable to all the streams which flow into 
 the various lakes included in its provisions. 
 
 By the construction which has been placed upon the clause 
 "no other vessels of war shall there be built or armed," the 
 Navy Department has refused to accept the bids of lake 
 builders for naval vessels which were to be built for use on 
 the ocean. These bids could have been accepted under the 
 liberal interpretation that a hull would not be a war vessel 
 until after she had received her armor and guns, but it has 
 not been thought best to give this interpretation. It appears 
 probable that the Navy Department may have been gui'Ieu 
 in its action chiefly by the fact that the vessels after being 
 built would have to pass through a long stretch of exclusively 
 Canadian waters in order to get them to the sea. Permis- 
 sion has been readily obtained at various times to take ves- 
 sels through these waters, but it has probably been consid- 
 ered a bad policy to ask such a favor of a neighboring nation. 
 
 It was the impossibility of getting the vessels from the 
 lakes to the sea that made it necessary to dismantle them 
 there. The United States had begun to reduce the expense 
 of her fleet soon after the peace, either by dismantling or 
 sinking her vessels. Thus had perished the fleet of the gal- 
 lant Perry. It had been built for a purpose. It had served 
 that purpose. Why should society be burdened with the 
 
Introduction — The American Peace Policy. 
 
 15 
 
 expense of keeping it longer? It had been the servant of the 
 people. Why should the people now become servants of the 
 fleet? On Lake Chaniplain all vessels had already been laid 
 up at White Ilall. On Lake Ontario there was a large num- 
 ber of vessels, but most of them had been laid up or dis- 
 mantled. Work had been suspended upon the large ship 
 Nczv Orleans of seventy-four guns. The work of dis- 
 mantling or sinking was now continued. Soon, only the 
 pieces of hulks were left as a reminder of the former warring 
 fleets. The forces on each side declined to "almost complete 
 disappearance." \\y 1825 public vessels had practically dis- 
 appeared, both parties even disregarding the maintenance 
 of the force which had been allowed by the agreement. 
 Peace existed in fact as well as in theory. 
 
 In 1837, during the internal troubles in upper Canada, 
 there were American sympathizers for the insurgent cause, 
 whose indiscreet action threatened for awhile to endanger 
 the international peace. At Bufifalo, mendacious speeches 
 were made, and a few persons joined the rebels at Navy 
 Island. The Caroline, owned by American citizens, and 
 engaged to carry supplies to the insurgents on the island, 
 was captured by a party of Canadians and burned. Senti- 
 ment and excitement were aroused. The United States Gov- 
 ernment took steps to preserve the neutrality, but for awhile 
 there was an increase of sympathy for the insurgents, some 
 of whom found refuge south of the lakes. Border feeling 
 was aggravated by other controversies, and each side began 
 to inciuire into the expediency of preparing an armed force 
 for the lakes. The British at first hired some steamers on the 
 lakes, but later they informed the United States Govern- 
 ment that on account of threatened invasion they found it 
 necessary to equip temporarily a larger force than was 
 authorized by the Agreement of 1817. No objection was 
 made, but the continued reports of British defenses on the 
 lakes attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1841 re- 
 sulted in an appropriation for armed vessels on the lakes. 
 Our relations with Canada, a subject of intense solicitude 
 
I. 
 
 16 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 at this time, in a few months became much more satisfactory. 
 The British force was soon reduced to the Hmit. Neverthe- 
 less, the United States vessel, the Michigan, which had 
 been provided for by the appropriation of 1841, was placed 
 on Lake Erie in 1843. Her size and armament were in 
 excess of the stipulations of 1817, and this fact drew a re- 
 monstrance from the British minister, but it was urged that 
 changes from sail to steam vessels since 1817 justified a 
 revision of the agreement in regard to the size of vessels. 
 
 After the brief bluster over the Oregon quest) n there was 
 no further occasion for strained relations, and the growth of 
 cordial feeling, though not entirely uninterrupted, continued 
 until the period of the Civil War. For many years the 
 Michigan was the only public vessel in use upon the lakes. 
 
 Anglo-American relations, which before 1861 had grown 
 to be so friendly, were severely strained by several events 
 growing out of the Civil War. England feared that her 
 American possessions were in danger from the growing 
 power of the United States. The United States felt that Eng- 
 land favored the Southern Confederacy. Each began to 
 consider the defense of the lake frontier. England sent 
 troops to Canada in June, 1861, as "a mere precaution." She 
 also objected to the United States steamer Michigan as 
 being larger than the limit of 181 7 for lake vessels. The 
 Trent affair brought a decrease of Union sentiment in 
 Canada. England discovered that this province was inde- 
 fensible against the United States, but committees in Con- 
 gress recommended shore defenses and naval depots for the 
 lakes. The deflection of Western commerce from the Mis- 
 sissippi to the East, together with the tangled relations with 
 England, led to petitions for canals to connect the lakes with 
 the Mississippi and the Hudson, so that there could be a 
 procession of ironclads to the lakes if occasion demanded. 
 
 From the latter part of 1863 till the close of the war the 
 Confederate agents in Canada threatened to break the peace 
 on the northern frontier. The Canadian authorities did not 
 neglect their duty, but it was felt that they should have a 
 
Inlrodudion — The American Peace Policy. 
 
 17 
 
 more effective system of repression. There were no British 
 naval vessels on the lakes. The United States felt the need 
 of a larger naval force for protection in that quarter. Mat- 
 ters were complicated by the Canadian canal policy, which 
 was not considered liberal enough to justify the United 
 States in continuing the Reciprocity Treaty. In May, 1864, a 
 memljer in Congress said he favored making a clean sweep 
 of all treaties. 
 
 The crisis came in September, 1864, when Confederate 
 passengers captured a steamer and unfurled the Confederate 
 flag upon the lakes. Their plot to strike a blow at Northern 
 cities failed, but this attempt, together with the attack upon 
 St. Albans, Vt., in October, and the various rumors which 
 followed, kept the people in a state of unhealthy excitement 
 and gave the Fenians a hope for an invasion of Canada. 
 
 When Congress met, five new revenue cutters were 
 ordered for the lakes. The Reciprocity Treaty and the 
 Agreement of 1817 were soon abrogated. Passports were 
 required for travelers from Canada. Chandler wanted to 
 send troops to the frontier. 
 
 But war was averted. England began to act more 
 promptly, and Canada passed a more effective law for stop- 
 ping Confederate raids. The utterances of Fenians and 
 demagogues gave England some fear that Canada would be 
 in danger at the close of the American war, and led to de- 
 bates on the defenses for the lakes. Each government, how- 
 ever, used its influence to counteract the effect of the erro- 
 neous ideas which had found permanent record on the 
 printed page in both countries. 
 
 It was several years after the close of the Civil War before 
 the questions which it engendered were adjusted. Various 
 new questions also have arisen from time to time and have 
 been the source of more or less irritation. Fenians have 
 threatened to carry the green flag into Canada; tariffs have 
 ruffled the feelings of people on the border; the fisheries 
 question has been a source of friction, and canal tolls have 
 led to controversy and retaliatory laws. The clash of inter- 
 
!W| 
 
 N 
 
 I 
 
 18 
 
 Nadrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 ests and the parade of words have at tunes produced various 
 psychological changes in the popular sentiment, but there 
 has been no desire by either party to create a system of rival 
 defenses on the lakes. For some time after the Fenian inva- 
 sion of 1866 it appears that some steamers were chartered 
 by the Canadian Government and fitted up as temporary 
 gunboats for service on the St. Lawrence and the lakes, to 
 prevent further attempts at invasion. The Michigan and 
 a revenue cutter were sent by the American Government to 
 patrol the Niagara river for awhile in 1866. Care was taken 
 by the United States authorities to prevent further invasions, 
 but it was not apprehended that any other vessels would be 
 necessary. It seems that all the lake revenue cutters belong- 
 ing to the United States were laid up in 1867. They were still 
 laid up in 1870 when it was reported that there were plans 
 for an invasion of Canada. The Michigan was kept ready 
 for service on Lake Erie, but no invasion occurred in that 
 quarter. There was an attempted invasion from Vermont 
 during the summer of 1870, but it was frustrated. 
 
 The Michigan has continued to cruise the upper lakes 
 since that time. In 1878, Secretary Thompson, of the Navy, 
 suggested the advisability of sellinn; her and applying the 
 proceeds on a new vessel for special purposes, but Congress 
 did not act on the recommendation. In 1890, various memo- 
 rials and petitions, especially from Chicago, asked that this 
 antiquated vessel should be replaced by a modern one that 
 would not excite the ridicule of foreign visitors to the 
 World's Fair; but these memorials were left to sleep in the 
 basement of the Capitol, and there was placed on exhibition 
 at Jackson Park only a brick model of a ship of war.' 
 
 'After the World's Fair this briclc model was turned over to the 
 .State of Illinois, and was occupied by the Naval Militia of the State. 
 It was their headquarters durin*^ the strike of 1894, when they patrolled 
 the harbor in boats, in order to protect the water cribs, which it was 
 feared the strikers mij2;ht attempt to destroy in order to cut oiT the 
 water supply of the city. 
 
 'M 
 
 ffi' 
 
 '■"!!(• 
 
Introduction — The American Peace Policy. 
 
 19 
 
 avy, 
 
 the 
 
 ress 
 
 enio- 
 this 
 that 
 the 
 
 n the 
 
 )ition 
 
 to the 
 State, 
 rolled 
 it v%as 
 .ff the 
 
 There has been some doubt as to whether the arrange- 
 ment has been in existence since 1865, from the fact that in 
 February of that year Congress ratified a notice for its ter- 
 mination, which had been given some time before by the Sec- 
 retary of State. This notice was afterward withdrawn 
 through the Department of State, but without any action on 
 the part of Congress. Secretary Thompson, of the Navy, in 
 1878 said that "whether the arrangement remains in force 
 since 1865 must rest upon the decision of Congress." The 
 State Department has considered it as still in force. Con- 
 gress would probably do the same. In 1892 there were very 
 few members in Congress who would have voted for its 
 abrogation. 
 
 The fact that the Navy Department will not permit ocean 
 vessels to be built by lake builders has been the source of 
 some complaint in recent years. In 1895, w-hen the Detroit 
 Dry Dock Company failed to get the contract to build gun- 
 boats, for which it had made the lowest bid, there was a gen- 
 eral howl from the newspapers for the abrogation of the 
 agreement. An appeal was made to President Cleveland, 
 tut he decided that no naval vessels could be built on the 
 lakes. An attempt was made in 1895, before Congress met 
 in December, to get an expression of public sentiment in 
 favor of the abrogation of the Agreement of 1817, but it was 
 unsuccessful. It was considered better to encourage peace 
 than to encourage the war-ship industry on the lakes. 
 
 This friendly convention of 1817, which had the effect 
 practically of abolishing rival navies upon the great highway 
 to the Northwest, is a departure from many of the old and 
 musty maxims of diplomacy. But it is in harmony with the 
 new spirit of the new times. There are many precedents for 
 the neutralization of a zone along a land boundary, and sev- 
 eral instances of guaranteed neutrality of small States or ter- 
 ritories,' but there is no precise precedent for the Agreement 
 
 'Examples are: Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Cracow, and 
 the Ionian Islands. 
 
v^ 
 
 20 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 ■ 
 
 IliiUII 
 
 of 1817. ' In fact, the same geographical and political condi- 
 tions that obtain in regard to the Great Lakes do not exist 
 elsewhere. No other great lakes have formed a boundary 
 between great States. The nearest api)roach is Lake Geneva 
 and the Caspian sea. The Crimean war resulted in the neu- 
 tralization of the Dlack sea.'' Similar conditions may at 
 some future time exist on Lake \'ictoria Xyanza, in Africa. 
 Edward y\.tkinson, of Boston, says of this arrangement 
 that it is "the greatest step in progress toward the mainte- 
 nance of peace, and without precedent in history." Although 
 it was secured by the earnest solicitation of the United States 
 Government, it has proven to be equally satisfactory to the 
 British. Mr. Cobden, who once sat on the Naval Com- 
 mittee in Parliament, said in 1850, that "from the moment 
 of the existence of that treaty both parties have totally disre- 
 garded the maintenance of the force altogether, and there is 
 not at the present time more than one crazy English hulk on 
 all these lakes." Mr. Walsh, in a speech in the House of 
 Commons, February 10, spoke of the arrangement as a 
 "treaty which had been in force for half a century," and 
 stated that "to it must be attributed the peace and tranquillity 
 which during that period has e.\isted between the two coun- 
 tries." The London Times, of the same year, spoke of the 
 Agreement of 1817 between the two great kindred conununi- 
 ties as far in advance of the spirit of that age, and added 
 that "no wiser act was ever agreed upon between two nations 
 than the limitation of the naval force on the lakes." The 
 sentiment seems almost unanimous that from the standpoint 
 of international relations the effect of the agreement has been 
 
 'A convention between England and France, in January, 1787, 
 provided that the augmentation of naval armaments should be 
 mutually discontinued. 
 
 ^ In several cases it has been proposed to extend the principle of 
 neutralization to rivers ana canals bordering on the territory of sev- 
 eral states. The Rhitie v. as neutralized in 1815. The Ciayton-Buhver 
 Convention, in 1850, guanvnteed the neutrality of the proposed Cen- 
 tral American Canal. 
 
Introduction — The American Peace Policy. 
 
 21 
 
 |iple of 
 
 Df sev- 
 
 Julwer 
 
 Cen- 
 
 
 entirely vvliolesome. In February, 1865, Mr. C. F. Adams, 
 the United States Minister at London, in a conversation 
 with Lord Russell, said that armaments are expensive and 
 useless, serving in troubled times to breed mutual suspicion. 
 He saw no reason why we should not continue the "full reli- 
 ance" of half a century under the Agreement of 18 17, which 
 had been so "highly useful." The Canadians are also satis- 
 fied with the treaty. James Bain, Jr., Chief Librarian at 
 Toronto, states that "the agreement has worked so admir- 
 ably tliat it seems folly to dream of reviving the rivalry of the 
 olden times." 
 
 The fathers "builded even better than they knew." The 
 growth of the Northwest and the friendly intermingling of the 
 two peoples has exceeded their greatest hopes. The cities 
 gathered around this Western Mediterranean in size and in- 
 dustry far excel all expectations. Consider the magni'ude of 
 the commerce of the Great Lakes. In 1894 the freight borne 
 upon their waters during 234 days exceeded 30,000,000 tons. 
 This is one-fourth as much as the total freight carried by all 
 the railroads of the United States during the whole year. On 
 June 30, 1894, there were upon the lakes 1731 steam vessels, 
 1 139 sailing vessels, 386 canal boats and 85 barges — a total 
 of 3341 craft, with a gross tonnage of 1,227,400 tons. Half 
 of the best steamship tonnage in the United States is owned 
 on the lakes. Tlic freight which passed through the St. 
 Mary's Falls Canal in 1893 exceeded by 3,137,504 tons the 
 entire tonnage of all the world that passed through the Suez 
 Canal in that year. The tonnage which passed through the 
 Detroit river during 234 days in 1889 was nearly two and 
 one-half million tons more than the entire tonnage which 
 entered and cleared at London and Liverpool for that whole 
 year in the foreign and coastwise trade. All this vast com- 
 merce, under the Monroe policy of disarmament, is said to 
 be as well protected by "mutual reliance" as it would be if 
 millions of the people's earnings were expended upon naval 
 armaments and forts. Such Monroe doctrine needs no bet- 
 ter test to recommend it. During periods of great bitterness. 
 
22 
 
 Neutrality of the Americayi Lakes. 
 
 when the lakes might have swarmed with gunboats, it has 
 warded off the storms which were hable to follow rapid 
 changes of the national temperature. This true Americanism 
 of Monroe is in strict conformity with the foreign policy of 
 all our earlier Presidents. It is the spirit which animated 
 Washington to write in his Farewell Address, "Observe 
 good faith and justice toward all nations; cidtivate peace and 
 harmony with all." Tt seeks peace with honor, and does not 
 advocate the Donnybrook I'air principle in dii>lomacy, that 
 if a foreign nation's head is visible we should hit it. 
 
 It is generally conceded that the experience of the past 
 justifies the continuance of the agreement, though, of course, 
 subject to such modifications as might be necessary to meet 
 modern conditions. There is no desire to depart from the 
 spirit and principle for which the agreement stands. As our 
 modern civilization gets farther away from malignant preju- 
 dice and bluster we are less inclined to waste strength in 
 threatening and offensive "defenses." Time has shown that 
 there is little danger from Canada. England has long since 
 conceded the point held by Mr. Madison, that Canada would 
 be of no advantage to her in case of war, and has admitted 
 that she cannot compete with the United States in construc- 
 ing gunboats on the lakes, even though the Wclland canal 
 should give her a temporary advantage in case of possible 
 future hostilities. The Chicago canal, made navigable for 
 gunboats from the Alississippi, would be analagous to the St. 
 Lawrence and Welland canals, but England would still have 
 the advantage in shortness of water route in case she kept 
 gunboats in the vicinity of the St. Lawrence. In other re- 
 spects the United States would have the advantage. 
 
 Nearly eighty years have passed away since the agreement 
 was signed. The Northwest has changed from a wilderness 
 to great and prosperous States. Great cities along the lakes 
 have sprung up and become the rivals of the capitals of Eu- 
 rope. Empires have risen and fallen, great battles have been 
 fought, and boundary lines of nations swept from the world. 
 But during this time, notwithstanding occasional waves of 
 
 IRI'i 
 
t 
 
 ittcd 
 
 struc- 
 
 canal 
 
 jssible 
 
 e for 
 
 U" St. 
 
 liave 
 
 kept 
 
 er re- 
 
 :;mcnt 
 ;rness 
 
 lakes 
 
 ^f Eu- 
 
 bccn 
 
 vorld. 
 
 /cs of 
 
 I 
 
 ■I 
 ■'I 
 
 :' 
 
 fntrodiution — T/w American Peace Policy 
 
 23 
 
 on both sides of the fresh-water sea, the people have 
 been attracted more and more to each other, and the sharp- 
 ntia of border lines has been softened by the courtesy and 
 gOKxI-will which govern the social and business relations of 
 the two countries. The old border feeling has lost its inten- 
 sity in old Canada, and in Manitoba it does not exist. 
 WTiether Canada shall continue the connection with Eng- 
 hiMf, or shall desire to work out her destiny as an independ- 
 ent nation, the United States has no designs against her 
 peace and prosperity. Our sympathies will continue to have 
 vvyTt in common than in opposition. The people from dif- 
 fertnc sides of the lakes have no quarrel over the past when 
 tbej' meet at sunmicr resorts. Uncontrollable and unreas- 
 omiaMe sentiment has sometimes asserted itself in a hos'.ile 
 manneT, but friendly feelings have continued to subsi'^t in 
 qwte of commercial and national difTerences. The jingoism 
 of those who are always making mental preparations for war 
 has forced itself into notoriety at times, but it is on the wi:ne. 
 Antitioial attempts to resurrect the prejudices of earlier days 
 Kmly atrve as an object-lesson of the earlier stages of civiliza- 
 tjon, which modern society has not yet entirely laid aside. 
 
 The. mental coolness which once existed between the peo- 
 ples separated by the lakes has abated. The ancient pas- 
 ski'im Bus died away, and the only coolness that now normally 
 <•:■: ■- IS the coolness of the fresh waters themselves which 
 itjjiirace the territories, but are, at the same time, serving a5 a 
 Iwgfliway of trade and social commingling to unite the nations 
 im 21 brotherhood of common feeling. 
 
 TTie policy of the two great English-speaking peoples in 
 regaM to the American lake boundary, to which has been 
 allriLtrted the peace that has continued to exist in spite of 
 di^Mittes, is a precedent w.^rthy of the study of other nations. 
 OvtTj^Town standing armies and floating navies are often a 
 source as well as a product of war. Air. Freeman called 
 theira "the modern abomination." An armed peace not only 
 fr<))'Hnn& defiance, but its expense inflicts upon nations the 
 cMTse or poverty. Some preparation for war, with the least 
 
'Ill 
 
 24 
 
 Neidrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 possible sacrifice of the advantages of peace, seems neces- 
 sary, but it is plainly an unnecessary waste of force and a 
 hard burden for society when one-fifth of the flower of Chris- 
 tian Europe is set aside to make ready for war. It would be 
 far better to depend more upon the militia. In 1850, Sir 
 Robert Peel said: "We should best consult the true interests 
 of the country by husbanding our resources in a time of 
 peace, and, instead of lavish expenditure on all the means of 
 defense, by placing some trust in the latent and dormant 
 energies of the nation." In the same year Cobden said: 
 "Four million of men, the flower of Europe, , . . are under 
 arms, living in idleness. . . . The women are doing farm 
 work in order that the muscle and strength of the country 
 should be clothed in military coats and should carry muskets 
 on their shoulders." Here is a double loss to society. These 
 several million men have to be supported by those who are 
 in the industrial pursuits. If the army were swept away by a 
 plague it would only be a single loss. If both army and those 
 who work to support it were swept away society would be 
 none the worse, from a material point of view. 
 
 Besides the cost, the whole moral tendency of vast "peace 
 establishments" is bad. If a man walks abroad armed to the 
 teeth he is very liable to get into a quarrel; so with a nation. 
 Social manners have been benefited by a general disarma- 
 ment of individuals. So the public tone might be benefited 
 by the disbanding of overgrown armies and the employment 
 of navies in peaceful commerce. The maxim, "In time of 
 peace prepare for war," is transmitted from distant ages, 
 when brute force was tlie general law. It is a dogma of bar- 
 barism, which the searchlight of modern civilization has not 
 yet entirely illumined. But wc are learning by experience 
 that peace begets peace, while growls beget growls, and men- 
 ace begets menace. We can say as jNIr. Disraeli did in 1859: 
 "Let us terminate this disastrous system of rival expenditure, 
 and mutually agree, with no hypocrisy, but in a manner and 
 under circumstances which can admit of no doubt — by a re- 
 duction of armaments — that peace is really our policy." 
 
Introduction — The American Peace Policy. 
 
 25 
 
 Before our country had evolved to a "more perfect union," 
 the Articles of Confederation provided that disputes be- 
 tween States should be determined by commissioners se- 
 lected by the disputants, or by Congress. This was better 
 than for each State to have kept a large army and navy. If 
 nations do not find it expedient to bind themselves to a policy 
 like this, reduction of armaments must nevertheless become 
 more and more the world's policy. Through the ages we 
 have learned to lessen both the occasions and the severities 
 of war. It has been a gradual movement; but the current 
 of history cannot be reversed. The shadow cannot be made 
 to go back on the dial. A sentiment in favor of reduction of 
 armaments has been gradually developing. If England and 
 the United States could disarm upon the lakes after the War 
 of 1812, and if four European nations could make similar 
 provisions, after the Crimean war, respecting armaments upon 
 the Black sea, is it not possible in time of peace to apply the 
 principles of these treaties on a larger scale and provide for 
 a general disarmament in Europe? The political and eco- 
 nomic effect could not ultimately be otherwise than good. 
 Professor Von Hoist says that the European nations will be 
 forced to abandon their expensive armaments in order to 
 keep up with the progress which the United States is making 
 without them. 
 
 The intellects and hearts of the nations are outgrowing 
 the theory that national disputes can only be settled by the 
 sword. The result of the Geneva arbitration has shown that 
 they can be settled otherwise. The law of hate is yielding to 
 the law of love. Every year makes it more apparent among 
 nations that the best interests of all will be served, not by 
 mutual antagonism, but by co-operation and mutual service. 
 The discoveries of the past have gradually revealed the limit- 
 lessness of the world's resources, and demonstrated that all 
 the nations are parts of "one body," and that the foot cannot 
 say to tlic hand, "I have no need of thee." This is the lesson 
 of modern conmierce. Civilization is the accumulated labor 
 of all the world through mutual service and concord, as well 
 
It! l'\ I 
 
 1 ' '.; 
 
 26 
 
 Neutrality of the Avierican Lakes. 
 
 <i 
 
 as the result of struggling interests and passions. The ani- 
 mosities between the various early races in England and be- 
 tween the various provinces in France have died out. The 
 new wine of national life long since broke the old bottles of 
 the feudal system and it passed away. So the broad spirit 
 of the new age is leading men to let their love for mankind 
 extend farther than the few hills or the little water that hap- 
 pens to lie between the tribes of one great family of people. 
 We can love humanity more without loving home and coun- 
 try less. No set of men should get the idea that the world 
 was made for their special benefit. 
 
 The new epoch is here. Each generation profits by 
 the reservoired results of past centuries. Unconquerable 
 time works on unceasingly. There is no rest. What has 
 been, does not always have to be. Past experience is ad- 
 justed to the needs of the present and future. Slowly but 
 surely the nations are being brought nearer to one another. 
 The progress of one reacts for good upon the other. A soli- 
 darity of commercial interests has been created. Thought 
 has been made virtually omnipresent. Submarine telegraphs 
 obviate much bitterness by the prompt contradiction of false 
 reports. Travel has made men more tolerant. The hin- 
 drances and barriers that lay between nations are disappear- 
 ing. Industrial and intellectual and social threads, stronger 
 than the mere paragraphs of treaties, connect all men. No 
 changed condition upon any part of the periphery, but it af- 
 fects all ganglia which regulate national life. No nation 
 lives to itself. More and more the members of the European 
 family of nations are coming to a clear understanding among 
 themselves and about themselves. As they become more 
 and more conscious of their world relations, we can look to 
 the changed spirit of the age rather than to any mechanical 
 device for the maintenance of peace. There will be a victory 
 of the peace-makers over the war-makers. Progress will be 
 more and more accompanied by the absence of duplicity and 
 Machiavellianism in diplomacy, by the "mutual reliance" of 
 neighboring nations, and by the principles of justice and 
 right. 
 
II. 
 
 false 
 
 hin- 
 
 )pear- 
 
 onger 
 
 No 
 
 taf- 
 
 ation 
 
 )pcan 
 
 ong 
 
 lore 
 
 k- to 
 
 iiical 
 
 tory 
 
 Ibe 
 
 and 
 
 "of 
 
 and 
 
 THE NORTHERN LAKE BOUNDARY OF A NEW 
 AMERICAN NATION. 
 
 Conditions Which Led to the Treaty of 1783. 
 
 Some part of the inland waterways which stretch along 
 our northern border was the scene of warlike movement from 
 a time previous to the first discovery of Lake Champlain till 
 the close of the War of 181 2. 
 
 Champlain found the Ilurons fighting the Iroquois. His 
 injudicious interference in their quarrels served afterwards 
 as a factor in extending English influence toward the Great 
 Lakes, and induced the French to push their discoveries 
 along the western part of these waters and into the country 
 drained by the Mississippi and its branches. The French 
 thus obtained control of the fur trade of the upper lake 
 region. But the Iroquois found it profitable to carry beavers 
 of the Northwest to the English at Albany. So they deter- 
 mined to wage war against the Indian tribes of the upper 
 lakes, to seize Mackmaw, and to drive away the French, in 
 order to get this trade into their hands.' But their attempt 
 was unsuccessful. The English, too, had begun to establish 
 posts in the Northwest in the region of Mackinaw, and it be- 
 came evident to the French that the Iroquois were the mere 
 agents of the English. English traders were passing back 
 and forth between Albany and Lake Ontario, and their trade 
 with the Iroquois was increasing. The French in Canada 
 saw that in order to retain a monopoly of the fur trade they 
 must destroy the source of supply to the Iroquois. Thus 
 grew up the question of whether France or England should 
 
 ' Winsor : Narrative and Critical History, Vol. 4. 
 
■ i 
 
 1 
 
 28 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes, 
 
 I' 
 
 control the lakes and the Northwest, and the conflict between 
 the Indian tribes was transferred to two great nations.' 
 
 Soon after the colonization movement west of the moun- 
 tains began, the English were thrown into contact with the 
 French in the region between the Ohio river, the Mississippi 
 river and the Great Lakes. The contemplation of future 
 possibilities was awakening the consciousness of the English 
 people as to the importance of this region and of the Great 
 Lakes. The French had the advantage of first settlement, 
 but Anglo-Saxon determination was invincible in the estab- 
 lishment of new homes beyond the mountain barriers. The 
 last great conflict between France and England in America 
 was at hand. It was a final struggle for supremacy on the 
 new continent. Many of the scenes of that war were upon 
 the lakes. They we* '^ *ound important in war as well as in 
 peace. It was by descending the St. Lawrence from Lake 
 Ontario in 1760 that Amherst rendered it impossible for the 
 French to retire westward from Montreal, and to prolong 
 the war on the shores of the lakes.' Securing control of the 
 lakes was a vast step toward the realization of the victory by 
 which England was given control of all the territory west of 
 the Mississippi and north of the Great Lakes. 
 
 But England achieved the conquest of the Ohio valley not 
 for herself. She was simply the trustee through whom it was 
 transferred "from the France of the ^Middle Ages" to the free 
 people who were n'-alcing for luunanity a new life in America. 
 It was for the liberty-loving colonist that it had been won. 
 He had battled with the forest, and won it for the masses of 
 
 ' In llie debates of the Congress, at Albany, in 1754, it was held 
 that the country of the five cantons of the Iroquois was acknowl- 
 edged by the treaty of Utrecht to be under the dominion of Great 
 Bn'tain, tiiat Lake Champlain, . . . Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and 
 all the countries adjacent had been admitted by all to belong to the 
 Five Nations, and tliat the whole of those countries long before the 
 treaty < f Utrecht had been put under the protection of the crown of 
 Great Britain, for the sake of commerce. 
 
 ■^Varburton : Conquest of Canada, Vol. 2, p. 375. 
 
 i 
 
 ■1 
 
Northern Boundary of a New Natiofi. 
 
 29 
 
 .■% 
 
 .■■>. 
 
 
 Hit 
 
 
 a 
 
 population which were to follow. He had pushed the border 
 westward, so that the possibilities of the future might be seen. 
 He was working out the problem that others had talked 
 about. 
 
 Intercourse with the West and Northwest was now more 
 important than before. The project of an improved water 
 communication between the Hudson and Lake Ontario, by 
 way of natural streams and the carrying places, for the ad- 
 vancement of Indian trade, was discussed. Washington had 
 made observations which caused his mind to appear "ab- 
 sorbed and devoted to the mighty object of forming a navi- 
 gable intercourse with the Western country and the lakes." 
 He thought the fur trade could be drawn toward the Poto- 
 mac' 
 
 But it was not till after the Revolution that these ideas of 
 closer connection with the West were to be realized. 
 
 When the idea of independence from the rule of England 
 had become a part of the consciousness of the people of the 
 United States in 1776 there was no accurately defined limit 
 to the territories of the new nation. The Quebec Act of 1774 
 had declared the country between the Ohio and the Great 
 Lakes to be a part of Canada. The new States had a good 
 reason to claim Western lands; but the land north of the 
 Ohio was de facto a part of Canada. The marching of an 
 army into it was really an invasion of Canada, and this was 
 not favored by the Continental Congress at the beginning of 
 the Revolution.'' After Ethan Allen took the fortified places 
 on the borders of Lake Champlain, and the armed sloops 
 and boats upon its waters, he suggested to the New York 
 Congress that this key should be held, and that "if the colo- 
 nists would push two or three thousand men into Canada 
 they might make a conquest" of it. He spoke of the value of 
 establishments upon the frontier farther north. But the New 
 York Congress had disavowed hostile intentions against 
 
 ' R. Mills : Inland Navigation, p. 7. 
 "Sparks : Life of G. Morris, Vol. i, p. 54. 
 
I i 
 
 80 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 i 
 
 Canada, and it now assured her so by letter. The Conti- 
 nental Congress gave the same assurance. But in less than 
 three months, after the battle of Bunker Hill had helped to 
 ripen the aggressive spirit of the nation, an expedition was 
 ordered against Canada. It might have been a success when 
 Allen wrote, but it proved a failure at the time it was planned. 
 Canada was at first disposed to be neutral, but finally took up 
 the British cause. The clergy were against the American 
 cause. 
 
 But the Americans were more successful in their attempt 
 to conquer the territory between the Ohio and the lakes. 
 Clarke succeeded in the Northwest, whereas Arnold and 
 Montgomery failed in the North. The British were fully 
 awake to the importance of holding the region between the 
 Ohio river and the lakes. After Spain declared war against 
 Great Britain (May 8, 1779), Lord George Germain, Secre- 
 tary for the Colonies, wrote General Haldimand of it, and 
 ordered him to reduce the Spanish posts on the Mississippi.' 
 This was the last concerted action of the British to regain 
 possession of the West, and it failed on account of the activity 
 of the Spaniards under Governor Galvez, and through the 
 energy of Colonel Clarke. If this Western scheme of the Brit- 
 ish had been successful the country north of the Ohio might 
 have remained a part of Quebec. If this had been the con- 
 dition in 1782 it is quite probable that the United States 
 would have been shut out from the lakes and the Mississippi. 
 Thomas Jefferson saw the importance of C ^rke's expedition 
 to the Wabash before it was made, and wrote that if it proved 
 successful it would "have an important bearing ultimately in 
 establishing our Northwestern boundary." America had 
 begun to look forward to her "manifest destiny" in the North 
 and West. France feared this. 
 
 The French always had fears of the American love of con- 
 quest. In 1778, in discussing an attack on Canada, the 
 French ministers discouraged it. Turgot had, as earlv as 
 
 ' Winsor : Narrative and Critical History, Vol. 6. 
 
Northern Boundary of a Nexv Nation. 
 
 81 
 
 Icon- 
 
 the 
 
 v as 
 
 1776, looked for the repossession of Canada by France in 
 case the colonies succeeded. It seems to have been the set- 
 tled policy of the French court from the beginning to prevent 
 the United States from getting Canada. Mr. Alorris saw that 
 France favored Spain by wanting Canada to be held by the 
 British, so the United States would be diverted from Spanish 
 territory, and he said it was useless, for both England and 
 the United States would be hostile to Spain. He thought 
 England w-ould be master of the lakes and a natural friend of 
 the Americans. 
 
 Though Spain rendered valuable service, by helping Clarke 
 to hold the land he had conquered until the treaty was drawn 
 up, she did this through no unselfish motive. In 1779 Spain 
 had wished that the Northwest should be guaranteed to Eng- 
 land.* In her engagement with France to assist in the war 
 against England she had demanded a stipulation that left her 
 free to exact from the United States, as the price of her 
 friendship, a renunciation of every part of the basin of the 
 St. Lawrence and the lakes, of the navigation of the Missis- 
 sippi, and of all the land between that river and the Allegha- 
 nies. Spain thought of laying claim to all the territory west 
 of the mountains and south of the lakes. It was her ambition 
 that induced her to say that the royal proclamation of Octo- 
 ber 8, 1763, kept the United States from having any territo- 
 rial rights west of the AUeghanies. 
 
 Thus, at the close of the Revolution, the basin of the lakes 
 remained British, and Spain had her eye upon the entire 
 region west of the AUeghanies. It took diplomatic skill to 
 extend our limits to the lakes. 
 
 The question of what should be our boundaries had been 
 discussed in Congress at various times before the close of 
 the war. In a report of a committee of Congress, February 
 23, 1779. it was stated that certain articles necessary for 
 safety and independence should be insisted upon. Concern- 
 ing the northern boundary, it proposed "the ancient limits 
 
 ' Bancroft, Vol. 5, p. 325. 
 
if '' 
 
 32 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 of Canada, as contended for by Great Britain, running 
 from Nova Scotia southwesterly, west, and nortlnvcsterly, to 
 Lake Nipissing, thence a west Hne to the Mississippi." On 
 March 19, 1779, Congress agreed to an tiltimatum similar to 
 this line. The line from Lake Nipissing was to run from the 
 south point of the lake to the source of the Mississippi. If 
 the source of the Mississippi had been as far north as the 
 Lake of the Woods, as it was supposed to be. Great Britain 
 would, by this line, have been excluded from all the lakes 
 except Superior. 
 
 In the instructions of Congress, August 14, 1779, to the 
 minister, it was stated that "if the line from Nipissing to the 
 Mississippi cannot be secured without war, you may agree 
 to some other line not south of 45°." John Adams received 
 the appointment as minister September 27, 1779, and went to 
 France, but official influence there was thrown against the 
 initiation of a treaty at that time. His commission was an- 
 nulled by Congress June 15, 1781, and he was appointed one 
 of five conmiissioncrs to negotiate a treaty. This commis- 
 sion was not tied up by absolute directions, and did not 
 always follow such general directions as had been given it, 
 but by wise diplomacy it secured better terms in the treaty 
 than Americans had dared to expect in 1781 at the time of 
 Cornwallis' invasion of Virginia. 
 
 It is not within the scope of this chapter to enter into the 
 interesting details of the many discussions and arguments at 
 Madrid and at Paris, or even to mention all the proposed 
 boundaries. It can only notice the main features. The atti- 
 tude of England was largely influenced by questions relating 
 to Spain and France, and was not clearly defined from the 
 beginning. 
 
 At one time in 1782 there was a strong probability of the 
 cession of all Canada to the United States. In a conversa- 
 tion in April of that year, Franklin and Oswald agreed that 
 occasions for future wars should be removed.' They saw that 
 
 ti* 
 
 ' Wharton : Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, Vol. 5, 
 pp. 540 and 541. 
 
Northern Boundary of a New Nation, 
 
 S3 
 
 
 settlers along the long frontier were constantly furnishing 
 matter for fresh differences. Franklin proposed that it would 
 have a good effect if England would voluntarily offer to give 
 up Canadian provinces on condition of being allowed free 
 trade with them. He thought that if England kept Canada, 
 the United States would have to strengthen her union with 
 France. But popular opinion in England was probably 
 against giving up Canada, and the influence of other events 
 made the ministry more determined to hold this territory. 
 The effort to secure the Ohio as the southern boundary was 
 resisted by both Adams and Jay. At the same time, our 
 ministers could expect better terms from England than they 
 could hope to get from France and Spain, who, it appears, 
 would have ''cooped up" the United States between the Alle- 
 ghanies and the sea if they could have done so. This led to 
 secret communication with the English ministers, contrary 
 to the expectation of Vergennes, the French minister. Ver- 
 gennes had hopes of getting Canada for the French. Lafay- 
 ette wanted it for the United States. 
 
 Although Oswald favored articles which gave the United 
 States control of the lakes, the British ministry would not 
 assent; and when the American ministers proposed either 
 the line of 45° or the line through the lakes,' the British 
 ministers chose the latter. Fortunately for us, their prefer- 
 ence for a water boundary caused them to recognize the 
 Great Lakes as our northern frontier. Doubtless, <^he British 
 ministry saw that there was danger of Spain's getting the 
 territory south of the lakes, and preferred to let the United 
 States have it. Perhaps neither England nor Spain regarded 
 the Treaty of Paris as final. It is not improbable that the war 
 of 1812 revived English hopes of recovering the control of 
 the lakes and the region south of them. The refusal of Eng- 
 land to surrender the posts which she held south of the lakes 
 at the close of the war shows the reluctance with which she 
 agreed to the boundaries. 
 
 ' 6 Sparks' Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, Nov. 6, 
 1782. 
 3 
 
84 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 Tlicre were English who beheved that the "Northwest 
 Territory should never have been ceded to the United 
 States." One writer said the cession was due to Oswald's 
 ignorance of geography. In fact, for several years before 
 Jay's treaty, merchants of Montreal tried to get a new line of 
 boundary. Various changes in the hoi:nwary were proposed, 
 and it was not until the Treaty of Ghent that the boundary 
 through the lakes and the destiny of the Northwest were 
 assured. 
 
 From pre-historic times water boundaries have been fav- 
 orite division lines between tribes and nations. While high 
 mountains have been a natural boimdary, mere heights of 
 land have not, as a rule, been considered better than rivers. 
 Even such an unstable boundar>- as the Rio Grande, which 
 is constantly annexing Mexican territory to Texas, or Texan 
 territory to Mexico, seems preferable to one of a purely 
 imaginary character. 
 
 The St. Lawrence and the lakes formed a natural boundary 
 so far as they extended. The difference in sentiment that 
 prevailed along the northeastern frontier south of the St. 
 Lawrence prevented the fixing of that river as the bovuidary 
 for its entire length, though there are commercial and other 
 reasons which might have favored it. 
 
 It would have been to the immediate financial advantage 
 of the British to hold the posts at Michilimackinac, Niagara 
 and Oswego; a neutral zone of Indian lands south of the 
 lakes would also have benefited the British as well as the 
 Indians, but such a zone could not have been held forever 
 from the advancing hosts of civilization. It is useless to 
 ignore facts. The strong hand of the free white settler would 
 ultimately have obtained the Indian's land for cultivation. 
 And as the Indian was pushed westward, the original pur- 
 pose of the British posts would have ended, and the increasing 
 population south of the lakes would have made it necessary 
 for the British to withdraw their pretensions to control the 
 use of the lakes. 
 
 ^ 
 
Northern Boundary of a Nciv Nation. 
 
 36 
 
 )rever 
 
 ;ss to 
 
 kvould 
 
 [ation. 
 
 pur- 
 
 fasing 
 
 ^ssary 
 
 )1 the 
 
 In 1783 Cinada was not considered to be very desirable 
 territory. Settlements in Upper Canada were very sparse. 
 It is perhaps not profitable to conjecture to what extent the 
 subsequent events of American history would have been 
 changed if a part of Canada had been ceded to the United 
 States. It is hard to prove what might have been the course of 
 historical events. 
 
 There was some objection to the boundary through the 
 middle of the lakes on the ground that it could not be well 
 defined, but conditions which have since arisen have tended 
 to confirm the belief of the fathers that it was better than a 
 line through a semi-wilderness. From a commercial and 
 international standpoint the lakes have proven more and 
 more to be the most logical solution of the boundary that 
 could have been made. 
 
t 
 
 III. 
 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONTROL OF THE 
 LAKES— 1 783- 1 815. 
 
 "The Great Lakes which stretch along your borders have Ijeen 
 the scenes of desperate conflicts ; and even now, as the traveler 
 procti'ds II]) Lake I'rie, he points to its western islands as the Greek 
 patriot points to Salamis ; to the place where the lamented Perry 
 gained his victory with Sjiartan coiiraj;e, and made his report with 
 Spartan brevity. There no monument can be erected. . . . The 
 waves roll, and will roll over it ; but whoever passes by with no 
 kindling emotion ... let him distrust his own heart, and let his 
 country distrust him." — General Cass, in an address be/ore the 
 alumni 0/ IlainiHon College, /S30. 
 
 Gouvcrnctir AIorri.s, in 1778, when he said that England 
 would have control of the lakes, did not read the ftitiire as 
 well as he had read it upon the question of internal navi- 
 gation. Rut even after the Treaty of 1783 had settled their 
 destiny on paper the course of events made it appear neces- 
 sary that these lakes become the scenes of desperate conflicts 
 before England would loosen her grasp upon their south- 
 ern shores and become content to rest in peace on the 
 opposite side. No American flag was yet floating upon this 
 vast expanse of waters when national feeling had set the gov- 
 ernment to work under a written constitution. But in 1796, 
 on board a small schooner of seventy tons, on Lake Erie, it 
 was first raised. On June 12, 1798, Congress passed an act 
 "For the construction and repair of certain vessels on the 
 lakes, in the service of the government,'" and in 1802 the first 
 government vessel was launched there. 
 
 The importance of the lakes had been seen from the first, 
 and there was no intention of allowing our interest in them 
 
 ' Statutes, Vol. i. p. 564. 
 
 -Jt: 
 
 I 
 
 -:* 
 
Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 9t 
 
 to lapse. As early as 1784 Washington had urged that Con- 
 gress should have the Western waters explored and their 
 c^iacities for navij^ation ascertained as far as the communi- 
 catsons between Lake Erie and the Wabash, and also be- 
 tween Lake Michigan and the Mississippi. He saw that the 
 sjyirrt of emigration was abroad in the land, and that the lakes 
 wooM bear a close relation to the development of the North- 
 vn-fit The excellence of the interior country in the region of 
 t!he Lakes was becoming better known, and people were be- 
 gimining to write of the possibilities of the lakes and of inland 
 naii-i^ation. Jefferson urged the necessity of connecting the 
 Potoiinac with the lakes. 
 
 The increasing importance of the Northwest did not dim- 
 inish the tendency to friction in that region. The British did 
 not give up the posts south of the lakes. The Treaty of Paris 
 had *<carcely been made when the British began to accuse the 
 Americans of breaking it. On the other hand, many Ameri- 
 cans believed that it had never been the intention of Great 
 Britain to surrender the posts and give up the trade of the 
 lakes. It was desired to retain this commerce. John Tyler, 
 of Richmond, wrote to Monroe in 1784 that "their policy 
 is noiw to negotiate for this object by ceding the point of 
 connpensation and sterling debts.'" 
 
 In Jnly, 1783, Haldiman had refused to surrender the posts 
 to Baron Steuben, and for thirteen years the British flag 
 flootefi on American soil. The retention of the frontier posts 
 had more than a sentimental effect. It was important from 
 am economic standpoint. British officers levied duties on 
 American vessels passing the posts. Traders and boatmen 
 were Icep-t in a constant state of irritation. To the American 
 fur-trader it meant a loss of much trade. To the Western 
 Indians it gave hope that they would be allowed to hold the 
 land north of the Ohio river. 
 
 Traders and refugees in Canada complained that there was 
 danger of the Americans getting control of the fur trade. At 
 
 ' Monroe Papers, Vol. 7, p. 463. 
 
88 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 this time it seems that the EngHsh Government did not allow 
 private vessels to navigate the lakes, and there were many 
 complaints that there were not enough of the King's vessels 
 to meet the needs of trade. There were petitions for private 
 vessels, but the government would not allow them.' An 
 attempt was made to "persuade the King and ministry to 
 build a fleet of nrmed ships upon the lakes, and to negotiate 
 with all the Indian nations, in order to attach them to their 
 side."'^ 
 
 Some people favored an alliance with England, in order to 
 get better trade advantages. Kentucky had separated from 
 Virginia in order to form a new State, and its citizens even 
 thought of separation from the rest of the nation and alli- 
 ance with England. 
 
 Affairs had not improved in 1791, when Jefferson Jrew 
 the attention of the American representative at London to 
 the fact that the British still held many posts along the lakes, 
 that British officers had tried I " exercise jurisdiction in the 
 vicinity of the forts, and that they had excluded American 
 citizens from the navigation of the American side of the lakes 
 and rivers forming the boundary, and had thus seriously 
 interrupted their fur trade. England had sent no minister to 
 the United States till 1791. Hammond, who was sent in that 
 year, claimed that the Americans had never fulfilled their 
 part of the treaty in regard to debts. He and Jefferson car- 
 ried on a long correspondence in regard to the subjects of 
 misunderstanding, but no settlement of difificulties was 
 reached. 
 
 New dangers arose. In 1793 there was talk of Western 
 New York joining Canada if the people there could not get 
 the right to form a new State. War between France and 
 England threatened to be a source of much trouble to the 
 American nation. The treaty of 1778 had placed the United 
 
 
 'Canadian Archives, Series 2, Vol. 25, pp. iii, 118, 128, 298. 
 Report of 1891. 
 ^4 Sparks" 13ip. Cor., p. 467. (Adams to Jay, Dec. 1785.) 
 
Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 89 
 
 5tern 
 get 
 and 
 the 
 
 lited 
 
 1298. 
 
 '^ 
 
 States under obligations to France. The subsequent con- 
 vention of 1788 gave a jurisdiction to French consuls which 
 was embarrassing to the United States as a neutral. The 
 government was firm in declaring a neutral policy, but public 
 sympathy, especially in the South, was with France. Both 
 England and France issued decrees for the seizure of vessels 
 carrying provisions to an enemy's port (1793). 
 
 On April 24, 1794, the Republicans in Congress moved to 
 discontinue conmiercial relations with England until the lake 
 posts were given up. This led Washington to send Jay to 
 London to negotiate a treaty, with instructions not to sur- 
 render upon any consideration any of the posts on any part 
 of American territory. 
 
 A few days after Jay's departure for England considerable 
 alarm was aroused by the report "that Governor Simcoe had 
 marched to the rapids of the Miami lake with three com- 
 panies of Colonel England's regiment to build a fort there."* 
 The American Government was in doubt as to whether Sim- 
 coe's movement was a part of a systematic attempt to regain 
 territory, but it was certain as to its own policy. It would 
 not surrender its territory to the British, although the danger 
 of war was clearly seen." Washington was convinced that as 
 long as the British retained Detroit and other posts within 
 the limits of the United States, a condition of perfect tran- 
 quillity with the Indians could not be secured. 
 
 In October, 1794, Simcoe told the Indians at Fort M'ami 
 that he was going to Quebec and that the English would be 
 prepared to attack the Americans and drive them back across 
 the Ohio the following spring. But in the absence of the 
 British, the Indians met Wayne at Greenville, Ohio", on Aug- 
 ust 3, 1795, and made large grants of territory to the United 
 States. 
 
 The authorities in Canada at this time were considering 
 the importance of the naval force for the defense of Canada. 
 
 ' 2 Instructions, May 27, 1794. 
 '^2 histructions, May 27, 1794. 
 
 (Randolph to Jay.) 
 
40 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 It was recommended that in case of hostilities the militia 
 should be liable to serve on the lakes as well as on the shore/ 
 
 By Jay's treaty, signed November 19, 1794, it was agreed 
 that the English troops were to withdraw from all the terri- 
 tories in the United States on June i, 1796. There were 
 other advantageous provisions, but the treaty met with 
 much opposition in the United States. Some of the people 
 were so impracticable as to advocate a prevention of trade 
 with the Northern neighbors.' They would have nourished 
 violent enmity rather than have friendly intercourse, and 
 would have kept the vessels of each party from crossing the 
 middle line of the lakes.' 
 
 There was a strong feeling that there was a want of reci- 
 procity in the provisions regarding the navigation of the 
 lakes. "Columbus," of Virginia, said the United State? 
 should have had egress and ingress from the lakes to the At- 
 lantic, else her goods must go in British ships and give Great 
 Britain a monopoly on the lakes. He also said that the im- 
 portation of arms and warlike stores should have been pro- 
 hibited by way of the lakes. The people of Richmond 
 county, Virginia, objected to the clause which allowed Brit- 
 ish subjects to remain at the Western trading posts, and said 
 it was an "actual cession of the key of the lakes to the Crown 
 of England," and the "establishment of the British Empire 
 in the bosom of the Union." 
 
 In 1795 an effort was made to prevent appropriations for 
 the carrying out of the treaty. Only the popularity of Wash- 
 ington saved the country from repudiation and war with 
 England. 
 
 War was averted, and our commerce grew. Relations 
 grew better with England as they grew worse with France. 
 
 ' Report of Canadian Archives, 1S91. State Papers, Upper Can- 
 ada, p. 30. 
 
 ^American R^imembrancer, Vols, i, 2 and 3. Also, Madison 
 Papers, \ ol. 5. 
 
 =' rTreedom of commerce and navi,i;ation in tlie waters of both 
 countries was granted to the inhabitants of each, subject to local 
 laws and regulations. 
 
Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 41 
 
 Can- 
 
 For awhile Pitt hoped to get the United States as an ally 
 against France. This, of course, was not the American 
 policy. Washington desired to avoid "entangling alliances" 
 as well as antipathies. But even Jefferson, the leader of the 
 Republicans, spoke in favor of alliance against France in 
 April, 1802, when he was considering the recent cession of 
 Louisiana by Spain to France. lie wrote: "The day France 
 takes possession of New Orleans fixes the sentence which is 
 to restrain her forever within her low-water mark. It seals 
 the union of two nations, who, in conjunction, can maintain 
 exclusive possession of the ocean. From that moment we 
 must marry the British fleet and nation." There was no 
 desire to see Xapolcon set a foothold in America. 
 
 But with the news of fresh convulsions in Europe, and with 
 the purchase of Louisiana by the United States, the attitude 
 toward England became less cordial. The new British min- 
 ister, Anthony Merry, and his wife, who came to Washing- 
 ton the latter part of 1803, adopted a grumbling tone, which 
 increased the coolness. They were dissatisfied with the 
 inconveniences of travel and life in the new country, and 
 found fault with Jefferson's table etiquette and ideas of 
 equality. Airs. Merry felt that Jefferson did not pay her 
 enough attention. She thought that Jerome Bonaparte and 
 wife were treated better than herself. Social complaints were 
 complicated by other matters. Madison insisted upon neu- 
 tral rights. Rufus King's boundary convention between the 
 Lake of the Woods and the Alississippi was not ratified. The 
 Federalists encouraged the trouble with Merry. In Febru- 
 ary, 1804, he was taken into a plot for a New England con- 
 federacy. He was also drawn into Burr's schemes for the 
 separation of the Western territory. Merry's letter sent to 
 the Foreign Office caused his recall after Pitt's death, and 
 England was not drawri into the Burr conspiracy, but mat- 
 ters had been drifting to a position which looked like war 
 with England. 
 
 England and France, in adopting a campaign of starva- 
 tion in their war against each other, greatly embarrassed 
 
42 
 
 Neutrality of the Ameriean Lakes. 
 
 American commerce. The Order in Council of May, 1806, 
 declared a blockade of the coast of Europe from Brest to the 
 Elbe. Napoleon's Berlin Decree of November, 1806, de- 
 clared a blockade of the British Isles, and prohibited com- 
 mercial relations with them. Great Britain wanted the 
 United States to resist the Berlin Decree, but the United 
 States Government complained that the new treaty which 
 was proposed to take the place of Jay's treaty was unfavor- 
 able to the United States. In January and November, 1807, 
 Great Britain issued new Orders in Council to prevent neu- 
 trals from tradinf^ with France. ^ apoleon, in December, 
 issued his Milan Decree, making it legal to seize any ship in 
 ports under his control if it had attempted to obey the 
 English orders. These acts were a severe blow to American 
 commerce. In addition to the above orders, the British had 
 claimed the right to search American ships for deserters and 
 to impress all whom they should decide to owe allegiance to 
 Great Britain. Jefferson was finally led to a policy of com- 
 mercial restriction in order to prevent war. 
 
 In 1808 relations were much strained. General Hull sug- 
 gested to the administration the expediency of placing 
 armed vessels on Lake Erie in order to protect the communi- 
 cation with the Northwest Territory. The Jay treaty had 
 not prevented subsequent sources of irritation upon the lake 
 frontier. It seems that the revenue officers of the United 
 States had from time to time "attempted to exact duties 
 upon goods crossing the portages." The Canadian traders 
 resisted such duties on the ground that the Jay treaty gave 
 them freedom of commerce and intercourse. It was also 
 claimed that the situation of American ports of entry on the 
 boundary lakes and rivers, and the nature of the navigation^ 
 made it difficult to observe rigidly the regulations which 
 were applicable to Atlantic ports, and that all impediments to 
 trade should be avoided. It seems that in some cases Cana- 
 dian vessels had been seized because of their too great prox- 
 imity to particular ports or shores, though the claim was set 
 up that there had been no intention of infringing the revenue 
 
 W 
 
Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 48 
 
 laws of the United States. The necessity of securinj:^ the 
 "netitraHty of the lakes and waters" in order to prevent this 
 restriction on trade was urged several years later/ The 
 British traders \vere using every efifort to retain the control 
 of the lake trade, but the events of the next four years were 
 to lessen their influence and give Americans an opportunity 
 to obtain supremacy upon the inland waters. In 1808, Mr. 
 Canning complained to the United States minister that an 
 attack had been made upon some British boats on the lakes, 
 in violation of tiie treaty of 1794, and was causing great 
 alarm and anxiety among the British traders.' The vex- 
 atious English Orders in Council were not repealed, and the 
 seizure of American vessels upon the seas was not discon- 
 tinued. England's policy in her war with France was lead- 
 ing her into a second war with the United States. Affairs 
 were complicated by the attitude taken by Mr. Jackson, the 
 British Minister at Washington, in regard to social and 
 diplomatic relations. Unhappily, also, the elections for Con- 
 gress took place during a whirlwind of passion. Finally, the 
 Indian troubles in 181 1 aroused the hardy men of the fron- 
 tier, who believed that the attitude of the savage was due to 
 the influence of the British. 
 
 The fiery speeches of fascinating leaders, and the slowness 
 of the British Government in repealing the Orders in Coun- 
 cil, forced the administration at Washington into what has 
 since been called an "unnecessary and unwise war." Though 
 this war was begun in order to secure American rights upon 
 the ocean, the lake frontier was the principal theatre of mili- 
 tary operations, and one of the most important struggles in 
 the negotiations for peace was to secure American rights 
 upon the lakes and the adjacent southern shores. 
 
 At the beginning of the war the importance of securing 
 conmiand of the lakes became at once evident. The first 
 
 ' Pamphleteer, Vol. 6, pp. 35, 43, etc. (Nalliatiiel Atchesoii on 
 "American Encroachments.") 
 '^ Am. State Papers, Vol. 3, p. 226. (Pinckney to Madison.) 
 
■•f* 
 
 44 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 plan of the Americans was to cut the British off from the 
 West by an invasion of Canada from Detroit. The idea was 
 to get rontiol of the lakes. Hull had opposed the invasion 
 of C;, ' iust then, as it was too strong to be overcome by 
 A:"n '.i ^^'-ces and was likely to be aggressive in return. 
 Dui',1^ .h • winter of 1811-12 Hull had been at Washington, 
 and believed that the war could be avoided. When the in- 
 vasi )n 01 ""ana''' ts being discussed he had favored placing 
 a force at Detroit icr iT-Dtection, but he did not favor making 
 this a part of the plan for getting control of the lakes. He 
 believed that with Detroit protected the Indians could be 
 kept from Alalden, and that the British, unable to hold Can- 
 ada without them, would leave it. and that the command of 
 the lakes would be obtained without a fleet. But the sur- 
 render of Mackinaw in July, and of Hull at Detroit in Aug- 
 ust, left the British in conunand of the lakes and the North- 
 west, together with a greater influence among the Indians. 
 
 When the war began the United States had no naval force 
 on the lakes. The British had the advantage in this resi)ect. 
 As early as October 8, 18 12, however, the British armed ves- 
 sels, the Detroit^ and tlie Caledonia, \vere captured by Lieut. 
 Jesse D. Elliot." Even as early as July ist Captain Woolsey 
 had requested twenty six-pounders with which to arm such 
 vessels of commerce as could be found upon Lake Ontario. 
 This request had been referred to the navy by Captain 
 Chauncey. On (October 12th General Armstrong wrote to 
 Secretary Gallatin that it was not yet too late to accomplish 
 Woolsey's object, which would not only be important in giv- 
 ing "exclusive and uninterrupted use of the lakes for public 
 purposes," but would also "effectually separate Upper Can- 
 ada from Lower Canada.'" 
 
 ' The bagi^ajje of Gen. Hull and family was on the Detroit. It had 
 taken Hull's family part of the way. Hull himself had been furnished 
 with passage across the lake by a Uritish armed vessel detailed on 
 purpose — a courtesy creditable to both parties. 
 
 ' It appears that Britisli commercial vessels were captured on Lake 
 Ontario even before the war commenced. (16 Domestic Letters, 
 p. 27.S.) 
 
 ■''Armstrong : Notices i>f the War of 1.S12, \'ol. i, p. 177. 
 
■'rmm 
 
 Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 45 
 
 The expectation of getting conimand of the lakes by the 
 invasion of Canada having been disappointed by the surren- 
 "der of General Hull at Detroit, measures were now taken by 
 the United Elates Government to get control of these inland 
 seas by providing upon thcni a naval force superior to that 
 of the enemy.' There was no doubt about the quantity of 
 water being sufificient to float the largest ships. The storm 
 waves upon these watery depths might challenge those of 
 the great ocean. The difficulty came in getting vessels ready 
 to float. It was no easy matter to create a navy upon these 
 inland waters. They were inaccessible < > vessels from the 
 sea, and there were no large shipbuilding plants upon their 
 borders as there are now. Settlements were sparse upon the 
 south shores of the lakes, and most supplies had to be 
 brought from the seaboard at great expense. 
 
 The difficulties were probably greater for the British than 
 for the Americans.^ I'resident Madison was confident of 
 ultimate success in driving the British traders out and get- 
 ting control of the lakes. In his message to Congress on 
 November 4th he said: "Should the present season not ad- 
 mit of complete success, the progress made will ensure for 
 the next a naval ascendency, where it is essential to our ncr- 
 manent peace with, and control over, the savages." 
 
 It is hard to say who first proposed a naval armament 
 upon the lakes. It has been attributed to General Harrison 
 by Mr. I'rofit, of Indiana. The posts which General Harri- 
 son had to recover in 181 2- 13 were separated from the fron- 
 tier settlements by a swampy forest for 200 miles. The Brit- 
 isli, just after the fall of Detroit, commanded Lake Erie with 
 their fleet. It occurred to Harrison that the best plan was to 
 build a fleet on the lake to co-operate with the forces on the 
 land.' The same idea mav have occurred to others also. 
 
 '.Am. State Papers, Foreij^n Relations, Vol. i, p. 80. Madison's 
 Mc'ssaj^e of November 4, iSi 2. 
 
 -James: Naval Occurrences, p. 2S5. 
 
 ■' Hildretli : Life of Harrison, p. 130. Also, Har. ison's Corres- 
 pondence witli tiie War Department. 
 

 \ i. 
 
 46 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 General Armstrong called attention to the fact that the whole 
 extent of Canada's defense rested upon navigable lakes and 
 rivers, and wrote that no time should be lost in getting naval 
 ascendency on both, "for the belligerent who is first to obtain 
 this advantage will, (miracles excepted), win the game." But 
 Armstrong at first, probably, did not have in view the crea- 
 tion of a navy outside of the "commercial craft." General 
 Harrison's plan was quite in harmony with the view of Arm- 
 strong.' On April 4, 1813, the latter wrote Harrison: "Our 
 first object is to get command of the lakes. It can be done 
 by June ist. This is your easy, safe and economical route to 
 Maiden." These were also the views of the Government at 
 Washington. In addition to the vessels that had already 
 been equipped, Congress, by Act of March 3, 1813,' author- 
 ized the President "to have built or procured such a number 
 of sloops of war, or other armed vessels, to be manned, 
 equipped and commissioned, as the public service may re- 
 quire, on the lakes." 
 
 In his message of May 25, 1813, Wx. Madison was able to 
 say, "On the lakes our superiority is near at hand where it 
 has not already been established."' 
 
 By August, 1813, when Perry's fleet won the brilliant vic- 
 tory on Lake Erie, the Americans had gained such a start of 
 England upon the lakes as England was never aljle to over- 
 come. Mr. James, in his "Naval Occurrences," attributes 
 this American success to the greater difficulties of equipping 
 British vessels "3500 miles from home, penned up in a lake 
 on the enemies' border, inaccessible to water." 
 
 The continued success of the Americans upon these boun- 
 dary waters enabled them to ask conditions which would be 
 more favorable to peace in that region at the close of the war. 
 
 Jay's Treaty of 1794 allowed British subjects "to navigate 
 all the lakes, rivers and waters of the United States up to the 
 
 'Armstrong : War of 1812, Vol. i, p. 245. 
 '■'U. S. Slats, at Large, Vol. 2, p. S21. 
 •'Am. Stale Papers, For. Rol., Vol. 1, p. S;,. 
 
•i» 
 
 Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 47 
 
 lake 
 
 highest ports of entry," and permitted the British traders 
 from Canada and the Northwest Company to carry on trade 
 with the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States. 
 It had become evident that the inOnence of these traders 
 upon the Indians was against the interests of the inhabitants 
 of the Northwest. From the beginning of the war it was the 
 object to stop this trade. This was the purpose of the inva- 
 sion of Canada to the east of Detroit.' The idea of conquest 
 was not planned except to the extent necessary for protec- 
 tion.'' It was considered that the possession of West Canada 
 was necessary to our peace. ^ Another idea of the United 
 States Ciovcrnment in conquest was to get territory which 
 could be returned to England in return for the privilege of 
 excluding British traders from American territory, and of 
 keeping superior naval forces on the lakes by which they 
 could prevent British traders from navigating the lakes and 
 rivers exclusively within American jurisdiction. 
 
 It was not conquest simply for the sake of conquest. It 
 looked forward to security. Jefferson wrote to IMonroe, 
 June 19, 1813: "What we do in Canada must be done 
 quickly, because our enemy, with a little time, can empty 
 pickpockets upon us faster than we can enlist honest men to 
 oppose them if we fail in this acquisition. . . . Could we 
 acquire that country [Canada] we might, perhaps, insis' suc- 
 cessfully at St. Petersburg on retaining all westward of the 
 meridian of Lake Huron, or Lake Ontario, or of Montreal, 
 according to the ... of the place, as an indemnification of 
 the past and security for the future. To cut them ofT from 
 the Indians, even west of the Huron, would be a great se- 
 curity."* On June 23, 1813, when the land and naval forces 
 
 ' Monroe Papers. Vol. 13. (No. 1696, Jefferson to Monroe, June 
 19, 1813.) 
 
 '-'Clay's idea of coneinest in 1S12, however, was not tlius limited. 
 He was not for stopping at (Juebec or anywhere else, and did not 
 want to see peace till tiie whole continent was taken. 
 
 '7 Instrnctions, April 15 and June 23, 1813. 
 
 * Monroe Papers, Vol. 13. 
 
48 
 
 Neutralilv of the American Lakes. 
 
 of the United States had taken York and Forts George and 
 Erie, and there was a good pnjspeet of getting all Upper 
 Canada. Monroe wrote Gallatin, Adams and Bayard that 
 while sueh success would have a salutary influence on nego- 
 tiations for peace, it was not intended to continue the war 
 rather than restore Canada, even though England should 
 have no equivalent restitution to make to the United States.' 
 It was expected, however, that England would be more just 
 upon other points to be adjusted. 
 
 We may say that there was a strong feeling that peace 
 could not be preserved while the British retained their influ- 
 ence in the Northwest.' Monroo.on January 1. 1814, wrote the 
 ambassadors that the capture of the documents with Proc- 
 ter's baggage showed the Indian trouble to be due to British 
 influence, and that this fact would give great support, in case 
 of negotiation, to the considerations in favor of the cession 
 of Canada to the United States, or, at least, that portion lying 
 between the western end of Lake Ontario and the eastern 
 end of Lake Ilunjn. By January 28, 1814, ?^Ionroe had 
 given the question further study, and wrote that "experience 
 has shown that Great Britain cannot participate in the do- 
 minion and navigation of the lakes without incurring the 
 danger of an early renewal of the war.'" He saw that it was 
 by means of the lakes that the British had gained an ascend- 
 ency over the Indians, even within the limits of the United 
 States. Monroe not only feared the continuation of mas- 
 sacres along the frontier, as likely to be a fruitful source of 
 controversy, but he saw that the rapid settling of the country 
 would increase the tendency to collision between the two 
 sides. He did not doubt that western emigrants would 
 soon push the western limit of settlement from the south- 
 western limit of Lake Erie until they reached "the banks of 
 the ]\Iichigan and even of the other lakes," and he feared the 
 "cupidity of the British traders" could not be controlled. He 
 
 ' 7 Instructions, p. 299. '7 Instructions, p. 308. 
 
 '7 Instructions, p. 315. 
 
Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 49 
 
 urged in favor of cession that the inevitable consequence of 
 anotiicr war, and even of the present if persevered in by the 
 British (Government, would be to sever the western prov- ' 
 inces by force from Great Britain, and that the inhabitants 
 of the provinces would soon feel their strength and assert 
 their independence anyhow. In case no cession could be 
 obtained, the exclusion of British traders from our side of 
 the lakes, and the increase of our naval force on the lakes, 
 was the remaining remedy. 
 
 Writers in England, on the contrary, were proposing a 
 boundary farther south than the lakes. Nathaniel Atcheson, 
 in an article of March 2, 1814, on "Points to be discussed in 
 treating with the United States,'" said that the great feature 
 of the new line should be "exclusion of the Americans from 
 navigation of the St. Lawrence, and all the congregation of 
 tributary seas and waters. They are the natural patrimony 
 of the Canadas. Water communications do not ofTer either 
 a natural or secure boundary. Mountains separate, but rivers 
 approximate mankind." "Hence," said he, "the prominent 
 boundary should be the heights of land separating the re- 
 spective territories."" This would have given to England 
 Lake Champlain, all of the Great Lakes and a considerable 
 amount of territory south of the lakes. In case this line could 
 not be obtained, but a line through Lake Ontario and Lake 
 Huron should be agreed upon instead, Mr. Atcheson held 
 that "at all events the line should pass from Lake Erie up the 
 Sandusky river to the nearest waters of the Ohio, and then 
 down the Mississippi." In the latter case he would have had 
 it stipulated that "no vessel belonging to the Americans ex- 
 ceeding a certain burden, twenty or thirty tons, which is a 
 size adequate to the trade of those regions, should be suffered 
 to navigate any of the lakes," and that no fortifications should 
 
 ' Pamplileteer. Vol. 5, No. 9, Feb., 1815. 
 
 ■-' Maniiiis Welksley, in a speech before the House of Lords, on 
 April 13, 1.S15, saitl the war with A^ jrii:a was a calainilous one, and 
 shcjiild have been stopped as soon as possible, without any demands 
 for territory south of the lakes. {American Register, Vol. i.) 
 
60 
 
 Neutrality of tlw American Lakes. 
 
 A 
 
 be tTfoU'd upon any of the waters connected with the hikes, 
 "vvliilst the right of the British in these respects should be 
 reserved to be exercised withont restriction." 
 
 Tn the meantinu', the Knj^Hsh were losing' nif)ro and more 
 their control of the lakes. Since Lake ICric had been won, 
 the shores (jf tiic more western lakes were bein}^ scoured to 
 prevent the P.ritish from openinj^f intercourse with the In- 
 dians. Vessels were being built' upon Lakes Ontario and 
 Champlain in the spring of 1814, and it appeared evident that 
 the liritish would s()(jn be shut out from tlie W'cstcrn lakes 
 and posts, thus putting an end to further naval expenditure 
 on Lake Ontario, and practically giving the United States 
 possession of a great j)art of L.'pper Canada. Cleneral Arm- 
 strong felt that it would be easy then to gain Montreal and 
 bring the war to a speedy and favorable termination. 
 
 On June 23, 1814, Monroe was still urging the advantages 
 to both countries of a transfer of the upper parts of Canada 
 to the United Slates.' 
 
 Castlereagh having (tffered to oi)en negotiations direct 
 with the representatives of the United States Government, 
 commissioners had been appointed by President .Madison at 
 once, 'riu-se connnissioners were ready to negotiate in 
 June, but Castlereagh, it was said, wished delay so that P.rit- 
 ish troops could occupy territory along the lakes which they 
 intended to hold. 
 
 When the 1 British commissioners met the United States 
 conmiissioners at Ghent, in August, they soon dispelled any 
 hopes which may have been held regarding cessi(jn of Cana- 
 dian territory to the United States.' They made the "mod- 
 erate" proposal that Great Britain, being the weaker power 
 on the North American continent, should have military occu- 
 pation of the lakes, in order to prevent the conquest of her 
 dominions by the Americans.* 
 
 ' Slats. 3, p. !.V9. Art of April iS, 181.}. 
 
 '^7 Instructions, \>\). 297 and 361. 
 
 ■'Am. State Papi-TS, l<'or. Kel., Vol. 3, p. 709. 
 
 ^ "America," Vol. 129. Also, see Letters and Despatclies of Castle- 
 reagh, Vol. 2, 3rd Series. Marcjuis Wellesley said that the groimd of 
 weakness should not nave been urged. 
 
StrufrgU for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 61 
 
 At lifSt. they were also dctcrmiiud to secure for the In- 
 dians a itrip of territory south of the lakes. This was not so 
 much in recognition of the riphts of their copper-ctjlorod 
 
 brelhrt-n, a.'* human bcitifj^s, to he included in the ])rovisions 
 of puUk Eavv : it was ratlier an attempt to secure a "barrier 
 afjainfl Anretrican aggression" upon Canada. This barrier 
 would have fjcen formed by cutting olT from Ohio and the 
 terrii'irie* <r.t the Xorthwest a country more extensive than 
 Great Jiriitain and containing thousands of freemen. 
 
 liut the American conmiissioners could not accede to 
 either of the«e propositions. They denied the right of Eng- 
 land to jnterfere in the concerns of the Indians residing in 
 the Uniu-ifl States, and did not propose to give up their ecpial 
 right \fj \h*z lakes. They wished for peace upon those terms 
 of recjpr'xity honorable tcj both countries. They sent this 
 reply on Augiiist 24, 1814. At that time it seemed that nego- 
 tiations wonild come to an end. Clay wrote that "reliance 
 will Ix- miich better on the firmness and energy of the Ameri- 
 can pt^4ile to conquer again their independence.'" Adams 
 wrote in \m diarv' that they had decided it would not be nec- 
 essary lo rent their house for another month. The British 
 commisfjifjuicrs, after writing a reply, sent it to Lord Castle- 
 reagh at Paris, and he promptly took the pains to submit it 
 to the goivcnniment at London.'' 
 
 Adams, on September i, called to see Mrs. Goulburn. the 
 wife of one of the British commissioners, but saw only her 
 husband, whose conversation was not such as could have 
 
 :!astle- 
 biiul of 
 
 ' Monroe Papers, Vol. 14, August 19. 
 
 ^ Caslltitajf&t was mox^. favor.ihly disposed toward tlie United 
 Slates liiaaj flr«re any of the <jtlier members of the ministry. C(iming 
 from Franc*,, aruE having had intercourse with Emperor Ale.xander, 
 it is nr>t unpTffjfc'ible th.it these dispositions may have l)een increased 
 by the persomial e.xpression o( the Emperor's wisliei in favor of 
 peace wilJi Amaeirka. On his route to Paris, the latter part of August, 
 he had si: '■• ' •'ihent. He tlid not see the American ministers, 
 but on A . -•; he wrote from I'aris to Lord Liverpool that it 
 would bfc V. -; ' state the preposition as to Indian limits less per- 
 emptorily, " 
 
i 
 
 ■ 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 '1 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 'f ■ 
 
 ■ t 
 
 . t 
 
 lis 
 
 52 
 
 Nentralily of the American Lakes. 
 
 made Adams hope for further negotiations.' He stated that 
 both the proposed Indian territory and tlie English control 
 of the lakes had for tiieir main purpose the security of Can- 
 ada. Concerning the proposed Indian barrier, upon which 
 neither party should encroach, Adams said that the United 
 States could not be kept from settling and cultivating" lands 
 which the Indians did not improve. It was clear that the 
 United States was standing upon good grounds, and she did 
 not propose to retire into the background. She could not 
 with honor have given the Indians the frontier, any more 
 than she could have given England control of the lakes. The 
 onward march of settlement coidd not have been stayed by a 
 bond of paper. Though the stroke of a pen hail once given 
 England half a continent, it could not insure the wilderness 
 of the Northwest to the Indian and to the British trader. 
 
 During these negotiations the American forces were not 
 idle on the northern frontier. On September 20, President 
 Madison was able to say: "On the lakes, so much contested 
 throughout the war, the great exertions made for the com- 
 mand, on our part, have been well repaid." ' A part of the 
 Lake Erie squadron had been extended into Lake Huron, 
 though Mackinaw was still in the hands of the ICnglish. On 
 Lake C )nlario the American scjuadron was able to keep that 
 of the British in their own port, and to favor the operation of 
 land forces. The American superiority was fully established 
 on Lake Champlain by the victory of McDonough and the 
 destruction of the iKJstile lleet. On September -'4, Jeffer.son 
 wrote to Madison: "Their navy is no kjnger invincible as the 
 world thought. We have dissipated that error. They must 
 now feel a conviction that we can beat them gun to gun, shij) 
 to ship, and fleet to fleet."* 
 
 ' Adams' Memoirs, Vol. 3, pp. 24-29. 
 
 -Sir James Macintosh, ow April 11, 1S15, said tliat the British had 
 tried to guard by deserts { Indian lands) what they could not guard 
 by streiigtii. Maniuis Wellesley, in the British House of Lords, on 
 April 13, 1.S15, spoke ol the unreasonable demands of the British in 
 regard to tiie boundary which they proposed. 
 
 ^Am. Stale Papers, l-oreign Relations, Vol. i, p. 87. 
 
 ♦Jellerson Papers, Series i, Vol. 13. 
 
Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 u 
 
 kli had 
 Lnard 
 lis, on 
 lish in 
 
 'I 
 
 In the face of these circumstances, the news of the British 
 proposals which reached Washington on October 9 created 
 considerable surprise.' Madison wrote Jefferson, October 
 ID, and intimated that the American commissioners would 
 arrive in a few days unless a sudden change should be 
 brouf,ht about in the British cabinet by the rupture of the 
 negotiation, or by the intelligence from America and the 
 fermentation taking place in Europe. Many people probably 
 felc that England was changing the contest to one of con- 
 quest' Jefferson believed that "we should put our house in 
 order for interminable war;" and he said that in order to 
 counterbalance the intention of England to conquer the 
 lakes, the Northwest, etc., the United States "ought to pro- 
 pose . . the establishment of the meridian of the mouth of 
 the Sorel northwardly as the western boundary of all her pos- 
 sessions." Jefferson, who was promptly informed of all 
 affairs at Washington, as late as the early part of December 
 wrote that the documents distributed by Congress, and the 
 map of Mr. McUish illustrating the first British propo.sals, 
 would prove to all that "reconquest [of the United States] is 
 the ultimate object of Britain." He says that the "first step 
 toward this is to set a limit to their expansion by taking from 
 them [Ihe United States] that noble country which the fore- 
 sight of their fathers provided for their multiplying and 
 needy offspring." "As to repressing our growth," he added, 
 "they might as well attempt to repress the waves of the 
 ocean." Jefferson believed that the British commissioners 
 had been holding off to see the issue, not of Vienna, but of 
 the Hartford Convention. 
 
 It must be admitted that t'le policy of the English ap- 
 peared neither liberal nor amicable. But it must also be 
 borne in mind that this was partly due, no doubt, to the fear 
 of American conquest. In the reply of the British commis- 
 sioners on September 4, they state that the "policy of the 
 
 ' Madison Papers, Vol. 7. leffer-jon Papers, 2nd Series, VdI. 58, 
 No. 59. 
 
 MelFL-rson Papers, isl S.*ries, Vol. 13 (To Monroe, Oct. 13; to 
 Madison, Oct. 15; to Mtllisii, Der. ic.) 
 
64 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 United States has become one of conquest and aggrandize- 
 ment," and that England should have military possession of 
 the lakes to prevent the Americans from commencing a war 
 in the heart of Canada, and because their possession was not 
 necessary to the safety of the United States.' The reply pro- 
 posed that the south shore of the lakes might be left in pos- 
 session of the United States in case they should not build 
 fortifications near them, and declared that there was no 
 desire to interfere with the commerce of the United States 
 upon the lakes in time of peace. 
 
 It was at this point in the negotiation, Adams says, that 
 "Bayard manifested symptoms of concession on the points 
 proposed by the British commissioners,'" but all stood to- 
 gether in the reply of September 9, in which the ground was 
 taken that Great Britain had a sufficient pledge for the se- 
 curity of Canada from sudden invasion in the mass of Ameri- 
 can commerce upon the ocean — a commerce more valuable 
 than Canada, and which was exposed to the gref.. superiority 
 of British forces. Tt was prom|)tly denied that conquest was 
 the policy of the Ignited States. 
 
 Thus the American commissioners remained firm, but, at 
 the same time, they kept a peaceful attitude. It was well that 
 they did so. It drew forth a better spirit in the reply of the 
 British connnissiouers on September 19. They stated that 
 as soon as the Indian question was adjusted they felt confi- 
 dent the question of boundary could be settled to the mutual 
 satisfaction of the parties. ' Negotiations luok a more hope- 
 ful shape at once. But peace was not yet a certainty. The 
 loss of a battle to the Americans might have encouraged the 
 British to hold out for a boundary to the south of the lakes. 
 The London Courier of September 29 probably indicates the 
 feeling of the government when it says: "Peace . . . mu.st 
 be on condition that America has not a foot of land on the 
 waters of the St. Lawrence, ... no settlement on the lakes." 
 
 ' Am. Slate Papers, Kureij;n Relations, p. 713. 
 ^ Adams' Memoirs, Vol. 3, Sept. 6. 
 
 •'Am State I'apers, For. Rel., Vol. i, p. 7i''<- Also in "America," 
 Vol. 129, at Record OlHce. 
 
% 
 
 Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 55 
 
 The United States desired only to preserve her independ- 
 ence entire, and to govern her own territories without for- 
 eign interference, and when, a few days later, the British 
 commissioners offered their ultimatiun upon the subject of 
 the Indian pacification, it was accepted as conformable to the 
 views of the United States Government, though Adams 
 wanted to represent it rather as a great concession, and also 
 urged that it would be a convenient policy to avow that the 
 cession of Canada would be for the interest of both countries. 
 
 From this time negotiations were continued in a better 
 spirit of reciprocity. On October 17 tlie news of the failure 
 of the P.ritisii invasion of New York reached London. The 
 news from Baltimore and Fort Frie soon followed. Clay 
 thought that the attitude which France was taking at X'ienna 
 would help the United States in securing an honorable 
 peace,* but, in his opinion, the events at Baltimore and on 
 Lake Champlain would have much greater influence, "for 
 it is in our own country that at last we must conquer the 
 peace." With no American disaster in the North, peace 
 could soon be made. 
 
 Most difficulties had been removed by October 31, when 
 the conunissioncrs wrote that the Indian boundary, together 
 witii tiic claim to exclusive control of the lakes, had both 
 been given up by the British.' The 15ritish now clearly saw 
 that they could not secure by treaty what they had failed to 
 secure by force of arms. Wellington said they had no right 
 to dcniaiid territory.' By winning the naval supremacy upon 
 the lakes the .Vmericans were able to secure the continuation 
 of the boundary of 1783 through the middle of the lakes, and 
 to secure provisions by which the dangers from the British 
 traders of the Northwest were overcome. 
 
 ' Monroe Papers, Vol. 4, Oct. 26. * " 
 
 '^Jefferson Papers, 2nd Series, \'ol. 58. (Monroe to JefR-rson, 
 
 Nov. 30.) 
 •■' CastlereaRli Correspondence, Vol. 10, p. t68. On October 18, 
 
 Raduirst IIioukIu tlie Britisli would be allowed to keep Michilimacki- 
 
 nac and Niagara. On Oct. 20, he lioped to ^c\ a cession of five 
 
 miles around Niagara. 
 
86 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 The news of the Treaty of Ghent, signed December 24. did 
 not reach America until the Americans, at the battle of New 
 Orleans, had shown their ability to protect the South as well 
 as the North. The thinking people everywhere received the 
 news with gladness, with the exception of some farmers on 
 the northern frontier and a class of neople in England who 
 wanted to send Wellington to America.' The expense of the 
 navy upon the lakes could now be reduced," soldiers could 
 return to their peaceful citizen life, and the development of 
 the country under new opportunities would go forward with 
 greater rapidity. 
 
 It was considered a fortunate thing for both countries that 
 their minds could now be turned from the temptations of 
 external extension to the duties of internal growth. Jeffer- 
 son wrote that Quebec and Halifax would have been taken, 
 but that peace and reconciliation were better than conquest 
 by war. He thought, however, that England had been "rid- 
 ing upon a bag of wind, which must blow out before they 
 settle to the true bottom.'" 
 
 'It was "mortifying" to the Britisli oHicers to have to give up 
 Michilimackinac and the territory west of Lake Micliii^an. The treaty 
 was not what they luul expected in regard to the Indians. Hut tiiey 
 decided to "try to gild the liitter pill which the Indians must swal- 
 low" in seeing Mackinac Island given up. They expected, how- 
 ever, to get a neiv fortress with a new harbor for future naval forces. 
 McDouall, conmianderat Michilimackinac, wrote to Hulger, who was 
 commanding on the upper Mississippi, that he was penetnited with 
 grief at the loss of hi.; tine island, but he stated that it would give an 
 opportunity of ecpiipiiing such a lUet on Lake I>ie and Lake Huron 
 as would secure the coinniiind of those lakes anil kiep open the 
 communication with the Indians. He said that since peace had been 
 concluiled, a war on their part shoi'ld be most sedulously avoided 
 until the lleet on Lake Krie was restoreil, and the supremacy of Lake 
 Hui'tn was obtained. {.See letters of April 25, May i, and May 2, 
 1815, Wis. Hist. Coll., \'ol. 13, J). 133, etc.) 
 
 '^ In England there was a feeling of uneasiness as to the policy of 
 the United States in regard to Canad.i. Marquis Wellesley, in a 
 speech before the Lords, April 13, 1815, said that war had turned 
 America from the pursuits ot peace and hail formed a great military 
 and naval power to act on the lake frontier. 
 
 'JelVerson Papers, ist Series, Vol. 14. {To Francis C. Gray, 
 March, 1815.) 
 
 IIM 
 
 i 
 
h H 
 
 Struggle for Control of the Lakes. 
 
 67 
 
 ive up 
 
 
 ; treaty 
 
 
 It they 
 
 
 L svval- 
 
 ■■> 
 
 1, how- 
 
 
 forces. 
 
 ..'; 
 
 ho was 
 
 -7' 
 
 d witli 
 
 
 ;ive an 
 
 
 Huron 
 
 
 jn the 
 
 
 i been 
 
 
 'oided 
 
 
 Lake 
 
 i" 
 
 klay 2, 
 
 . ^i- 
 
 li( y of 
 
 -— 
 
 , in a 
 
 
 iirned 
 
 
 liiary 
 
 -^ 
 
 Gray, 
 
 _:V 
 
 
 ■A 
 
 He was not vindictive in what he said, but he had not de- 
 spaired of the republic, nor lost confidence in its resources. 
 "If they go on," he said, "they may force upon us the motto 
 'Carthago dclcnda est,' and some Scipio Amcricanus will leave 
 to posterity the problem of conjecturing where stood once 
 the ancient and splendid city of London." He hoped that 
 the good sense of both parties would concur in traveling the 
 paths of peace, of afifection and of reciprocal interest, and that 
 the officials would do their best to cool the temper of both 
 nations and to eradicate the war feeling which the news- 
 papers had nourished.' 
 
 It was natural that the difficulties arising frcm the recent 
 irritation on the border — greater in the United States, be- 
 cause it reached the bosom of every citizen — should not dis- 
 appear at once," and passion was assumed, artificially, by 
 some for political effect; but, by the prudence r^ the two 
 governments, it was hoped that the i'lvcctivc might, in time, 
 be reduced to the minimum. Jefferson and ^ladison had 
 been wrongfully abused as the enemies of England. Like 
 Monroe and Adams, and other leaders, they rose above the 
 passions of the hour. The influence of such men, at such a 
 time, is invaluable. They set a good example to citizens of 
 less experience. They can see the dangers of demagogues 
 upon the overcrcdulous or upon the ready admirers of atti- 
 tudes bellicose, and they can do much to stimulate a rational 
 feeling. It was so with these men. They have added honor 
 to the country which they served. And the generations of 
 men that look back upon these fathers of the formative 
 period of the American republic will honor them more that 
 they did not nourish a feeling of hatred, but that they fav- 
 ored the burial of the "red rag." Jefferson wrote to Monroe, 
 October i6, i8i6, concerning the "inscription for the Capi- 
 tol which the British burnt," that it "should be brief and so 
 no passion can be imputed to it." He said that instead of 
 
 'JefTerson Papers, ist Series, Vol. 14. (To Mr. Maury, June 16.) 
 'Jefferson PaiJers, ist Series, Vol. 14. (To Sinclair.) 
 

 58 
 
 Neutrality of the Americayi Lakes. 
 
 perpetuating hatred "should we not rather begin to open 
 ourselves to other and more rational dispositions?'" In a 
 letter to his friend, Sir John Sinclair, with whom he had 
 renewed correspondence after the war, the sage of Monti- 
 cello wrote: 'The past should be left to history, and be 
 smothered in the living mind. Time is drawing the curtain 
 on me. I could make my bow better if I had hope of seeing 
 our countries shake hands together." 
 
 The lake boundary and the Northwest had been secured 
 by the United States, the gates of the temple of Janus had 
 been closed, and two kindred peoples were encouraged to 
 occupy the same continent in peace. 
 
 'Jefferson Papers, ist Series, Vol. 14, Oct. 16, 1816. 
 
IV. 
 
 AGREEMENT OE 1817. 
 
 Reduction of Naval Forces Upon the Lakes. 
 
 Peace had been concluded at Ghent amidst the festivities 
 of Christmas Eve in 1814, and as soon as the slovv-saiHng 
 craft of that day could traverse the waters of the Atlantic the 
 news was proclaimed in America on each side of the lakes. 
 But entire peace could not be guaranteed by proclamation. 
 How was the temple of Janus to be kept closed? Manifestly, 
 the most apparent danger of future collisions lay in the 
 relations of the two peoples along the northern limits of the 
 United States. While Jefferson was trying to "eradicate the 
 war feeling which the newspapers had nourished," and wish- 
 ing for the two "countries to shake hands together," what 
 measures should be adopted to lessen the possible sources of 
 future misunderstandings, as well as to accelerate the return 
 of fraternal feelings, desires and actions? The development 
 of the Northwest was affected by the presence of I'ritish 
 troops in Canada and of British vessels on the lakes. How 
 should this danger be avoided? These were questions which 
 the wise, well-trained leaders of 1815 had before their minds. 
 
 Perhaps no better leaders could have been selected for the 
 hour. They consulted only the interests of the country; they 
 had no axe to grind at the expense of public peace. Their 
 statesmanship did not sink into morbid abuse of some fancied 
 enemy. They and the people for whom they stood, when 
 they looked back and saw that the world had moved, began 
 to look forward for the things that should grow in the new 
 era of quickening activity, when great cities would be erected 
 along the south shores of the limitary lakes. 
 
60 
 
 Nentra/Hy of the Amcn'can Lakes. 
 
 "The statesmen of that period, sincerely desirous of estab- 
 Hshing a lasting peace, applied their minds on both sides to 
 effective arrangements which would render these waters 
 neutral." The;- saw at once that if peace were merely to lead 
 to a perpetual race in naval construction such a peace would 
 be only temporary and expensive. Building of naval vessels 
 would have gone on ad libitum, possibly ad inHnitmn, greatly 
 to the emolument of .'ihipbuildcrs perhaps, but at the risk of 
 strained relations between the United States and Canada. 
 
 The first suggestion of the idea of making the lake region 
 neutral appears to have originated during the administration 
 of President Washington, and with the President himself, as 
 a means of preserving peace at home.' On May 6, 1794, Mr. 
 Randolph, Secretary of State, wrote to Air. Jay, who had 
 been sent to negotiate a treaty with England, that in case the 
 "subject of a commercial treaty be listened to" it would be 
 well to consider as one object the following: "In peace no 
 troops to be kept within a limited distance of the lakes." 
 There is no record of the consideration of this subject in the 
 negotiations. Jay's treaty clearly gave Oeat Britain the 
 advantage on the lakes, much to the disappointment of Mr. 
 Madison and others," but probably no better terms could 
 have been secured at that time. It j)ermittcd British sub- 
 jects "to navigate all the lakes, rivers and waters of the 
 United States up to the highest ports of entry," but it was 
 expressly stated that "vessels of the United States were not 
 to be admitted into the seaports, harbors, bays or creeks of 
 his Majesty's American dominions." By it the lake trade fell 
 into the hands of the British, and by means of the lake trade 
 they secured an influence over the Indians of the Northwest 
 which they were al)le to retain till the War of 1812. 
 
 During that war the Americans were at first determined 
 to shut the British out from the lakes. In this they were 
 largely successful by force of arms, but in diplomacy it was 
 
 'American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. i, p. 433. 
 ^ Madison Papers, \'ol. 5. 
 
 .1 
 

 As;nri)unt of iSjj. 
 
 M 
 
 nined 
 were 
 t was 
 
 considered inexpedient to insist upon securing control of the 
 lakes. Such a policy would probably have broken off nego- 
 tiations at the time, for Great Britain would hardly have 
 given up such a great advantage to conmiercc, especially 
 when she feared the dangers of conquest of her upper ]-)rov- 
 inces by the Americans. By these considerations the Ameri- 
 can commissioners at Ghent were led to stand for "terms of 
 reciprocity honorable to both countries." When the British 
 connnissioners were proposing that Great Britain should 
 have military occupation of the lakes, the Americans asked 
 only a renewal of the former boundary through the middle 
 of the lakes. 
 
 Lord Castlercagh from the first desired to prevent a con- 
 test for naval ascendency upon the lakes. In his general 
 instructions to the British commissioners at Ghent there is no 
 mention of the subject of naval vessels on ihc lakes, but in a 
 draft of "instructions relative to the boundaries of Canada," 
 which is marked Not used, there is at the close :' "N. B. In 
 order to put an end to the jealousies which may arise by the 
 construction of ships of war on the lakes, it should be pro- 
 posed that the two contracting parties should reciprocally 
 bind themselves not to construct any ships of war on any of 
 the lakes; and should entirely dismantle those which are now 
 in commission, or are preparing for service." 
 
 This unused draft is not dated, but it was probably writ- 
 ten in July, 1814. For aome reason it was considered expe- 
 dient to make a less liberal proj)osition upon this subject. 
 By August it appeared to Lord Castlereagh that a boundary 
 line through the middle of the lakes, with the right of each 
 country to arm both on water and shore, would tend to create 
 a "perpetual contest for naval ascendency in peace as well as 
 in war." lie therefore thought it necessary, for the sake of 
 peace and economy, "to decide to which power these waters 
 should, in a military sense, exclusively belong." In his in- 
 structions to the British conmiissioners on August 14 he 
 said: 
 
 ' "America, " \'ol. 12.S, Public Kccoicl Otticc, London. 
 
62 
 
 Niutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 "Upon tlic point of frontier you may state that tlic views 
 of the Britisli (lovcrnnicnt are strictly defensive. They con- 
 sider the course of the lakes from Lake Ontario to Lake Su- 
 perior both inclusive to be the natural military frontier of the 
 British possessions in Xorth America.' As the weaker power 
 on the North American continent, the least capable of acting 
 ofifensively and the most exposed t<j sudden invasion, ( ireat 
 Britain considers itself entitled to claim the use of those lakes 
 as a military barrier." 
 
 Lord CastlcreaRh stated that Great Britain should also 
 have military connnand of the American shores of the lakes, 
 thou.i;Ii ho was "disiKJsed to leave the sovereitj^nty (jf the soil 
 undi-^turbed and, incident to it, the free commercial naviga- 
 tion of the lakes," provided the American ( lovernment 
 wm d stipulate "not to i)reserve or construct any fortifica- 
 tions upon or within a limited distance of the shores, or main- 
 tain or construct any armed vessel upon the lakes in rjues- 
 tion or u])on the rivers which cmj)ty themselves into the 
 same." 
 
 Lord Castlereagh's jjroposal to disarm was not based upon 
 the principle of reciprocity. It may, however, have suj:^- 
 gcsted to the minds of .\merican commissioners the idea of 
 mutual disarmament. There is an intimation of the idea, at 
 least, in their reply to the British commissioners (dated .\ug- 
 ust 24, 1814) in which they are "at a loss to discover by what 
 rule of perfect reciprocity the United States can be retiuired 
 to renounce their equal right of maintaining a naval force 
 upon those lakes, and of fortifying their own shores, while 
 Cireat Britain reserves exclusively the corresponding rights to 
 herself."' Tbougli the L'nited .States had no guns upon the 
 lakes before the war, she did not proi)ose to give up her guns 
 now and go back to her former condition in this respect. She 
 desired to see England jjropose a more liberal and amicable 
 policy toward America. 
 
 ' Manjiiis Wellesley, in a speech before the Lords, on April 13, 
 1815, said he could not st-e where the doctrine of the "natural limit 
 of Canada ' south of the lakes had originated. 
 
Agreetnent of iSiy, 
 
 68 
 
 The novcrnnicnt at \\'ashins:ton early in the war appre- 
 hended what would be the probable policy of the IJritish. 
 Monroe instructed the commissioners, April 15, 1813, under 
 the proffered Russian mediation: "You will avoid also any 
 stipulation which might restrain the United States from in- 
 creasing their naval force to any extent they may think 
 proper on the lakes held in connnon, or excluding the British 
 traders from navigation of the lakes and rivers exclusively 
 within our own jurisdiction." At this time, it should be 
 noted, past experience and conditions made it appear neces- 
 sary for the United States to keep a sujieriority of naval 
 force on the lakes. Neutralization of these waters was prob- 
 ably not thought of at that time. Even as late as January 28, 
 1814, Monroe thought that participation in the dominion 
 and navigation of the lakes by Great I'ritain would be a 
 source of danger of the renewal of the war. 
 
 It appears that the first definite proposition of disarma- 
 ment on the lakes was made by Mr. Gallatin. It was on Sep- 
 tember 6, 1814, when it seemed that negotiations could not 
 proceed. IJayard manifested some .symptoms of concession 
 to the iiritish proposals, and Mr. Gallatin proposed to offer 
 at least to refer to the United States Government a "stipula- 
 tion for disarming on both sides of the lakes.'" Adams ob- 
 jected to this as not being in accordance with positive in- 
 structions. Here the matter dropped. But it was probably 
 further discussed by the American commissioners, as a sub- 
 sequent note seems to indicate. Their firm but friendly 
 reply of Septcndjer 9 was a factor in drawing from the I'rit- 
 ish connnissioners a more favorable reply, in which they 
 asserted that they had "never stated that the exclusive mili- 
 tary possession of the lakes . . . was a sine qua non in the 
 negotiation," and that after the Indian question should be 
 adjusted they could make a final proposition on the subject 
 of Canadian boundaries, "so entirely founded on principles 
 of moderation and justice" that they felt confident it could 
 
 'Adams: Wrilinjjs of Albert (Jallalin, VdI. i, p. 640. Also see 
 J. Q. Adams' Memoirs, Sept. 19, 1S14. 
 
v 
 
 04 
 
 Ncittralilv of tlf Awericatt I.akrs. 
 
 not be rejected.' Tlie nature of this proposition is not stated. 
 It was never brought forward, nor vvas any exjjlanation piven 
 of wiiat was iiileiidid by the offer. lUit the .American com- 
 missioners siii)i)osi'd tbey intended to propijse the mutual 
 reduction of armaments, and on September j6 pledj^^-d them- 
 selves to meet such a proposition with perfect reciprocity."'' 
 
 This supposition is not stated in any of the official notes 
 to the Department of State, (iallatin, however, wrote to Mr. 
 Monroe on ( )ctober j6: "The ri^ht of jjreservin^' our naval 
 forces on the iaies to any extent we j)lease is a sine qua non 
 by our instructions. Suj)posinj,' the liritish to propt)se a 
 mutual restriction in that respect, either ])artial or total, 
 should we still adiiere to the sine (jiia nonT' Clay wrote a 
 private note to Mcjnroe on the same day, in which he says 
 that recent events at Vienna and in America had encour- 
 ajijcd a lujpe for an early peace, but he does not allude to Gal- 
 latin's note. It is probable that Cjallatin wrote without con- 
 sultinjf the (jtlicr members of the commissicju. No reply to 
 his n(jte is found. In fact, if one was ever sent it could not 
 have reached him until after Christmas Eve, when the terms 
 of peace had been ajjrecd upon. 
 
 Gouveneur Morris, who had been desirous for peace, and 
 not desirous for Canada, during the nej^cjtiations also sug- 
 gested the idea of disarmament. But his idea differed from 
 that of Gallatin in being proposed as a matter of econoni\ 
 On October 17, 1814, he wrote to Hon. William Welles: "Ji 
 would be wise to stipulate that neither party should have 
 shii)s of war on the lakes nor forts on their shores. Both arc 
 an idle and useless expense." iie added: "If they had there 
 forty ships of the line and a dozen Gibraltars, we could with 
 great ease take Canada." 
 
 ' "America," Vol. 129. 
 
 '' Mr. Clay, on Oct. 9, liowcver, was for n-jecliiij^ any proposition 
 to (lisarni upon tlu' lakts il a proposed arlicie; Ijy tliu British (nlti- 
 maUiin on Iiidiati |)arification) uas admitted ; jjecause he consiiiered 
 tiiat tile two articles toKellier would deliver the whole western country 
 up to tlie mercy of liie Indians. (Adams' Memoirs.) 
 
.'Igreemeni of iSiy. 68 
 
 The work of reducing the expense of naval forces on the 
 lakes began very soon after the peace. Mr. Jackson, of Vir- 
 ginia, on February 17, 1815, offered a resolution that the 
 naval conunittee be instructed to inquire and report to what 
 extent '}-<' * 'nited States navy on the lakes could he reduced 
 consi '•'■ ;rh public interest.' It was felt that while the 
 United Su" -. fijrccs ought, to some extent, to be regulated 
 by those of Great Britain, all useless expenditures should be 
 retrenched.* It was not the policy of the United States 
 Gfjvernn-jenl ro fight to prevent a possible injury at a distant 
 day. The government expected peace, and began to prepare 
 for it By Act of February 27, 181 5, the President was 
 authorized "to cause all armed vessels of the United States on 
 the lakes to be sold or laid up, except such as he may deem 
 nece-~sary to enforce proper execution of revenue laws; such 
 vessels being first divested of their armament, tackle, and 
 furniture, which are to be carefully preserved.'" 
 
 When Kapokon, dissatisfied with the small portion of the 
 map of Europe that had been allotted him, issued forth 
 from Elba to dbturb the congress of map revisers at Vienna, 
 the danger of a renewal of the war was apprehended in 
 ^me^lca- Madison wrote Monroe on May 5: "If Napoleon 
 It. rest'^re<3, England and France will again pillage America." 
 But he Mieved that, while the United States must maintain 
 ! :■ ground and fight for her rights, she must avoid being a 
 party to the European war. The nation was unwilling to re- 
 linquish the rights for which it had contended, but, at the 
 same time, it - as ready to support the government in such 
 measures as «cre ~best adapted to prevent a renewal of the 
 war." The continuation of the war between France and 
 England v. as fortunately averted, and thus one source of 
 possible contention between England and the United States 
 was remove*. 
 
 There were s<ireral sources of dissension existing in 181 5, 
 the early adjustment of which was considered advisable. 
 
 ' House JounaaJ, Vol. 9. - Monroe Papers, Vol. 5. No. 629. 
 
 6 ^Statutes, III, 217. 
 
60 
 
 Nentra/ity of the American Lakes. 
 
 Those which cMulang^crcd the peace between the United 
 States and Canada were: 
 
 (i) Restlessness and hostility of the Indians on the fron- 
 tier. 
 
 (2) Condnct of the British local authorities in Canada. 
 
 (3) Desertion of British soldiers to the American side. 
 
 (4) British armaments on the lakes. 
 
 Mutual surrender of the frontier forts was not made at 
 once after the war. Tlicrc v»ere suspicions of insincerity on 
 both sides.' Dallas wrote Monroe on May 28 that "we must 
 be on our fjuard." Hosiility of the Indians had not ceased. 
 Some of t'-." liritish officers had persisted in inlluencing 
 them. T'. was found, however, that they showed a disposition 
 for peace as fast as the I»ritish gave up the jjosts. By the 
 connnercial convention of 1815, the Unite- States, in the 
 interests of peace, refused to allow the B;it"sh to trade with 
 the Indians in United States territory, though it cost her the 
 use of the St. Lawrence river. 
 
 Troubles were also arising concerning jurisdiction. The 
 Americans complained t)f the conduct of the liritish officers 
 in pursuing deserters into American territory, and in other- 
 wise violating international usage. On the other hand the 
 Britii-h complained of the attempts of a United States oflicer 
 on the frontier to seduce soldiers from the liritish service. 
 
 The authorities at Washington saw a greater proi)able 
 source of future trouble in the evident intention of the British 
 to increase their naval force upon the lakes. They had built 
 several new vessels just before the peace, and the London 
 ntwspa))ers in August, 181 5, had announceii that the British 
 cabinet had determined not only to maintain, but a'so to 
 augment the armed naval force on the lakes. The fact that 
 an .\merican merc'iaut vessel upon Lake Erie, where the 
 AmericaviS had been ilismantling their vessels, had been fired 
 upon by a liritish armed vessel will show that there was 
 reason for fearing the results of further augmentation.' 
 
 ' Monroe Taprrs, Vol. 15. 
 
 '' Campbell: Political tlislory of Michigan. 
 

 Agreevient of iSry. 
 
 m 
 
 1. The 
 
 
 officers 
 
 
 1 other- 
 
 
 11(1 tlie 
 
 
 , officer 
 
 
 vice. 
 
 
 ■()l)al)lo 
 
 .;■: 
 
 lirilish 
 
 '- 'i 
 
 (I l)uilt 
 
 
 .oiidoii 
 
 
 r>riush 
 
 .' I 
 
 I'so to 
 
 
 ct that 
 
 ■■/; 
 
 ■re the 
 
 1 
 
 y 
 
 11 fired 
 
 e was 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 On July 22, when taking measures to prevent a United 
 States officer from influencing soldiers to desert from the 
 r.ritish service, Mr. ^Monroe, in a letter to Mr. Raker (who 
 was temporarily representing the I'ritish riovernment at 
 Washington), seems to intimate the necessity of a reciprocal 
 stipulation in regard to naval forces.' At a later date, prob- 
 ably in November, Mr. Monroe had a conversation with Mr. 
 P.aker concerning the subject. On December 6, after re- 
 porting to Mr. l)aker an inquiry into the case of Lieutenant 
 V'idal, who had been fined for riot while pursuing offenders 
 into .American territory, Mr. Monroe wrote :^ "This Govern- 
 ment is sincerely desirous, as I had the honor to intimate to 
 you in a late interview, to make such arrangements relating 
 to the force to be kept on the lakes, and to the intercourse 
 between the I'nited Stales and the British provinces in that 
 c]uarter, as will effectually prevent these evils." 
 
 John Quincy Adams was at this time minister of the 
 I'liited States to London. The information which he had 
 ser.i on August 29 as to the intentions of the British Gov- 
 ernment to increase its force on the lakes was confirmed by 
 later news from that quarter, which showed that preliminary 
 measures had been taken. This arming appeared foolish, for 
 it is hardly likely that I'.nglaiid couid have competed with the 
 V'niied States on the lakes if a jjolicy was adopted of having 
 rival Heels to parade those waters in time of peace. But the 
 l^iited States, anxious for the preservation of peace, was dis- 
 l)oscd to disarm there. Secretary Monroe wrote to Mr. 
 Adams, November 16: 
 
 "Jt is evident, if each party augments its force there, v/ith 
 a view to obtain the ascendancy over the other, that vast 
 expense will be incurred and the danger of collision aug- 
 mented in like degree. The President is sincerely desirous to 
 prevent an evil which it is presumed is equally to be deprecated 
 
 'No. 2 Notes from .State Department, p. no. (To British Lega- 
 tion at \Vasliinj;;ton.) 
 "No. 2 Notes from State Department. 
 

 68 
 
 Neutrality of the American I akes. 
 
 by both governments. He therefore authorizes you to pro- 
 pose to the British Government such an arranf;;-ement re- 
 specting the naval force to be kept on the lakes by both gov- 
 ernments as will demonstrate their pacific policy and secure 
 their peace. He is willing to confine it, on each side, to a 
 certain moderate number of armetl vessels, and the smaller 
 the number the more agreeable to him; or to abstain alto- 
 gether from an armed force beyond that used for revenue. 
 You will bring this subject under the consideration of the 
 British Government immediatelv after the receipt of this 
 letter.'" 
 
 In accordance with these instructions, Mr. Adams 
 brought the matter to the attention of Lord Castlercagh on 
 January 25, 1816.' He called his attention to the fact that 
 Canada had been the source of disagreement in the past, and 
 that it might be a source of "great and frequent animosities 
 hereafter, unless guarded against by the vigilance, firnmess, 
 and decidedly pacific dispositions of the two governments." 
 The proposal of Adams to disarm on the lakes was well re- 
 ceived by Lord Castlereagh. lie said that everything be- 
 yond what was necssary to prevent smuggling was "calcu- 
 lated only to produce mischief;" but he was cautious, and 
 was inclined to look farther than to the ])acific disposition 
 which was manifested. As at Ghent, he still thought that the 
 "lakes should belong to our party, thereby rendering arma- 
 ments unnecessary." Looking with suspicion to the advan- 
 tage of the Americans in being nearer the lakes, he still 
 thought that England as the ivcakcr party should have con- 
 trolled them, and that in order to preserve peace they should 
 have been made a "large and wide natural separation be- 
 tween the two territories." He feared that an engagement 
 for mutual disarmament would give the United States too 
 nmch advantage in case of war. To this Adams replied that 
 the engagement would be in favor of Great Britain; that the 
 
 ' Instructions to U. S. Ministers, No. 8. 
 
 ' Adams' Memoirs, Vol, 3. Also in Adams' despatches to Monroe. 
 
m 
 
 Agreenteut of iSij. 
 
 United States would have her hands tied until the moment 
 of actual war, and that it was impossible for war to arise sud- 
 denly without a condition of things which would give Great 
 Britain sufficient time to get ready to build armaments on 
 the lakes at the same time as the United States. 
 
 Lord Castlereagh proposed to submit the proposals to his 
 government for its consideration, but after the conference 
 had ended. Mr. Adams had little hope for even an arrange- 
 ment to limit the force to be kept in actual service.' While 
 P.athurst was the only real warlike man in the ministry, the 
 apparent disinclination of Lord Castlereagh, who was prob- 
 ably better dis|)osed than the rest of the ministry, did not 
 seem a favorable indication. Adams felt that the British 
 ministry suspected some strategic point to be at the bottom 
 of tlic proposition. The "frank and unsuspecting confi- 
 dence" in which the idea originated had not been appreci- 
 ated. Tie desired that peace should be cemeiUed by "that 
 miuual reliaiice on good faith, far better adapted to the main- 
 tenance of national harmony than the jealous and exasper- 
 ating defiance o\ complete armor." On March 21, he re- 
 newed the proposal to "nuitually and equally disarm upon the 
 Amcrir.m lakes " and. with the hope that it might be enter- 
 tained in the same sincerely amicable sjiirit in which it was 
 made, he empiiasized the fact that there were abundant se- 
 ciuitics against the possibility of any sudden attack upon the 
 colonies which the "guarded and cautious policy" of CJreat 
 Britain might fear.' 
 
 But the debates in Parliament gave little evidence that the 
 proposal would be considered. They were upon the prin- 
 ciple of preserving peace by being prepared for war. An 
 element in both countries was urging this policy, not be- 
 cause there was any danger of war. perhaps, but rather to 
 keep up with other lines of development. Mr. Goulburn, 
 wlio had been one of the British commissioners at Ghent, 
 
 Ion rue. 
 
 ' Adams' Dfspatclu-s, Jan. 31, i8ifi. 
 'No. 20 Desp.ilchcs. Mar. 22. 
 
f ' 
 
 Ife 
 
 70 
 
 Neidralily of the American Lakes. 
 
 wrote to Mr. Clay (^^arch 8, 1816) as follows: "You are 
 fightinj:^ the same battle in America that we arc here, i. e., 
 putting peace establishnients on a footing not unbecoming 
 the growth of population and empire in which they arc to be 
 maintained. It is impossible that either country should feel 
 jealous of the other so long as the augmentation does not 
 exceed the necessity of the case, and I have not heard an 
 argument anywhere to prove that it does so exceed in either 
 case. I can relieve your apprehensions as to the hostile 
 movement of England in any part of the globe." ' This was 
 certainly a friendly statement of the case. Mr. Adams, \\o\\- 
 ever, did not take the same view of the matter, lie was 
 watching the speeches of the "Jingoes," and they were more 
 than a nightmare upon his mind." In a letter to Mr. Monroe 
 on March 30 he said: 
 
 "In all the late debates in Parliament upon what they call 
 their Military and Naval Peace Establishment the prosy)ect 
 of a new war with the United States has been distinctly held 
 up by the ministers and admitted by the opposition as a solid 
 reason for enormous and unparalleled expenditure and 
 preparation in Canada and Nova Scotia. We hear nothing 
 now about the five fir fr'gates and the bit> of stri])ed burning. 
 The strain is in a higher mood. Lord Castlereagh talks of 
 the great and growing military power of the United States. 
 The Marcpiis of Lansdowne, an opposition leader and one of 
 the loudest trnmpi'ters for retrenchment and economy, still 
 commends the ministers for having been Waten into the 
 policy of having a naval superiority upon the lakes. .And 
 one of the lords of the admiralty' told the House of Com- 
 mons last Monday that bimiboat expeditions and pinchbeck 
 administrations would do no longer for Canada; that ling- 
 
 ' Cotton : Corres. of Clay, p. 52. 
 
 'See I'.irlia. Debates, Vol. yy, p. 375. 
 
 •"* Mr. K. («ordoii. In liis spet-cli of Mar. 25, lie spoke of tlie ^;ro\v- 
 vn'f, Ameritaii navy and the danRer of liostility. lie said: "Her 
 3-cleikers now sail upon fresh water," and it was pinchback economy 
 to kei p down the Hritisli iia\ \ . 
 
 
 f 
 
 'TV 
 
 iyiiF 
 
Agreement of 1S17. 
 
 71 
 
 lishtncn must lay their account for fic^litinjT battles in fleets of 
 three-deckers on the North American lakes. All this is upon 
 the principle of preserving peace by being prepared for war. 
 But it shows to demonstration what will be the fate of the 
 proposal for disarming." 
 
 Adams, in his letter to Lord Castlereagh on March 21. had 
 shown the evil effects of an armed peace on the lakes.' Be- 
 sides the expense, it would "operate as a continual stinnilus 
 of suspicion and of ill will" between the people on the fron- 
 tier. He believed that the "moral and political tendency of 
 such a system must be to war and not to peace." The condi- 
 tion of affairs was certainly not such as to encourage him to 
 expect nuich consideration of his proposal. 
 
 The crisis in Parliament appears to have been passed soon 
 after April 5. On that date Adams wrote that even the mur- 
 nuirs against large establishments had nearly ceased.' lie 
 was therefore nnu'li surprised, a few days later, when Lord 
 Castlereagh reciuested an interview to inform him that the 
 British Government was ready to meet the proposal of the 
 L'nited States "so far as to avoid everything like a conten- 
 tion between the two parties which should have the strongest 
 force" on the lakes, anil that they had nt) desire to have any 
 ships in commission or active service except what might be 
 needed "to convey troops occasionally." It appears that 
 Lord Castlereagh was prepared to enter into an agreement 
 upon the subject, but .Kdams did not feel like concluding the 
 arrangement without further instructions. l'"or this reason 
 it was agreed that the negotiations be transferred to Wash- 
 ington, and that power and instructions should be sent to 
 Mr. Bagot, the liritish minister to the L'nited States. Adams 
 wanted all the effects of a positive arrangen»ent to begin at 
 once, however. In fact, his letter to Momue on April 15th 
 shows that he understood that it was "agreed that no new or 
 additional force should be conunenced upon the lakes on 
 cither side for the present." ' But no notes were exchanged 
 
 ' No 20 Dt'spatches. 
 
 ^ No. 2u I)ipl()m:Uic Correspoiuleiu-e. (Dt-spatches.) 
 
 ^ No. 2u iJip. Cur. 
 
ii 
 
 u- ', 
 
 72 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 to this effect. The United States Government would prob- 
 ably, at this time, have been willing to let the force remain 
 unchanged in order to stop the danger of further increase.' 
 This evil was the first one to be avoided. Monroe referred 
 to its "dangerous tendency" in a conversation with Mr. 
 Bagot on May 2 and in a letter to Adams on May 3; and on 
 May 21, before he had heard of the decision of the British 
 Government to meet the proposal to disarn), in another letter 
 to Mr. Adams he said that while that proposal expressed the 
 views of the President, he would, nevertheless, be "satisfied 
 to prevent the augmentation of the force, leaving it on both 
 sides in the present state, and when it is considered that 
 Great Britain has the ascendancy on Lake Ontario, which 
 appears more immediately on Canada, and that the United 
 States have it on Erie and Huron, which is important only 
 in relation to the savages within our limits, it is not perceived 
 on what ground it can be refused." 
 
 Late events on the lakes, however, soon made it apparent 
 that more efficient measures should be adopted. On June 
 8, General Cass sent the news that British naval officers at 
 Maiden had been boarding American vessels, which passed 
 there, in seach of deserters. None had actually been taken, 
 and the conduct was "presumed not to have the sanction of 
 the British Government,"" but it was none the less a violation 
 of the rights of the United States, and Adams was asked to 
 call the matter to the early attention of the British Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 -After his interview with Mr. Adams on April 15, Lord 
 Castlereagh was prompt in notifying Mr. Bagot of his power 
 
 '8 Instriictiotis, pp. .(6 ami 6;, .Mso see "America," \'ol. 141. 
 (Hagot tn CastlL-reauli, May y.) 
 
 'VI. (iraliam (actiiijj; under Secretary Monroe), in a letter to Presi- 
 dent Madison, on |une 25, tlirew the mantle of charity over the afTair 
 by sayinjj that "possibly tiie measure was adopted more with a view 
 of preventing llieir men iVom j;oing on boarii United Slates vessels 
 than with any serious iiUention of violating rights of the United 
 Slates." (Madison Papers, \'ol. 5S.) 
 
Agreement of i8iy. 
 
 73 
 
 to act in the matter of arranging naval forces, as well as the 
 matter of fisheries.' When the news reached America of the 
 apparently sudden change in the attitude of the British Gov- 
 ernment there was some speculation as to the probable cause. 
 Was the prosperity of England on the decline? Or was Eng- 
 land acting from purely humanitarian motives? Or did she 
 fear some new trouble? Dallas wrote President Madison, on 
 June 26, that "Lord Castlercagh's overtures to arrange the 
 question of armament on the lakes are probably suggested 
 by the apprehension of a new commotion in Europe."^ 
 
 By the early part of July Mr. Bagot had given Secretary 
 Monroe information of the new powers which had been 
 given him, but he did not enter into a full discussion. Mon- 
 roe wrote Adams on July 8 that he had not yet learned the 
 "nature and extent" of his power.' ] le had written to Presi- 
 dent Madison the day before stating that Bagot had in- 
 formed him that he would enter upon the subject of naval 
 forces after the question of fisheries had been arranged. In 
 his own mind the adjustment of the lake armaments was 
 first. Thinking some new ideas on the subject might have 
 been suggested to the President's mind since he had ap- 
 proved the instructions sent to Adams, Monroe asked him 
 for his sentiments, as well as directions in the matter.'' Mr. 
 Madison responded promptly on July 11. lie did not see 
 why Mr. Bagot should desire to suspend an arrangement of 
 naval forces until the subject of fisheries had been disposed 
 of.° He saw no connection between the two, and he said that 
 "an immediate attention to the former is the more necessary, 
 as it is said an enlargement of the British forces, particularly 
 on Erie, is actually going on." He said it would be far bet- 
 ter to suspend this enlargement till negotiations concerning 
 it were concluded. To him it now seemed expedient to stip- 
 ulate: 
 
 ' "America," Vol. 140. (Casllcreagli to Bagot, April 23.) 
 
 ■'Madison Papers, Vol. 58, No. 7.). 
 
 •' S Iiistruclions, p. 85, 
 
 ' Moiirot' I'apors, Vol. 5, July 7, No. 643. 
 
 'Monroe I'apers, Vol. 15, No. 1969. 
 

 
 1 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 1 : 
 
 ^^HH ;< 
 
 
 ■ WRll' * 
 
 t 
 
 ■ llf! •• t 
 
 74 
 
 Neulralily of Ihc American Lakes. 
 
 "(i) That no increase of cxistin}^ armaments should take 
 place. 
 
 "(2) That existing- armaments be laid up. 
 
 "(3) That revemie cutters, if allowed at all, be reduced to 
 the minimum of size and force." 
 
 On the latter pcjint he thought there might be advantage 
 in communicating with (lovernor Cass, or with others who 
 were acquainted with it. He asked, "What is the practice 
 with respect to jurisdiction on the lakes? Is it conunon to 
 both parties over the whole, or exclusive to each on its own 
 side of the dividing line?" 1 le suggested that the regulation 
 of revemie cutters might be influenced by the question of 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Monroe, probably feeling that there was no chance of mak- 
 ing any inunediate arrangement with Mr. lUigot, had gone 
 down to Loudoun county, V'a., for a few days, to rest frcnn 
 the cares of public toil. It does not appear that he ever com- 
 municated with General Cass in regard to the questi(.)n of 
 revenue cutters. During the absence of Mr. Monroe in the 
 country it seems that Mr. Bagot had given the matter of 
 naval forces some consideration, and was more ready to 
 discuss the subject. He wrote a letter to Mr. Monroe, and 
 Mr. (jraham sent it to the President on July 13 to get his 
 opinion before Mr. Monroe should give his reply upon his 
 return.' The substance of this letter is ncjt found at the 
 Department of State, but the following letter from Madison 
 to Monroe, on July Ji, will indicate that there had been fur- 
 ther discussion of the subject: 
 
 "I have received yours of the 21 [mistaken date]. I 
 hope Mr. Bagot, if willing to arrange in any mode a reci- 
 procity on the lakes, will innnediately issue instructions to 
 discontinue augmentations, or preparations of force on the 
 liritish side. The state of the size on our side will corre- 
 spond without instructions, but a comnniiiicalion to the 
 proper ofticers of what may be the British intentions will be 
 
 J 
 
 'Madison Papers, Vol. 58, No. <yi. 
 
Agnetnc7il of i8ry. 
 
 75 
 
 proper. There can be no inconvenience to ^[r. Bagot in 
 takinjj: sucli a course. The measure sufjpcstcd may be Dro- 
 visional till a more formal arrangement be made; or con- 
 verted into a permanent arraiijj^ement as may be found best."' 
 
 After Monroe's return from Loudouu county, he had sev- 
 eral conversations with Mr. I'.agot upon the subject of the 
 nava) armaments upon the lakes, and he "thought at one time 
 that they would agree;" but when Monroe put his ideas in 
 writing, and sent the papers to Mr. Bagot informally, the lat- 
 ter would not subscribe his name to them.' As a reason, he 
 intimated that tiiere was some difficulty as to his powers. 
 Monroe, seeing that there was "little probability of his being 
 able to do anything inunediately with Mr. Bagot" in relation 
 to the fisheries, and to the reduction of naval forces, decided 
 to leave again the hot miasmic atmos])here of the ca])ilal and 
 to return into the coimtry. Under the circumstances, it 
 seemed umiecessary for him to remain in Washington to 
 w-^it for r.agot's reply. The reply came soon after the de- 
 ])arture of Mr. Monroe. Mr. ( irah.-im sent a copy of it to the 
 I'resident on July jy, and said; "'i'his was forwarded to Mr. 
 Monroe, and by his directiotis I Jiow send it to you. His 
 answer will be sent here by the next mail and is to be for- 
 warded to you before it is sent to .Mr. Uagot." This reply 
 was, doubtless, Mr. Bagot 's letter of Jidy 26, which formally 
 opened the negotiations at W.'ishington by stating that in 
 relation to the naval armaments on the lakes the Prince Re- 
 gent, "in the spirit of the most entire confiilence," was ready 
 to adopt "any reasonable system" which would contribute 
 to ec(jnoniy, to ptacefulness, and to the removal of jealousy. 
 The "answer" which Monroe was to send "by the next mail" 
 was, therefore, his letter of August 2, in which he submitted 
 the "precipe project" which was desired. The details of the 
 proposal were given as follows: 
 
 "I have the honor now to state that the President is will- 
 ing, in the spirit of the i)eace which so happily exists be- 
 
 ' .Monroe Papers, Vol. 15, No. 1973. 
 
 'Madison Papers, Vol. 5.S, No. 107, July 29. (draliam to Madison.) 
 
) . 
 
 76 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 I 
 
 twecn the two nations and nntil the proposed arrangement 
 shall 1)0 cancelled in the manner hereinafter suggested, to 
 confine the naval force to be maintained on the lakes on 
 each sides to the following vessels, that is: On Lake On- 
 tario to one vessel not exceeding loo tons burthen and one 
 l8 pound cannon, and on the upper lakes to two vessels of 
 like burthen and force, and on the waters of Lake Chatnplain 
 to one vessel not exceeding the like burthen and force; and 
 that all other armed vessels on those lakes shall be forthwith 
 dismantled, and likewise that neither party shall build or arm 
 any other vessel on the shores of those lakes. 
 
 "That the naval force thus rctaincfl by each party on the 
 lakes shall he restricted in its duty to the protection of its 
 revenue laws, the transportation of troops and goods, and to 
 su .)ther services as will in no respect interfere with the 
 a .lied vessels of the other party. 
 
 "That should either of the parties be of opinion hereafter 
 that this arrangement did not accciuiplish the object in- 
 tended by it, and be desirous of annulling it, and give notice 
 thereof, it shall be void and of nn effect after the expiration 
 of months from the date of such notice.'" 
 
 Monroe stated that immediate effect might be given to 
 this project by convention or by interchange of notes, or that 
 if Bagot had to wait for the sanction of his government, a 
 provisional reciprocal arrangement might be made. lie al.so 
 stated that, in case Mr. Bagot's powers were not adecpiate to 
 do more, he would be willing to concur in the suspension of 
 further augmentation or equipment of vessels for the lakes 
 named. 
 
 Mr. Bagot offered no objection to any of the details of the 
 proposition, but he antiounced his lack of authority to con- 
 clude definitely an agreement as to details without first sub- 
 nutting it to his government for its consideration of "points 
 connected with the internal administration" of the provinces, 
 
 ' Ann.ils of Congress. 15-1, Vol. 2, p. 1943. App»'ndi.\. See also 
 AtiuTicati .State Papers, I'oreii^n Relations, Vol. 4, p. 202. 
 
Agree menl of iSij. 
 
 77 
 
 I 
 
 and as to tlic naval assistance necessary for the ordinary 
 business of a peace establislinicnt. In tlie meantime, he was 
 willing to give effect to any arrangement, to wliicli they 
 might agree, for the mutual suspension of construction, 
 equipment, and exertion on the lakes. 
 
 Monroe returned from the country on August lo, and he 
 now proposed (August \2}, in order that the arrangement 
 should be ecpial, to adopt the detailed project of August 2, as 
 a "provisional arrangement." But Bagot did not feel "au- 
 thorized to make, even provisionally, any precise agreement 
 as to the e.xact manner" of limiting the forces on the lakes. 
 His power appeared to be limited, as Monroe wrote to 
 Adams (.\ugust 13), "to a right to agree to suspend the fur- 
 ther augmentation of the naval force on those waters, with- 
 out fixing its maximum by any rational standard to the 
 number of vessels which might be necessary." 
 
 Mr. Monroe stated to him. in his note of August 12, that 
 if his power did not extend farther than this, the United 
 States Government would, upon receiving a statement of 
 the r.ritish force on the lakes, and an assurance that it 
 would not be further augmented, confine the United States 
 force to the same limits. Mr. Bagot agreed the next day to 
 furnish the statement of the force as soon as he could get 
 information upon the subject, and closed his note by saying: 
 "I can in the meantime give you tlic assurance that all fur- 
 ther augmentation of it will be immediately suspended." 
 
 Mr. Bagot stated in his note of August 6, that "the gen- 
 eral coincidence of sentiment" between the two governments 
 in regard to coming to sonu; agreement upon the subject 
 gave reason to hope that the several parts of the arrange- 
 ment would be easily adjusted. But he was not satisfied at 
 that time to make such a large reduction as was proposed by 
 the note of Mr. Monroe containing the views of the Presi- 
 dent. Concerning this note, Mr. Bagot, on August 12, wrote 
 to Lord Castlereagh as follows: 
 
 "On examining the draft which I received from him, I 
 found, that besides a proposal for a much larger reduction 
 
78 
 
 A^'utralily of the Aittcrican Lakrs. 
 
 tU'.-i 
 
 of tlio N'aval I'nrcc than sooniod coniiiatibU- with tlio ordinary 
 business uf a I'cai-c I'.stahlislinicnl. it cotitaiiicd certain re- 
 strictions as to the c!n])loynH'nt of the N'essels to he re- 
 tained, which appeared to ine to have some object in view 
 beyond the principal . . . one professed by the American 
 ( iovernment. I, therefore, in returninc,'' the draft to Mr. 
 Ab)nroe, carefully avoided enterint,^ into any discussicjn 
 whatever of the terms. , . . It is distinctly understood be- 
 tween .Mr. Monroe and myself, that if, upon the receipt of 
 my Letter by the Connnander of His .Majesty's Naval 
 I'orccs, any of the armed vessels now buildinj,^, shall be in 
 that state of ])rof4ress in which they cannot be laid up or dis- 
 mantled without injury to the materials it shall be permitted 
 to completi' them so far as is necessarv for their preserva- 
 tion.'" 
 
 W'hcn Lord Castlcreai^h received the aliove letter the 
 members of the cabinet were scattered, and the consideration 
 of the matter was laid over till they could meet.' 
 
 Since the specific proposition had to be referred to Lord 
 Castlereai;h, .Mr. Monroe thouj^ht it ])robal)le that the coii- 
 clusif)n of the nep)tiations wotild revert to .Mr. Adams. In 
 his letter of Auj^ust 13 to Adams' he spoke t)f the obvious 
 advantaf^e of this, as he (Adams) was "already authorized to 
 treat on other important subjects." Adams was not inclined 
 to see any advanta.u'c in it. It came in the nature of another 
 surprise to him. When he received Mr. Monroe's letter, he 
 ai)pears to have been inclined to (piestion the sincerity of the 
 existing' cabinet, whose policy appeared to him to be one of 
 subterfup;es, of refusals to negotiate, "or of expedients hav- 
 itig all the features of refusal except its candor.'" lie was 
 tireil of delays and sur])rises and uncertainties ujion this sub- 
 ject, ft was a jugglery of "now you see it, and now you 
 don't," a!id he feared that the Americans were the crcduhjus 
 
 ' ".America," \'ol. 142, Letter No. 24. 
 
 '' "Anieriia," Vol. 140. -'S Instructions, p. 94. 
 
 *2i Dip. Cor., No. 56. 
 
Agreement of iSrj 
 
 79 
 
 auditors who had been made fools in the f^^anic. When on 
 January 2^ he made liis proposal "for disanniii};. or at least 
 for limjlin;; armaments upon the lakes," he was convinced 
 from the manner in which it was received that it would not 
 be acccptcKl. But in April "he was assured by Lord Castle- 
 reagh that the government was disposed fully ti) meet the 
 pro} M^sition. and that Mr. Iiagot should inmicdiately he au- 
 thorized 10 enter into formal stipulation for the |>untosc. 
 And as. it nou appearefl probable that T.agot's power would 
 terminate in a reference back to his own ji^^overnment, .\<lams 
 was led to *u»ptcion that I'.nt^land was ^.iIuply anni^iu;.,^ the 
 United Sta:e», while i)reparin^ her defenses. He wrote 
 Monroe. Seixember 2J, that "while Wv. \\i\\::,oi was net'oti- 
 ating and rcceivtng your specific proposition to be trans- 
 mitted here. 52.000 tons of ord lance stores have been dis- 
 patched to <"--i'^P'!a with the avi wed purpose of armin;,' their 
 new con*tr: ; i^rts, and new built shijjs upon the lakes." 
 Monr<x-a^ecd with Adams (November 14) that it ajjpeared 
 that the British policy was to anuise,' and was aware of the 
 t;u])p]y of cannon and munition of war to Canada, but his 
 recent communication with .Mr. I'.a.yot gave him mure con- 
 fidence in the sincerity of the llritish Clovernment. I>y the 
 close of the year there was more evidence to give assurance 
 of good intentiona and growing promptness. The effect of 
 this nen* disposition in preventing actual conllict on the bor- 
 der may here be noticed. 
 
 On August 29, Mr. .\dams had called Castlereagh's atten- 
 tion to the improper conduct of the conmiander of the Llritish 
 armed vessel TecumseU, in permitting men from his vessel 
 to board serveral L'nited Stales vessels upon Lake Erie in an 
 improper manner.' Castlereagh, fully "persua<led that 
 measures no less reciprocal" would be taken by the United 
 States, at once bsued positive instructions to the civil, mili- 
 tary and navaf authorities in North America to discourage 
 by every means such proceedings in the future, and to pur- 
 
 ' No. S lustnKti 
 
 uns. 
 
 ■No. 21 Dip. Cor.,Si;pl. iS. 
 
80 
 
 Xrii'>a/ily of the Aiiiti iiaii Laki's. 
 
 sue a loinluct shovviuj; an ainioahlc disposition. Iwcn be- 
 fore Adams had presented this coniiihiint to Lord Castle- 
 reaj;h. other simihir acts had been coininitted. and it was 
 inferred that they were "in compliance with a system" 
 which the I'.ritish coirn'anders in Canada thought it their 
 duty to pursue. 
 
 On July 26, General Cass wrote to Monroe (General Mc- 
 Comb also wrote to the Secretary of War) complaining of the 
 improper co',uhict of a Piritish officer of the I'.ritish armed 
 vc?scl Hu'OH in boarding an American vessel, the brij? 
 Union, and searchinj^ her on the strait ner.r Maiden. It 
 had also been represented to Cass that the act was sujiported 
 by officers at Maiden, who placed cannon in position to bear 
 on tl'.e American vessel.' .Secretary Mt)nroe thought (as 
 Adams was also convinced in the case of the Tccnmsch) that 
 the British officers had mistaken the policy of their govt.n- 
 nient. This was doubtless true. On Auj;ust 14 he called 
 the attei.iion of Mr. I'aj^ot to this act of irritation and injus- 
 tice, with full contitlence that he wnn.M i.:ke measures to pre- 
 vent a similar occurrence.' The latter was justly aware of the 
 dangerous tendency of these acts, and proceeded at once to 
 have the Governor General of Ca.iada and the cnief of the 
 naval forces on the lakes direct incjuiry into the matter.' 
 
 ( )n November 18 he informed Secretary Monroe that no 
 cannon had been placed in position at Fort Maiden, as was 
 
 ' N<i. iS Iiislriictioiis, ]>. 99. 
 
 'a Notes Worn S'ute l.)cpt., p. 164. 
 
 'Monroi.', now app.ireiitly lor the first time, informed Cass of the 
 President's discussions witli lia^ot, resiiliin};- in a "provisional 
 arrangeinent, for the i)r(sent to siisi>eiul the further au};inentalion of 
 tile naval force of (ireat Brit.iin in those waters, and to confine our 
 force within the same limit." He also tokl Cass that Basj^ot e.\pected 
 an enlargement of iiis power. He sent him in confuieiue 1 copy of 
 the corre.ipoiRleiice which had passed. He (htl tliis because it would 
 be satisfactory and useful for him to know it. Under a similar 
 injiuiLtion of "cciiifidence," he was authorized to conmiunicate 
 correspondence to Major General McC<jmb. He was also advised 
 to consult with the Governor of Canada liitnself after this. (Aug 15.) 
 (16 Domestic Letters, p. ,^22.) 
 
p^' 
 
 Agreement of iS/y. 
 
 81 
 
 represented, but that it appeared from the reports sent him 
 that the officer coiiinianthng on Lake Erie hafi "miscon- 
 ceived the nature (jf his instructions" and considered that all 
 vessels passinp^ under l'"ort Maiden should he visited.' The 
 coniniaiider-in-chief on the lakes revoked such orders at 
 once, and every means was taken to prevent a similar occur- 
 rence. The orders sent by the influence of Lord Castlereagh 
 had also reached Canrida by this time, and the consequent re- 
 straint on the conduct of the oflicers on the lakes would tend 
 to secure peace and tranquillity in that quarter. All these 
 measures doubtless produced the salutary effect intended by 
 them.' 
 
 Mr. .Madison was highly pleased with the promptness 
 shown by -Mr. l»aj;ot, and at the prompt measures taken at 
 his instance by the commanders in Canada and on the lakes. 
 Mr. I'apfot was assured November 29 that corresponding 
 orders had been given and would be repeated and enforced 
 by the United States Government. 
 
 In the meantime (Novcml)er 4) Mr. Hagot had furnished 
 the Secretary of State with "an account of the actual state of 
 His Majesiy's naval force upon the lakes,*" and stated that 
 
 ' No. 9 Ni>tciJ to State Dcpt. 
 'No. 2 Not's fri;T Stati- Dept. 
 
 'Tile 15ritisl report had lutn prep.ired September i, 1H16. It gave 
 the followinj; v atetnent of tl.e British force on the lakes : 
 "On I.akk O.ntakio : 
 St. Laicrcticc, ran carry <iu };ims, laid ii|. in ordinary. 
 Psy he, can carry 50 kuiis, laid up in ordinary. 
 Pi hurss Charlotte, ran carry 4( >;iiiis, laid np in ordinary. 
 Niigara, ( an carry 211 ki">^. condemned as uiiht for service. 
 Ontwt'/t, can carry 14 yi'iis, hauled up in the mud, condemned 
 
 li '.ewise. 
 Piit.cr A'eQftit, i:an carry 60 guns, in commission, but une(iuip- 
 
 pe 1. . . . 
 AfoN.rral. in commission, carryiiij; h Runs ; used merely as a 
 
 transport. 
 Stat; carrying .\ >;ui;< . . unfit for actual service. 
 Nrtfty, schooner, nt) ^uns ; attached tor most part to the sur- 
 veyors. . . . 
 Some row boats, capable of carryiiijj; long guns ; two 74-gun 
 ships on the stocks, and one transport of 400 tons. 
 
'Mf 
 
 45 
 
 ii||; 
 
 i;l 
 
 ^ Neutralily of Ihc American l.ahis. 
 
 furthcraugiiii'iitation was suspended until the British Govern- 
 ment reported upon the proposal of August 2. Mr. Monroe 
 at once (Xovenibct 7) furnislu-d the former with the state- 
 ment of the United States naval force in the same region,' 
 and had orders given "to prevent any augmentation of it bc- 
 
 On Lakk Vmw. : 
 
 Teciimseh aiui Nexvark, carrying 4 guns eacli. 
 
 Huron ami Sauk, carrying i jjmi eacli. 
 
 Principally for carr>inK sturcs from jilacc to place. 
 On Lake Hlkon : 
 
 Confidence ami Surprise, schooriers, which may carry one gun, 
 and are used for purposes of transport only. 
 
 On Laick CitAMi'i.AiN : 
 
 12 gun-boats, ten of which are laiii up in ordinary, and the 
 other two (one of wiiich mounts 4 t^uns, and the other 3 gnus) 
 used as guard boats. HesitKs the ai)ove, there are some small 
 row boats, which are laid up as unfit for service. 
 
 Keel, stem, and stern-post of a frigate laid ilown at the Isle aux 
 Noix." 
 ' The re[)ort which Mr. .Monroe furnished Mr. i5agot gave the fol- 
 lowing vessels : ( "America, " Vol. ij2, Nov. 9.) 
 On I.aki; Ontakki : 
 
 Hrig/cwf.? (i.S guns). Retained for occasional service. 
 
 Schooner /.rt</v of the Lake (i gun). Kmployed in aid of the 
 revenue l.iws. 
 
 Ship A'fTc Orleans (74 guns). On the stocks, l)uilding suspended. 
 
 Ship Chippe'io (74 guns). On the stocks, hiiiUling suspended. 
 
 Shijis Siiprriity (44 guns), Mohaivk (32 guns), General Pike (24 
 guns), Madison {x'A guns); anil llu: \,x\'gs Jrjjerson (18 guns), 
 Sylph (16 guns), and Oneida (i.S guns). Dismanlled. 
 
 .Schooner Raven. Neceiving vessel. 
 
 15 barges (each, i gun). Laid up for preservation. 
 
 On Lakk !■ kik : 
 Schooners J'orcupinr .ind Ghent (each, i gun). I''niployed in 
 
 transporting stores. 
 Ship Detroit (t8 guns), and brigs Lawrence (20 gims), and Queen 
 
 Charlotte (14 guns). Sunk at Krie. 
 Brig Nia^i^ara (i.S guns). Dismantled at Lrie. 
 
 On Lakk Chamim.ain : 
 Ships Confiance (32 guns), and Saratoga (22 guns) ; brigs Eagle 
 (12 guns), and Sinnet ( 16 guns) ; the schooner Ticonde, jga (14 
 guns) ; and 6 galleys (each, i gun). All laid up at While Hall. 
 
if.:- 1 
 
 A_s;recmc7it of iSiy . 
 
 83 
 
 vond tlic limit i>f tlu' llritish naval force on those waters." 
 Air. r.af,a)t iioticLMJ that no force for the up[)er lakes was 
 given ill the -t.itt nieiit sent him, hut was informed that it had 
 been inehulcd in the force mentioned for Lake V.x'w. It ap- 
 pears tliat there was no further eorrcspcjndence between 
 1 lagol and Moin-oe concerning the matter. 
 
 The reciprocal and delinile mliiction of the naval force on 
 the lakes did not (jccur uilil alter Monroe had become I'resi- 
 (UiU the next year. The I'rince Kegcnt having, in the 
 n: •antiine, agreed to the proposition of August 2, i8i6, 
 L astlereagh so informed Mr. l'.agot on January 31, 1817. Mr. 
 I'agot notified Mr. Rush (who wa/ acting as Secrctarv of 
 State luuil Mr. .\dams could arrive f .-m London), and on the 
 jSlh and jyth of April, 18 17, a formal agreement was eiviered 
 nilo by exchange of notes. It was pr.ictically the same as the 
 jiroposed project of August 2, and could be annulled by 
 cither party's giving si.\ months' notice. The I'ritish Gov- 
 erniucnt had already issueil orders to the officers on the 
 lakes, directing that the limited naval force should be re- 
 stricted to such services as would "in no respect interfere 
 with the proper duties of the armed vessels of the other 
 party." I'.y the recjuest of Mr. Rush (April 30), orders to the 
 same effect were issued on ALiy 2 by Mr. Crowninshield, 
 Secretary of the Navy, to the American commanding naval 
 officers at Erie, Pa., Saekett's Harbor, N. Y., and Whitehall, 
 N, Y. By these orders the schooner I.ady of the Lake was 
 assigned to Lake Ontario, the schooners I'orciipiiic and Ghent 
 to the upper lakes, and the galley /lllen to Lake Chamjjlain. 
 
 The agreement between Rush and Bagot became effective 
 at once upon the exchange of notes. There is no evidence 
 that Great Uritain gave to it the formalities of a treaty, and 
 it was not till April 6. 1818, that 1 'resident .Monroe formally 
 notified the Senate of the United States of the arrangement, 
 and submitted to its consideration whether this was "such an 
 arrangement as the Executive is cotiipetent to enter into by 
 the i)owers vested in it by the Constitution, or is such a one 
 as re(|uires the advice and consent of the Senate, and, in the 
 
 
84 
 
 Neutrality of the Ameriean Lakes. 
 
 latter case, for their advice aiul consent, should it be ap- 
 proved." The a])proval and consent of the Senate was 
 given on April lO, with no dissentinj^; vote, and it was rec- 
 omnunded that the arran^enu tit be carried into effect by the 
 President, 'i'he .\j.^recnient was proclaimed by President 
 Monroe on April 28, and appears in the National intelli- 
 gencer of April 30, as follows : 
 
 r>v Till-: PiuiSiDENT oi- TiiK I'mti:i) Statks of Amkrica. 
 
 A PK()CI.AM.\'riON. 
 
 Whereas, an arranf^enicnt was entered into at the city of 
 Washin^'ton, in the niontli of April, in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand cijjht hundred and sevenUen, between Richard 
 Rush, hLscp, at that time actin}^ as Secretary for the l)ei)art- 
 ment of State of the United States, for and in behalf of the 
 Government of the United States, and the Right flonorablc 
 Charles Bagot, His P)ritannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary 
 and mim'ster plenipotentiary, for and in behalf of llis Bri- 
 tamiic Majesty, which arrangement is in the words following, 
 to wit : 
 
 "The naval force to be maintained ujnm the American 
 lakes by His Majesty and the Ciovernment of the United 
 States shall henceforth be confined to the following vessels 
 on each side, that is — 
 
 "On Lake Ontario, to one vessel, not exceeding one hun- 
 dred tons burden, and armed with one eighteen-pound can- 
 non. 
 
 "On the upper lakes, to two vessels, not exceeding like 
 burden each, and armed with like force. 
 
 "On the waters of Lake Champlain, to one vessel not ex- 
 ceeding like burden, and armed witli like force. 
 
 "All other armed vessels on those lakes shall be forthwith 
 dismantled and no other vessel of war shall be there built or 
 armed. 
 
 "If either party should be hereafter desirous of annulling 
 this stipulation, and should give notice to that effect to the 
 
Agreement of rSij. 
 
 86 
 
 other party, it shall cease to be bindinp^ after the expiration 
 of six months from the date of such notice. 
 
 "The naval force so to be limited shall be restricted to such 
 service as will in no respect interfere with the proper duties 
 of the armed vessels of the other party." 
 
 And whereas the Senate of the United States have ap- 
 proved of the said arranj^ement and reconnnonded that it 
 should be carried into effect, the same haviti^" also received 
 the sanction of His Royal lliphness, the Prince Kefjent, act- 
 ing in the name and on the behalf of His Britannic Majesty: 
 
 Now, therefore, I, James Monroe, President of the United 
 States, do, by this my proclamatit)n, make known and de- 
 clare that the arranj^^ement aforesaid, and every stii)ulation 
 thereof, has been duly entered into, concluded and con- 
 firmed, and is of full force and effect. 
 
 Given under my hand, at the city of Washinj^ton, this 
 twcnty-eif;htli day of .Xiiril, in the year of our Lord, one 
 thousand eifrjit Inmdrt-d and ei}.^hteen, and of the independ- 
 ence of the United States the forty-second. 
 
 By the President: J.ames Monroe. 
 
 John Quinxy Ad.\ms, Secretary of State. 
 
 Tt was the itnpossibility of gettinj^ the vessels from the 
 lakes to the sea which made it necessary to dismantle them 
 on the lakes. This work appears to have been done 
 promptly.' Soon only d-^ciiantled or uncompleted hulks were 
 left as a reminder of the rormer warring fleets. In fact, the 
 forces on each side decl;ned to "almost complete disajipear- 
 ance." By 1820, feelings of danger had decreased so far that 
 the House of Representatives refused to consider a resolu- 
 tion which proiX)sed a western depot for arms "convenient 
 to those points which arc most vulnerable to the enemy.'" In 
 1822, Mr. Cooke, in the House, understanding that most of 
 the vessels on the lakes were sunk and "none fit for service, 
 
 ' Niles' R<.'<^ist(.'r. July 12, 1S17, p. 320. 
 ■Annals of Ci)tiji;rL'Ss, Jan. 4, 1821). 
 
 > ''4 
 
86 
 
 NeutraHlv of the .-l nun' am /.akcs. 
 
 thouj^'h it si'onicd that the salaries of oflficers and men did not 
 have a correspondinjj decline," desired an incjniry into the 
 subject.' By 18J5 i)nl)lic vessels had practically disappeared. 
 The "era of j.;;oo(l feeling;" had now taken the place of 
 quarrels, oppression and inisunderstandinp^. and peace hepan 
 to exist in fact as well as in theory. The prompt orders sent 
 out by Castlereaph to the naval officers on the lakes, suspen- 
 sion of the construction of vessels in that (piartiT, and, finally, 
 the agreement to limit the force of each side on the lakes, in- 
 creased the confidence of the Americans in the intentions of 
 their British kin. It was a fortunate circinnstance that the 
 heads of affairs in both countries were not men with stronj^^er 
 prejudices than they had reason. Castlcreatjh was probably 
 in advance of public opinion in hjif^jland in making favorable 
 concessions to the I'nited .States and in tryiujc^ to soften old 
 animosities, and Bapot, though very cautious, was inclined 
 to any reasonable measure for securing friendly relations. 
 Both were held in hiffh esteem by the American people. Mr. 
 P>ap[ot was liitjiily honored at Washington, lie was much 
 liked by both Madison and Monroe. Tie and his wife took 
 pleasure in spendinj^ several days of the antunm at Mont- 
 pelier, the home of Mr. and .Mrs. Madison.' The scene 
 around the dinintr table in that old Xirj^-inia home may be 
 typical of the new feelint; which was be^itminp to i^rcnv up. 
 After Mr. Baj^ot's return to Enjjland, T.ord C'astlerea^h 
 showed {Treat satisfaction at the friendly feelinj:^ toward him 
 in America, and said it was desired to send him back if his 
 health would alK.w.' It was felt to be a time for the adjust- 
 ment of questions that containetl the seed of future misun- 
 derstanding or controversy, and for awhile the Americans 
 hoped to see En^^land yield on the question of impressment, 
 as well as on others of preat moment in their bearin^^s upon 
 harmonv between the two nations. 
 
 ' Benton's Ahrid)jemenl of Debates, Vol. 7. 
 -Madison P.-ipers, Vol. fM, No. 65, Oct. 17. 
 ^23 IDcspatclies. (Dip. Cor., Rusli to Adams.) 
 
Agree7nevl of i8ij. 
 
 87 
 
 Old causes of aniiviosity wore beinp^ removed at home. 
 Monroe made a visit to the North and W^est, which helped 
 to remove party and national prejudices. When he com- 
 pleted his journey from Ogdenshurfj to Detrftit and re- 
 turned to Washington in Septcnd)er he had broad views of 
 the future of his country. In his niessaj::^e of December, 1817, 
 he said thai "our own jx'ople are the barrier on the lakes," 
 and preat fortifications are lumccessary. lie hoped that 
 a j;!st. candid and friendly policy would enable us to preserve 
 amicable foreifjn relations. Society appeared to be weary of 
 strife. The druf^ers of future (|uarrels were even less than 
 was thought by some who were seeking to guard the repub- 
 lic against future occasions of strife. Mr. Madison thought 
 that if the question of impressment was settled, a remaining 
 danger to a permanent harmony would lie in the possession 
 of Canada.' ( )ii Xovend)er 28, 1818, he wrote Monroe that 
 "the only reason we can have to desire Canada ought to 
 weigh as much with Oeat Britain as with us. In her hands 
 it nnist ever be a source of collision which she ought to be 
 e(|ually anxious to remove." lie thought that even if Can- 
 ada should not become independent in time, she could be of 
 no value to ICngland when at war with the I'nited States, and 
 would be of equal value when at peace. lUit time has proven 
 that with the sairguards which the spirit of the fathers pro- 
 vided tlu-re has been little danger from that source. 
 
 .■\nglo-.\merican relations for twenty years after the 
 Agreement of 1817 were far more cordial than they had ever 
 been before. The connnercial convention of 181 5 was fav- 
 orable to the United States, but it had been made for only 
 four years. In 1818 it was extended for ten years more. 
 
 It was feared for awhile that Astoria, in the Oregon coun- 
 try, woidd be a source of troid>le. The r.ritish had taken 
 possession of this post during the war of 181 j, and Mr. Mon- 
 roe announced in July, 1815, that the United States intended 
 to reoccupy it. When the Ontario sailed from New York 
 
 Madison's Works, Vol. 3, p. 42, 
 
88 
 
 Neutrality of the Avieriian Lakes. 
 
 
 in October, 1817, on a voyage to the Pacific coast with this 
 end in view, Mr. Bajjot remonstrated, hut the British Gov- 
 ernment did not stand with him, and on October 6, 1818, 
 Astoria was siirrenrlered. Mr. Piagot's successor found no 
 diplomatic difficuUics in his way, and Mr. Rusli, who had 
 replaced Mr. Adams at London, was treated with great re- 
 spect there. 
 
 Of course, the old feeling of enmity did not die at once. 
 The loyalists who went from the I'nited States to C.inada 
 during the revolution, and received lands there, had an -ver- 
 sion to Americans which was not diminished by the invasion 
 of Canada at the begiiniing of the War of 1812. It was nat- 
 ural for the Americans to return this hostile feeling, and 
 some of the insolvent farmers around Lewiston might have 
 been glad of a chance for another invasion.' The only faidt 
 that English travelers found with the Americans, however, 
 was that they were inclined to "blow their horn too much." 
 They vaunted over what the British called "a puny war." 
 
 In June and July, 1822, commissioners settled upon the 
 details of the boundary line between Canada and the United 
 States from the St. Lawrence to Lake Superior, thus lessen- 
 ing the probabilities of misunderstanding in that quarter. 
 When Canning came to the head of the Foreign Office at the 
 death of Castlercagh in 1822 he was nnich viore polite than 
 he had been before the war in his convc sation with the 
 American ambassadors. In 1823 he drew Great Britain 
 closer to the United States. The interests of the two coun- 
 tries were the same in the South American republics. 
 
 In 1826, relations had become somewhat tangled. An 
 E-!glish order in council kept the United .States from trading 
 with the West India ports. At the same time the British 
 authorities in Canada were building canals to compete with 
 the United States in securing the trade of the lakes. Some 
 went so far as to advise that in order to deprive the Ameri- 
 
 ' Howison : Sketches of Upper Canuilii and llie United Stales. 
 1820. 
 
A)^r cement of rSi-^. 
 
 80 
 
 cans of a means of attack upon Canada, and in order to make 
 Great Ilritain mistress of tbe lake trade, the canals should be 
 made larpc enough for steamers suited to the lakes and 
 "capable of beinf:^ turned into military purposes without any 
 expense.'" This proposal to secure for Clreat I'ritain the 
 commercial and military possession of the lakes was not the 
 result of any inuuediate danf:;er to the security of Canada, nor 
 to her interests except so far as the Erie canal, carryinj^ the 
 waters of the lake toward the Atlantic, had opened the door 
 between New "S'ork city and the commerce of the rich and 
 developinjj Northwest. The United States was not looking 
 for war. 
 
 With the preat increase in the population alonp the south- 
 ern shores of the lakes, and with the more friendly intermiii};- 
 linp of the two jHoples upon its waters, the relations with 
 (ireat Britain were felt to be entirely safe. In 1H26, Fort 
 Shelby, at Detroit, was demolished and the jj^arrison was re- 
 moved. By 1827, when Canninj^ died, affairs with Enp;land 
 were even more satisfactory. The convention of 18 18 was 
 continued indefinitely. Tn 183:.. .vhen the United States 
 asked the West India trade as a priviletre. the interdict was 
 removed by Great I'ritain. A permanent direct trade in 
 American bottoms was also established between k'n.ti^land 
 and the United States. 
 
 Statesmen could look forward to continued cordial rela- 
 tions and a gradual gnnvth of the sjiirit of reciprocity. 
 Strained relations were not anticipated. War was thought 
 of only as a remote possibility. In 1830 it was argued in the 
 House of Representatives that in case of any future war our 
 main defense of the long northern frontier must be our naval 
 force, but it does not seem that any war was expected. When 
 the question of fortifications was being considered in Con- 
 gress in 1836, Mr. Cass, the Secretary of War, thought that 
 under existing conditions, and when we were not hunting 
 war, it seemed "altogether inexpedient to construct expen- 
 
 ' Roport of Canadian .'\rchives. i.Sgcv Lieut. Col. By to Gen. Mann, 
 
 July 13, 1.S26. 
 
90 
 
 Neulra/Hy of the American Lakes. 
 
 sivc fortifuatidPs" aloiif^ the lake frontier, which, he said, 
 "requires no permanent defenses."' 
 
 What the lakes needed was not a fleet of naval vessels, nor 
 a cordon of shore defenses, hnt improved harbors for the 
 increasinj^ eommenial fleet. In 1816 the first steamer, the 
 Ontario, was built on Lake f^ntario ai Sackett's Harbor. 
 She bej,'an to ply in Aj)ril. 1S17. In 1S18 the first steamer on 
 Lake Erie, the U'dlk-in-thc-lVatcr' was launched near 
 Black Rock, below Buffalo. l*"roni 1818 to 1824 there was 
 a very small number of vessels employed on the lakes. From 
 1824 to iSj" there were harbor improvements on Lake Hrie. 
 which produced a stimulus on cotnmerce. A new stimulus 
 was piven in 1825 by the completion of the l'>ie canal,' 
 which had been conmienced at Rome on July 4, 18 17. There 
 w; s a j,'radual increase in conuuerce from this time forward. 
 Miiny new steamers were built." Two new boats were built 
 in 1824, and three more in 1825. I'.y 18,^2 there were four 
 others. In 1833, twelve additional ones were coni])lcted. In 
 a few years more there were fifty steamers ff«;m liufTalo to 
 the up])er lakes. Chicaj^o was first reached by a vessel from 
 the lower lakes in 1834. IJown to this time all the boats that 
 went beyond Cleveland were primarily enj^ap^ed in carrving 
 provisions to the new settlers. After 1835 the transportation 
 of western products to the East became more |)r(imincnt. 
 The first car^o of yrain from Lake Michigan reached IhifTak) 
 in 1836. In the same year a company was orj^^anized in Chi- 
 cago to facilitate the transportation of goods from St. Louis 
 to that city, and the bulk of the western products that foimd 
 their way east by the lakes constantly increased.' 
 
 ' II(jiise kL'porls, I'^xcc. Doc. N'u. 24.;, 24tli Coiij;.. ist Session. 
 
 'An account of its eiurance to Detroit is found in an "Account 
 Book " of the Collector of Customs .it iliat place in 1.S18. 
 
 'The ()s\vej;o canal was also compieted in 1828, and the Welland 
 canal in 1S29. 
 
 * E.xec. Docs., 27-1, \ol. 1, p. 191 (i.S4i-2). .Alscj, see Sci.ate Doc. 
 112, Auji. 25, 1852. Also, see J. \V. Hail's " Record of i.akc Maiine." 
 Detroit, 1878. 
 
 MVis. Hist. Coll., Vol. 13, 1.S95, article by O. Lilihy on the "Sig- 
 nificance of the Lead and Shot Trade Also, sec Ivxec. Doc. 68, 
 26-1, Feb. 1840. Also, Senate Doc. 14. ■, 26-1, \'ol. 4, p. 19. Also, 
 De Bow's Review for January, 1S46. 
 
V. 
 
 THK CANADIAN RF.P.F.TJJON AND BOUNDARY 
 
 QUESTIONS. 
 
 Tanolkd Rkf.ations and TnKKATK\Kn Armamknts. 
 
 Tlio period after the elose nf the second war with I'JiL,dand 
 was one of national and industrial development. The Jirtny 
 of active and cnterprisinj; people continued to advance west- 
 ward, and the region alon}^ the lake shores which, at the time 
 of the war, had been "covered with dark and i;Iooiny forests, 
 filled with hostile savaj^es." was j^radnally claimed for culti- 
 vation and civilization. The tribes which Tecumseh strng- 
 pled to form into a jjrcat confederacy retreated before the 
 cniif^rants that ])ushed their way over the Appalachian 
 mountains. SileiUly and j.jra(lually there ^ww up a com- 
 merce which far surpassed the early fiu" trade. The demand 
 for a bettti conunuiiication between b'ast and West' was 
 finally answered in the construction of the Erie canal aiid 
 the increased use of the lakes for transportation. This in 
 turn led to the more rapid j^rowth of the N'orthui-st, and the 
 waters which had once been the scene of the most brilliant 
 naval trium])hs which adorn our history were transformed 
 into a conmiercial hijii^hway to carry vast products to the 
 ocean. 
 
 It docs not appear to have occurred to the pfovernmcnts 
 that with the increased settlements in the West iiUernal 
 troubles mif,dit arise on either side of the lakes and make it 
 necessary to protect the frontier from lawless violations of 
 neutrality. This very condition of affairs, however, was 
 brouj;ht into existence in connection with the Canadian Re- 
 bellion of 1837-38, when secret lodges of sympathizers held 
 
 'See Niles' Register, Feb. 22, 1S17, p. 423. 
 

 <\y. 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 f ilM IIM 
 
 '^: ""- |||||M 
 
 ;r 1^ III 2.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 .8 
 
 1.6 
 
 ^i.^^ 
 
 <? 
 
 ^ 
 
 n 
 
 /a 
 
 d. 
 
 ^A 
 
 
 O 
 
 7 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ^ 
 
 ,\ 
 
 ■'S^ 
 
 \\ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 c> 
 
 ^^;> 
 
 % 
 
 V 
 

 Q- 
 
 o^ 
 
92 
 
 Neutrality of the Americaii Lakes. 
 
 meeting's in several of our lake cities, and, by readiness to 
 rush blindly into conflict, endangered our peace with Eng- 
 land. Some joined these lodges because of a hatred toward 
 Great Britain, which had its origin in the Revolution of 1776. 
 Others sympathized with the insurgents of Upper Canada 
 simply because they represented the weaker side. Still others 
 believed the rebellion was a struggle for liberty in Canada. 
 
 The Canadian insurgents received more sympathy at Buf- 
 falo than at any other point, on account of the central posi- 
 tion of the place and owing to the fact that it had a large float- 
 ing population who were out of work. Some of the news- 
 papers published stirring editorials, which were not intended 
 to calm misdirected sentiment. When Mackenzie, the leader 
 of the rebellion, came to Buffalo on December 10, 1837, dem- 
 onstrations were arranged in his honor, and spread-eagle 
 "orators" regaled the crowds with mendacious speeches. 
 Several of the rabble joined the rebel army. An "Executive 
 Committee" was appointea at a popular meeting to look after 
 the safety of the city. There was some fear that the Cana- 
 dians would make an attempt upon the city in revenge for 
 the sympathy shown the insurgents. On December 21, Sec- 
 retary of State Forsyth gave instructions to the United States 
 District Attorney to enforce the law in preserving neutrality. 
 Nevertheless, several of the rabble joined the insurgent 
 forces — some for expected spoils, some for fun, and some to 
 kill time. The son of old General Van Rensselaer joined 
 because he aspired to be a "Sam Houston." 
 
 During the latter part of December, 1837, the insurgents 
 were gathered at Navy Island, on the Canadian side of the 
 Niagara river, just above the Falls. Mackenzie represented 
 it as the seat of government for Upper Canada, and issued his 
 proclamation declaring in favor of free trial, free elections, 
 free trade, free education, free St. Lawrence, free western 
 lands and freedom from weary prayers to lordlings. Tlis bait 
 did not catch as many Americans for his army as he had 
 hoped, though it increased the sympathy for his cause. 
 ^ . Governor Sir Francis Bond Head, of Canada, soon issued 
 
w 
 
 'I > 
 
 Ca7iadia7i Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 
 
 93 
 
 a call for troops to stop this menace to the Government of 
 Canada. It was foimd that Mackenzie had chartered the 
 steamer Caroline, owned by American citizens, to carry 
 supplies from Schlosser, on the American side,' to the insur- 
 gents at Navy Island. On December 29 a British expedi- 
 tion crossed over to the Schlosser wharf in boats, and, after 
 some force, secured the Caroline. Her decks were cleared, 
 and she was taken to the middle of the river, where she was 
 set on fire and allowed to drift toward the falls. Durinj": the 
 capture one American, Amos Durfee, was shot and left dead 
 on the wharf. In death he received greater honors than he 
 had ever received in life." His body was displayed on the 
 piazza of the city hall in Buffalo, and his funeral was exten- 
 sively advertised by a panorama of placards illustrated with 
 coffins. It was an appeal to sentiment. Inflammatory 
 speeches were made to the excited multitude to persuade 
 them that the eagle had been insulted. 
 
 As the news of the Caroline massacre spread there were 
 mutterings of war. The danger of filibustering expeditions 
 from the United States was increased. Some young men of 
 Buffalo were especially anxious to get hold of a royalist sheriff, 
 McLeod, who had made threats against the people of that 
 city.'' Some who had been passive sympathizers with the 
 insurgents before, now l:)ecame active. The manager of a 
 Detroit theatre announced a benefit each week for the 
 "Patriots." Some urged a war with England. A member of 
 the "Executive Committee" of Bufifalo was reported to have 
 said that he would have a war out of the Canada disturbance 
 if possible.' The country waited in suspense to sec what 
 course the government would pursue. There was a false 
 report that Mr. Fox would demand his passports. Stocks in 
 
 New York fell i| per cent. " On January 7 the Buffalo Daily 
 • \ — 
 
 ' Sclilosser Wharf is between Navy Island and N'iagara Falls. 
 
 '^Lucy M. Hawes : Buffalo Fifty Years Ago (pamphlet, 1886). 
 
 ^ Dctvoit Free Press, Jan. 6, 1S38. 
 
 * BuHalo CoiiiiHercial ^Uivertiser, ]m\. 23, 1S3.S. 
 
 ^Buiralo Covimereial Adi'erliser, }an. 17. 
 
 
 wA 
 
 
 s." I 
 
 n 
 
 . a 
 
 
94 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 Star said that notwithstandinpf the Sabbath stillne&f, "ttJhe 
 whole frontier from Buffalo to Lake Ontario row bristles 
 with bayonets." The ferries were stopped. The two peoples 
 along the Niagara were watching each other. 
 
 There were rumors of preparation for invasion froini Can- 
 ada. The people of eastern Chautauqua county were f-cared 
 by the report started by a drunken man that 3000 ludliaiBiis 
 were coming from Canada.' Conspiracies against the peace 
 of Canada were also being hatched all along the line. "«j«in>- 
 eral" Sutherland, who had enlisted in the insurgent catisi* at 
 Buffalo, went west to incite the people." At Detroit lae (ob- 
 tained possession of several boats, with supplies. Mra*kets 
 were taken from the jail and from the door adjoimitg- ttlie 
 United States Alarshal's office.' Sutherland began to i<«n:e 
 his proclamations from Bois Blanc Island, but his air-ca^des 
 fell when the Anne, conmianded by the Irish-Canaidiian,. 
 Theller, was captured near Maiden on January lo- TEie 
 cause of the "Patriots" was clearly on the wane by J.a:niEairjr 
 13, when the cannonading at Navy Island ceased and due aa- 
 surgents evacuated the place. 
 
 In the meantime an effort was being made on each ^iiJe to 
 prevent further trouble. A meeting was held in Bufiailo) tto 
 counteract the bad effect of the previous meetings. Il was 
 in favor of non-interference in the affairs of Canada. lit was 
 declared that this was the safe policy to prevent Eriuiih 
 steam frigates from appearing upon the lakes, and ibte h^X. 
 plan to follow in order to prevent an Anglo- !Mexicauni alli- 
 ance. The Government at Washington was prompt m its 
 action. It objected to the seizure of the Caroline, but ttiiere 
 was a good understanding with the British minister."* h^VL ol 
 January 9 provided means of preserving peace on tie 5i«iMr- 
 der. The President issued a proclamation enjoining ne-L-.ral- 
 ity, and Secretary Woodbury requested the command-tr ol 
 
 ^ Nciv York Express, ]\\w. 3, 1S38. 
 '■'Dent : Upper Canadian Rebellion, Vol. 2, p. 224. 
 ^R. B. Ross: Patriot War. {Detroit Ncivs, 1S90-91.) 
 ♦ Philadelphia U. S. Gazette, Jan. 5, 1838. 
 
I«M. 
 
 Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 
 
 95 
 
 the cutter Erie to go to Buffalo to aid in enforcing the 
 laws.' General Scott was sent to the frontier, and Buffalo 
 became a military post. His moderation did much to calm 
 the excitement- on the border. When the British general, 
 McNabb, had Captain Drew to anchor two schooners in 
 American waters to intercept the passage of the Barcelona, 
 in which it was believed the insurgents intended to depart for 
 the Michigan frontier, Scott objected, but, at the same time, 
 he arranged to charter the Barcelona for his own use, and 
 by keeping a watch on other vessels, he interfered with move- 
 ments hostile to the Canadian Government. The insurgents 
 tried to secure the Virginia, but they could not get anyone 
 to give bonds for it. It was also suggested by sympathizers 
 in Buffalo that they get the steamer Peacock at Erie, but 
 it was feared "that the cutter and steamboats in the service of 
 the United States would interfere."^ General Van Rensse- 
 laer began to feel that his aspirations to become a "Sam 
 Houston" had very little chance of being realized, and he 
 soon went east to see his "beloved intended." ' 
 
 The prompt action of the United States Government in 
 preventing the "Patriots" from organizing and from secur- 
 ing lake vessels had hardly been expected by them. Donald 
 McLeod wrote: "The course which your government has 
 pursued towards the Patriots seems to me uncalled for, espe- 
 cially after the repeated insults and aggressions by the British 
 authorities." McLeod accused the British of having three 
 armed vessels on Lake Erie in violation of their agreemer*- 
 with the United States Government.' This and other things 
 led him to "expect that the United States Government would 
 permit the Patriot army to proceed peacefully through its 
 territory," and, "as in the case of Texas," let them alone to 
 manage their own affairs. 
 
 Morgan to Ajt. 
 
 ' BiifTiilo Coimnerciaf Advertiser, ]An. 12, 183S. 
 '' Patriot Letters (in RiitTalo Historical Library' 
 Gen. McLeod, Jan. 28, 1838. 
 'Patriot Letters. Henderson to McLeod, Feb. 4, 1S38. 
 * Patriot Correspondence. McLeod to Thompson, Feb. 16, 1838. 
 
96 
 
 Neutraliiv of tJie American Lakes. 
 
 Notwithstanding the action of the government, however, 
 small bands of insurgents continued to make attempt upon 
 Canada.' ■\IcLeod was defeated on Fighting Island in the 
 Detroit river on February 25. Another band was defeated 
 on Point-Pele Island in western Lake Erie. 
 
 The mutterings of war increased. The United States Gov- 
 ernment had demanded redress "for the destruction of prop- 
 erty and assassination of citizens of the United States on the 
 soil of New York at Schlosser." Public sentiment was 
 worked up to a high pitch, especially after the British Gov- 
 ernment showed no disposition to make amends for what 
 appeared to be clearly a violation of international usage. " 
 The danger of filibustering expeditions from the United 
 States to assist the "Patriots" still existed. 
 
 Governor-General Head, of Canada, lost his equilibrium, 
 and made matters worse. He wrote that almost every United 
 States arsenal from Lake Champlain to Lake Michigan had 
 been broken open in order to enable American citizens to 
 invade Canada.' Fie was inclined to believe the stories of 
 Sutherland, in the Toronto jail, concerning the aim of the 
 United States to get Canada as they had Texas. He wanted 
 greater defenses for Canada, and in this he was opposed by 
 the home government. He took occasion to ventilate his 
 feelings so freely that Lord Glcnelg wrote that he should 
 abstain from conduct or language calculated to inflame pas- 
 sion and endeavor to "diffuse a better and more friendly feel- 
 ing toward the neighboring states." 
 
 The border feeling was further aggravated by the contro- 
 versy in Maine over the disputed boundary. The action of 
 lawless men from the British provinces in cutting timber 
 upon the territory in dispute, and in seizing an agent whom 
 the government of Maine sent to investigate the affair, led 
 to a sharp correspondence between the Governor of Maine 
 
 ' 19 Notes to State Dept. 
 
 '^ Buffalo Conunercial Advertiser, ]m\. 8, 1S38. 
 
 * Head's Narrative, p. 399. Head to Fox, Mar. 3, 1838. 
 
ff 
 
 Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 97 
 
 and the New Brunswick authorities. It looked as if the peo- 
 ple were treading upon smouldering coals which were at any 
 time liable to be blown into a blaze. There was great danger 
 of a local clash of arms. 
 
 Some of the frontier characters were determined to harass 
 the British authorities at every opportunity. On the night of 
 May 29 the Sir Robert Peel, having among other passen- 
 gers Colonel Frasl^er, a British custom-house officer, while 
 passing the Thousand Islands was burned by the notorious 
 Bill Johnson and his associates, who yelled to the half- 
 dressed passengers on the shore, "Remember the Caroline, 
 "Remember the Schlosser."' 
 
 Such acts could not go on always and peace exist. They 
 wore a source of annoyance both to Canada and the United 
 States, and if continued would necessitate a standing naval 
 and military force in that quarter, and this was opposed to the 
 policy and habits of the American Government. The need 
 of a larger force on the lake frontier had already been under 
 consideration. 
 
 On May 28, 1838, the House of Representatives passed a 
 resolution instructing the Committee on Naval Affairs to 
 inquire into the expediency of providing for the construction 
 of an armed steani vessel on Lake Erie. This resolution was 
 referred to the Secretary of the Navy, and on June 8 he wrote 
 the chairman of the committee as follows: 
 
 "In reply to your letter of the 5th inst., enclosing resolu- 
 tion of House of Representatives of May 28 ... As the 
 objects of the resolution required the participation of the 
 Treasury and War Departments, as well as the Navy, the 
 subject was brought to the consideration of the President, 
 as well as the heads of those departments ; upon which it has 
 been concluded, with the approbation of the President, to hire 
 or otherwise procure two steam vessels, one for Lake Erie 
 and one for Lake Ontario, for the purposes mentioned in the 
 
 ' Capt. Van Cleve : Reminiscences of Early Steamboats, etc., p. 47. 
 (Capt. Van Cleve's book is in manuscript and may be seen at the 
 BulTalo Historical Library.) 
 
 -i| 
 
 L.-asSaaS 
 
98 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 yiiii 
 
 \ I 
 
 resolution, and to be so manned and c(|uippcd as not to inter- 
 fere with existing treaties. Measures will be at once adopted 
 for carrying this arrangement into effect, which it is believed 
 may be done under existing appropriations.'" 
 
 After these precautionary measures, further action by 
 Congress was considered unnecessary. 
 
 The British authorities had also begun to make some 
 naval preparation. They had temporarily hired some boats 
 for the expedition against the Caroline. They had also 
 hired two or three schooners in the early part of 1838, and 
 armed them to prevent an invasion from Navy Island, but 
 these were probably not retained after the danger was past. 
 During the summer of 1838 it appears that the authorities in 
 Upper Canada employed "one or more steamers, hired for 
 the purpose, and manned with a certain number of troops, to 
 cruise on Lake Erie against apprehended invasions" of un- 
 lawfully organized bands from the United States. Accord- 
 ing to Colonel Worth, the Canadian authorities also hired 
 several armed steamers and barges after the burning of the 
 merchant vessel Sir Robert Peel in 1838 to cruise against 
 the "Patriots" on the St. Lawrence and on the Canadian side 
 of Lake Ontario. 
 
 Notwithstanding these measures to protect the frontier, 
 considerable alarm was still felt. In June it was reported 
 that Donald McLeod was organizing an invasion of Canada 
 for July 4. There was a report of similar preparations at 
 Port Huron. Toward the end of the summer there were 
 rumors of a widespread organization of "Hunter's Lodges" 
 along the border of the United States, the purposes of which 
 were unfriendly to the Canadian Government. The Brady 
 Guards, of Detroit, were kept busy patroling the Detroit and 
 St. Clair rivers. Mr. Fox notified the State Department on 
 November 3 that he had information of a large secret combi- 
 nation in the United States which was preparing to wage war 
 on the British provinces, and that "no less than nine steam- 
 
 * Reports of Committees, No. 1008, 25-2, Vol. 4. 
 
Canadia7i Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 
 
 99 
 
 boats that ply on Lake Erie had been engaged to the service 
 of the conspirators.'" The Secretary of State saw in these 
 exaggerated reports some room for fear, but he assured Mr. 
 Fox (Novcml)er 15) that "regular military bands from the 
 American side" would be successfully repressed, and stated 
 that the United States Government would expect British 
 officers to prevent a violation of the territory of the United 
 States.' It was a time for discretion and vigilance on both 
 sides. On November 11 the United States, commanded 
 by Captain Van Cleve, left Oswego with many filibuster 
 passengers bound for Ogdensburg. She also towed two "Pa- 
 triot" schooners part of the way. Colonel Worth, United 
 States army, fcjllowcd in the Telegraph, seized all three 
 vessels at Ogdensburg and took them to Sackett's Harbor.* 
 The "deluded youths" who were left in Canada were soon 
 caught by the Canadian authorities.* 
 
 On November 21 the President, with good effect, issued a 
 proclamation against insurgents from the United States. 
 The Canadians, however, felt the need of more effective steps 
 to protect the long frontier. This, together with the fact 
 that the Secretary of State had called the attention of Mr. 
 Fox to the provisions of the Agreement of 1817, caused that 
 gentleman on November 25 to write the Department of State 
 that it was "found necessary to equip under the British flag 
 a more extensive naval armament" upon the boundary lakes 
 and rivers than was allowed by the stipulations of the con- 
 vention of 1817." He apprehended no objection by the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States to this temporary increase of 
 force to guard against the unlawful and piratical acts of hos- 
 tility Wiiich threatened the British colonies. In order that 
 there might be no misapprehension, Mr. Fox thought it ex- 
 pedient to give assurance that the extra armament was 
 ■ , _ — 
 
 ' 19 Notes to State Dept. 
 
 ^ 6 Notes from State Dept. 
 
 'Van Cleve : Reminiscences of Early Steamboats, etc., p. 11. 
 
 * Upper Canadian Gazette Extra, Nov. 16, 1S38. 
 
 * 19 Notes to State Dept. 
 
 m 
 
 
 ■'■ ii 
 
 
li 
 
 J! 
 
 li 
 
 100 
 
 NeutraUty of the American Lakes. 
 
 "equipped for the sole purpose ... of guardiiij^ Ilcr Maj- 
 esty's provinces against a manifest and acknowledged dan- 
 ger," and he stated that it would be discontinued "at the 
 earliest possible period" after the causes which created the 
 danger should cease.' The United States Government made 
 no objection to this extra force. It seems to have been sat- 
 isfied with the explanation made by Air. Fox at this time. On 
 the opening of navigation the next spring, however, it de- 
 cided to make provision for a temporary lake fleet in case it 
 was needed. When a bill was proposed giving the President 
 additional power in regard to the augmentation and prepara- 
 tion of the naval forces of the United States, Mr. Fillmore, on 
 March i, proposed an amendment so that the bill would also 
 include the equipment of vessels on the lakes. Mr. Fillmore 
 was informed at this time that the British had one armed 
 steamer on Lake Ontario, one on Lake Champlain, and three 
 on the upper lakes, and he suggested the advisability of tak- 
 ing some steps in order to be ready to protect the commerce 
 on Lake Erie where the United States Government had not 
 owned a vessel of any kind.' An act was passed on March 3, 
 the day after the news that blood had been shed on the Maine 
 frontier, which provided that in event of invasion or immi- 
 nent danger the President should be authorized to get coast 
 vessels ready for service "and to build, purchase of charter, 
 arm, equip and man such vessels and steamboats on the 
 Northern lakes and rivers whose waters communicate with 
 the United States and Great Britain as he should deem neces- 
 sar)' to protect the United States from invasion from that 
 quarter." 
 
 It appears that during the winter of 1838-39 all danger 
 from the "Patriots" was gone. The season of 1839 was more 
 
 ' The last serious raid of the year occurred in the^ Detroit river. 
 Armed men on the Champlaiu,\A\xx\n^\.\\^ first week in^: December, 
 crossed from Detroit to Windsor and set fire to the steamer|7//o;;/<7j. 
 Several of the raiders were caught by the Canadians. Four were 
 shot and others e.xecuted. 
 
 •'Cong. Globe, Mar. i, 1839, Appendix, p. 282. 
 
 - 5 U. S. Stats, at Large. 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 101 
 
 peaceful. General Scott, who had been sent to the disturbed 
 frontier, was of g^reat service in preventing the madness of 
 the few from dragging the peaceful, non-contesting many 
 into an aggressive war, which would involve all in crime, dis- 
 aster and disgrace. Tn his addresses to large gatherings of 
 "Patriot" sympathizers he reminded them that if, in the at- 
 tempt to force on unwilling neighbors independence and free 
 institutions, we had first to spurn and trample under foot 
 treaty obligations and laws made by our own representatives, 
 we should greatly hazard free institutions at home in the con- 
 fidence and respect of our own people. The trial and convic- 
 tion of Mackenzie in the United States in June also had a 
 good effect, by preventing him from making agitating 
 speeches. 
 
 By the autumn of 1839 the Secretary of State felt that 
 there was no longer any danger of acts of hostility against 
 Canada. The British authorities also felt that all danger was 
 passing away. General Scott did not hear of a single armed 
 British vessel on Lake Erie during the year.' As a security 
 against the renewal of the troubles of the preceding year, 
 however, the British authorities owned or hired two steam- 
 ers, one schooner and several barges, which were employed 
 on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river up to the close 
 of navigation. Mr. Fox thought that in case no new at- 
 tempts against the peace of Canada should occur during the 
 winter there would be no good reason for keeping a larger 
 force than that prescribed by the Agreement of 1817. The 
 abuses which led to the Canadian rebellion were being cor- 
 rected, and the sympathizers on both sides the border recog- 
 nized that it was foolish to try to change the destiny of the 
 Dominion by unlawful movements. 
 
 In his annual message to Congress, December, 1839, Mr. 
 Van Buren stated that "there is every reason to believe that 
 disturbances like those which lately agitated the neighboring 
 
 im^|:wlf;r 
 
 
 
 ':M 
 
 ' Report of Scott to Secretary Poinsett, ISIar. 23, 1S40. 
 Doc. 163, 26-1. 
 
 In Exec. 
 
102 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 i 
 
 % 
 
 British provinces will not again prove the sources of border 
 contentions or interpose obstacles to the continuance of that 
 good understanding which it is the nuitual interest of (Ireat 
 Britain and the United Sta» or, to preserve and maintain." He 
 said that "within the province tranquillity is restored, and on 
 our frontiers that misguided sympathy in favor of what was 
 presumed a general efYort in behalf of popular rights and 
 which in some instances misled a few of our inexperienced 
 citizens, has subsided into a rational conviction strongly op- 
 posed to all intermeddling with the internal afifairs of our 
 neighbors.'" He hoped that future immigrants from Canada 
 would abstain from attempts to endanger the peace of the 
 country which gave them an asylum. 
 
 At the opening of the year 1840 social and business inter- 
 course had been resumed along the frontier,^ but there were 
 other dangerous questions already above the horizon, and 
 the war hawks did not cease shouting for the fray, though 
 they were kept in check by the disapprobation of the ma- 
 jority of the people in the United States and by the wisdom 
 of the higher officials on both sides of the lakes. In the 
 United States it was felt that the British had not yet given 
 satisfactory answer in regard to the invasion of the United 
 States territory by the expedition against the Caroline. 
 Mr. Fox had placed it on the same footing as the invasion 
 of Florida by United States troops, 'whic'i had been justified 
 by President Monroe in his messages of March 25 and No- 
 vember ly, 1818. There were also reports that the British 
 were strengthening their military means upon the Maine 
 boundary. This was not in harmony with the arrangement 
 made between the Governor of Maine and the authorities of 
 New Brunswick through the interposition of General Scott 
 in 1839. It was also believed that the military and naval 
 preparations which had appeared necessary in 1838 were to 
 be continued. 
 
 'Journal of Senate, 26-1, 1839-40. 
 
 "^ Toronto Examiner, ]An. i, 1840. Also, Ogdensburg Times. 
 '19 Notes to State Dept., Oct. 21, 1839. 
 
;;/•■ 
 
 ;•,;') 
 
 ',;-i' 
 
 Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 108 
 
 The condition of the northern frontier attracted consider- 
 able attention in Congress in February, 1840. In March, ac- 
 tive measures were taken to ascrtain the truth concerning 
 the various rumors of extensive British defenses. On March 
 9 the foUowinj.^ res(jhition passed the House of Representa- 
 tives: 
 
 "Tliat the President of the United States be requested to 
 communicate to this House, if compatible with tl:e public 
 service, whether the Clovernmcnt of fireat Britain has ex- 
 pressed to the Government of the United States a desire to 
 annul the arrangement entered into between the two (jov- 
 ernments in the month of April, 1817, respecting the naval 
 force to be maintained upon the American lakes; and that, 
 if said arrangement be not annulled, whether there has been 
 any violation of the same by the authorilit , of Great Britain." 
 
 On xMarch 12 Mr. Norvell offered a resolution, "That the 
 President of the United States be recjuested to cause to be 
 communicated to the Senate all the information that is pos- 
 sessed by the government, or can be conveniently obtained, 
 of the military and naval preparation of the English Govern- 
 ment on the northern frontier of the United States, from 
 Lake Superior to the Atlantic Ocean, distinguishing the per- 
 manent from the ten:porary and field works and particularly 
 noting these which are within the claimed limits of the United 
 States.'" 
 
 In submitting the resolution, he said that > was his firtn 
 conviction, and had been for a long time, "that the period had 
 arrived when preparations of a military and naval character 
 on one side of our northern frontier ought to be met by cor- 
 responding preparation on the other side." He thought that 
 while the British Government was "amusing us with negotia- 
 tions as Philip amused the Athenians, it was making quiet 
 and steady progress in preparing for offensive and defensive 
 operations" along our undefended frontier from Maine to 
 Lake Superior. 
 
 'Congressional Globe, Vol. S, 26-1, pp. 262-3. 
 
 rrf'^ 
 
 
 
 
 ■X\' ,1' ■ 
 
 .■■('.'.•li;-:!", 
 
 ■4h T 
 
 
 
 f. '': -li" 
 
 
 
 
 ■n 
 
\¥ 
 
 li: 
 
 iiil 
 
 ^! . 
 
 
 ill 
 
 !■ : 
 
 i 
 
 
 ii ■, 
 
 r 
 
 104 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 "Along the whole line of Lake Ontario, it had been stated 
 that new military works were in the progress of construction, 
 and that the old works were in a course of being strength- 
 ened. The military posts at Maiden had also, as he had 
 learned, been rendered stronger. White Wood Island, which 
 had been many years ago most unfortunately ceded to the 
 British, was, as he had been informed in letters, fortified, or 
 about to be fortified. That island was in the river Detroit, 
 near its mouth; and, with a powerful battery, it would com- 
 mand the passage of both the American and British chan- 
 nels of the river, and lay the whole of the upper lake country, 
 with its important military posts, its flourishing cities and 
 villages, at the mercy of an enemy. Military works were 
 constructed, or constructing, at Sandwich and Windsor, im- 
 mediately opposite to Detroit. And that prosperous city 
 could, from these works, in one hour, be laid in ashes. And 
 what was the state of defensive military preparation on our 
 side in that quarter? Why, sir, we had not even the benefit of 
 public barracks for the protection and accommodation of 
 the miserable skeletons of companies which were stationed 
 there. The commanding ofificers were compelled to rent a 
 house at the water's edge for their accommodation. 
 
 "He had been told that the British authorities were build- 
 ing one or two steam frigates on Lake Ontario and Lake 
 Erie. Such a measure was a departure from the spirit of that 
 arrangement by which the American and British navies were 
 respectively reduced to one vessel on Lake Champlain, one 
 on Lake Ontario, and two on Lake Erie and the upper lakes, 
 not exceeding one hundred tons burden each, and e?ch car- 
 rying but one gun. Were the steam frigates to be of one 
 hundred tons burden, and to carry but one cannon? Nobody 
 could believe it." 
 
 Mr. Norvell said he was not anxious for war, but he 
 thought that the collection of men, the accumulation of ma- 
 terials, and the preparation of naval vessels along the frontier, 
 together with the fact that the British "were negotiating for 
 the purchase of California," indicated that a crisis was ap- 
 proaching which demanded vigilant preparation. 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 105 
 
 It does not seem that there was so much clanger as Mr. 
 Norvell had been led to believe. Mr. Calhoun thought that 
 there was no real danger along the inland frontier except in 
 case of an actual collision of the local authorities along the 
 Maine boundary.* On April i, in the Senate, he said that he 
 "regarded the British possessions on the frontier as a pledge 
 of peace, and not a source of danger." 
 
 The House was at least determined to get all the necessary 
 information to enable it to decide what was best to be done. 
 On April 6 a resolution was moved by Mr. Fillmore, and 
 adopted by the House, requesting the President to commu- 
 nicate "any information in possession of the executive de- 
 partment showing the military preparation of Great Britain, 
 by introducing troops into Canada or New Brunswick, or 
 erecting or repairing fortifications on our northern and 
 northeastern boundary, or by preparing naval armaments on 
 any of the great northern lakes or the waters connected with 
 them, and what preparations, if any, have been made by this 
 government to put the United States, and especially the 
 northern and northeastern frontiers, in a posture of defense 
 against Great Britain in case of war." 
 
 On April 9 the House considered a resolution of Mr. Hand, 
 of New York, requesting that the Secretary of War commu- 
 nicate "what works he considered necessary to be con- 
 structed in order to place the northern and northeastern 
 frontiers in a proper and permanent state of defense." ^ This 
 resolution was extended, at the request of Mr. Wise, of Vir- 
 ginia, so as to embrace an "entire system of defense." 
 
 In the discussion no one claimed to be seriously alarmed. 
 Mr. Wise, in his principal speech, talked of our defenseless 
 condition in the face of a threatened war; he said we 
 "stood now in the presence of the British lion himself," and 
 with less means of defense than any other power, Civilized or 
 barbarous, of one -tenth our physical force; he thought it folly 
 
 'Congressional Globe, 26-1, Vol. 8, Appendix, p. 369. 
 '■'Congressional Globe, 26-1, Vol. 8, pp. ,^1-313. 
 
■l.„ 
 
 106 
 
 Nejitrality of the Amcn'cart Lakes. 
 
 to talk of war about a few pine logs when . . . every por- 
 tion of our frontier was "exposed to British aggression and 
 British bayonets." A few minutes later Mr. Wise added: "I 
 am no alarmist. I have no idea that there is to be a war, but 
 I go for the necessity of fortifications upon the most liberal 
 scale for a peace establishment." Mr. Hand was no alarmist. 
 He had no desire for an exciting and injudicious debate. 
 "yVll he desired now was that the House might be fully in- 
 formed." 
 
 Mr. John Quincy Adams "thought that there was not the 
 slightest danger at this moment of a war with Great Britain, 
 or fvir years to come" (and he was sorry that Mr. Rhett. of 
 South Carolina, was not glad to hear it). Mr. Adams 
 founded his opinion upon the character of the President's mes- 
 sage, and upon the grovving probability that the northeast- 
 ern boundary question would be settled by arbitration, since 
 Maine was now ready to refer the settlement to the United 
 States Government. Mr. Thompson thought fortifications 
 were not necessary, and desired to await further news from 
 England before arming the country. 
 
 From March to July the executive department endeavored 
 to secure all the information possible regarding the subjects 
 mentioned in the various resolutions of inquiry which passed 
 the House. 
 
 On ]\Iarch 28 Mr. Van Buien communicated reports from 
 the Secretaries of State and of War,' with documents, which 
 gave evidence that the British Government had not shown 
 any desire to annul the Agreement of 181 7. Mr. Forsyth 
 enclosed Mr. Fox's note of November 25, 1838, concerning 
 the necessity of a temporary increase of naval force, and said 
 that "prior to the date of that communication the Secretary 
 of State, in an interview invited for that purpose, called Mr. 
 Fox's attention to the disregard by Her Majesty's colonial 
 authorities of the convention arrangement between the two 
 countries as to the extent of naval armaments upon the lakes. 
 
 ' House Exec. Doc, No, 63, 26-1. 
 
Canadia7i Rebellioti and Boundary Questions. 107 
 
 In the autumn of the past year the Secretary of State made 
 known verbally to Mr. Fox that, the causes assigned in his 
 note no longer existing, the President expected that the Brit- 
 ish armament upon the lakes would be placed upon the foot- 
 ing jjrescribed by the convention. Mr. Fox engaged to 
 connnunicate without delay to this government the sub- 
 stance of the conversation between them, and expressed his 
 own conviction that, if the winter then ensuing passed with- 
 out renewed attempts to disturb the tranquillity of the Can- 
 adas, there could be no sufficient motive for either govern- 
 ment maintaining a force beyond that authorized by the con- 
 vention of 1817." 
 
 Mr. Poinsett, Secretary of War, enclosed a report of Gen- 
 eral Scott (dated March 23), w-ho stated that he did not think 
 the British had had an armed vessel above Detroit for many 
 years; that they had hired temporarily one or two armed 
 steamers on Lake Erie in 1838, and that they had employed 
 on the St. Lawrence and the Canadian side of Lake Ontario, 
 up to the close of navigation in 1839, two steamers, one 
 schooner and a number of barges. 
 
 On June 29, Mr, Van Buren sent to the Plouse a second 
 communication in answer to the resolution of March 9 c(mi- 
 cerning the attitude of Great Britain to the Agreement of 
 1817.' It contained a report of Alexander Macomb, the 
 Connnanding General, to tl.^- Secretary of War (June 26), in 
 which he gave replies of various officers who had been ad- 
 dressed upon the subject.' 
 
 Colonel Bankhead had no infoimation that the Agreement 
 of 1817 had been violated. lie said that a large vessel for a 
 steamer was being constructed in the autumn of 1839 at Ni- 
 
 v^ 
 
 ^M 
 
 ' House E.xec. Doc, No. 246, 26-1, Vol. 7. 
 
 '^The President had given tlie Secretary of War instructions to 
 report "any specific information in possession of the War Depart- 
 ment relative to the British naval armaments on the lakes, and the 
 periods when tiie increase of force, beyond the stipulations of the 
 convention of 1817, were severally made on different points of the 
 lake frontier." 
 
it -s 
 
 108 
 
 Nctitrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 agara for the service of the government, and tliait the 
 British Government had on Lake Ontario a steamboat iDoinns- 
 manded by officers of the navy, and probably comTni*.?i<0'meidl 
 as a government vessel. He was also informed that ""ttfiic 
 authorities in upper Canada had last summer in their 5«irTtce 
 on Lake Erie two steamboats which were at first hirtid finom 
 citizens of Bufifalo, but which they subsequently puTdha^^ii." 
 Colonel Crane, of Buffalo, had no information on the fiaib'iecL 
 He said that there had "been rumors there of armed stfauimers 
 being built or building at Chippewa, etc.. but on mqTanny he 
 could learn of none, except the ordinary steamboat? Im the 
 navigation of the lakes." He had also heard it slatted alhat a 
 steamer was being built on Lake Ontario by the Engliflfa. and 
 intended for the revenue service, but he did not kncnsr wfiat 
 truth there was in this statement. Colonel Pierce A\Tc>lf fr^ .m 
 Plattsburg that he had no knowledge of any nava] fo'T^cc: lon 
 Lake Champlain in violation of the arrangement of 1 8ii~. He 
 believed there had been no British naval force maintaiinjte4 on 
 Lake Champlain since that arrangement had been concIlm!ffI«efL 
 These replies, together with the letter of Genera] Snotlt, 
 which had been sent to Congress on March 28. embraiCiw! aU 
 the information that the War DepartmeMt could give HDpoti 
 the subject. The Navy Department had not been a^fced in 
 regard to the matter, probably because there were no iniaval 
 officers upon the lakes to assist in getting informatioaiL Ac- 
 cording to the rumors mentioned in these report?, h -^oes 
 not appear that there was any extensive naval prejiHrac^ja 
 by the British authorities upon the lakes. Possibly s-oiimie ol 
 the temporary augmentation during 1838 was made in igriiKor- 
 ance of the agreement between the two nations/ 
 
 ' Colonel Brady, of Detroit, wrote that he did not know »2ii<i:flEi<»r 
 the arrangement had been violated by the British Govemmt-E: tor 
 he never knew that there was such an understanding; be-ivrtri rJie 
 two governments until the resolution of Congress making lb« imijairy 
 was 'sent to him. During the border troubles he frequtnlilT icada 
 piece of ordnance on board the steamboat in the emplor io<f tfie 
 United States ; and besides that, had the service demanded iiiu fee 
 should not have hesitated to have increased the number, i>Cia h«tim?5 
 aware of the arrangement referred to. 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 
 
 109 
 
 the long peace, in which there was a total disregard of any 
 force at all, many would not have known that such a treaty 
 existed: 
 
 On June 29, President Van Buren, in response to Mr. Fill- 
 more's resolution of inquiry of April 6, sent to the House a 
 communication from the Secretary of War, accompanied by 
 a report from the Commanding General of the Army. This 
 report gave the replies of the officers at the principal points 
 on the frontier, from which it appears that the British had 
 strengthened their works at Maiden on the Detroit river, at 
 Fort Mississanga near the mouth of the Niagara, at Kingston 
 on the lower part of Lake Ontario, at Fort Wellington, op- 
 posite Ogdensburg, N. Y., and at the Isle aux Noix, in the 
 outlet of Lake Champlain. Tl ey had also commenced new 
 barracks at Toronto and St. John.-, aiM had in the provinces 
 20,000 regular troops, of which two-thirds had arrived in 
 Canada since the spring of 1838. 
 
 These official replies do not intimate that Great Britain had 
 any offensive designs. It wai understood that the prepara- 
 tions had been made "to suppress rebellion and insurrection 
 among the Canadian population." General Scott was not 
 alarmed. He believed that there were no important British 
 forts on our borders from \'ermont to Maine. The works 
 erected near the borders of Maine, above Frederickton, were 
 of little military value, and he "had heard of no new military 
 preparation by the British authorities on the St. Croix or 
 Passamaquoddy Bay." 
 
 After receiving this report, the question of defense upon 
 the northern frontier attracted less attention in Congress. 
 During the first part of July most of its time was occupied 
 widi bills for pensions and other private claims. Further 
 alarm might have been avoided, but for the border feeling 
 engendered by a new turn in the Caroline affair. 
 
 In November, 1S40, Alexander ^IcLeod, a deputy sheriff 
 in Upper Canada, came across to New York State and 
 boasted that he was the slayer of Durfee on the Schlosser 
 wharf when the Caroline was taken. He was at once ar- 
 
 ■1 1! 
 
 m 
 
 tm 
 
 ' - •^'^^ 
 
■i.E £!"E ■ . :''■ 
 
 i! 
 
 ml 
 111;; 
 
 
 110 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 rested and placed in the Lockport jail on the charge of arson 
 and murder. This aroused the indignation of the English, 
 and Mr. Fox asked his release. When Forsyth replied that 
 McLeod was in the hands of New York courts and must wait 
 for deliverance in regular course, Lord Palmerston directed 
 Fox to proceed as though the attack on the Caroline was 
 done by authority of the British Government. When the 
 Harrison administration came in, t made an attempt to have 
 the matter tried as a national afifai- , but New York would not 
 give up the prisoner. Mr. Webster, the new Secretary of 
 State, liad to inform Mr. Fox that McLeod was in the cus- 
 tody of law, and could not be given up except by process of 
 law. When the correspondence upon this subject was sent 
 to Congress in June, 1841, it led to vehement debates. The 
 rumor in New York that England's Mediterranean fleet was 
 held in readiness to emphasize the demand for the release of 
 McLeod did not tend to calm public feeling. 
 
 Another occasion for further discontent at the policy of the 
 British Government was presented on July 14, 1841, when 
 the President sent to the House a part of the correspondence 
 between the Secretary of State at Washington and the United 
 States minister at London, relating to the "seizure of Ameri- 
 can vessels by British armed cruisers under the pretence that 
 they were engaged in the slave trade.'" These new sources 
 of bad feeling had a tendency to revive disorders which had 
 already been pacified by prudence and good fortune. 
 
 It does not appear that England had any offensive motive 
 in increasing her force in America at this time. But the con- 
 dition of relations between the two countries led to a renewal 
 in Congress of discussions concerning lake defenses.' In 
 the early part of 1841 there were various reports in favor of 
 recommencing the work upon lake harbors which had been 
 suspended, but in July the talk for defensive measures was 
 upon a higher key than harbor improvements. On July 12 
 
 ' House Exec. Doc, No. 34, 27-1. 
 
 ' Congressional Globe, 27-1, \'ol. 10, p. 273. See Appendix, p. 141. 
 
Canadian Rcbellioji and Boimdary Questions. Ill 
 
 Mr. Ward, of New York, said he hoped the United States 
 would not go to sleep and dream that wc should have no 
 war. He favored an increase of naval force. On July 31 the 
 House considered a resolution in favor of armed steamers 
 between northern and southern ports and upon the principal 
 rivers, bays and lakes. On August 2, Mr. Young, feeling 
 that the \\^est and Northwest were not getting their share in 
 the naval and other appropriations, spoke in favor of defenses 
 at Detroit, and gave military as well as commercial reasons 
 for completing a "safe, convenient, and permanent harbor" 
 at Chicago.' Its position with respect to facilities of procur- 
 ing provisions and for transportation, and its unequalled 
 adaptation for harbors, into which armed steamers and other 
 armed vessels might retire for repairs and supplies, would 
 add peculiar value to this inland sea. And in event of war 
 between the United States and the power in possession of 
 half of all the other lakes, Lake Michigan might become the 
 scene of contention. A loss of its possession would certainly 
 be attended with consequences of serious import to the com- 
 merce, agriculture and safety of a large and growing portion 
 of the West. But it was probably not from needs of defense 
 so much as of commerce that Mr. Young was dissatisfied 
 towards his fellow-members in not providing for the Chicago 
 harbor. He said that for want of a harbor many vessels had 
 recently been lost in a gale, and that it was a "pity they were 
 not freighted with members of Congress." 
 
 In the fortification bill, the committee had not seen fit to 
 provide for defense along the lake frontier. Mr. Porter, of 
 Michigan, offered an amendment for defensive works at De- 
 troit.^ Mr. Woodbridge advocated the amendment as neces- 
 sary to protect the commerce which had to pass through the 
 Detroit river, and, in case of war, to prevent a return of the 
 disastrous results which followed Hull's surrender. He 
 dangled the skeleton of 181 2 before his hearers, and asked 
 them to remember the river Raisin. 
 
 'Congressional Globe, 27-1, Vol. 10, pp. 278, 2S1, etc. 
 ^Congressional Globe, 27-1, Vol. 10, p. 284. 
 
112 
 
 Nexitralily of the American Lakes. 
 
 Air. Allen, of Ohio, on August 3, moved an amendment to 
 the amendment of Senator Porter "for the construction of 
 armed steamers and other vessels of the government on Lake 
 Erie, $100,000." He said he did not ofifer it with a view to 
 benefit any particular portion of the country, but, that "hav- 
 ing understood the Britis' had two armed steamers on that 
 lake, he thought armed steamers were necessary to watch 
 armed steamers." He also .^>oke of the capture of the Caro- 
 line at Schlosser, and said the "Senate would not do its duty 
 if it did not put its seal of reprobation upon the doctrines of 
 international law, which had been officially promulgated by 
 the Secretary of State." 
 
 Some local feeling is shown in these debates. In case 
 there were to be defenses, each section of the country had a 
 claim. Mr. Phelps said that if Lake Erie was to have vessels, 
 Lake Champlain should have her share also. Mr. Evans, of 
 Maine, said that treaty arrangements with Great Britain re- 
 stricted the construction of armed vessels upon the lakes, 
 but Mr. White "was not to be deterred from standing up for 
 the justice of the West." In case of a war, he said hostilities 
 would be carried on by harassing the northern frontier and 
 destroying the conmierce of the Northwest. "As a western 
 man, he was bound to have an eye to the interests of that 
 great section, whose representatives, if they would act to- 
 gether, could soon take care of themselves. Who paid the 
 taxes of this country? Those vast masses which people the 
 fertile valleys of the West — all laboring men, and all gentle- 
 men, who individually consume more-dutiable articles than 
 any other portion of the Union." 
 
 On August 4 Mr. Allen, of Ohio, renewed his motion for 
 an amendment to appropriate $100,000 for armed vessels on 
 Lake Erie, for the purpose (as he said) of "making our force 
 equal to that of the British Government whose steamers were 
 cruising about our coast prying into its exposed parts." Mr. 
 Porter, who was ready to vote for the amendment, said that 
 the means of transportation on the lakes were almost exclu- 
 sively in the hands of the United States. The British Gov- 
 
 i 'X' ■ ^ 
 
 n 
 
Canadian Rebellion ayid Boundary Questions. 113 
 
 ^1. 
 
 eminent had only two steamers of one hundred tons each, 
 and the Americans had thirty or forty steamers of from two 
 himdrcd to eight hundred tons; but he could not say whether 
 the merchant steamers would be able to cope with the two 
 armed steamers of four hundred tons each which, according 
 to the newspapers, the British had recently built. 
 
 Mr. Woodbridge said that there were enough vessels, if 
 armed and equipped, to defend the lakes in any case of emer- 
 gency against any possible force that could be mustered by 
 the British, but he wanted Congress to know that it was 
 Detroit which was in the jaws of the lion and needed an ap- 
 propriation for defenses. He did not think the British had 
 violated the spirit of the treaty of 1817, and thought that the 
 amendment for placing armed vessels upon the lakes by the 
 United States Government should have a proviso that noth- 
 ing should be done to violate the provisions of that treaty. 
 Mr. Allen said that the greater number of United States mer- 
 chant vessels only made it the more necessary to provide 
 armed steamers to defend them and the commerce which 
 they carried. His amendment was adopted, after being 
 modified so as "to appropriate one hundred thousand dollars 
 for the construction and armament of armed steamers or 
 other vessels on the northwestern lakes, as the President 
 may think most proper, and be authorized by the treaty with 
 the British Government." 
 
 On August 1 1 the Senate ordered to be printed a petition 
 of persons along the northwestern frontier ("Rufus L. Reed 
 and others") asking an increase of maritime and military 
 forces on the lakes and frontiers.' It spoke of the late in- 
 crease of the forces of their Canadian neighbors upon these 
 inland seas, which now consisted of "two large war steamers 
 of sufificient capacity to mount 30 guns each and which are 
 now in commission and exploring the different harbors on 
 both sides of the line," while the United States had "no for- 
 tification in any kind of repair from Sackett's Harbor to 
 
 
 ' Senate Exec. Doc, No. 88, 27-1. 
 
114 
 
 A\'iilrali{y of the American I akes. 
 
 ;:;!: 
 
 lip 
 
 ^fackinavv, a distance of looo tnilcs . . . and no maritime 
 force except a revenue cutter of sixty tons." 
 
 The petitioners were "aware that tlicre is but a mere 
 shadow of a prospect of war at present," but they believed in 
 preparing for war in time of peace, and recommended . . . 
 the establishment of such a maritime force as the wisdom of 
 Congress saw fit "to meet the exigencies of the times." 
 
 On August 12 the subject of lake defenses was again dis- 
 cussed in the Senate. Mr. Wright, of New York, traced the 
 boundary from Vermont to Michigan.' For Lake Cham- 
 plain, where McDonough won his "ever memorable victory," 
 for Lake Ontario, where the hand of time had long since an- 
 nihilated the vast fleets of 1814, and for Lake Erie, which had 
 been consecrated by the "gallant and immortal Perry," he 
 favored measures for "defense and protection." Mr. Wood- 
 bridge, fearing that the amendment for armed steamers 
 would endanger the whole bill and prevent Detroit from 
 securing defensive works, made an unsuccessful attempt to 
 have the amendment reconsidered. i\Ir. Wright thought 
 there could be no objection to the amendment except that it 
 should go further and provide for arming the vessels of all 
 the lakes in case the contingent necessity should arise. Mr. 
 Woodbury said that "a single new war steamer need not be 
 erected on the northern lakes under the appropriation," but 
 that "armament," cannon, etc., could be .olU 1 cd at the prin- 
 cipal lake cities, and in case of an expccicil incursion they 
 could be placed on board the commercial steamers. 
 
 There was some further discussion in the Senate on Aug- 
 ust 28 bearing upon the lake defenses. 
 
 On September 9 the fortification bill, with Mr. Allen's 
 amendment regarding lake vessels, became a law." 
 
 As the time for McLeod's trial drew near there was much 
 disquietude along the lake border of New York.' Especially 
 
 'Congressional Globe, 27-1, Vol. 10, p. 327. 
 ■'U. S. Stat., Vol. 5, p. 460. 
 ^.Miscellaneous Letters, Sept., 1841. 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundayy Questions. 116 
 
 durinp^ the latter half of the month of September the rela- 
 tions with Canada became a subject of intense solicitude, 
 which needed to be manap^cd with the jijreatest prudence. 
 With the news that Canadians were building strong vessels 
 on the lakes also came reports that a strong secret organiza- 
 tion on the American side of the lakes was contemplating to 
 disturb the peace with Great Britain. An attempt was made 
 to blow up one of the locks on the Welland canal. It was 
 also feared that an attempt was being planned upon the per- 
 son of McLeod in case he was acquitted. Added to these 
 was the rumor that popular discontent in Canada against the 
 existing government was liable to lead to another uprising, 
 in which it would be dililicult for the United States to preserve 
 absolute neutrality. 
 
 Air. W. II. Seward was at that time Governor of New 
 York. Under the circumstances which then existed he was 
 inclined to think the government should adopt some precau- 
 tionary means to prevent trouble. On September 17, in a 
 letter to Mr. Webster, after referring to the stipulations of 
 the Agreement of 1817, he said: 
 
 "I transmit for the information of the President a copy of 
 a communication from the Marshal of the United States for the 
 Northern District, from which itappears that Her British Maj- 
 esty's Government has now at Chippewa, on Lake Erie, one 
 steamship of war of 500 tons burden, named the Minos, 
 prepared for eighteen guns and having a pivot carriage on 
 deck ready to mount a 68-pounder, calculated to be manned 
 with 75 men, and already furnished with a full complement 
 of muskets, hatchets, boarding-picks, cutlasses, etc. It ap- 
 pears also by the same communication, that the British Gov- 
 ernment has another steamship of war named the Toronto, 
 lying in the same port, of equal tonnage and capacity for 
 war, 
 
 "Under the circumstances of the case, it seems my duty to 
 inquire whether the President has received notice of a desire 
 on the part of the British Government to annul the stipula- 
 tion to which I have referred. The preparations of that cfov- 
 
 •■,t:'' ' 
 
 
p 
 
 ill 
 
 1^1 
 
 I! :V 
 
 
 116 
 
 Neulralitv of the American Lakes. 
 
 ernnicnt show very fully that it is not its real purpose to con- 
 tinue the stipulation. While I by no means relitu|uish the 
 hope that the peace between the two countries juay be main- 
 tained, I bej; leave to sufjj^est most res])ectfully to the Tresi- 
 dent the in(|uiry whether an armament of at least correspond- 
 ing power with that which I have described ouj,dit not to be 
 provided for the defense of the northern frontier of the State. 
 
 "I am moved to make this comnumicatio'n not only bv the 
 conviction that our northern frf)ntier on^ht not to be ex- 
 posed, but by an inquietude on the subject which prevails 
 among the people in the towns situated upon the lakes. That 
 inquietude seems neither unnatural nor unreasonable when 
 the present condit'on and circumstances of our northern 
 frontier are duly considered." 
 
 On the same day, Hon. Seth C. Ilawley, of Buffalo, and a 
 member of the New York Assembly, who was making efforts 
 to get information concerning Canadian operations, wrote 
 Governor Seward as follows: 
 
 "T am advised by a private confidential letter that these 
 steamers sail to-day or to-morrow upon the lake, and it is sup- 
 posed that they are to take position opposite — say at Fort 
 Erie, by the 27th inst. . . . (Irowing opinion that wc are in 
 danger of a sudden blow from Canada . . . People arc be- 
 coming alarmed, particularly in regard to these steamboats 
 which now menace us . . . if left to our defenceless condi- 
 tion. Would be well to have ammunition sent us , . . to be 
 dejjosited for safe keeping.'" 
 
 On September 21 Mr. Seward wrote Air. Webster that the 
 report of a confidential agent whom he had "appointed to 
 traverse the western country, together with a conversation 
 which he had the day before with General Scott led him to 
 believe that there was along the southern shores of the lakes 
 an organization of secret societies, whose purpose was to aid 
 a revolution in Canada." It appeared that these societies h;id 
 been collecting powder and small cannon to use in their 
 designs. 
 
 ' Miscellaneous Letters. (Enclosure in Seward's letter to Webster, 
 on Sept. 24.) 
 
 H* 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 117 
 
 Beneath the large amount of report which Mr. Ilawley and 
 others were communicating to him, Mr. Seward saw danger 
 hirking. It seemed to him that we were treading ujjon half- 
 smothered embers, which were ready to burst forth into a 
 dangerous flame. Hardly had his letter been sent to Mr. 
 Seward on the 21st, when he received information that an 
 attempt had been made to blow up the locks on the Welland 
 canal, at Allanburg, Canada. He had also seen the state- 
 ment in the Buffalo Commercial Advertiser that the two 
 British steamships, the Minos and the Toronto, had been 
 fired upon at Navy Island by persons who had taken a 
 field piece from the American side of the river for that ])ur- 
 pose. On September 23 Mr. Seward received information 
 from Mr. H. J. Stowe, Recorder of Buffalo, and from Mr. 
 Ilawley, which confirmed his belief as to the excited state of 
 the public feeling in certain quarters. lie did not doubt that 
 there was still in Canada a strong discontent, which might 
 lead to efforts against the government, and he thought that 
 there were still many along the counties next to the lakes 
 who would favor such a movement. In his letter to Mr. Web- 
 ster on September 22, after referring again to the substance 
 of his previous letters, Mr. Seward said: "If it be admitted, 
 as I presume to be the case, that the immense military and 
 naval preparations made in Canada, have for their object the 
 suppression of internal commotions and the preservation of 
 tranquillity, it is equally manifest that those preparations car- 
 ried on in full view of the American shore are regarded by 
 many of our citizens as having for their design some aggres- 
 sion against this country." He stated that under existing 
 laws, neutrality could hardly be maintained in case of a civil 
 war in Canada, and for this reason he thought the United 
 States Government should adopt means of defense without 
 delay. He favored the plans recently laid before ^he Presi- 
 dent (so General Scott informed him) which "contemplated 
 the purchase and fitting up of four steamboats on Lake Erie, 
 of two on Lake Champlain, and of the completion as a 
 steamer of the large ship of war now on the stocks at 
 Sackett's Harbor." 
 
 m 
 
 U ■{} 
 
 
 ■ > 'tiS 
 
 
Tm 
 
 118 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 Seward's letter induced Mr. Webster to make inquiry of 
 the Secretary of Navy concerning ordnance stores on lakes 
 Erie and Ontario.* Mr. Simnis replied on September 23 that 
 there was neither cannon nor ordnance of any kind on either 
 of these lakes belonging to the navy, but that cannon and 
 other implements of war could be sent from the navy yard 
 near New York by canal to Buflfalo, on Lake Erie, and also 
 to Oswego, on Lake Ontario. 
 
 On the same day the news reached Washington of the at- 
 tempt upon the British steamers by the discharge of artillery 
 from Navy Island.' Mr. Webster took immediate steps to 
 prevent any further breach. He told General Scott that such 
 attempts must be suppressed.' To Governor Seward he 
 wrote: "If we cannot repress these lawless acts, we shall ere 
 long be engaged in an inglorious border warfare, of incur- 
 sions and violations, ending in general hostilities." On Sep- 
 tember 24 he wrote United States District Attorney T- A. 
 Spencer to get the truth, find the authors of the outrages and 
 prosecute. On September 25, in order to lessen the dangers 
 of border collision. President Tyler issued a proclamation in 
 opposition to organizations against Canada.* 
 
 At this time Mr. Webster wrote to Mr. Fox in regard to 
 the new British vessels in the Niagara river, of which Mr. 
 Seward had furnished him a description, in order that there 
 might be a clear understanding as to the attitude of the Brit- 
 ish authorities" toward the stipulations of the Agreement of 
 1817. He mentioned the note which Mr. Fox wrote to Mr. 
 Forsyth on November 25, 1838, and said that the govern- 
 ment of the United States did "not allow itself to doubt" that 
 the increase in armaments was for purely defensive pur- 
 poses, to guard against hostilities like those of 1838, but he 
 desired to be assured that "these vessels of war, if, unhappily,. 
 
 ' Miscellaneous Letters. 
 
 Mkiffalo Commercial Advertiser and Journal, Sept. 18. 
 
 ^ Domestic Letters, Vol. 32. 
 
 * Buffalo Commercial Advertiser and Journal, Sept. 29. 
 
 * Notes from State Dept., Vol. 6, p. 219. 
 
Canadian RcbcUioii and Do7indary Qiiestions. 119 
 
 it shall be found necessary to use them at all, will be confined 
 to the sole and precise purpose of guarding Her Majesty's 
 provinces against hostile attacks." 
 
 At this time the President had not directed the construc- 
 tion of steamers for the defense of the lakes as provided by 
 the Act of September 9, though there is little doubt that Eng- 
 land and the United States were nearer to a war than they 
 had been for twenty-five years. Disorder had been pacified 
 only by prudent diplomacy and by good fortune. 
 
 It was felt that in case McLeod was convicted in the New 
 York courts "it might bring on a catastrophe,'" while even 
 his acquittal would not remove all "grounds of apprehension 
 and alarm." Luckily, it was clearly shown at the trial that he 
 was a mere braggart, and had not even been present when 
 Durfee was killed. Governor Seward felt relieved when he 
 was released (October 12) and taken to Canada in safetv. 
 
 His acquittal ended one source of international embarrass- 
 ment, and smoothed the way for the friendly conferences be- 
 tween V ebster and Ashburton, which were opened at Wash- 
 ington a few months later, when the wisdom of diplomacy 
 was successfully exerted to prevent two greaf nations from 
 breaking the peace of the world. Neither country desired a 
 war for national aggrandizement. What each did want was 
 to be let alone so far as anything savoring of aggressiveness 
 was concerned. There was a war party on both sides of the 
 lakes ready to fan the flame of discord, but the government 
 of each country desired to preserve peace. 
 
 October brought a decrease in the temperature of the Sep- 
 tember fever, and there was a stronger probability that the 
 people along the borders of Maine and New Brunswick 
 would keep their hands oflf of each other, and also that the 
 invasion of United States territory at Schlosser might be sat- 
 isfactorily settled. 
 
 But the British vessels were still on the lakes, and it was 
 feared that they might prove a source of greater misunder- 
 standing and trouble in the future.' In a conversation with 
 
 ' Miscellaneous Letters. Seward to Webster. 
 
 - BufTalo Commercial Advertiser and Jomml, Oct. i. 
 
 '■< 'I 
 
 E-WI 
 
 ■'n 
 
 1 •*! 
 
 ;:i 
 
 I 
 
mi 
 
 ii 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ■ ■ I 
 
 ill II 
 
 120 
 
 Neutrality of the Afnerican Lakes. 
 
 Mr. Webster, in the latter part of September, it appears that 
 Mr. Fox explained that his statement of November, 1838, in 
 regard to the necessity of increasing the British force on the 
 lakes, was also applicable to existing circumstances. But he 
 gave no written reply to Mr. Webster's communication of 
 September 25. On November 29, Mr. Webster again called 
 the attention of Mr. Fox to the two steam vessels of war at 
 Chippewa,' and said that the purposes of the disarmament of 
 1817 — to prevent the expense of rival fleets, to remove causes 
 of jealousy and apprehension, and to place each party on an 
 equal footing — could not be accomplished except by a "rigid 
 compliance with the terms of the convention by both par- 
 ties." He said that "the convention interdicted the building, 
 as well as the equipment, of vessels of war, beyond the fixed 
 limit. The United States have not been disposed to make 
 complaint of the temporary deviation from this agreement by 
 the British Government in 1838, under what was supposed 
 to be a case of clear and urgent necessity for present self-de- 
 fence. But it cannot be expected that either party should 
 acquiesce in the preparation by the other of naval means 
 beyond the limit fixed in the stipulation, and which are of a 
 nature fitting them for offensive as well as defensive use, 
 upon the ground of a vague and indefinite apprehension of 
 future danger." Mr. Webster did not doubt that Mr. Fox 
 would see the importance as well as the delicacy of this sub- 
 ject, and he concluded his note by saying that "the United 
 States cannot consent to any inequality in regard to the 
 strictness with which the convention of 1817 is to lie ob- 
 served by the parties, whether with respect to the amount of 
 naval force, or the time of its preparation or equipment. The 
 reasons for this are obvious and must immediately force 
 themselves upon Mr. Fox's consideration." 
 
 Mr. Fox replied promptly (November 30) that it was well 
 known that Canadian provinces were still "threatened with 
 hostile incursion by combinations of armed men, unlawfully 
 
 6 Notes from State Department. 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 121 
 
 organized and prepared for war, within the frontier of the 
 United States; and it being found by experience, that the 
 cfiforts of the United States Government, though directed in 
 good faith to suppress those unlaw^ful combinations, are not 
 attended with the wished-for suc:ess."' he thought the ves- 
 sels which were serving upon the lakes were necessary to 
 guard the provinces against hostile attack, and he gave the 
 assurance that this was the only purpose for which they were 
 equipped. Probably in view of the fact that Air. Webster, 
 in his note of September 25, had remarked that he did not 
 understand Mr. Fox's note of November, 1838, to be a notice 
 of the intention of the British Government "to abandon the 
 arrangement of 1817," Mr. Fox stated that he would show 
 Mr. Webster's communication to the home government 
 "with the view of learning the pleasure of Her Majesty's 
 Government in regard to the continuance or annulment, 
 after due notice, of the Convention of 1817." 
 
 The later reduction of the British force on the lakes, after 
 the fear of insecurity along the frontier had ceased, shows 
 that Great Britain desired to continue the agreement; but as 
 late as 1842 the London Government still thought it neces- 
 sary to retain some force in that quarter. In a dispatch of the 
 Foreign Ofifice to Mr. Fox, dated March 31, 1842, it is stated 
 that "Her Majesty's Government is at all times anxious to 
 fulfill scrupulously" all engagements with the United States, 
 and that nothing but absolute necessity would cause a de- 
 parture from this principle. The dispatch alluded to the state 
 of affairs which had existed in the vicinity of the lakes — the 
 rebellion in Canada and the active support which had been 
 given by the border population of the United States, "un- 
 aw^ed by the menaces, and unrestrained by the efforts" of the 
 American Government to repress them, and stated that these 
 conditions "obviously justified an exception to the strict exe- 
 cution of the treaty" so far as was necessary for the protec- 
 tion of Canada from the ill-affected population along the 
 
 ' No. 20 Notes to State Department. 
 
 f 
 
 m 
 
 ' ' 
 
 m 
 
 
 II 
 
 1 
 
 ri 
 
 !§ 
 
 
 
 •■ ''i 
 
i ll 
 
 Ml" 
 
 iif: 
 
 iWlli 
 
 122 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 border. The continued inveterate hostility of the "Patrkiitts"' 
 to the established order of things in Canada, it was claaiULied, 
 had not justified an earlier reduction of British armarnanifcs 
 on the lakes, and it was confidently expected that the Unn'-eil 
 States Government would not insist on a strict exerutaoiiD <off 
 the arrangement of 1817. The dispatch from the Ford^ 
 Office gave assurance, however, that the British Govennjini^anit 
 intended faithfully to observe the Agreement of 1817 as 5.00111 
 as it could be done with safety to Canada, and stated tbat 
 "Her Majesty's Government would have the greatest rdnc- 
 tance to annul that arrangement," which had proven a innKXat 
 valuable security for the preservation of the peace/ 
 
 E ^843 the British force was probably reduced to ttlhe 
 strict limit prescribed by the agreement. In answer to a res- 
 olution of the House, April 12, 1842, in relation to pmlnllic 
 defenses for Lake Ontario, General Scott reported i<i ttlie 
 Secretary of War, on April 16, that the British had '"iau'd tifte 
 keel of a war steamer of 900 tons at Kingston last SeptfmSj«er. 
 and had another on the stocks at the mouth of the Niagaffa," 
 and that "both must be ready.'" It is possible, however, ttBialt 
 these were never finished as war vessels, but were used for 
 conmiercial craft. 
 
 The feeling that the British were increasing their foince oit 
 :iie lakes led to the consideration of the best plans to mneet 
 this increase. In the report of the Secretary of W'a -, Dtireim- 
 ber I, 1 84 1, and in various reports to the War Departinieinit ra 
 April and May of 1842, on November 15, 1841. T. O. JtsAnip, 
 Quartermaster, in his report to the War Depafl.mena. rec- 
 ommended measures to begin at once for a "canal aT'CKSimd 
 Niagara so vessels of war can pass." There were alKit \7m- 
 ous reports concerning the military importance of hartbuoirs. 
 Mr. Spencer, the Secretary of War, thought that "nai-al fiwces 
 on the lakes afford our chief reliance for defence and offentts*-" 
 
 The United States owned a revenue cutter on Lake Eiiie_ 
 
 ' Foreign Office Correspondence, London. 
 ^ Exec. Doc. No. 225, 27-2, Vol. 4. 
 
 •r' 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 123 
 
 but she owned no vessel on Lake Ontario. During the years 
 1838, 1839-40 she had paid a large sum for the use of the 
 steamers Oneida and Telegraph on that lake/ and this 
 led Congress in the spring of 1842 to consider the advisability 
 of owning a steamer. The great ship of the line, Neiv Or- 
 leans, which had been begun in 18 14. was still in the ship- 
 house at Sackett's Harbor, and inquiry was made to find 
 whether it would be worth finishing, but part of it was found 
 to be too much affected by the "dry rot.'" No appropriation 
 was made for a vessel upon Lake Ontario. 
 
 It was decided by the President in the autumn of 184 1 that 
 one or more steamers should be constructed under the Act 
 of September 9 of that year for the defense of the northwest- 
 ern lakes. vSecretary of the Xavy Upshur was given direc- 
 tions to this effect, and he concluded that the appropriations 
 would not be enough for more than one steamer. On No- 
 vember 2y he requested Commander L. Warrington, Presi- 
 dent of the Navy Board, to "take the necessary measures for 
 the construction of one steamer of defense on Lake Erie.''" 
 Mr. Warrington did not advertise for bids, but, acting for the 
 Commissioners of the Navy, he began to correspond in order 
 "to get information as to plans, etc." On April 20, in re- 
 sponse to a resolution of April 12, Mr. Upshur informed the 
 Speaker of the House that they hoped "to enter contract in 
 a few days for all parts of the iron vessel.'" 
 
 On May 20 the House considered and passed a resolution 
 of Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, requesting the Secretary of the 
 Navy to furnish correspondence relative to the construction 
 of the lake steamer, and to state whether bids had been in- 
 vited/ Mr. Pendleton had desired to put in proposals for 
 some of his constituents, and was not pleased that contracts 
 had been made without advertisement. On June 3, Mr. Up- 
 
 ' Exec. Doc. 227, 27-2, May, 1842. 
 
 '' Exec. Doc. 225, 27-2, Vol. 4. Upshur to Spencer. 
 
 ^ No. 22 Notes to State Department. 
 
 * Exec. Doc. 199, 27-2, Vol. 4. 
 
 ^ Congressional Globe, 27-2, Vol. 4. 
 
 
 ' »*?s 
 
■I 
 
 #1 
 
 124 
 
 Nculralily of the American Lakes. 
 
 \U\ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ■ ! 
 
 shur, in reply to this resolution, stated that he did not think 
 it necessary to advertise for bids. He went on to say: "Still 
 less was it necessary to advertise for proposals as to the place 
 where the vessel should be built. Discretion of the depart- 
 ment should have been left uncontrolled here. In exercise 
 of that discretion it seemed to be that the seaboard was out 
 of the question; and I did not consider it wise in the then con- 
 dition of our relations with England, to begin such a work 
 on the borders of a lake conunanrled by her naval power. 
 Choice seemed to me to be between Cincinnati and Pittsburg. 
 The latter seemed to have the best material, equal skill, and 
 indeed its means and facilities were greater than those of any 
 other place, not too remote from Lake Erie, and possessing 
 a connnunication with it by water; hence Pittsburg was se- 
 lected. It was supposed to be unnecessary to advertise in 
 newspapers for proposals . . . .'" 
 
 The war scare appears to have collapsed by the time this 
 war vessel was commenced at Pittsburg. The representa- 
 tives of the lake region in Congress talked of the needs of 
 inland conmierce instead of lake defenses. I\Ir. Mason, of 
 Ohio, on May i8, 1842, said in the House, while advocating 
 a still greater reduction than had already been made from the 
 estimates of 1841 on the Naval Appropriation bill, that he 
 saw no sign of approaching war, and that improvement on 
 lake harbors for commerce was of greater value than any hot- 
 house creation of a navy. "It was the easiest thing in the 
 world to create a war panic. He had witnessed the rise, prog- 
 ress and termination of so many such panics since he had 
 been a member of that body, that he had ceased to be agitated 
 by the alarm, felt or feigned, on such occasions by others."' 
 Mr. Mason said that all points in controversy with foreign 
 governments were in process of amicable adjustment at that 
 time. 
 
 The new vessel commenced at Pittsburg in 1842 was a 
 side-wheel iron steamer, and was named the Michigan. 
 
 ' Exec. Doc. 238, 27-2, Vol. 4. 
 
 '' Coiiijressional Globe, 27-2, Ai)peiulix. 
 
: ' • II 
 
 Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 125 
 
 She was not removed to Erie and placed upon the lake till 
 
 1843, when she was taken across the country in sections. 
 From that day to this she has been the only naval vessel 
 owned by the United States upon the lakes. At the time of 
 her completion she was "of 498 tons burden with an arma- 
 ment of 2 eight-inch Paixhan guns, and 4 thirty-two pounder 
 carronades." This was in excess of the stipulations of the 
 Agreement of 181 7 both as to tonnage and as to armament, 
 but there is nothing on record to show the United States 
 authorities intended to violate that agreement. There had 
 been great changes since 181 7 in the size and character of 
 vessels. Steam had largely taken the place of sail-power, 
 and, as Secretary Mason, of the Xavy, said in 1844, "no ef- 
 fective steamer for any purpose" was built of so small size as 
 one hundred tons. In 1841 some of the British naval vessels 
 on the lakes were reported to be over four hundred tons bur- 
 den. 
 
 Not long after the Michigan was put together at Erie a 
 report of it reached the British CJoverimient.' On July 23, 
 
 1844, Mr. Pakenham, the British minister at Washington, 
 informed Secretary of State Calhoun as follows: 
 
 "It has been represented to Her Majesty's Government that 
 the naval force of the United States on the Lakes Ontario, Erie, 
 andHuron,atthismomentconsiderablyexceeds that to which 
 Great Britain and the United States reciprocally restricted 
 themselves by the agreement entered into in April, 1817. It is 
 true that not long ago while Her Majesty's Canadian do- 
 minions were, threatened with invasion from parties unlaw- 
 fully organized within United States, Great Britain did main- 
 tain, in her own defence, a naval force exceeding the amount 
 stipulated in the agreement, but explanation was given of the 
 necessity of that departure from the existing engagement 
 
 in !l 
 
 '-'■ n 
 
 ' Despatch from P'oreiRii Otlice to Hritisli Legation at Wasliington, 
 June 3, 1844. Mr. Packcnliam. the British Minister, was directed to 
 say tliat au};nientation of forces by tlie United States was unnecessary, 
 that the British Goverinnent proposed toadliere strictly totlie Agree- 
 ment of 1S17, and that it nuist claim the right of ecjualily in the 
 matter. 
 
 
 
 i'xi 
 
 
 VA 
 
 
 * *"*» 
 
126 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 f "j: li 
 
 which appeared to satisfy the government of the United 
 States, and when a change in the attitude and disposition of 
 the people on the frontier was sufficiently evident to enable 
 the British Government to feel security against aggression, 
 the British force was reduced to the limit prescribed by the 
 Agreement of 1817. At the present moment, there are hap- 
 pily no circumstances on either side to justify or require any 
 departure from the strict fulfillment of that agreement, and it 
 therefore becomes by all means desirable that it should be 
 fulfilled to the letter by both the contracting parties. 
 
 "In addition ... I have observed in the newspapers of 
 this country an advertisement stating that proposals would 
 be received at the Bureau of Ordnance for the supply of a 
 quantity of cannon, shot, and shells, for the United States, 
 of which a proportion including a number of 32-pounder 
 chambered guns is to be delivered at certain places on the 
 lakes — whereas by the agreement of 18 17 it is provided that 
 the armament to be used on board the vessels of the limited 
 tonnage allowed by the same agreement shall be 18-pound 
 cannon. 
 
 "This circumstance, I am sure, will appear to you, sir, still 
 further to justify the desire of Her Majesty's Government to 
 receive satisfactory explanations as to intentions of United 
 States Government with reference to the fulfillment of the 
 Agreement of 1817.'" 
 
 This communication was promptly referred to Secretary 
 J. Y. Mason, of the Navy, who at once took steps to ascertain 
 whether the British Government had any iron steamers upon 
 the lakes. He also ordered the commander of the Michi- 
 gan not to leave the port of Erie on a cruise until he should 
 receive further orders, for while he was "not aware that the 
 United States naval forces on Lakes Ontario and Huron ex- 
 ceeded that of the Agreement of 1817, he knew that under a 
 strict construction of that agreement the Michigan at Erie 
 would not be allowed.'" 
 
 ' Xo. 22 Notes to State Department. 
 ■= Miscellaneous Letters, Sept. 4, 1844. 
 
w 
 
 Canadian Rebcllioji and Boundary Questions. 127 
 
 - I 
 
 In August, Secretary Mason, in response to his inquiries, 
 received information whicli he thought gave him some rea- 
 sons to beHeve that the British still had "in commission on 
 the northwestern lakes a larger force, both in number and 
 tonnage, than that authorized by the agreement." On Aug- 
 ust 17, Passed Midshipman Dillaplain R. Lambert had writ- 
 ten him from Rochester, N. Y., as follows: "I went to Kings- 
 ton (U. C.) as a citizen to learn facts. I find at Kingston 
 they have a steamer Cherokee of about 600 tons already 
 launched, machinery on board, and can be fitted for service 
 in about twelve days — and can mount from 16 to 24 guns — 
 built of wood. I learned that they have an iron steamer 
 Moha-cK.'k at Toronto in commission, and commanded by 
 Commodore Fowell, R. N., and can mount from 4 to 6 guns. 
 They also have a schooner called Montreal commanded by 
 St. Tyson, R. N., cruising — all the above on Lake Ontario. 
 On the upper lakes they have two vessels — the Minos, an 
 iron steamer, and the schooner Experiment, both com- 
 manded by officers of the royal navy." On August 25, Lieu- 
 tenant F. N. Parmelee had written a letter to the President 
 from Lake Huron, in which he said: "I learn that the British 
 Government has a powerful steamer, with her armament 
 taken out at a small naval depot on the northern shore of the 
 lake whither I am now going. The name of the place is 
 Penetauguashia, an Indian name. We have no commerce 
 with the port. There is a fine harbor there — the best, I un- 
 derstand, on all the lakes. It is said there are two steamers 
 there belonging to the government, but one I am certain of. 
 Shall write again when I learn facts. There can be no doubt, 
 I think, that the British Government is perpetually violating 
 the spirit of the Treaty." 
 
 Both of these reports appear to be based largely tipon 
 rumor. If any complete investigation was made to get more 
 reliable information no report of it is found. On September 
 4, Mr. Mason enclosed these two reports in his reply to Mr. 
 Calhoun, and stated that the vessels mentioned in Lambert's 
 letter and commanded by ofificers of the royal navy were 
 
 ■ •I il 
 
 
 I' 
 
 l^^;-! 
 
 V'^r^ 
 
 <!i 
 
 ' 'S 
 
 /''■''"a 
 
128 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 \'- 
 
 found "on the list of the royal navy, puhlishcd by authority 
 of the Admiralty, though they api)cared Ijy the list to mount 
 only one gun each." If the reports were true, however, there 
 was still a violation of the strict letter of the agreement as to 
 tonnage and number of vessels. Secretary Mason suggested 
 that the changes from sail to steam vessels since 1817 "would 
 justify a revision of the agreement" in regard to the tonnage 
 of vessels, and stated that "if it-is considered that the British 
 vessels are not inconsistent with the agreement, by reason of 
 the armament being limited to one gun each, the armament 
 of the steamer Michigan can be readily reduced to that 
 number." 
 
 In regard to the advertisement which Mr. Pakenham had 
 seen in the newspapers. Secretary Mason mav be quoted in 
 full: 
 
 "The advertisement . . . has been made by liureau of 
 Ordnance and Hydrography by my direction, in pursuance 
 of a policy, adopted for many years, and in execution of laws 
 of Congress. That policy has been gradually to collect ma- 
 terial, ordnance, and munitions, on our entire seaboard and 
 lake frontier. Contemplated purchases of present year do not 
 exceed proportion to which northern frontier is entitled, in 
 pursuance of system adopted; and the measures taken have 
 had no reference to any anticipated disturbances with (Ireat 
 Britain. How far that government, in its wise forecast, has 
 made similar preparations for circumstances which may ren- 
 der them necessary, I am not advised, and have not enquired, 
 as agreement of 1817 does not impose any restriction on such 
 supplies. I have no reason to believe that the appropriations 
 made by Congress for cannon and munitions were influenced 
 by any considerations which threatened the peace which 
 happily subsists between Great Britain and United States. 
 The advertisement has been made to execute in a regular 
 course these laws of Congress." 
 
 On September 5, 1844, Secretary Calhoun transmitted to 
 Mr. Pakenham the letter of Secretary Mason.' There is 
 
 ' No. 7 Notes from State Department, p. 48. 
 
 PI 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Qwstions. 129 
 
 nothing on the records at the State Department to indicate 
 that there was any further consideration of the subject at 
 that time,' and the Michigan was allowed to cruise upon the 
 upper lakes. 
 
 The general temper of the Peel ministry, with Lord Aber- 
 deen at the head of foreign afifairs, had been pacific. The 
 northeast boundary question had been settled by friendly 
 interviews between Webster and Ashburton. Various other 
 sources of dispute were amicably arranged. But Oregon 
 became more and more a bone of contention as the Presiden- 
 tial election of 1844 approached. "Fifty-four Forty, or 
 Fight" was the cry of those who were enthusiastic in their 
 ideas of the "manifest destiny" of the United States. Even 
 the schoolboys wrote it on the fences. This bluster over the 
 Oregon question perhaps led to some fear that the lakes 
 might again become a sea of carnage. The Council of 
 Rochester, N. Y., saw the "opposing shore of Lake Ontario 
 bristling with active military preparations. ' ' ' President Polk, 
 in reply to a Senate inquiry, proclaimed to that body on 
 March 4, 1846, that "under this aspect of our relations with 
 Great Britain I can not doubt the propriety of increasing our 
 means of defence both by land and by sea.'" But all the 
 "stage thunder" died away, the Oregon question was settled 
 without further strained relations, and "manifest destiny" 
 became satisfied with a corner of Mexico. The new tariff 
 bill in the United States also probably had a tendency to 
 secure a friendlier feeling from England. 
 
 The feeling along the northern border now became such 
 that rumors of war vessels ceased, and the mirage of danger 
 disappeared. 
 
 In a report of the Secretary of the United States Navy, 
 
 March 2, 1846, it is stated that of five ships of the line which 
 
 > The incidental sngRestion of Secretary Mason that tlie Agreement 
 might be revised probably called forth no observation from the 
 British Government. (Note from Foreign Office, April 2, 1897). 
 
 'Senate Doc. 162, 29-1, March 10, 1S46. 
 
 ■'Senate Doc. 24S, 29-1, Vol. 5. 
 
 - lu 
 
 i 
 
 ■.p 
 
 M 
 
 
f 
 
 1 
 
 '\ 
 
 
 1 
 
 . 
 
 
 1 
 
 ' •■■ li 
 I 
 
 
 ■ 1 
 
 1 
 
 i(. 
 
 i 
 
 : 1 
 
 130 
 
 JVifulra/i(j of the American Lakes. 
 
 were at that time building, one was on Lake Ontario, at 
 Sackett's Harbor.' This probably refers to the ship New 
 Orleans, which had remained unfinished since 1814, for it 
 does not appear that any naval vessel was placed upon Lake 
 Ontario. The Nczv Orleans finally ended its long, inac- 
 tive career by being sold for old timber and kindling wood, 
 though it seems to have been upon the navy list as late ?s 
 1862.' 
 
 On January 27, 1848, Mr. Buchanan, who was then Secre- 
 tary of State, asked Mr. Crampton to secure permission for 
 the passage from the lakes through the St. Lawrence to the 
 Atlantic ocean of the two iron steamers Dallas and Jeffer- 
 son, which had been recently employed in the revenue ser 
 vice on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, but were no longer 
 needed. Their passage was granted and canal charges were 
 omitted. Two small schooners were taken from the ocean 
 to the lakes the next November to replace the iron steamers 
 which had been removed.' ' 
 
 It was not likely that the United States Government w n\\d 
 have removed her iron revenue vessels if the British had not 
 shown a disposition at that time to abide by the spirit of the 
 Agreement of 1817. In 1850, when Mr. Cobden was point- 
 ing to the Agreement of 1817 as a precedent for a plan by 
 which England and France could reduce their expensive 
 armaments, he stated that there was then only "one crazy 
 English hulk on all the lakes. "^ In July, 1852, Joseph Smith, 
 of the United States Bureau of Yards and Docks, reported 
 to the Secretary of the Navy that the British Government 
 had ordered all its naval vessels, which had formerly been in 
 commission on the lakes, to be dismantled. 
 
 In 1845, Commodore Morris and Colonel Totten, by order 
 of the Navy Department, made an examination of the north- 
 ern frontier. In 1848, Captain Breese did the same. From 
 
 'Senate Doc. 187, 29-1. 
 
 ^ London Times, Jan. 7, 1862. 
 
 ' Notes to State Department, Vol. 25. 
 
 * Bright and Rogers : Speeches of Cobden. 
 
Canadian Rebellion and boundary Questions. 131 
 
 their reports it appears that no clanger was apprehended.' It 
 was found "unnecessary and inexpecHcnt even to procrress 
 further with the uncompleted works ... on the shores of 
 the northern lakes." In July, 1851, Lieut. M. F. Maury, of 
 the United States army, said that the friendly feelinjij in Can- 
 ada made measures of defense unnecessary. In case it was 
 thought best to provide against the possibility of a naval sur- 
 prise on the lakes he said: "Engines and armaments might 
 be placed upon lake shores. . . . The frames of a few small 
 men-of-war sieamers could be gotten out at the navy yards 
 of Memphis and New York, and on the first appearance of 
 the war cloud could be sent to lakes by the Erie and Michi- 
 gan canals, put together, and be ready for launching at a 
 moment's warning.'" 
 
 In September, 1851, Commander R. B. Cunningham, of 
 the United States navy, reported that the changes since 1812 
 would prevent the lakes from ever again becoming an arena 
 of naval combat, and that the United States needed no prepa- 
 ration in that quarter,' Captain Morris, of the navy, reported 
 (July, 1 851) that no danger from attack was to be annre- 
 hended in that quarter, though the advantage of canals would 
 give Great Britain a temporary superiority of force on Lake 
 Ontario in case of war. General Totten thought (November, 
 185 1) the United States would have a great superiority in 
 preparation upon the other lakes. In 1852, when the legis- 
 lature of Pennsylvania passed resolutions for a navy yard, 
 naval depot and dry dock upon the lake frontier, in order 
 that the United States might show herself in time of peace 
 prepared for war, Secretary Graham, of the Navy, stated to 
 the Naval Committee of the .Senate that he thougiit such a 
 measure unwise and unnecessary.* He saw no reasons for 
 preparations for war till there was a chance of war in sight. 
 
 There was a general feeling that "warlike preparations on 
 
 ' Senate Reports 331, 32-1, Vol. 2, Aug. 10, 1852. 
 ^Reports Com. 86, 37-2, Vol. 4, pp. 426 and 514. 
 '* Reports Com. 86, 37-2, Vol. 4, pp. 422 and 434. 
 * Senate Report 331, 32-1, Vol. 2. 
 
 m 
 
 ■I 
 
 
 •1 
 
fl 
 
 132 
 
 r ; 
 
 I :.! 
 
 I; ■'■ 
 
 :i 
 
 -■• ii ■■ 
 
 ' ! I 
 
 IT 
 
 i J' 
 
 
 I f 
 
 m\i^ 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 either side of llie lake shores in time of peace would be the 
 signal for similar or more extensive preparations on the 
 other." Joseph Smith, of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, 
 said that in case of any future war, the United Slates, by 
 means of its merchant marine and its railroads, could soon 
 outstrip England in building a lake navy. 
 
 The changes in economic conditions had made the lakes 
 the main avenue of transportatior for western products, and 
 the minds of the enterprising people of the lake region were 
 interested in commerce rather than war. The importance of 
 the lakes as a highway between Eas; and West was rapidly 
 increasing.' In 1854 the United States entered into a reci- 
 procity treat: with England, by which British subjects were 
 given the fre navigation of Take Michigan and free trade in 
 various articles. In return for this, the United States re- 
 ceived more extended fishing privileges and "the right to 
 navigate the river St. Lawrence and the canalc in Canada 
 used as the means of communication between the great lakes 
 and the Atlantic Ocean with their vessels, boats, and crafts 
 as fully and freely as the subjects of Her Britannic Maj- 
 esty. . . ." Thus the people on each side of the lakes were 
 attracted more and more to the other, and social and busi- 
 ness relations softened the sharpness of border lines. 
 
 A further objection to the Michigan was made by the 
 British authorities, however, in 1857. A new question in 
 regard to revenue vessels also arose in 1857-58. In 1S56 the 
 Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to sell at auction 
 the two revenue vessels, the Ingham at Detroit, and the 
 Harrison at Oswego, which had been upon the lakes for 
 
 * Before 1836, and in fact for ten years later, the Mississippi was tlie 
 main avenue of trade for tlie West, but after 1.846-7 tiie lakes became 
 the principal avenue. (Wis. Hist. Cull., Vol. 13, p. 293. 1895). 
 
 Otlicr economic clianges, as well as new polrticai conditions, led to 
 the projection of a canal throuj^h Central America, to shorten the 
 route from the Atlantic to the Pacific. By the Clayton-Buhver treaty 
 of April 19, i<S5o, Great Britain and tiie United States agreed to 
 defend the complete neutrality of such canal. Kach party agreed 
 not U) ac(|uire or maintain exclusive control over any such canal, and 
 not to acquire any colonies or territories adjacent thereto. 
 
Canadiaji Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 133 
 
 several years, and to have six small 50-ton cutters built for 
 the protection of the revenue of the lakes/ While these six 
 cutters were being built, and at a time when it seems that 
 the United States had no cutters upon the lakes, the Gov- 
 ernor of Canada reported to the home government that "an 
 American vessel, qualified as a revenue cruiser," of 800 tons 
 burden, and having a 68-pound Paixhan gun, was making 
 frequent excursions on the lakes from its headquarters in the 
 Detroit river. The Earl of Clarendon drew the attention of 
 Mr. Dallas, the American minister at London, to the matter. 
 JNlr. Dallas stated that the vessel was probably the Michi- 
 i:;aii, and was armed with only an 18-pound gun. Mr. Dal- 
 las also stated that the tonnage of the Michimn was in 
 excess of that stipulated by the Agreement of 1817. This led 
 the Earl of Clarendon to direct Lord Napier to bring the 
 subject before Mr. Cass at Washington." This Lord Napier 
 did on April 8, 1857, and suggested the "expediency of fur- 
 ther inquiry, in order that measures [might] be taken for the 
 correction of any infringement of the engagements of 1817 
 which may have occurred." Mr. Cass referred Lord Napier's 
 note to the Navy and Treasury Departments,'' but i. they 
 made a reply to Mr. Cass it was probably only verbal. In the 
 reply of Mr. Cass to Lord Napier the contention seems to 
 have been that the ship in question Avas not, in fact, a vessel 
 of war.* 
 
 The intimation in 1857 that revenue vessels were included 
 under the Agreement of 1817 was followed in 1858 bv in- 
 quiries from the British Government in regard to the "six 
 new armed revenue cutters," which, according to informa- 
 tion received from Canada, Iiad been placed upon the lakes, 
 and which it was apprehended might "not square wath the 
 nuitual obligations of the two countries contained in the 
 treaty of 1817."° Lord Napier, on July 2, intendii\g to leave 
 
 'Act of Aug. 18, 1836. 
 
 * Notes from l'"oreign Ollice. 
 'Domestic Letters, April 11 and 17. 
 
 * Correspondence at tlie l'"oreign Udice. 
 
 ^37 Notes to State Department, July 2, 1858. 
 
 4 
 
134 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes, 
 
 \ I 
 
 I i 
 
 \ 
 
 
 m 
 
 ' ( 
 
 n 
 
 ! : 
 
 
 -1 
 
 
 hf 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 ' , 
 
 
 !t 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 ^'' 
 
 I 
 
 .-a 
 
 j 1 V ; 
 
 Washington for two weeks, calling both at the State De- 
 partment and at his home to see Secretary Cass, and failing to 
 find him, wrote him a note, in which he stated that when he 
 next met him it would be his "duty to ask verbally" concern- 
 ing these cutters, and that Mr. Cass would much oblige him 
 "by inquiring whether the vessels alluded to have been built 
 and whether they are destined for the purpose alleged." 
 Lord Napier had returned by July 17, and soon after, nrob- 
 ably July 27, or August 9, he left a memorandum' with Mr. 
 Cass in which he asked whether vessels of war or revenue 
 vessels were about to be placed on the lakes; if such vessels 
 were being built, what was their number, tonnage, and arm- 
 ament; and whether they were built by any special apnro- 
 priation of Congress.' It is probable that Mr. Cass answered 
 the questions verbally, since no formal written reply is to be 
 found at the Department of State.' 
 
 These inquiries in regard to cutters and the renewal of the 
 complaint in regard to the character of the Michigan seem 
 to have originated in the disputes of 1856 concerning the Cen- 
 tral American canal and the recruiting in the TTni'ted States 
 of soldiers for the Crimean War. There was excitement 
 when Mr, Crampton, the British minister at Washinc-ton, 
 was given his passports, but it soon subsided. The United 
 States Government had been suspicious of the English fleet 
 in the West Indies, but the British Government disavowed 
 any hostile intention. By 1858 there were no serious diffi- 
 culties to adjust, and relations were the most cordial.* The 
 visit of the Prince of Wales to the United States in i860 iiidi- 
 
 ' 37 Noleb to State Department. 
 
 ' Six new revenue cutters were placed on the lakes about this time. 
 Five of them were removed to the Atlantic at the opening of the Civil 
 War in 1S61. 
 
 ^ From tiie corresjiondeme of the I'oreign Ofiice at London it 
 appears that Mr. Cass "argued that the vessels were very small, and 
 mounted no cannon." 
 
 * In 1S58 and 1859 there was some correspondence concerning tlie 
 violation of British jurisdiction, and the encroachment of American 
 fishermen. (8 Notes from Slate Department.) 
 
Canadian Rebellion and Boundary Questions. 135 
 
 cates the friendly feeling which existed. President Buchanan 
 spoke of the good effects of this visit, in his message to Con- 
 gress in December of that year. Lord Lyons characterized 
 this message as having the most cordial language of any that 
 had ever appeared. 
 
 But at this very moment a storm was upon the horizon — 
 already visible to some — an irrepressible conflict of such pro- 
 portions that it would involve England and America in seri- 
 ous misunderstandings which it would take years to un- 
 tangle. 
 
 
 I ;; 
 
 
 
 IlII 
 
 '3 
 
Ili 
 
 f 
 
 i 1 
 
 VI. 
 
 AGITATION OF LAKE DEFENSES DURING THE 
 AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. 
 
 I 
 
 1 '■' 
 
 CONFEDLRATE OPERATIONS FrOM CaNADA, 
 
 Events growing out of the Civil War several times caused 
 the relations between England and the United States to be 
 strained almost to the breaking point. In England lli!<erc 
 was alarm felt at the vast armies and naval armaments, wSakh 
 continued to grow as the war progressed. W'ith the Hong' 
 Canadian frontier unprotected by costly forts and fleets, witli 
 a revived feeling that the United States looked forward to a 
 "manifest destiny" of wider territory, and with thousands of 
 Canadians joining the Union army/ it was not unnatural *?iat 
 England should have some fear of danger to her Amtn.an 
 possessions. This feeling was strengthened after the Tn-ni 
 affair by the statement in American papers that Engi^lamd 
 would be brought to a reckoning after the close of the war. 
 
 On the other hand, there was a general feeling in ihe 
 United States that the policy of the London Govemmem was 
 greatly influenced by the wide sympathy for the Confedtraies 
 which existed among the aristocracy and clergy of souiibcrTi 
 England, who expected to sec recorded the death and funeral 
 of another of the world's republics. English stattsmem an- 
 nounced that "the United States has ceased to be." Th^ 
 thought that North and South would never again occupv the 
 same bed together. The Queen had early (May 13, 1861) 
 
 ' Cases in regard to Britisli citizens in the United States armr 
 considereil almost every day in the correspondence from iht State 
 Department to tlie Britisli Legation at Washington during paxifjdthe 
 year 1863. In May and June, 1864, it was the principal sutijedt erf 
 correspondence. 
 
 11 
 
Agitatioti of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 137 
 
 issued a proclamation of neutrality, but the Government of 
 Great Britain, it was said in the United States, was too fast 
 in recognizing the cotton States as belligerents and too slow 
 in preventing the English ports from being made bases for 
 Confederate operations against the United States. The 
 Times and other London papers appeared to be subservient 
 to the Confederate cause, and some people were "persuaded 
 tliat the Lord Chancellor sits on a cotton bale." 
 
 The first note of warning of the fitting out of the Confed- 
 erate vessels in IJritish territory was given by the Secretary 
 of State, Air. Seward, in a private interview with Lord Lvons 
 in April, 1861. The United States Government had received 
 information that the iron steamer Peerless was in the hands 
 of the enemy on her way out of Lake Ontario, and that 
 she had iv^gular British papers. Lord Lyons did not think 
 the information was definite enough to justify him in having 
 the vessel detained. Mr. Seward said that the United States 
 could not tolerate the fitting out of piratical vessels on the 
 St. Lawrence, and stated that he would direct the Peerless 
 to be seized by United States forces if the reports were true, 
 no matter what flag she carried. Lord Lyons protested, but 
 Mr. Seward gave conditional directions to the United States 
 naval oflficers.' 
 
 Mr. C. F. Adams, who, during the Civil War, was our pru- 
 dent and able minister at London, held the pulse of the Eng- 
 lish people and promptly recorded each variation. He 
 watched the rise and fall of sentiment in favor of the South- 
 ern Confederacy, helped to avoid difficulties, and finally by 
 his firmness and moderation secured greater English activity 
 in enforcing neutrality. In June, Mr. Adams wrote Mr. Sew- 
 ard that the British were sending troops to protect Canada 
 from invasion.' Lord Russell, who was Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs, explained that they were sent as "a mere 
 precaution against times of trouble." He said the Ameri- 
 
 ' 8 Notes from tlie State Deparinieiit. Seward to Lyons, May i, 
 1S61. 
 '^jDespatclies, June 14. 
 
 t^^ 
 
 
 
 '*\. 
 ^'-3 
 
 '■\."i 
 
 hi 
 
 
 . .'I 
 

 138 
 
 Neutrality of the Atncrican Lakes. 
 
 cans "might do something" and he thought it was well to be 
 prepared. 
 
 By the Agreement of 1817 the naval force of each party 
 upon the lakes had been limited to four vessels, each of one 
 hundred tons burden, and with restricted armament and 
 duties. In 1861 no British naval vessels were upon the lakes, 
 nd there had been none for many years. The United States 
 l:ail inly one naval vessel, the Michigan, which had been 
 cruising upon the lakes since 1844. The British Govern- 
 ment had, as we have seen, already complained in regard to 
 the size of the Michigan, and the conditions of 1861 led to 
 another complaint. On August 31. Lord Lyons was in- 
 structed by the British Government to represent to the 
 United States Government that the tonnage of the United 
 States naval force on the lakes above Niagara Falls, and es- 
 pecially the armament of the steamer Michigan seemed tc 
 be "in excess of the limit stipulated in the arrangement of 
 1817.'" Mr. Seward, in reply, stated that the only naval 
 force of the United States on the upper lakes was the Michi- 
 gan, of fifty-two tons, carrying one gun of eight inches, and 
 used "exclusively for purposes of recruiting the navy, with 
 artillery practice for the newly recruited seamen." Mr. Sew- 
 ard did not consider that the retention of the Michigan 
 upon the lakes was any violation of the Agreement of 1817, 
 but expressed his willingness to consider any views which 
 the British Government might have to the contrary." There 
 is no record at the State Department to show that any fur- 
 ther objection to the Michigan was ever made. The fact that 
 the United States had no other naval vessel on the lakes 
 probably influenced the British Government to allow a loose 
 construction of the Agreement of 1817 in regard to the 
 size of the Michigan. The Nciu Orleans, of seventy-four 
 guns, wliich had remained unfinished at Sackett's Harbor 
 since 1814, seems to have been reckoned in the navy list as 
 
 ' 42 Notes to State Departmenl. 
 ^ No. 9 Notes from State Department. 
 Letters, Sept, 10. 
 
 of 
 at 
 
 Also, see Miscellaneous 
 
Agitation of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 139 
 
 an effective line-of-battle ship, but there was nothing to fear 
 from it' It seems that there was only one revenue cutter, 
 the Floyd, upon the lakes at this time. The five others 
 which the United States Government had had there since 
 1858 were taken to the Atlantic at the outbreak of the war," 
 
 It was doubtless the intention of the Canadian authorities 
 to preserve strict neutrality. Canadian sympathy in 1S61 
 was naturally with the United States. In fact, there was for 
 some time before the Civil War a strong feeling for annexa- 
 tion to the prosperous country whose internal improvements 
 and manufacturii' : towns could be seen from Brock's Monu- 
 ment. But the people of the United States were suspicious 
 when the nation was in peril. Secretary Seward's circular of 
 October 14 to the Northern governors spoke about the need 
 of defenses for the lakes. In reply to this the Canadian 
 papers said that fortifications on the north were a menace to 
 Canada. The English papers doubted whether tlie conven- 
 tion which made the Great Lakes neutral would justify either 
 England or the United States in erecting fortifications along 
 their shores, and it was stated that such fortresses would only 
 be standing menaces and could not answer the end desired. 
 
 On November 8 the Tvcnl affair occurred, and was a 
 new cause of alarm in regard to the relations between 
 England and the United States, but it does not appear that 
 the danger from Canada was great enough to require de- 
 fensive preparations in that quarter. The Detroit Free Press 
 said that there was no danger on the lakes, and that the mer- 
 chant craft could be used for defense in case of hostilities. 
 The Toronto Globe said that the act of Commodore Wilkes 
 could not cause any apprehension of war between the two 
 countries. ' Other Canadian papers went so far as to say that 
 the weight of authority might be found to lie upon the side 
 of Wilkes.* There was a wide Northern sympathy in Canada 
 at this time. The Detroit Free Press saw no danger upon 
 
 ii 
 
 ' London Times, Jan. 7, 1862. 
 
 ' Information at Bureau of Revenue Marine. 
 
 * Toronto Globe, Nov. 22, 1861. 
 
 * Montreal Herald and Gazette, Nov. 20. 
 
 "»3 
 
 ■ fl 
 
 ■1 
 
 .-H 
 
 1 
 
i 
 
 ii • 
 
 
 
 
 I ^ 
 
 
 <|l 
 
 m 
 
 ■i t 
 
 fall 
 
 140 
 
 Naitrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 the lakes. The comment of the London press and the de- 
 mand of the British Government in December, however, 
 seemed to forebode war, and each side considered plans for 
 the defense of the lakes. There was an impression in Canada 
 that General Scott returned from France solely to give coun- 
 sel as to an invasion of that country, and there was a decrease 
 of Canadian sympathy for the Union cause. 
 
 In the midst of the general excitement, statesmen were 
 carried away by their feelings; but Lincoln and Seward un- 
 influenced by passion and prejudice, surveyed calmly and 
 decided wisely. The past policy of the country was con- 
 tinued and war was averted, but the rankling wound caused 
 by the Trent affair was one that could not be healed at once. 
 England would have had an immediate advantage in case 
 war had broken out. She had dug a canal from the foot of 
 Lake Ontario, on a line parallel to the river, but beyond 
 the reach of American guns from the opposite shore, to a 
 point on the St. Lawrence below, beyond American jurisdic- 
 tion, thus securing a safe channel to and from the lakes. She 
 also had a canal around the falls of Niagara. Thus she could 
 in a short time convey light-draft gunboats from the ocean 
 to the lakes, and threaten American commerce on the lake 
 cities. The House Military Committee, however, probably 
 exaggerated the danger. Its report stated that the wealthy 
 cities and immense commerce of the United States upon the 
 lakes from ( )gdcnsburg to Chicago was "as open to incur- 
 sions as was Mexico when invaded by Cortez;" that lir^ht- 
 draft gunboats could in one month shell every town, and at 
 one blow "sweep our commerce from that entire chain of 
 waters." It went on to say: 
 
 "Occupied by our vast commercial enterprises and bv vio- 
 lent party conflicts, our people failed to notice at the time 
 that the safety of our entire northern frontier has been de- 
 stroyed by the digging of two short canals. Near the head 
 of the St. Lawrence, the British, to complete their supremacy 
 on the lakes, have built a large navr-l depot for the con^Mruc- 
 tion and repair of vessels, and a very strong fort to protect 
 
 ^ 
 
Agitation of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 141 
 
 the depot and the outlets of tlie lake. . . . The result of all 
 this is that in the absence of ships of war on the lakes, and of 
 means to convey them there from the ocean, the United 
 States, upon the breaking- out of the war, would, without 
 navy yards and suitable docks, ha\c to commence the build- 
 ing of a fleet upon Lake Ontario and another upon the upper 
 lakes. At the same time England, possessing a naval depot 
 at the entrance of this system of waters, can forestall us in all 
 our attempts, both offensive and defensive." 
 
 But the British probably felt that the ultimate advantage 
 in this quarter would rest with the United States. They did 
 not desire to make the lakes the theatre of any conflict which 
 might arise. Sir Francis Head said: "If Canadian vessels 
 are attacked on fresh waters, let the injury be promptly 
 avenged by the British navy throughout the wide, rude, salt, 
 aqueous surface of the globe." Mr. C. F. Adams thought 
 that it was the discovery of the indefensible condition of Can- 
 ada which materially contributed to cool the ardor with which 
 the discussion of the Trent affair was entered into.' Air. 
 W. H. Russell, an Englishman, who went from the United 
 States to Canada just after the Trent afTair to study the 
 condition of the Canadian frontier, said that it was assailable 
 at all points. The line of the Welland canal was open and de- 
 fenseless. Hamilton had no defenses; the defenses of To- 
 ronto were lu Jicrous ; the Grand Trunk Railway was close to 
 the shores of Lake Ontario, where communication could be 
 easily cut; Lake Michigan gave the United States the ad- 
 vantage. New York alone was richer than the Canadas; 
 England did not have as many light vessels as the United 
 States, and Canada could not guard herself from invasion by 
 preparing a navy in time of peace.^ 
 
 Nevertheless, the evident immediate advantage which the 
 British had upon the lakes was the source of various discus- 
 
 
 
 Ut 
 
 • '''/if i 
 
 '^Kv''? 
 
 
 ' nesp.ntches, March 24, 1865. 
 
 ■^ W. H. Russell: Canada and its Defences, Conditions and Re- 
 sources. 
 
i„<m* 
 
 142 
 
 NeiitralHy of the American Lakes . 
 
 sions, resolutiDns and reports concerning the northern fron- 
 tier during the year 1862. The Ohio legislature passed reso- 
 lutions in favor of a naval depot on Lake Erie to protect the 
 countr}- from danger or injury by an "armed enemy. "' Lieu- 
 tenant Tottcn had also recommended such a depot at some 
 point on the western lakes. The House Committee (on 
 Harbor Defenses on Lakes and Rivers) favored lake de- 
 fenses.' The "brilliant naval triumiihs" upon the lakes in 
 earlier days were held out to the "brethren of the East" in 
 order to secure their vote for defenses. The House Military 
 Committee reported in favor of a ship canal from the Missis- 
 sippi river to the lakes, in order to admit gunboats, though 
 they did not think it wise to abrogate the Agreement of 1817 
 at that time.^ I\e])orts upon a nati(}nal armory in the West 
 favored Pittsburg rather than Chicago, on the ground that 
 it was near the lakes, but not upon them.' On Aoril 23. Mr. 
 Blair, of the Military Conmiittee, reported in favor of mili- 
 tary canals from the Mississippi to the lakes and from the 
 lakes to the Hudson, so that "one leet would answer for two" 
 in protecting the "exposed" northern frontier.' On April 28 
 there was a report upon the feasibility of enlarging the Illi- 
 nois and Michigan canal so gunboats could pass to Lake 
 Michigan. '■ It was believed by many that the Agreement of 
 181 7 did not apply to that lake.' On June 3, Mr. Ijlair, of the 
 Militar}- Committee, reported upon the petitions for enlarg- 
 ing the locks of the Erie and Oswego canals so monitors 
 could pass for the defense of the lakes." Partially to over- 
 come the British advantage on the lakes, the New York Sen- 
 ate also proposed to adapt the canals of the State to the de- 
 fense of the northwestern lakes. " 
 
 • H. Misc. Doc. 45, 37-2, F"t;b. 21, 1.S62. 
 ' H. Reports 23, 37-2, V(j1 3, Feb. 12. 
 
 ■• W. Rei)orts 37, 37-2, Vol. 3. I'"cb. 20. 
 
 * Reports ot Cum. 43, 37-2, Vol. 3, Feb. 28. 
 ■■' Reports of Com. 86, 37-2, Vol. 4, April 23. 
 " Reports of Com. 96, 37-2, Vol. 4, April 28. 
 •Congressional Record, 38-1, May 25, 1S62. 
 " Reports of Com. 114, 37-2, Vol. 4, June 3. 
 'N. V. Senate Journal, 1862. 
 
 
Agitation of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 143 
 
 Back of all the petitions and reports upon ship canals v;as 
 something- besides the feeling of danger. It was the actual 
 need of western conniierce more than any imminent danger 
 from northern attack that developed the plans for connecting 
 the lakes with the Mississippi and the Atlantic by deep water- 
 ways. The ghost of British fleets upon the lakes was pushed 
 into prominence in order to get the aid of the government 
 in digging canals. There was doubtless some cause for un- 
 easiness in the rumors which were occasionally afloat,' and 
 there was a considerable munber of people in both countries 
 who might have rushed into a conflict if they could have had 
 their way ; but there appears to have been a general convic- 
 tion that the countries would reach a mutual understanding. 
 
 During the first two years of the Civil War, when the 
 lower Mississippi was held by the Confederates, the west- 
 ern products considerably increased the lake commerce. The 
 Canadian canals, even before, were not of sufficient capacity 
 to satisfy the needs of the American commerce. In addi- 
 tion to this, just after the Trent affair there was consider- 
 able American sentiment in favor of canals on American soil. 
 A select conmiittee of Congress in March, 1863, thought that 
 our Canadian neighbors had insidted us and that we should 
 not be compelled to use their canals. 
 
 In June, 1863, at a Ship Canal Convention in Chicago, five 
 thousand delegates were reported to be present. The Union 
 arms had recently sustained serious defeats, and the Con- 
 federates were planning to carry the war north of the Po- 
 tomac. The fear that this would secure the adherence of Eng- 
 land to the Confederate cause was increased. It was thought 
 to be a favorable time to secure the aid of the government in 
 constructing a commercial waterway from the ^Mississippi 
 to the lakes and from the lakes to the Atlantic. Nearly every 
 speaker at the convention said that the lake commerce was 
 in great danger. Many thought there should be a procession 
 of the Eads ironclads from the ^lississippi to Lake Michigan. 
 
 
 ■ ii '■■ ■ 
 
 ' '"'t'd 
 -'.-.ij 
 
 i/,4 
 
 '..M 
 
 
 
 ■ >'•;•■■ 
 
 m 
 
 ' -'.'t'a 
 
 
 
i 
 
 -i 
 
 t: 
 
 i ,1 
 
 144 
 
 Neubalily of thr American Lakes, 
 
 Mr. S])aldiiig, of Oliii), favored the Niagara canal also, so 
 that the procession could pass on to Lake Ontario. 
 
 It is evident that the danf,a'r <jf war was much exafrcfer- 
 atcd. \'icc-TVcKidcnt Ilanilin spoke of the military value of 
 the canals, but he mentioned the conmicrcial value also. Mr. 
 Huhbel, of Wisconsin, said the canals were not a military 
 necessity. He said that if l^n^land had desired war she 
 would have declared it in 1862 "when the South had us by 
 the throat," and that there was now no danger of war with 
 her "exce])t by our own volition." Mr. ] ). 15. "^ t^les, of 
 New York, talked of the "glorious West as a j? : hog- 
 
 pen." With the co-operation of the hot;- and the canals, vast 
 amounts of corn could be taken to the sea. The hog could 
 eat the corn and Europe could eat the hog. 
 
 The convention passed resolutions declaring the construc- 
 tion and enlargement of canals between the Mississippi river 
 and the Atlantic, with canals ccmnecting the ^akes, as of ereat 
 military and commercial importance. It was stated that such 
 canals were demanded alike by military prudence, political 
 wisdom and the necessity of commerce; that they would "fur- 
 nish the cheapest and most expeditious means of protecting 
 the northern frontier," and, at the same time, "promote the 
 rapid development and permanent union of the whole coun- 
 try.'" 
 
 The energy and resources of the country were taxed to 
 the utmost at this time, and these schemes were not adopted 
 by the government, though they were proposed several 
 times in the Thirty-eighth Congress, during the early part 
 of 1864.-' 
 
 By July 4, 1863, the tide of the Civil War had clearly 
 turned in favor of the ITnion cause. Vicksburg had fallen, 
 and a few days later the Mississippi was entirely wrested from 
 the hands of the Confederates. Gettysburg had also helped 
 to decide the issue of the war. The invasion by the gallant 
 
 
 Springfield Daily Illinois Stale Jourual, June 4, 1863. 
 • Congressional Record, Vol 57. 
 
 1864. 
 
Ajii;ilaiion of Lake Defenses Durinj^ Civil War. 115 
 
 Lcc was rc'pclU'd. It was considered an auspicious time for 
 the Government of the United States to speak in a more de- 
 cided tone apainst the attitude of tlic Ilritish (J(jvernment 
 toward tlie Cotifederates. It apf)rehended a crisis in case of 
 the prohahle faihire of all the "friendly appeals to Her Maj- 
 esty's (iovernnient ajj;ainst suffering a deeply concerted and 
 rapidly prcparinj^ naval war to be waj^fed against the United 
 States from British i)orts in Eur'ijje and America by British 
 subjects in I'ritish built and armed vessels."' Mr. Seward, 
 on July 1 1, when he felt the dans^er of an approachinjij naval 
 conflict with Cireat I'.ritain. in l:is instructions to .Mr. Adams 
 used some expressions which were afterwards incorporated 
 into the I'rcsident's messa{,'e, and were considered by the 
 British Government to be "disrespectful and menacing." 
 The ['resident, in the following March, allowed any expres- 
 sions to be withdrawn which Lord F'iussell should consider 
 exceptional, though it was asserted that their object had 
 been "to remove out of the way a stumbling-block of national 
 offenses," and not to offend or provoke war. 
 
 Events which occurred after his letter of July ii, 1863, 
 "such as the invasion of Johnson's Island from Canada . . . 
 and especially the report of Mailing, the pretended Secretary 
 of Xavy of the insurgents," caused Mr. Seward to feel that 
 the trouble which he appr-'hended "was not overestimated 
 nor too soon anticipated." 
 
 In the early jiart of November, 1863, the Governor Gen- 
 eral of Canada notified Lord Lyons at Washington that there 
 was rumor of a plot of the Confederates in Canada to secure 
 steamers on Lake Erie, release the prisoners at Johnson's 
 Island, and then invade the United States by an attack upon 
 Buffalo." Lord Lyons, at a late hour on the night of Novem- 
 ber II, promptly notified Mr. Seward so that measures could 
 be taken to watch lake steamers. General Dix was at once 
 sent to the frontier, and Honorable Preston King was sent 
 
 ' ly Iiistnictions, p. 21.1. Seward to Adams, No. 859, March 2, 
 1864. 
 
 '' Correspondence relating to Fenian Invasion and Rebellion of the 
 Southern States. Publislied at Ottawa, 1869. 
 
 10 
 
 f' 
 
 ^>' 
 
 If ^ ." 141^ t«^ 
 
 ■il.'Ji'-"i' 
 
14(5 
 
 Neuitality of the American Lakes, 
 
 to confer upon the subject with Lord Monck, so that there 
 might be perfect understanding;^ l)ct\veen the authorities of 
 Canada and tlie I'uited States/ The Michigan anchored 
 off Johnson's Island to prevent any expedition against that 
 place, but Lord Monck's warning had already prevented the 
 execution of the plot.' The United States ceased to make 
 military demonstrations on the Vermont border.' 
 
 At the beginning of 1864 there was much anxiety concern- 
 ing the operation of Confederate agents along the northern 
 border of the L^nited States. Suspicious vessels were re- 
 ported to be in Canadian waters. They were supposed to be 
 there for the purpose of making piratical attacks upon the 
 lake trade of the United States. The Montreal was re- 
 ported to be armed with twenty-four guns, small-arms, cut- 
 lasses and boarding-pikes. The Saratoga was also re- 
 ported as a hostile vessel. Lord Lyons notified Lord Monck 
 of the reports concerning the vessels, and he at once took 
 steps to detain them if the report proved to be true. The 
 large number of Confederates in Canada at this time caused 
 Lord Monck to have fears that there would be great danger 
 of having the neutrality of the Canadian territory compro- 
 mised during the following season, and this consideration 
 caused him to think that there ought to be some I'.ritish 
 naval force stationed on the lakes to enforce the commercial 
 police. On March 19 he wrote to the Duke of Newcastle 
 that the Agreement of 1817 prohibited the United States 
 from a naval force competent to protect her commerce from 
 piratical attempts at that time,* and that Great I'.ritain was 
 "bound to take stringent precautions that her harbors shall 
 not be used for the preparation of expeditions hostile to the 
 trade of the United States against which the stipulations of 
 a treaty prevents that power from making adequate provi- 
 
 ' Seward to Lyons, Nov. 12. 
 - Adams to Russell, l-Vh. 22, 1864. 
 •' 10 NotL'S from .State Department to Britisli Legation. 
 *Cor. Rel. to Fenian Invasion and Rebellion of .Southern States, 
 p. 61. 
 
Agitatio7i of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 147 
 
 sion for her defense."' He sug^j^ested that five vessels small 
 enough to pass through Canadian canals should be sent out 
 — one for Lake Ontario, and two each for Lakes Eric and 
 Huron. 
 
 Lord Monck sent a confidential agent to investigate the 
 various reports concerning Confederate ves'^els, and he re- 
 ported to Lord Russell on March 31 that no evidence was 
 found. Neither the Montreal nor the Saratoga could be dis- 
 covered.'' llut he was still of the opinion that it would be 
 "most advisable to have some vessels bearing Her Majesty's 
 flag upon the lakes.'" There was no royal navy on the lakes, 
 and he thought this might hold out some inducement to 
 piratical attempts. Rumors, even though they had no foun- 
 dation, produced a feeling of unrest on the part of those 
 interested in the lake trade of the United vStates "which 
 might easily be exaggerated into a sentiment of hostility 
 towards the Canadians from whose harbors they imagine an 
 attack on their commerce might issue." Lord Monck 
 thought the evil efifccts of rumors could be stopped if it were 
 known that one British vessel was stationed on each of the 
 lakes, Ontario, Erie and Huron. Mr. Cardwell, who soon 
 took the place of the Duke of Newcastle at the Home Office, 
 promised (April 23) to address Lord Monck later concerning 
 the small naval vessels which were to be kept within the 
 limits of the Agreement of 18 17, but no vessels were ever 
 sent. It was doubtless considered wise to make no prepara- 
 tions upon the frontier which might be misconstrued as a 
 menace to the United States.' 
 
 ' Lord Moiick's ideas were not clear in rej^ard to tlie Agreement of 
 i,Si7. He tlioii^iU it limited both parties to "one vessel on Lake 
 Ontario and two on each of tlie other lakes." He was also under 
 the fi'lse impression that the prohibition had been "imposed on the 
 United .States" in the interest of Great Britain. 
 
 ' 62 Notes to State Department. 
 
 ■\Cor. Ri'l. to Fenian Invasion and Rebellion of Southern States, 
 p. 107. Monc'- to Newcastle. 
 
 ♦ Toronto Weekly Leader, Dec. 30, 1864. 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 vi 
 
 ,1'^ 
 
 '■''M 
 
Vi 
 
 ■ i , 
 
 I) ill 
 
 ft"?^ 
 
 '■s\\'ii 
 
 ' 'I J: 
 
 n 
 
 : 
 
 If 
 
 
 I 
 
 ! i: 
 
 148 
 
 Ncidralily of the American Lakes. 
 
 The reports of Confederate orj^anizations in Canada prob- 
 ably had some influence in causing the L'nited States to be- 
 gin the building of cutters for the lake revenue service. A 
 side-screw cutter was begun at Lower lUack Rock, near 
 Buffalo, in the early part of April, and was expected to be 
 ready in three months. ' Lord l^yons saw a newspaper state- 
 ment concerning the new vessel, and asked Mr. Seward 
 whether it would contravene the conditions of 1817." The 
 latter made inquiry of the Secretary of the Treasury, and on 
 May 1 1 he wrote Lord Lyons that it appeared that the vessel 
 would form "no part of the naval force of the l'nited States," 
 but was intended exclusively for the prevention of snuig- 
 gHng.' 
 
 But the idea of making these revenue vessels available for 
 defense in case of an emergency was probably considered, 
 though there was no intention of violating the stipulations 
 of 1817. On May 5, Secretary Chase, of the Treasury, wr(.)te 
 Secretary Seward as follows: 
 
 "I have the honor to call your attention to the arrangement 
 of Ajiril, 1817, between the Up''^'x1 States and (Ireat IJritain 
 (U. S. Stat, at Large, v. 8, p. 2', ) relative to the naval force 
 to be maintained upon the American lakes, and to inf|uire 
 whether the provision of the arrangement which restricts the 
 naval force of the two governments to two vessels on the 
 upper lakes, is construed by the Department of State to 
 embrace Lake Er'^ as among the lakes referred to; also 
 whether it is within the scope of the arrangement to restrict 
 the tonnage and armament of vessels designed exclusively 
 for the Revenue Service." 
 
 On May 7, Mr. Seward replied: 
 
 "I have the honor to state that, in my opinion, Lake I'^rie 
 may be considered as one of the upper lakes referred to in 
 that instrument. I am not, however, prepared to acknowl- 
 edge that its purpose was to restrict the armament and ton- 
 
 ' Huffalo Morniug Courier, April 15, 1864, 
 
 ^63 Notes to .State Departiiu-iit. 
 
 ' 1 1 Notes from .State Department, p. 222. 
 
Agitation of Lake Defaises During Civil War. 149 
 
 nagc of vessels dcsij^^ncd exclusively for the Revenue Scr- 
 vice. 
 
 The United States Government desired to live up to the 
 spirit of the Ap^reement of 1817, althoup^h there was a feelinpf 
 in Conpfress that it was unequal under the chanpfcs which had 
 occurred since its inception. It was helieved that EniLrland 
 Vi-as too passive in her policy concerninj:^ the Civil War in 
 the United States, and that she should have followed the ad- 
 vice of those Enjrlish statesmen who advocated a more lib- 
 eral policy toward the United States (^loveninient.' Not- 
 withstanding- the avowed intention of the Ilritish (iovern- 
 mcnt to preserve a strict neutrality, the Confederates man- 
 aged to get materials of war from English ports. The 
 Union cause doubtless received assistance in the same way, 
 but this did not j^revcnt the widespread belief that the Con- 
 federates were receiving assistance that could have been pre- 
 vented. On April 22, Mr. Seward said: "We nnist finish the 
 Civil War soon or we shall get in war with England." Two 
 months later he was convinced that British sympathy was 
 clearly with the South. 
 
 The uneasiness regarding the Confederates in Canada con- 
 tinued.' Lord .Monck was kept busy investigating rei)orts 
 concerning them. lie asked the authorities to adopt every 
 precaution to prevent the Confederates from making Canada 
 a base for hostilities against the Northern States. Rut not- 
 withstanding the diligence of the authorities, it was still pos- 
 sible for the Confederates to find their way into Canada and 
 secretly plot to break the peace between Canada and the 
 United States. Relations with Great Britain were also made 
 more complicated by the Canadian canal pf)licy, which was 
 not considered to be lil)eral enough to justify tiie United 
 States in continuing the Reciprocity Treaty. 
 
 On May 25, Mr. Spalding, in the House, passed from a 
 discussion of the inequalities of the Reciprocity Treaty to 
 
 ^ii 
 
 
 • Vol. 6.}, Domestic betters, p. 22S. 
 '■"SS Dcspatdies, Nd. 694, May 19, i.S6i. 
 '64 and 65 Notes to State Deparlinent. 
 
 ' ■Vti/ 'JB 
 
IT 
 
 
 'ii. 
 
 r^'M' 
 
 m 
 
 1 1 5 
 
 y, i ! 
 
 150 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 consider the Agreement of 1817, "whereby," he said. "iBne 
 northwestern lakes, with a population of ten million pec']:le 
 upon their American borders, and upon whose bosom flcaits 
 one-third part of the whole commercial wealth of our cr-ium!- 
 try, were placed at the tender mercies of Great Britain.*^ He 
 complained that the United States Government was afraid 
 it would offend England to place a naval depot or naiy yaurd 
 upon the American coast of one of the lakes, though Gneat 
 Britain had been allowed quietly to dig canals by which fSie 
 could pass gunboats from Quebec to Chicago to '■devaftatie 
 our fairest cities and destroy our richest commerce.*' 
 
 Mr. Spalding said that by their canals the British liad "de- 
 feated the only object that led us into the arrangement." Mr. 
 Washburn thought that if the government would enlarge jlie 
 Illinois and Michigan canals in his State the United Slates 
 would also be able lo send gunboats into the lakes. Wt. 
 Pruyn, of New York, said the United States could build s^im- 
 boats on Lake Michigan, but Mr. Spalding mformed him 
 that the head of the Navy Department said that this lake also 
 was included under the Agreement of 181 7. Mr. Arnold said 
 there were one hundred vessels of war on the Mississ-ippi 
 which could be taken to the lakes, and he favored the camials 
 rather than the abrogation of treaties. Mr. Spalding was 
 tuned up to a higher key. He had a constituent who coo- 
 trolled fourteen steam propellers from Chicago to Ogdems- 
 burg, all of which could within a week have been made into 
 gunboats if there only had been a navy yard on the Is'xs. 
 Mr. Spalding was not satisfied with the decision of the Niw 
 Department, and he was at that time in favor of makirag a 
 clean sweep of treaties. "I hope," he said, "when we get 
 our hands once in we will make clean work." 
 
 On account of the objections which had been made to 
 establishing a naval depot upon the lakes, Mr. Spaldinc. •>n 
 June 13, introduced a joint resolution for the terminau^j'n of 
 the Agreement of 1817. On June 18 it passed the Hom5c in 
 the following form: 
 
 * Congressional Globe, Vol. 58, 38-1, p. Z481. 
 
Agitation of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 151 
 
 ''Whereas the treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, 
 as to the naval force upon the lakes, was designed as a tem- 
 porary arrangement only, and although equal and just at the 
 time it was made, has become greatly unequal through the 
 construction by Great Britain of sundry ship canals: and 
 whereas the vast interests of commerce upon the northwest- 
 ern lakes, and the security of cities and towns situated on 
 their American borders, manifestly require the establishment 
 of one or more navy yards wherein ships may be fitted and 
 prepared for naval warfare; and zdiercas the United States 
 Government, unlike that of Great Britain, is destitute of ship 
 canals for the transmission of gunboats from the Atlantic 
 Ocean to the western lakes: 
 
 "Be it resokrd by the Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
 that the President of the United States be, and is hereby, 
 authorized and directed to jive notice to the Government of 
 Great Britain that it is the wish and intention of the United 
 States to terminate said arrangement of eighteen hundred 
 and seventeen, in respect to the naval force upon the lakes, 
 at the end of six months from and after the giving of said 
 notice." 
 
 This resolution was not considered in the Senate, but on 
 August 4 Lord LyoJis wrote Mr. Seward that the attention 
 of his government had been drawn to the resolution, and 
 would view with regret and alarm the abrogation of an ar- 
 rangement which had for fifty years prevented occasions of 
 disagreement, as well as needless expense and inconveni- 
 ence.* Mr. Seward replied that there was "at present no in- 
 tention to abrogate the arrangement," and that timely notice 
 would be given in case the government should favor its ab- 
 rogation.* 
 
 But letters and telegrams continued to announce that the 
 Confederates were negotiating for the purchase of boats on 
 
 ' 67 Notes to Statu Department. 
 
 '' 1 1 Notes from State Department, p. 558. 
 
 
 (m 
 
 1 'i^'-a 
 
 "m 
 
 Vim 
 
 m 
 
 
 'MP''- 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
Uj 
 
 Ui 
 
 ml 
 
 
 i 
 
 , 
 
 I 
 
 iii 
 
 13 
 
 !t 
 
 I : 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 152 
 
 Ncutralily of the American Lakes. 
 
 the lakes. In July there were rumors that they had machines 
 which were to be mounted on vessels,' and that they intended 
 to destroy the cities on the lakes. Such reports induced the 
 United States Government to place a restriction upon the 
 export of materials of war from New York to the British 
 colonies .'^ 
 
 An aflfair on Lake Erie on September 19 broue^ht matters 
 to a crisis. The steamboat Philo Parsons left Detroit for 
 Sandusky, taking passenjjers with supposed bapf.cratre at 
 Sandwich and Amherstburj?. They proved to be Confed- 
 erates, and after leavinpr Kelly's Island they took charpfc of 
 the vessel. They intended to co-operate with another force 
 desij^ned to capture the armed steamer Michigan at San- 
 dusky, to release rebel prisoners at Camp Johnson, near San- 
 dusky, and then to conmiit depredations on the lake cities.' 
 The design on the Michigan having failed, the Parsons was 
 brought back to the Detroit river, and left at Sandwich in a 
 sinking condition. During the raid the steamer Ishnd 
 Queen and some United States soldiers were also captured. 
 
 The news that the Confederate flag had been unfurled 
 upon the lakes created much excitement along the frontier. 
 Major-deneral Hitchcock, of Sandusky, advised "that no 
 time be lost in putting afloat armed vessels upon Lake On- 
 tario and speedily ujjon the other lakes also." On SerUem- 
 ber 26, Mr. F. W. Seward notified Mr. Burnley, of the Brit- 
 ish legation at Washington, that owing to the recent pro- 
 ceedings on the lakes it was found necessary to increase the 
 "observing force" temporarily in that (juarter.' The steam 
 propeller Hector was chartered at Oswego, N. Y., for reve- 
 nue-cutter service. The lVinsloz<< had been chartered at 
 Buffalo a few days before * 
 
 ' I.ieut. Col. R. H. Hill to Capt. C. H. Potter, July 30, 1864. See 
 Cor. Kcl. lo i'ciiians and Kchelliun of Soiitlitrn Statts. 
 ' n Notes from .State neparlment, p. 573. 
 '^Detroit Free /'ress, .Stpt. 21, 1864. 
 
 * 12 Notes from .State Department, p. 185. 
 
 * 12 Notes from Slate Department, p. 203, Oct. i. 
 
Agitation of Lake Defenses Duri7ig Civil War. 153 
 
 y The United States Governnicnt felt that it was only artinjv 
 
 in self-defense in meeting- conditions which "conld scarcely 
 have been anticipated" in 1817.' In the Agreement of 1817 
 neither party had expected to relinquish its right of self- 
 defense in the event of a civil war in its territories. Mr. 
 Adams, in his letter to Lord Rnssell, said of the agreement: 
 
 "It certainly did not contemplate the possible intervention 
 of a third party, ill-disposed to both, which should malig- 
 nantly avail itself of the known provisions of the compact 
 for the purpose of working certain mischief to that which it 
 hated the most and possibly injuring even the other. l)y •^rn- 
 voking strife between the two. Neither could it have fore- 
 seen the precise position in which Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment has been placed by recognizing as belligerents persons 
 capable of abusing the privilege conceded by that measure 
 to the most malicious purpose." ' 
 
 Mr. Seward had just prepared a statement of the outrage 
 upon Lake Erie, when the news arrived that a band of 
 twenty-five desperate men had attacked St Albans. Vt., 
 robbed its banks and boarding-houses and escaped unon 
 stolen horses to Canada, where they were arrested by the 
 municipal authorities. 
 
 Mr. Seward dircusscd these matters in a friendly spirit 
 with ]\Ir. Burnley, but he wrote Mr. Adams in London to 
 give Lord Russell notice that after six months the L^nited 
 States would deem themselves at liberty to increase the 
 naval armament upon the lakes, if, in their judgment, the 
 condition of affairs should require it. lie said that such 
 events required prompt and decisive proceedings on the part 
 of the British Government "in order to prevent the danger of 
 ultimate conflict upon the Canadian borders."' 
 
 The excitement i)roduced by the St. Albans affair was fed 
 both by the natural course of events and by artificial means. 
 It was felt that Canada was resi)onsible for the conduct of 
 
 ' 19 Instructions, No. 1 136, Oct. 24, 1S64. 
 
 ^ Nov. 23, 1 864. 
 
 ■■ 19 Instruction'^, No. 1136, Oct. 24, 1S64. 
 
 v-n. 
 
 It 
 
 I 
 
IT 
 
 t ill f' I 
 
 m Mli ' ' i 
 
 M WM mmM ' 
 
 ■m 
 
 f -.'1 
 
 :H| 
 
 164 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 her Confederate guests, and that their bad conduct niiglit 
 endanger the peace with Canada.' It produced no better 
 fcehng in the United States when Lieutenant Bennett 11. 
 Young, commander of the St. Albans raiders, declared that 
 he went to Vermont as a commissioned officer in \\\z pro- 
 visional army of the Confederate States, and that he had vio- 
 lated no law of Canada.' False reports continued to alarm 
 the people and to add to the excitement which naturally ex- 
 isted upon the eve of a great Presidential election. On Octo- 
 ber 30, the American consul at Toronto telegraphed the 
 Mayor of Detroit that one hundred men, armed to the teeth 
 and loaded with combustibles, had left Toronto to raid De- 
 troit.' The congregations at Detroit were dismissed. Bells 
 rang. Rumors spread. Crowds met and had to be dispersed 
 by the Mayor. The hundred men never arrived, but on No- 
 vember 2 a telegram from Washington annotmced that the 
 State Department had information that there was a conspir- 
 acy to fire all the principal cities in the North on election day. 
 The Free Press had ceased to place nmch reliance in such 
 reports/ but they had a tendency to keep up an unhealthy 
 excitement along the border. Some, guided entirelv jjy 
 emotion and passion, would have been glad if a disruption 
 of peaceful relations between the United States and Canada 
 could have been brought about. The war had given a great 
 impetus to the Fenian organization, and there were many 
 F^cnians in the Federal army who would have welcomed an 
 opportunity to invade Canada. Then there were others, 
 who, speaking for political effect or personal influence, fav- 
 ored "the next war." A colonel at St. Louis said that "God 
 Almighty had established boundaries for the great Republic 
 
 ' Detroit Free Press, Oct. 27, 1864. 
 
 - Toronto U'ce/cty Leader, Oct. -■«, 1S64. 
 
 ^ Toronto Weekly Leadet, Nov. 4, 1S64. Detroit Free Press, Oct. 
 
 31- 
 
 * Detroit Free Press, Nov. 4, 1864. 
 
 '' Ui.x lo Stanton, Nov. 22, 1864. See Correspondence Relating to 
 Fenians and Southern States. 
 
 lat 
 
Agilalion of Lake Di/cnses During Civil War. 155 
 
 m 
 
 bounded on all sides by oceans and peninsulas," and tliat 
 Canada would become a part of it.' 
 
 Canadian authorities seem to have done all they could to 
 preserve neutrality, but the tone of some American news- 
 papers gave them ofTeiiEC. Governor Monck took offense at 
 the Dix order to an officer at Burlington after the St. Albans 
 afTair, which spoke of pursuing the offenders across the 
 boundary.' Seward wrote Lord Lyons on November 3 that 
 "indignant complaints by newspapers ... as well as hasty 
 popular proceedings for self defense and retaliation are 
 among the consec|uences which must be expected to occur 
 when unprovoked aggressions from Canada no longer allow 
 her citizens to navigate the intervening waters with safety, 
 or rest at home with confidence of security.'" 
 
 Mr. Seward found no fault with the authorities in Canada, 
 but he felt that the two governments should agree upon some 
 more effective measures to preserve the peace. He saw that 
 the provocations against the people along the line of the bor- 
 der might lead to intrusions from the American side of the 
 lakes. He remembered the border troubles of 1838 and the 
 excitement at the time of the McLeod trial in 1841. Political 
 agitations had existed in Canada as well as in the United 
 States, and in order to prevent future civil strifes he was 
 inclined to think that it wt)uld be "wise to establish a pr(ii)er 
 system of repression now which would prove a rock of safety 
 for both countries hereafter." Mr. Adams, in bringing the 
 matter to the attention of Lord Russell, used the following 
 language :* 
 
 "Political agitation terminating at times in civil strife is 
 shown by experience to be incident to the lot of mankind 
 however combined in society. Neither is it an evil confined 
 to any particular region or race. It has happened heretofore 
 
 ' Toronto li^cekly Leader, Oct. 21, 1864. 
 
 '72 Notes to .State Department, Lyons to Seward, Oct. 29, 1864, 
 (Monck to Lyons, Oct. 26). 
 ' 12 Notes '"rom State Department, p. 346. 
 *88 Despatches, Nov. 23, 1864. 
 
 ! 
 
 m 
 
 
 
i! ' 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 \ ' ■ 
 
 *■ 
 
 < 
 
 i 
 
 1 ' ■ • 
 
 ■ r ■ 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ( , 
 
 ■ ,\ . 
 
 ' J 1 , 
 
 1 
 
 1 i 
 
 ; ' f 
 
 rlj > 
 
 
 1.1:1 
 
 ■ ' , 
 
 t'i!': 
 
 
 : I 
 
 156 
 
 KeutralUy of the American Lakes, 
 
 in Canada, and what is now a scourpfc afnictinp; the United 
 States may be Hkely at some time or other to revisit her. In 
 view of these very obvious possibiHties. T am instnu-ted re- 
 spectfully to submit to Her Majesty's Ciovcrnuicnt the ques- 
 tion whether it would not be the j)art of wisdom to establish 
 such a system of repression now as mi^ht prove a rock of 
 safety for the rapidly multiplyinjj population of both coun- 
 tries for all future time." 
 
 Whatever this plan of re])ression was, it would probably 
 have increased the naval force of each party u]iou the laK'es. 
 In December an editorial in the London Times stated that 
 the P.ritish authorities should assist Mr. Lincoln if p;^unboats 
 on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie would impede the enter- 
 prises of the Confeflerates. but that such increased force 
 should not be permanent.' 
 
 On the day of the November election (leneral lUitler and 
 General J. R. Hawley, with seven thousand men as a ]^r<'cau- 
 tionary measure, were placed upon lake steamers readv for 
 service at any point in case Confederates or Confederate sym- 
 pathizers should attempt to execute any of the reported plots. 
 Nothinjj occurred to make their service necessary. 
 
 Reports of plots continued, thou,<:^h it was evident that they 
 had decreased in importance.' Re])orted Confederate vessels 
 were searched for. but could not be found. Conunander 
 Carter, of the Micliii^aii, thoup;ht that rumors were issued 
 merely to scare the people.' Major-Ceneral I looker, in a tel- 
 ejirram to .Mayor Farpo. of Buffalo, complained of receiving 
 so little that was reliable, and became scei)tical as to the accu- 
 racy of the information.* 
 
 Still, there was reason for vigilance, for since the people 
 had so strongly supported the Lincoln administration at the 
 polls the Confederates saw the approaching doom of their 
 cause, and in order to give themselves a chance to get new 
 
 ' Lomlon Times, Dec. 19, 1864. 
 ^67 Domestic Lcttt-rs, Nov. n. 
 ' Miscellaneous Letters, Nov. 16. 
 ^Buffalo Courier, Nov. 16. 
 
Agitation of Lake Defenses During Civil liar. 157 
 
 breath tlicv wore iintiriii^' in tlii-ir efforts to involve the 
 United States in foreif^ii (iifficulties. Major-deneral Dix 
 heard of "rebels drillincf north of Lake Ontario," and also 
 saw "indications of retaliation" on the part of American citi- 
 zens.' Thonj^hts of war with ICni^land had become familiar. 
 People complained that the i)rivateers which swept the 
 American commerce from the seas were l"n{;(li>h-bniU and 
 Enjji^lish-manned.'' Detroit believed that further raids were 
 being planned in Canada, and petitioned Conj^'ress for 
 "staiiiich and stronj;- vessels" to pn;tect the cities and ship- 
 ping of the lakes.' 
 
 There was intense feeling south of the lakes, both natural 
 and artificial, when Congress met in December, .\ction at 
 Washington was prompt and energetic. Mr. Seward asked 
 the .Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Treasury 
 if they desired legislation fcjr additional naval armament 
 upon the lakes.' The .Secret. iry of the Xavy thought that 
 since the notice had been given to terminate the .Agreement 
 of 1817 it would be well to have two or three atlditional ves- 
 sels ujjon the lakes, though he had not yet submitted esti- 
 mates for e.xtra expenditures in that (juarter. Senator Sher- 
 man introduced a bill for si.x lunv revenue cutters. He had 
 been out in ( )hio when the /'///Vo /'(/r.vo/i.s* was captured, 
 and he decided to prevent such another "close shave" for the 
 lake traffic. The twi) steamers which had been chartered in 
 September "to prevent snniggling" were no longer in the 
 government service.'' h was felt that in order to guard the 
 long lake coast, vigilance was required. It was understood 
 that the cutters were to be armed with a small pivot gun. 
 This was not sui)posed to be in violation of existing treaties.' 
 
 
 \r. 
 
 ' Dix U) Staiilt)!!, Nuv. 22. 
 
 ■'Goldwin Smith's Lecture :it Huston, Dec, 1S64. 
 
 •'.SelKite Doc. 2, .vS-2, Vol. I, DlT. ,S. 
 
 * Domestic Letters, Vol. 67, Dec. g. 
 
 '" Miscell.ineous Letters, Dec. 14. 
 
 " Report on .Senate Bill 350. 
 
 ' Coiij;ressional Cilul)e, 3'S j, I'art i, p. 57. 
 
it 
 
 i 
 
 I 1 
 
 « 
 
 * 
 
 M 
 
 i ■■ 
 
 5 
 
 1 ". 
 
 ■li' 
 
 158 
 
 NeulralHy of the American Lakes. 
 
 Passion was aroiisvd i.-ii DccciiihcT 14 I)y the luws that the 
 Canada courts had released the St. Albans raiders. Senattjr 
 Chandler, of Michigan, proposed in Congress that troops 
 be sent to defend the northern frontier from raids from Can- 
 ada.' On December 15 the House passed a bill to terminate 
 the Reciprocity Treaty. Senator Sunnier also called for in- 
 formation coticcrning the Agreement of 181 7, with a view of 
 terminating it by proper legislation. The State Department 
 issued an order rerpiiring that all travelers from Canada to 
 the United States, except innnigrants, should obtain miss- 
 ports from the United States consuls.'' On December 10. in 
 discussing a bill for the defense of the northern frontier. Sen- 
 ator Howard, of Michigan, said that the "lion must show his 
 teeth on this side of the border in order to preserve the 
 peace" and to prevent Canada from being a place of refuge 
 for the Confederates. Senator Sherman referred to the ine- 
 qualities of the Agreement of 18 17, and said that Congress 
 should give the President power to place a necessary force 
 upon the lakes. Senattir Sunnier spoke of the Agreement 
 of 1817 as an "anomalous, abnormal, . . . small type ar- 
 rangement," whose origin and history and character were 
 still subjects of doubt, and he thought the Sena* v oi. sily 
 abrogate it if necessary. Mr. Farwell sni ' was no lued 
 for alarm; that the United States in i .var could easily 
 
 get entire control of the lakes at ai nne by convt ,Mg 
 steanieio into war vessels. Mr. GriuK- aid ' reat Britain 
 had no vessels which could pass to the lakes. 
 
 There was anxiety all along the border. Conservative 
 newspapers admitted that there was danger of a crisis. The 
 Detroit Free Press said: "We are drifting into a war with 
 England," and favored non-intercourse with Canada until 
 Canada could enact proper neutrality laws. Detroit and 
 other cities began to urge the advantage of their location as 
 
 ' Senate Misc. Doc. 5, 3R-2, Vol. 8. 
 
 ''■ 19 Instructions, pp. 549-551, Dec. 19, No. 1194. 
 
 ai 
 a 
 
 W( 
 
'\gHatio7i of Lake Defenses During Ch'it War. 1G9 
 
 a site for a naval depot.' 'Phc Toronto Ix-ader beijan to 
 philosophize upon how iinioh of the r.avaj,'e still remained in 
 man to prevent mutual disarnianicnt from leadinf^j to lastinj:^ 
 results.' The attitude of the American Government seemed 
 to indicate that the United States would have a lake fleet by 
 April, and the T>eader het^^an to advocate the enlari,H'nient of 
 the Canadian canals so I'.rilish vessels could be taken into 
 the lakes. It was stated that the Americans had not observed 
 the spirit of the Agreement of 1817 for three years. As the 
 year closed it was rei)orted at Toronto that fifty thousand 
 Fenians were ready to march upon Canada at a day's notice.* 
 h'ebruary 9. while Congress had been "showinp^ its teeth" 
 by energetic action, the news of preparations for incursions 
 of Confederates from Canada had not ceased, but the border 
 feeling was gradually becoming less aggressive. After the 
 Dix order was revoked, Mr. lUirnley thought all would get 
 along smoothly if the public could be kept from getting too 
 "rampagious."* It soon became evident that the naval depot 
 which Wisconsin wanted at Milwaukee would not be needed.* 
 The Agreement of 1817 was finally abrogated by Congress 
 in I'^ebruary, but the scare upon the lakes was already over, 
 and it does not appear that there was any intention of placing 
 a naval establishment there. The action c f Congress seems 
 to have originated in the idea that legislative sanction was 
 necessary to make executive acts legal. When the subject 
 was imder discussion in the House on January 18, Mr. Far- 
 well and others thought that useless vessels upon the lakes 
 were "more likely to involve us in trouble with Great Britain 
 than to do us any good," and though they voted to ratify the 
 notice previously given by the State Department for abro- 
 gation of the Agreement of 1817, they hoped that the Presi- 
 dent would at an early date "institute proceedings or a com- 
 niission with Great Britain to renew the arrangement." 
 
 ' Detroit Free /'ress, Dec. 16. 
 
 ' Toronto Leader^ Dec. 16. 
 
 ■' Toronto Leader, December .^o. 
 
 * 74 Notes to State Department, Dec. 20. 
 
 'Senate Misc. Doc. 41, 3S-2, Vol. i, Feb. 20, 
 
 s 
 
 t 
 > 
 
 A' 
 
 
 '1 
 
1 
 
 :■)" 
 
 m 
 
 J J! 
 
 I'M 
 
 il 
 
 160 
 
 Neutrality of the Ametican Lakes. 
 
 i 1 
 
 ']"lic need of war vessels on tlie lakes was still urj^ed by 
 some, especially by those who hoped to iiuliice the United 
 States (iovernnient to enpa^e in buildintj ship canals to join 
 the la'«es with the Mississippi. (Jne member said in Con- 
 gress (I'ebruary i) that the United Stales hail fifty million 
 dollars invested in war steamers on the Mississip])i. and that 
 for one-tenth that anKumt a canal conld be dwj::, so that they 
 might be taken to the lakes for preservation in fresh water. 
 There were still others who said that "the two thonsand ships 
 bearing the teeming productions of the west ni)on the bosom 
 of the lakes" retjuired more than (jne war ship for their pro- 
 tection. There was probably some reason f(jr this statement 
 just at this time, for it -'lipears that ( ireat Britain, alarmed 
 by the proceedings in i 'ongress, was preparing to send guns 
 "to arm new naval forces op the lakes." 
 
 The policy of the IJritish i'arliamenl was as yet uncertain. 
 Its tuembers wiTe not yet assured that the United States did 
 not desire total abrogation of the Agreement of iH\j.' Lord 
 Palmerston announced to the House of C'onmions, however, 
 on bebruary ii, that "the abrogation \)i that arrangement 
 was not to be considered a fmal decision but as open to re- 
 newal." and that the House was not justified in looking upon 
 the matter as an indication of intended hostilities on the part 
 of the United States. He added: "We cannot deny that 
 things did lake place of which the United States were justly 
 entitled to complain, and if the measures which they have 
 recourse to are sim])iy calculated, as they say, for the pro- 
 tecti(jn of their commerce and their citizens, I think they 
 are perfectly justified in having recourse to them." 
 
 Public sentiment for the Confederates began to decrease 
 after the news of the storming of b'ort Fisher and the closing 
 of navigation to Wilmington; the friends of the United 
 States (iovermnent gained at London." Tlie aspect in Can- 
 ada had become peaceful. M the reconnnendation of the 
 
 ' l'aili.iini:iUiir> UcbiUcs, \'ol. 177, p. 142. Luiiuon /'iwes, l'el>. 
 
 ■-' SS l)(.'spalilies. No. .S6S, Fel). 2, I^b5. 
 
 •' Deliuit -■/^.■r///.ve;(/«(/ Jribiiue, ]i\\\. 27, 1865. 
 
Agiialion of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 161 
 
 Government of Great Britain, Canada passed an act on Feb- 
 ruary 6 to repress outrages iji violation of the jieace on the 
 frontier.' The London Times bep^an to alter its tone. Lord 
 Russell spoke in a better spirit. Conferences with .Mr. 
 Adams were more friendly. Mason, Slidell and Mann, the 
 Confederate ajjents in Europe, were notified that such prac- 
 tice as had been goinj^ on from Canada and acknowledged by 
 President Davis as belligerent operations must cease." Ca- 
 nadian papers stated that measures would be taken to pre- 
 vent the danger of a war in which the Confederates were try- 
 ing to involve us. 
 
 Still, there was at this time an undercurrent of much rest- 
 lessness and distrust in l^ngland on account of the fear of 
 large impending claims, and of an American war for the con- 
 quest of Canada after domestic reconciliation had been se- 
 cured. ' This fear was fanned by Confederate emissaries, who 
 said that if forced into the Union they would favor war with 
 England. The disposition of Congress to terminate treaties 
 also nourished a feeling that the United States was unfriendly 
 to England. On February 20, when the defenses of Canada 
 were l)eing considered in the House of Lords, there was 
 much talk of the contest of the North for empire and the 
 need of cmmter-preparations on the lakes to offset those 
 made by the United States, which they said were in violation 
 of treaty stipulations. 
 
 'Ihe del)ates in the Canadian Provincial rarliament at this 
 time indicate that there was a feeling of danger from the 
 L^nited States, and an expectation tliat fleets would again 
 travirse the lakes. On March 2, Mr. liaultain said: 
 
 "I am glad to see that the American Government have 
 given notice <>f tluir intention to terminate the convention 
 for not keeping armed vessels on the lakes. I am glad to see 
 that this is to be put an end to, for it was decidedly prejudicial 
 to our interests, and 1 have no doubt we shall have gi,mi)oats 
 
 ' Canada Gazelle, Feb. 6. Also, 7., Notes lo State Department. 
 ^SS Despatches, Nos. 874 and 879. Feb. 10 and Feb. 16. 
 ' 88 Despatches, No. 870, Feb. 9. 
 
 11 
 
 
162 
 
 Neulraliiy of the American Lakes. 
 
 on our lakes before the end of the present year. . . . There 
 is no question that should they determine upon p^oincr to 
 war with us before the ojjeninj; of navigation, we might not 
 be able to get a British gunboat on our waters by the St. 
 Lawrence canals, as they are so easily accessible to our op- 
 ponents, and, without much difficulty could bo rendered use- 
 less for navigation."' 
 
 The Montreal Gazette urged the necessity of a connection 
 between Montreal and Lake Huron by the Ottawa and 
 French rivers and Lake Nipissing, so that the British navy 
 could i^ass to the lak'es with safety and ])revcnt Canada froui 
 being "exposed to an irruption of Americans only surpassed 
 by that of the Huns and Cloths.'" "Were this canal in exist- 
 ence," it is staterl, "gun-vessels could sail from England di- 
 rect into Lake Huron, and thence they might operate on 
 Lake Michigan, gaining access through the straits of Macki- 
 naw. Small ironclads could run the gauntlet down the St. 
 Clair and Detroit rivers into Lake Erie at Kingston and the 
 Ridean canal. Mackinaw wouid thus become comparatively 
 useless to the Americans, and Lake Michigan would be 
 scaled by a British blockading squadron." Mr. Kingston, 
 in his "Canadian Canals," says that this canal was not urged 
 for mere defensive purposes, but that the motive was to 
 obtain a connnercial canal at the expense of the government 
 by revivifying national prejudices. 
 
 It was evident that something should be done to combat 
 the feeling that the United States had hostile designs ac'iinst 
 Canada. Lord Russell suggested that it was time to think 
 of something to take the place of the Agreement of 1817 be- 
 fore it should be terminated by the notice already given.' 
 Mr. Adams agrc^l that armaments were expensive, useless 
 and breeders of si.spicion, and he saw no reason for not ron- 
 tinuing the treaties since the active efforts of the Canadian 
 authorities. 
 
 * Canadian Provincial Parlia. Debates (on confederation) p. 639, 
 Marcli 2, 1S65. 
 '■' Moutreal Gazette, March 14, 1865. 
 "88 Uespatclies, No. 884, Feb. 23, 1865. 
 
Agitation of Lake Defenses Diirinp^ Civil War. 1(53 
 
 ( )n March 8, Mr. Seward announced that the United 
 Slates had decided to abide by the Ajjrecment of 1817. The 
 passport system was also to cease at once.' In accepting tlie 
 farewell of Lord Lyons on March 20, Mr. Seward said: "I 
 have no doubt that when tliis dreadful war is ended the 
 United States and (ircat IJritain will be reconciled and be- 
 come better friends than ever." ^ 
 
 Before the news that the United States Government de- 
 sired to c'^jntinue the At^reement of 1817 had officially 
 reached London there had been two debates in the House of 
 Commons in regard to relations with the United States and 
 vessels for the lakes. During the first debate' on ]\Iarch 13 
 a letter from New York was cited as evidence that the United 
 States was having constructed in London "a fleet of gun- 
 boats for tlie Canailian lakes." Some favored counter-prep- 
 arations, and said it was no menace "for a peaceful citizen to 
 l)ut up his shutters in a tumult." Others thought it foolish 
 to vie with .America on her own ground, and that it might be 
 best to defend Canada by abandoning her. America could 
 now carry gunbcats to the lakes by rail, and if Canada could 
 not be defended in time of war it was a bad policy to keep a 
 force there in time of peace. There were various opinions 
 in regard to the intentions of the L'nited States. Mr. Card- 
 well, the Colonial Secretary, saw "no evidence of hostility." 
 Lord Palmerston thought that the tone of moderation which 
 was shown in the debate would be useful in both Canada and 
 the United States. 
 
 During this debate Watkins advocated that the British 
 GovernmeiU siiould express a desire for peace and fraternity 
 with the United States, and should seek to secure, in the in- 
 terests of peace and civilization, and "as a bright example to 
 surrounding nations:" 
 
 ' 2.. histrurtions, p. 89. Maicli 8, 1865. No. 1289. National Mel- 
 ligeueer, M.»r(li y. 
 » 13 Notes Iroiii State Uep.-irUiient, p. 189. 
 •■' I'arlia. Duliatts, Vol. 177. 
 
 ... ill! 
 
 if 
 
 * ^^'11 
 
 
 
 ■■Am 
 
 i ft* 5 
 
!i 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 164 
 
 Neutralily of the American Lakes. 
 
 1. A neutralization of the three thousand miles of frontier. 
 
 retulcring fortifications needless. 
 
 2. A continuance of the neutrality of the lakes and rireis 
 bordcrinpf upon the two territories. 
 
 3. Connnon navij;ation of the lakes and outlets of the s«a. 
 
 4. Enlargement of canals for commerce. 
 
 5. Neutrality of telegraphs and post routes between iJk' 
 Atlantic and Pacific. 
 
 Mr. Watkins said: "Let the P.ritish (lovernment be firm :- 
 considering Canada a part of the Uritish I-lmijirc, to be ■<k- 
 fended at all cost, or let them endeavor to induce the govern- 
 ment at Washington to distinguish itself forever by adondi^ 
 the alternative — the neutralization of the lakes and the 
 avoidance of hostile fortifications on both sides of the fron- 
 tier." 
 
 The results of rash speeches in the House of Lords were 
 being neutralized by the wisdom of such men as Fitz^perald 
 and Disraeli in the Commons. Lord Russell was al?<» U5iii$^ 
 his intluence to create a better feeling. On March 2},, when 
 he laid before the Lords the notice for the termination of the 
 Reciprocity Treaty, he encouraged moderation by stating 
 there was hope of new treaties during the year. In reaan! 
 to the Agreement of 1817, he said that the recent occurrcirece* 
 on the lakes justified the United States in availing them- 
 selves of all the nieau:, of rej)ression within their power- Mr. 
 Adams' language had led liim to feel assured that C'0<P'''nncsi> 
 would be ready to consider a proposition by which a "fmaH 
 and limited armament might be kept up on the lakes forjxiiir- 
 poses of police on both sides." 
 
 On March 23 the whole question of .\merican relatkm* 
 and Canadian defenses was again debated in the Commons.' 
 During the debates. Mr. Cardwell received a dis]': • ' '- - 
 Canada stating that the I'niled States intended to »\;ijj-:^-v 
 the notice for the abrogation of the .Agreement of J817. "Die 
 news that the United States would abide by the agreement, 
 
 ' Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 178. 
 
Aq;itation of Lake Defenses Duriti^ Civil War. 165 
 
 and tliat the passport system on the Canadian border had 
 been abandoned, created a pood effect both in F-njjland and 
 in Canada. Tliere was even well-grounded hope for a new 
 reciprocity treaty. Mr. Cardwell. the Colonial Secretary, 
 announced the decision of the London riovernmcnt also to 
 abide by the arranj^enient of 1817. Gradually, members of 
 Parliament turned from fortifications, and becran to advocate 
 I)Ians for encourajjiufr the settlement of Canada. The lontsf- 
 tried jilan which had prevented a competition of expenditure 
 upon the historic waterways was still considered a ])recedent 
 worthy of imitaticjn. The fact that the slave Confederacy 
 was, notwithstanding:: forn-ier jirophccies of I'ritish states- 
 men, now in its death-strufjfjlc. no lonjjcr rendered it neces- 
 sary for the United States to adoi)t stringent measures for the 
 preservation of the nation. Xeither Knjjjland nor .America 
 desired to embark into a policy of non-intercourse and armed 
 froiUiers, but rather to decrease the national prejudices 
 which frowninjT fortresses would only serve to nourish. 
 
 There was ati ambii^uity in .\Ir. Seward's note of March 8 
 wiiich mif^Iil have caused misapprehension as to whether the 
 previous abroLjation ha<l been rendered intjperative.' This 
 led to some further correspondence between the two trov- 
 ernments. In Mr. Seward's note to Mr. .\dams he had said: 
 
 "Vou may say to Lord Russell that we are (piite willinsj 
 that the convention should remain practically in force; that 
 this jjovernment has not constructed or connnenced building 
 any additif)nal war vessils on the lakes or added to the arma- 
 ment of the single one which was previously its property; 
 and that no such vessel will in future be built or armed by us 
 in that (piarter. It is hoped and exi)ected. h«jwevet, that Her 
 Majesty's (jovernment. on its part, so long as this determi- 
 nation shall be observed in good faith by that of the I'nited 
 States, will neither construct nor arm nor introduce armed 
 vessels in excess of the force stipulated for by the conver.tion 
 referred to." 
 
 ' 20 Instructions, No. 1:89, p. S9. 
 
 v.':'5i 
 
 ..fi.1 
 
 •■ ''■• -^ 
 
 '\m 
 
166 
 
 Ncrtralitv of the Atnrriran Lai-rs. 
 
 
 'ii 
 
 1"1h' British Ciovc-^rnnicnt was apparently not satisfied with 
 the wordinf^ of this note, and on June 15, 1865, the liritisli 
 minister wrote to Actinjj Secretary Hunter to ask whether 
 Mr. Seward's (hspatch of March 8 was intended as a formal 
 withdrawal of the notice j;iven Xovemhcr 23, 1864, or 
 whether the Aj;-reement of 1817 was now virtually at an end, 
 leaving the matter of disarmament resting merely upon the 
 good pleasure of each i)arty.' "In the latter case," he said, 
 "a very inconvenient state of thint^fs would exist," and he 
 was directed to say that in the opinion of I lor Majesty's Gov- 
 crnnient the best course would he foruial withdrawal of the 
 notice of November 23, 1864. On June 16, 1865, Mr. Seward 
 answered that the dispatch of March 8 was intevided as a 
 withdrawal of the previous notice within the time allowed, 
 and that it is so held by the (kn'crnment of the United 
 States.' On Autjust 19, 1865. the I'ritish minister once more 
 wrote to Mr. Seward to say that his government understood 
 from the notice that the agreement contained in the con- 
 vention of 18 1 7 v.ould continue in force luiless it should 
 be thereafter terminated by a fresh six months' notice." On 
 August 22. 1865, Mr. Seward replied that (he statement of 
 Her Majesty's Government was accepted as a correct inter- 
 pretation of the intention of the Government of the United 
 States. 
 
 There was some further corresi)on(lence soon after in re- 
 gard to rcvemu' cutters, which was significant at this time. 
 November 3, 1865, .Mr. I'.ruce asked explanations as to sev- 
 eral vessels which had recently been built by the United 
 States for the lakes. Seward replied November 4 that they 
 were for revenue purposes, and that their armament would 
 not exceed the limit stipulated in 1817.* The prodigious de- 
 velopment of physical power in the United States continued 
 for a time to be a source of some alarm both in Canada 
 
 ' 78 Notes to Sl;ite Dep.-irtinciit. 
 
 ■•' i,^ Notes from State I)i'|).irtmtjnt, p. 35«, j»ne 16. 
 
 •'7.S Notes to State I )ei).irtiiuiU. 
 
 * 13 Notes from Slate Department, p. 438. 
 
Ai^ifalion of Lake Defenses During Civil War. 167 
 
 and F.njjfland. \\h\\ the fall ')f the Confederacy there was 
 fear tliat idle sokhcrs would threaten Canada. In Canada the 
 danp^cr from the United States had been used as an arijument 
 in favor of the International Railway and the confederation 
 of the P.ritish provinces. Members of Parliament felt that the 
 contitniance of the bond with Canada depended partly upon 
 the p^ood-will of the I'nited States, and they were not so sure 
 that the .American policy of extension was not one of con- 
 quest. They sometimes mistook the momentary utterances 
 of swapfperincf officers and dcmap^of^ues for the abidincr will 
 of the threat American people. Territtjrial as't;raudizi.'ment 
 has never been the jiassion of the North. 
 
 It is doubtless true that at the close of the Civil War many 
 in the United States thoutjht that in a few years Canada 
 would be constrained for conmiercial reasons to knock for 
 admission into tlie .American L'nion, but it would have been 
 a departure from the .American policy to annex Canada by 
 force. In the heat of excitement the press often assumed a 
 threateiiiiij.,' tone, and "colonels" for effect referred to tl>c 
 boundaries which "(iod .\lmij;hty had established," reaching 
 to the .Aurora Porealis on the north; Fenians organized to 
 carry the green llag into Canada, and a congressman moved 
 to grant them the right of belligerents; but if the government 
 may be said to have had any policy in regard to Canada it 
 was certainly not one of forcii)le incorporation. Its forcible 
 incorporation could only have brought an element of disaf- 
 fection into the nation. The disbanding of vast armies at the 
 close of the Civil War, leaving irritating difTerenccs with 
 Fngland to be settled by diploniacv was a triumph of the 
 American princijjle. Stump orat(jrs had pandered to .Anglo- 
 phobia, I'.ritish peers luul harangued. .American and IJritish 
 papers had screamed for bread, but the nations did not go 
 mad. The common-sense of the people and the wisdom of 
 their governnieiUs prevailed, and the countries were not 
 plunged into disastrous war. 
 
n 
 
 VII. 
 
 |!<ii>' 
 
 AFTER THE STORM. 
 
 The Adjustment of Irritat[NO Questions and the 
 Continuation of the Agreement of 1817. 
 
 .^ftcr the four years of fiplitinj; oti bloody battlefields the 
 Father of Waters flowed inivexed to the sea, with both its 
 mouth and its springs in the control of one nationality. 
 After the shock of civil conflict had ended, a united people, 
 without slavery, stood with a conndence born of e\])eric'nce 
 ready to meet the problems of the future. The struj^ij^le of 
 interests had developed character and thoufjht. Durinjj^ the 
 tempestuous reign of Andrew Johnson there was some fear 
 that the strength of the nation would lead it into an ofYcnsive 
 foreign policy. That the I'nited .States (lovernmeiU had no 
 such policy in view is seen by the promptness with which dis- 
 armament was secured after the long struggle. The expul- 
 sion of the French from Mexico and the purcha.sc of Alaska 
 were not inspired by the desire of dominion. 
 
 The feeling which had been engendered against I'Jigland 
 during the war, however, led I'cnians and others to hone for 
 a chance to invade England's dominions. In May, 1865. the 
 report of a scheme to annex Canada was brought to the at- 
 tention of the State Department l>y Mr. Ilruce, of the I'ritish 
 legation.' ( )ne Cieorge \V. ( libbons had advertised in the 
 lirooklyn I-^agle for three thousand volunteers to join a 
 larger body for the invasion of Canada or Mexico. Tn one 
 of his letters Mr. Ciibbons said: "If we can get the consent of 
 the President of the I'nited Slates we will. If not. we will 
 go anyhow." In another he said that he had three thousand 
 
 ' No. 78 Notes to State Department, May 19. 
 
•*1 
 
 After the Storm. 
 
 \m 
 
 men enlisted, and that the intention was "to declare war on 
 Great I'.ritain hy invasion of Canada." Mr. Hrnoe, in callinj? 
 the serious attention of the United States Government to 
 this scheme, was correct in his conviction that the Ignited 
 States would take prompt steps to stop the "audacious pro- 
 eeedinpf." 
 
 The I'enians for several years after the close of the Civil 
 War continued to threaten Canada. This organization had 
 been in existence from the time that the Irish attempted to 
 throw off the imperial rule of Enp^land. y\ branch was 
 formed in the United States in 1857. During: the Civil War 
 its memhersliip had increased fivefold. In June, 1866. two 
 hundred I'enians, under their leader, O'Neill, crossed the 
 river some miles Ixlow I'.uffalo and prepared to carry the 
 j;freen llaj; into Canadian ti rritory.' The United States Gov- 
 ernment had sent the Micliij^an to patrol the river, hut it 
 arrived late. Several brave Canadians were killed while de- 
 fendini^ their country. The Fenians drove the Canadian forces 
 as far as Kidi^^way, but here their attempt to invade Canada 
 ended. The Unite'! States Government soon took decisive 
 action. The lUiffalo h'xpress stated that but for this fact 
 fifty thousand I'enians would have overcome Canada. Gen- 
 eral Grant placed (ieneral Berry, with thirteen companies, 
 in charfje of the frontier. A revenue cutter was also sent to 
 patrol the river. It was felt at this time that a P.ritish gun- 
 boat was "needed in these waters," io aid those of the United 
 States in preventing; another invasion.'' The Canadian Gov- 
 ernment was satisfied with the exertions of the United States, 
 but thoufjht it prudent to i)lace three or four steamers on the 
 St. Lawrence river and the lakes. These were manned by 
 .sailors from the war-ships in port at Montreal. On June 8, 
 Lord Monck notified the Colonial Secretary as follows: 
 
 "With the assistance of the ofificers and men of the shins of 
 
 ' See Ruffiilo Express, May 31, 1891. Also, O'Neill : Fenian Raid 
 (Odicial Rt-port). 
 ' Toronto Weekly Leader, June 8, 1866. 
 
 '\ 
 
 
170 
 
 Neutrality of thr American Lakes. 
 
 ij ,! 
 
 war now in the St. Lawrence, n flotilla of steamers has been 
 chartered by the Provincial ( iovernnu-iit and fitted nn as 
 temporary jijunboats for services both on the St. Lawrence 
 and the lakes.'" On June 19, Lord Monck requested Ad- 
 miral Hope to detach, if they could be spared, four gunboats 
 "for service on the lakes adjoinincj the Canadian front, in the 
 event of any renewal of the late attack on the Pro\ nice bv the 
 Fenians." It appears that a lar,i;e frigate and a corvette were 
 sent to the St. Lawrence by the I'.ritish Government three 
 successive years. In 1868 it was decided tiial no reduction 
 should be made for that year, though there was some doubt 
 expressed as to the necessity of it "as well as of the exncdi- 
 ency of sendinj:^ crews ... to man hired steamers for the 
 Canadian Cjovennnent."* 
 
 Fortunately, there was no further immediate occasion for 
 increasiinf^ the lake forces. I'enianism was a delusion. As 
 the year drew to a close it seemed to be on the decline. The 
 poor laborers and chambermaids were findinjr it to their eco- 
 nomic advantage not to respond \o the calls to furnish money 
 to "liead centres" and mock "senates." The l-'cnians did not 
 get the sympathy tliat they had expected in the I'nited States. 
 Most of the newspapers opposed their lawlessness. A ram- 
 pant congressman proposed that thev be accorded the rights 
 of belligerents, but he did not represent the great conmion 
 people of the nation. Congress asked the President to inter- 
 cede for the Fenians who had been taken prisoners in Can- 
 ada, and after their release they were not ]>rosecuted in the 
 United States;^ but this was done because it was felt to be the 
 most efficient policy at that time, to bring the affair to an end. 
 The government took a firm stand against violation of the 
 peace. The postmaster of Buffalo, who was a i'cnian, was 
 promptly removed from otfice by President Johnson.* 
 
 • Corr- spomlence RdatiiiK lo Keniaii Invasions and Rebellion of 
 Sontht-rn Mates, p. 141. AIsd, st-e pa^e 145. 
 
 'lb. . p 164 
 
 ' H Do-. i,S4 39-r. Vol. 16, Uily 26, iSr,6. 
 
 * Toronto Weekly Leader, Aug. 31, 1866. 
 
ft 
 
 
 After I he Slorm. 
 
 171 
 
 It would l)c liai'd to say what were all the clcnuMits f)f the 
 American pfjlitical fcrliiiji^ coiuxrniii}; Canada at this time. 
 It is safe to say that there was no intention of plnnji^intr the 
 country into another war hy invading- a foreij,Mi country, 
 'i'licri- was no general desire to appropriate forcibly fc-' ii.ni 
 territory. Only in case of war with I'nj,dand was there any 
 danj^er of the L'nited States strikini^^ a blow at Canada, 
 'ihere was, however, an impression that the disadvantafjes 
 followinj; the abrot^ation of the Recijjrocity Treaty would 
 cause the Canadians to apply for admission to the United 
 .States. The Chicaf;:o Tribtme, in jamiary, i(Sr>6, said; "The 
 Canadians will soon discover that free trade and snuij^^trling 
 will not compensate them for the loss of the Recijjrocity 
 Treaty. They will stay out in the cold for a few years, and 
 try all sorts of expedients, but in the end will be constrained 
 to knock for admission into the (ireat Republic."' in I'eb- 
 ruary, 1866, when commissioners from Canada ventured to 
 suy;pcst before a conpfressional committee at Washinr'ton 
 that it would be to the advantajje of both countries if the 
 interveniu}^ waterways were neutralized in re^-ard to com- 
 nierci', Mr. .Morrill, the chairman of the conn.iittee, said: 
 "That will have to be postponed until you, gentlemen, as- 
 sume your seats here." 
 
 The big ideas in reganl to the "manifest destiny" of the 
 United States which had been expressed by I'olk in 1844. 
 and lJ()U.L;las in 1858, had not ceased with the fall of sla^-cry. 
 In 1866, one could hear talk in favor of "admitting liritish 
 America into the American I'nion as four separate States." 
 In l)ecend)er of that jear, Thaddeus Stevens, in a public 
 meeting at Washington, said tliat the United States would 
 embrace the continent. .Some American politicians, after 
 the purchase of Alaska, spoke of hemming in the possessions 
 of Clreat liritain by the purchase of (Ireenland. Discussions 
 over the Alahainn claims, and over other (piestions which 
 had kept animosities alive, naturally led to a consideration 
 
 ' C/iicitffo Tribune, Jan. 6, 1.S66. 
 
 m 
 
 •:f] 
 
 - -.'M 
 
 '^}V^ 
 
 M' 
 
k2<ii 
 
 :r 
 
 179 
 
 Ncutralitv of the American Lakes. 
 
 \ 
 
 i i 
 
 of tlic rilaticiii of (aiiada in rasi- of a war. It was not a time 
 favoraMf for tlic nrj,u»tiation of a new rccii)rocity treaty. Mr. 
 Cliandk-r, of Michigan, in tlu- heated debates of iH(k). said 
 that I'lnf,'Iand shouUl .t,Mve up Canada to tlie United States, 
 and ann(»unc-e(l tliat sixty thousand .Michij.;;anders were 
 ready to overrun it. In 1X70, Senator i'onieroy olTereil a 
 resolution in favor of iiKniirinjLT into the e.\])e(lienoy of ii"<ro- 
 tiatinj.j with ( ireat iJritain ooneerninj^ the ainnxation of 
 Canada.' 
 
 l-'or two or three years before the Treaty of WashinLTtoii 
 in 1S71 tliere was a revival of henian h(Ji)es for tiie invasion 
 of Canada. In iXrHj-70 there were various rumors of their 
 projects. On March 3, 1870, tlie United States District .At- 
 torney f(jr Xorthern Xew York notified the (iovernnient at 
 \\ ashin;.;^ton tiiat he had information of a proposed con- 
 certed movement against C anada at several points npot' the 
 frontier, and he thoii}.^ht it was advisable "to place the United 
 States steamer Midw^im and the reveiuie cutters upon the 
 lakes, in such condition that they could jjo into commission 
 upon short notice.'" Rumors of this kind were so common 
 at the time that not much importance was attached to them. 
 By an act of Congress the lake revenue cutters had been laid 
 uj) for about three years, and could not have been made avail- 
 able without expensive repairs. The M icliii^ciii, however, 
 could have been prepared for active service as soon as the 
 ice was sufficiently broken for navij.jation.' The ^ujvernment 
 evidently did not deem it necessary to increase the forces on 
 the lake frontier. The President soon found it necessaf- to 
 issue a proclamation apaiust the I'euians, however. There 
 was an attempted invasion of Canada by five hundred men 
 from \'ermont in May, but the attack was frustrated. Dur- 
 
 wi 
 
 ' Misc. Dor. 140, 41-2, May 19. 1870. 
 
 ' Miscellaiifous Li'tU;rs, Marcli 7, 1870. Attorney (ieiieral Hoar to 
 Secretary l-'isli, enclosure. 
 
 ' Miscellaneous Letters, March 10, 1S70. .Stcretary of Treasury 
 Boiitwell to .Secretary of State l-'isli. Also, Secretary of Navy to 
 Secretary of Slate. 
 
^i' 
 
 After the Storm. 
 
 178 
 
 iiip the next year Canada had to rail <»iit troops at thnr dif- 
 ferent times in order to defend the frontier from threatened 
 attacks of the I'enians,' and there was sonu? complaint that 
 the United States had not heen vij^ilant enonj^di in preventing 
 the organization of lawless hands. 
 
 After lonj^ nej^otiations the amicable settlement of irritat- 
 infj (juestions between i'.nf^land and the L'nited States was 
 finally arranj^ed by the Treaty of Washington in 1871. It 
 provided for the arbitration of claims of the L'nited States 
 ajj^ainst (ireat I'ritain for the daniatje done by Confederate 
 vessels fitted out in l''.U}.;lisli ])orts durinj^ the Civil War. It 
 also provided for the settlement of claims against the l'nited 
 States on account of the interference of .Vmeri' an fishermen 
 in Canadian waters since the abrojjation of the Reciprocity 
 Treaty. There were various clauses in the treaty which di- 
 rectly afifected the relations between Canada ami the l'nited 
 States. It provided for a clearer definition of the north- 
 western boundary. The navigation of the St. Lawrence was 
 to be forever free and open, for counuercial purposes, to the 
 citizens of the United States. .\s an e(|uivaleiU for certain 
 fishing rights on the coast, lirilish subjects were to hav, 
 with certain restrictions, free navigation of Lake Michigan. 
 Goods were also allowed to be carried "in bond" across the 
 border. Creat Britain agreed to urge the (Jovernmeiit of the 
 Dominion of Canada to grant United States citizens the use 
 of the Welland, St. Lawrence and other canals on terms of 
 e(|uality with the Canadians. The United States granted to 
 I'ritish subjects the free use of the St. Clair flats canal, and 
 agreed to urge the State govermueuts to secure to them the 
 ecpial use of the State canals connecting with the navigation 
 of the lakes or rivers along the boundary. Cana<Ia had urged 
 England to secure compensation for the wrongs done the 
 former by the h'enian raids, but the United States claimed 
 that this subject had not been mentioned in previous corre- 
 
 m 
 
 >>•■, 
 
 
 ' Sir John McDonald, Premier Minister of Canada, in Canadian 
 Commons, May 3, 1S72. 
 
 ,v»| 
 
 
 ■ ''''iS 
 
174 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 s|)oii(lciu-c, and the point was dropped. For awhile it was 
 feared that C"anada wcnild rejeet the treaty. The 1 Jomiiiion 
 Prime Minister saw the dan^aT of a "transfer of the recent 
 ft'jiinfj ap^ainst l'-nj;hind," and secured the ratification of the 
 treaty, so that Canada could turn to a life of industry.' 
 
 There was an iniprovetnent in q;ood feelin,i:f as soon as the 
 \V'ashinf;ton treaty received the sanction of the American 
 Conpress. NewspajH-r men of the United States turned to 
 Canada to s])end their sunnner vacation.' Excursionists 
 from Canada visited tlic United States. This had a troofl 
 effect in allayinj^ ans^ry feelings. While Moody war was he- 
 inj2^ waj^ed in h'urope the wish in America was that we mi^lit 
 lonp- he ahle to "settle our strifes with no deadlier ordnance 
 than diplomacy and ncRotiations." 
 
 I'rom that day to this. thou]c:h tl'.'re has been no necessity 
 for border defenses, various controversies have arisen at dif- 
 ferent times. Canadians have complained because thev did 
 nf>t g-et the fiee i.sc of certain staie canals which they sup- 
 postdtiieyhadsecu'ed by the treaty of 1871. When Canadiar 
 authorities p.rotesled, the United States Covernmeut replied 
 that it had no control over state canals and could not coiii- 
 ])el States to act in the matter. 1 because in 1885 the United 
 States refused to ])ass throup;h the Sault .Ste. Marie canal 
 a Canadian vessel loaded with troops on their way to sup- 
 press the Riel rebellion, and because in i8()2 President 
 Harrison, in order to retaliate for discriminati.Mi a.^ainst 
 United States conuuerce,' ordered the levy of discriminating-- 
 tolls on frcip^hts passed throup:h this canal bound for L"ana- 
 dian ports, the Canadians have been led to build a canal o' 
 
 s have 
 
 their own on the ojiposite side of the river 
 
 'ariff 
 
 often ruflled the temper of the people on the border. \'ari- 
 
 ' Sir Jolm MrDonalil, in Canadian Commons, May 3, 1872. 
 ' Toronto Wcclcty Leader, ^\^\\\ 21, 1S71. Also, si-e issiit'of [iily 28. 
 "Canaib had granted a 90 per cent, rebate of lolls on tiie St. 
 Lawrence trallic. 
 
AfUr the Storm. 
 
 75 
 
 ous attempts at securing: a new reciprocity treaty havr failed.' 
 Lack of free commercial intercourse after 1866 kd many 
 Canadians to favor a commercial union with the United 
 States. This W(jul(l have involvcfl a hri'ak from their ron- 
 uiction with Mu^land, which the Canafhans wouhl hardly 
 have desire<l. Canada, thouj^h a democracy, still clinj^^s to 
 some of the i)araphernalia of monatchy. Aft.T icS^^ the de- 
 mand for ])rotective duties hecame j^ener.'d amcjuj; larpfe 
 classes of Canadian people. The (."anadian ( iovernnui^*^ in 
 1K74, stil' desirvd freedom of trade, and obtained the consent 
 of England to open negotiati(Mis with the United States for 
 satisfactory commercial relations. Sir Edward Thornton, 
 the I'ritish minister, and Honorable (ieorjjfe Urown, a Sena- 
 tor of Canarla, were accredited as joint pleiiii)()tentiaries to 
 negotiate a treaty conci-rning fisheries, connnerce and navi- 
 gation with the United States. A treaty satisfactory to all 
 three governments was agreed upon, but it was rejected by 
 the L'uited States Senate. Four years later there v as a feel- 
 ing in favor of freer commercial relations with Canada, but 
 financial dilTiculties in the United States stood in the wav of 
 bringing negotiations to a successful end. In thi' fall elec- 
 tions of 1878 the protectionists were successful in Canada, 
 and at the ne.xt session of the Dominion I'.Hrliament a tariff 
 was enacted. Since that time both countries have found oc- 
 casion to complain of new tariff bills. The .\merican Con- 
 g;ress has placefl duties on coal, lobsters, eggs, etc. ; Canadian 
 legislation has excluded .American cattle, and laid a retalia- 
 tory ta.x on lobster cans, Americans have responded to 
 Canadian rdali.aion by threatening to stop the transmission 
 of goods in bond and by new tariff provisions. New tariffs 
 will doubtless continue to W the source of more ur less 
 irritatii)n. 
 
 The cpiestioti of fisheries has also been a source of consid- 
 erable friction. In 1878, when Congress approprialcnl money 
 for the payment of the Ilalifa.v award, it inserted a clause 
 
 ' Sf e Sen Misc. Doc. 4, .(d-j, Ndl. i., Dt-c. y, 1867; .Sen. Exec. 
 Doc. 19. 41-j, \()1. I, Dec. 22, 1869; II. Misc. Doc. 50, 4.^-2, Vol. 2, 
 Jan. 25, 1.S75, ; H. Rps. 1 1 27, 46-2, Vol. .j, Apl 23 i.S.So, and June 7, iS.So. 
 
 
i! 
 
 
 I i 
 
 176 
 
 Neutraliiy of the American Lakis. 
 
 saying that articles cij:;htccii ami twenty of tlu- T' ' ' " i. 
 rclcrriiif; to the coast fisheries, siiould he tern,. . .i> .soon 
 
 as possible. On July i, 1883, the President of the United 
 States gave notice of the desire of the United States to tcr 
 niiiiate these articles, and they came to an end July i, I8^ ,. 
 On the question of lake fisheries, the Canadian ( lovernmeiit 
 has had some reason to complain. While by stringent re- 
 strictions on fishing it has endeavored to prevent the deple- 
 tion of fish in the lakes, there is, on the American sidr. vvherc 
 the s[)a\vniiig grounds are almost entirely located, :■ 1 iv, 1- 
 formity of restriction in the state laws, and Canada suffers 
 equally with the I'uited States from the abuse of privilege by 
 which American fishermen have made inroads into the young 
 fish. The fish have discovered that they are safer on the 
 Canadian side of the line, and are found there in larger (|uan- 
 tities. This fact has attracted .\meric:in nshermen to steal 
 across the boundary line, where they are subject to seizure. 
 Several crews have been taken ]>risoners by the British reve- 
 nue cruistr I'ctrcl, their boats and tackle confiscated, and 
 the men imprisoned for a tinu". 
 
 The clash of interests has at times produced iiiucii feeling, 
 but there has been no desire by either party to create a sys- 
 tem of rival defenses on the lakes. It is not imjjrobable that 
 possible future exigencies have several times been consid- 
 ered, but the .U/(7;;\'a;( has remained the ov.'i^: naval vessel 
 upon the inland "high seas." In 1878 it wa.'-: thought advis- 
 able to replace the Micliii^aii by a better vessel, but it was 
 thought that such a change might be an infraction of some 
 treaty. In November of that year Mr. R. W. Thompson, 
 Secretary of the Xavy, inf|uired of the State Department 
 whether any of the provisitjiis of the AgreemeiU of 1817 had 
 been abrogated.' He was informed that the agreement was 
 still in force." A few days later, in his annual report, Mr. 
 Thompson said in regard to the iU/V/i/.c^cf//.' "The vessel 
 
 ' Miscell;iiK-ous LcUers, Nov. 20, 1878. (Unonicial.) 
 ' 125 Domestic Letters, p. 334. (I'noPicial.) 
 

 l/tcr the Slorin. 
 
 177 
 
 is now very imu-li out of rt'])air, and rc(|tiiros extensive work 
 to be (lone uj)on her in order to Kee]) Iier in condition for 
 service. If tiie oblitjalion of 1817 remains in force, this 
 wouhl re(|uire a larj^e expenditure of money, and it would 
 probably be more economical to sell her, and api)ly the pro- 
 ceeds, as far as they wuuld li^o, to buildint;' a new shij) for spe- 
 cial sei"vice." Mr. 'ihompsoii lliouj^ht that whether the 
 Aj^rcement of 1817 was still in force since 1865 depeufled 
 upon the decision of Congress. Congress took no action 
 toward providing a new lake vessel. 
 
 Tn the spring of 1890 there were several petitions and me- 
 morials, espe .ially from Chicago clubs, urging that it would 
 he i)rudent u' replace the deteriorated steamer Michigan 
 by a sound vessel. It was stated that the United States 
 should be adecptately represented at the World's l-'air, and 
 "that if this vessel is seen by the foreign visitors to our coun- 
 try, during her annual cruise through the Creat Lakes, it 
 Vvill become a matter of reproach to our government, and 
 excite ridicule in tlujse familiar wilii the superior modern 
 vessels of other nations.'" These memorials were referred to 
 the Committee on Naval .MTairs, bi:t no further action was 
 ever taken. 
 
 in i8i)j, at tile time of the Behring sea controversy, it was 
 reported that the Canadian Govertmient was building three 
 "vessels of war." w liich they styled "revenue cutters." The 
 character of these vessels did not escape official attention. 
 In the New \'(irk Kecoriler of March 8 the Washington cor- 
 respondent says: 
 
 "The character of the revenue-cutters, as ascertained by 
 the (official investigation conducted by the Treasury DeT>art- 
 ment. is believed by those who ha\ e looked into the (piestion 
 closely to be a violation of treaty rights to which the United 
 States ought n<jt t<. submit without some kind of a protest. 
 Each one of the projected revenue-cutters would be available 
 in case of hostilities for the purpose of actual warfaiC, and 
 
 III Filf Utilte ol House uf Kepresenlatives. 
 
 M 
 
 '-m 
 
 ■it 
 
 ^"^1 
 
 
 
!%■ 
 
 178 
 
 Nculiality of lite American Lakes. 
 
 ft i' 
 
 
 % 
 
 1 
 
 
 mn 
 
 woultl far outclass any \csscls wliich would be at the dis- 
 posal of the L'liitcd Statis on tlic (in-at Lakes. 
 
 "'riicir presence in the lakes will he a constant menace, 
 and as they arc not needed for the lej^itiinale t)hjects of iSit 
 revenue service, it is the opinion of Uepresentatives aawl 
 Senators who have been approached njion the subject to-<iby 
 tliat ( Ireat r.ritain should be asked respectfully but firrnlv to 
 e.\|)lain their presence on the lakes, and if that exjilanation » 
 not satisfactory, to abandon the icU-a of launchinj^ ihtm. 
 
 "Any action of the Canadian (loverunient hx^kir^ 'o a 
 stren}4:thenin}j; f)f its forces in that (piarter oi the worid jtm 
 at the present time, wlu-n the liehriui; si'a (jue^tion l-a.* 
 reached ' o critical a stajLje, can not, in the jndtrnienl <<^ v ''■'x 
 men in Washington, be rej^rirded with ecpianiniiiy." 
 
 It does not aiipear that the United States Ciovernment *"ver 
 objected to these modern "cutters." It was doubtk-<«« fch 
 that there was no breacli of treaty stipulations. United 
 States cutters were also built, so that they would ]»e cairahle 
 of easy transformation into tif^fht j;unboats and di>j»atch vef- 
 sels, in order that they niij^ht form an adjunct to the L'niiJt^J 
 States navy in case of necessity.' 
 
 llesides the naval vessel .b'i'(7;;\'(;;/, the l'nite(i Slan-f at 
 this time had three revemie cutters stationed on the Great 
 Lakes. The stations, tonnage, and armament of the vc*«ets 
 were as follows, viz.: Steamer I'crry, at I'.rie. .281.54 ton*. 
 two 3-inch breech-loadiu,n" ritles; steamer I'rsscHJta. at 
 Detroit, 32().8i tons, one 30-]iouu(ler I'arrott, two 24- 
 pounder Dahljj^ren howitzers and two 3-inch Ijreech-loadii^ 
 rides; steamer Johnson, at Milwaukee, 449 tons, one 30- 
 poundcr ]\irrott and two 24-pouncler l')ah]!L,'ren 1 
 A new revenue vessel of 450 tons was also propose - .e 
 
 'The Navy Department has very recently been askeil :■■ ■ < 
 
 old warship Yatilic to the Mirlii.nan Naval Reserves. T- -■ 1 
 
 would have to be taken to the lakes through the St. Lh^t^^kt:. Tri« 
 Naval Militia is not under tlie control of the Federal GovCTmraciit. 
 but the sending of the ) antic to the lakes niitjht be intetpineled as an 
 attempt to evade the terms of 1817. 
 
 hi 
 al 
 
 ..J^ 
 
A/to- the Slonn. 
 
 179 
 
 ^ll 
 
 lakes by an act of Conj^'ri'ss in March. She was to renlace 
 tlio Johnson, wiiicli needed repairs. I5csidc< these, the 
 Ann Arbor i\\\i\ other vessels owned hy I'nited States cili/.ens 
 were hnilt so they coidd he converted into vessels of war in 
 case of future Jiostilities. 
 
 The consideration of the Ap^rccment of i(Si7 was brouqfht 
 before Cciiif^ress in i8()j. not on account of the size of Cana- 
 dian vessels, but by an interpretation i)laced upf)n the a^rec- 
 nient by the Secrt-tary of the Xavy. In 1S90, 1-'. W. Wheeler 
 & Co., of West I'ay City, Mich., had made the lowest hid for 
 the construction of the Bancroft, a practice ship for the use 
 of the Xaval .Academy at .Annapolis. Md.. but their bid was 
 not considered, because it was thouj^ht that the construction 
 of such a vessel mi}.;^ht be held to contravene the .\}:;reenient 
 of 1817.' .Senator McMillan, of Michifjan. thoupfht that this 
 was unfair to the inland ship interests. On April 5 he pre- 
 sented a petition from the iron-ship l)uilders of the Great 
 Lakes prayin<; for the early abrofjation of the treaty of 1817.' 
 
 There was some doubt as to whether the Ajjfreement of 
 1817 was still in force. Treasury officials were inclined to 
 believe it had been al)rof,^^ted by the notice which was rati- 
 fied by ConL^fress on i'"ebruary 9. 1865. This fact, together 
 with the reported character of Canadian cutters, led Mr. Mc- 
 Millan, on April 11, to offer the following resolution, which 
 was adopted: 
 
 "h'csohrd. That the Secretary of State be, and he is here- 
 by, directed to inform the Senate whether the acjrccment 
 eniered into between the United States and Great I'ritain 
 in the year eighteen hundred and seventeen, coverinc: the 
 question of the naval force to be maintained by the two gov- 
 ernments on the ( "ireat Lakes of the United States, is now 
 held to be in force by the l)ci)artment of State, and what, if 
 any, action has been taken by our government to revive or 
 put in force the tcrm.s of said agreement, and if so, under 
 
 • Exec. Doc. 95, 52-1, May 6, 1S92. 
 
 •Journal of Senate, April 8, 1S92. Chicas^o Tribune, April 9, 1892, 
 p. 10. 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 %\ 
 
 i 
 
1 1 -J 
 
 xpJftA 
 1 
 
 180 
 
 Neulyalitv of tlir Atncrican Lahrs. 
 
 what atulu)n'iy or .ution n!i th<> pnrt nf our fjovcrnnicnt such 
 agreement has been held to be in force since the givini^ of 
 the ro(|uirocl foniial notice by the President to (Ireat IVitain 
 in Deceniber, ei^liteen hundred and sixty-four, of a desire on 
 the part uf the United States to annid said a;:;reenient at the 
 exi)irrition of the six months from the date of said formal 
 notice, and the ratification of said notice by the act of Con- 
 gress of I'ebruary ninth, eiti^hteen hundred and sixty-five." 
 
 At this time the contlict of economic interests was the 
 source of some unpleasant feelinp; toward Canada. The 
 Lake Carriers' Association conii)laincd of the Canadian canal 
 tolls. There was also a renewal of an attempt to jjet national 
 aid in cou'^trnctincr a ship canal from the Tlreat Lakes to the 
 Hudson river. As usual, the canal was advocated for mili- 
 tarv as well as conunercial reasons. .A representative of the 
 Deep Water Ways Association, on I'ebrnary i, before the 
 House Committee on Railways and Canals, stated that in case 
 Great T-ritain should ever jrive notice to terminate the .A.trree- 
 ment of 1817 the vast American commerce of the lakes would 
 be at the mercy of the light-draft vessels which they could 
 soon force throui^h the canals from the St. Lawrence. He 
 
 went on to say: 
 
 "Commerciallv considered, a waterway from the lalces to 
 the sea would be worth a hundred-foUl its cost, although tiiat 
 cost will necessarily be large; but considered from a military 
 point ^^\ view, it seems to me that this great nation can no 
 longer afford to leave the connnerce and the cities of our 
 northern lakes in their present defenseless condition. We 
 have not a fort or a gun worthy of the name on all the chain 
 of lakes, and no possible way to put into the lakes a single 
 vessel of war, while the other nation owning the territorv on 
 the north can imt her whole naval armament with the excij)- 
 tion of a few vessels into these lakes antl have our cities and 
 our commerce absolutely at their mercy unless we prei)are 
 some wav in which to meet them.'" 
 
 ' H. R. 1023, 52-1, Feb. 1, 1892. 
 
After the Storm. 
 
 181 
 
 This statement must not be interpreted too seriously. Such 
 papers as the Chicajj^o Tribune and the New York Times 
 luld thai a few forts for vital points were sufTicient to keep 
 r.ritish llccts out of the lakes in case of any future war.' 
 
 When Congress met in December the newspapers an- 
 nounced that a "complete disintec^ration of relations be- 
 tween Canada and the United .States" seemed to be pendinj^. 
 Tresidcnt Harrison's messa.c^e was characterized as '•vigor- 
 ously anti-Caiiadian in its tone." anrl the bill introduced by 
 Senator I'rye proposed to prohibit the transportation of 
 jjoods through any ])art of the United States in Canadian 
 cars, anil providin.ij;- under certain contin<L,fencies for the sus- 
 pension of the transportation of Canadian goods in bond to 
 or from aji>- port in the United States. On December 7 the 
 President sent to the Senate Secretary Foster's resf)onse to 
 the resolution of Senator McMillan concerninj:^ naval forces 
 on the lakes. Mr. hVister decided that the .Agreement of i(Si7 
 was "to be regarded as still in existence;" that .Mr. Seward's 
 withdrawal of the notice for the abrogation of the arrange- 
 ment was to be considered as authoritative as the notice itself, 
 and that it would oe unprecedented and ii'admissible for 
 I'.ngland to dcj otherwise than accept and respect the with- 
 drawal as it had been given, and that even if the contimiancc 
 of the arrangement lacked express legislative action it at 
 least violated no existiiig legislation. Mr. Foster thought, 
 however, that the arrangement was untit to meet modern 
 conditions. I le said: 
 
 "If as early as 1844 the Secretary of the Navy held that 
 the solo consideration of steamers having taken the place of 
 sailing craft for warlike purposes would justify a revision of 
 the agreement; if the House of Representatives in 1S64 re- 
 garded the opening oi the Canadian canals as introducing 
 an inequality inev'Uipatible with its engagements; and if, as 
 Mr. Seward held in 1864, the informal arrangement of April, 
 1817, could scarcely have anticipated such a condition of 
 
 ' Chicago Tribune, April 13, i8y2. 
 
 ■jj 
 
 li 
 
 ■•>;■: 
 
 1-1 
 
 ■ AT*' 
 
 ■ -'^ 
 
 .S't^ 
 
182 
 
 Nrulia/ilv of the Amcrirnn Lakes. 
 
 r 
 
 
 !( •-■ 
 
 . ''■ 
 
 ::U 
 
 tliiiip:s as tlie tiiaintcnaiicc of a marine force adequate to rope 
 with (lonic'stic tn»ul)lcs or civil war on either side, it seems 
 most (U'sirahU- now, in view of the lonj^ lapse of tiuie ami the 
 vast cIian},H's wrought in tlicse and otiier no le>s important 
 ref^ards, that the arran},a'ment now s^rown obsolete in prac- 
 tice, and surviving in the letter only as a declared {guaranty 
 of international ])eace. should he nf)dified to fit the new order 
 , and with such adai)tati'(n to the cxifj^encies of the 
 
 of th. 
 
 fut 
 
 ure as prudence may 
 
 fore 
 
 cast 
 
 Secretary l'"oster's coninnuiicpi.on created a stir at the 
 American capital.' It was the principal subject of coincrsa- 
 tion for conj^ressmen in the hotels and lobbies. The >4;ein'ral 
 sentiment was hostile to the reopcTiitiL^ of the (|uestiou.' It 
 w'as feared that any niodifu-ation of the a};reement mit^dit 
 invite serious complications. Even Senator McMillan, who 
 introduced the resolution of incpiiry, said that he had come 
 to the conclusion, after a full investigation of the subject, that 
 Enj.^land had everythintj to j.^ain and the I'nited ."^tatrs r- cry- 
 thinj; to lose by chanj,Mn}.; the aj^n-eiuieiU. He contrasted 
 the almost barren shores of Canada with tin 
 
 factu 
 
 run 
 
 lores ot Lanada wUM the populous in.nui- 
 cities on the (opposite American shores, and re- 
 
 ferred to the iiiniiense conunerce in .\merican vessels ni)on 
 
 thi 
 
 akes. 
 
 A llritish gunboat of modern type would be a 
 
 constant menace, lie said that "the occasional privile"-e of 
 building a small man-of-war vessel would not be an induce- 
 nietU f(jr a change." Re])resentative C'hipman. of .Michigan, 
 a Democratic member of the b'oreign .\lTairs C'onunittee in 
 the House, said that the armed vessel clause of the agree- 
 ment should not be abrogated before the construction of 
 ship canals around Niagara b'alls to the tide-watei of the 
 Hudson river. lie added: "The fact that (Ireat I'irilain lon- 
 trols the !^t. Lawrence and the canals between Lake ( )ntario 
 and Lake Erie nuist not be forgotten." Kepreseiitaiive 
 
 ' K.xec. Doc. 9. 52-2, Dec. 7, 1S92, [). 34. 
 
 ■^ IVits/iiuii/on I^ost, Dec. 8, 1S92. Also, Dec. 9, 22, 24, 25 ami 27. 
 
 '•'•Detroit l-'rcc Press, Dec. 9, 1S92. Cliiia^o 'J ributic, Dec. 9, 1892. 
 
 :J'-''? 
 
'i\ 
 
 n 
 
 After the Storm. 
 
 183 
 
 Ilcrhirt, chairman of C"oniiniltcc on Xaval Affairs, bcliovi-d 
 tliat it wonld Nc a wist' tiling' to k-avc the af^ri-cnit'iit iiniiiodi- 
 fii'd. He said; "My own idea would be that it is best not to 
 allow any war ships into the lakes durinj^ time of peace and, 
 in event of hostilities, the projier tiling' to do, it seems t;. me, 
 would be to seize the W'ellaud eanal with an army and then 
 ilestroy it with dynamite. Such an act as this would make 
 it impossible for h.n^land to ^;et any of her ships upon the 
 lakes." h'ven .Senator h'rye, of Maine, who had at t'lrsl 
 spoken in favor of the imme(li;ite abro,i,Mtiou of the ai^ree- 
 nieiit, by the last week of Decendjer was not much concerned 
 about it. lie ilid not think that England meant mischief 
 upon the lakes. 
 
 The editorials in the Washington Post and a few other 
 newsf)a|)ers insisted that in view of the recent friction with 
 Canada, in regard to ti^heries and canal managenieul, the 
 character of the new Canadian vessels should not be viewed 
 without ai)prehensi(jn. It was generally considered, how- 
 ever, that the Canadians Iwul no hostile intentions. Mr. C. 
 II. 'lupper, of the Canadian (Itjvernment, said in an inter- 
 view cc.cerning the relations between Canaila and the 
 United States that the vessels built by Canada on the (ircat 
 Lakes were simply revemie cruisers and cruisers to protect 
 the lisheries. He denied that their conslructii)n had in any 
 wa\ violated the treaty with the I'nited Stales.' 
 
 In October, iH(;5, at a time when dipUMualic relations with 
 England were somewhat disturbed over the \ enezuelan 
 bound.ary (juesliou, a fri'sh discussion of the Agreement of 
 1S17 was occasioned by the refusal of the Navy Department 
 t(j award to the Detroit Dry Dock Com])any the contract for 
 two twin-screw gunboats on which this company was the 
 lowest l)i(Kler. Secretary Herbert, of the Xavy, said that if 
 the- language of the Agreement of 1817 had been "l)uild and 
 maintain" instead of "build or maintain" the Detroit firm 
 
 ' London Times, Dec. 21, 1892, p. 5, column 5. Also, see Detroit 
 l'>ec J'reis for Nov. 29, 1.S92, p. 2. 
 
 
 >'.;« 
 
 
if 
 
 I'i: 
 
 ' ( . 
 
 * 
 
 "J^^ 
 
 i 
 
 i' f ,, '.' i 
 
 184 
 
 Neutrality of the .liiht i\ii): /.a^YS. 
 
 should have had the contract. IK' would not reverse the 
 decision of the previous athniuist ration. Ju<U;x' .\(lvoi-aie 
 General Lcmly recomnicndcd tlio rejection of the Detroit 
 bids on the }:,'roun(l that their acceptance woidd he in viola- 
 tion of the spirit if not the letter of the aj^reenient. 1 Ic even 
 held that vessels could not be constructed on a lake port 
 piecemeal and then assembled on the seacoast. The Detroit 
 company api)ealed the case to President Cleveland. There 
 was considerable newspaper conniu-iit aj^ainst an arranije- 
 ment which thus discriminated aJ.,^•liIlst lake slii])builders.' 
 Some of them spoke of the Canadian "cutters" as bein^j a 
 secret and unrlerhand violatifjn of the a.i,Meenient. and asked, 
 "why shall we not feel ourselves privilej^a-d to build f^iuilxiats 
 for ocean use openly and above-l)(>ar(l?" .\ prominent I'^ast- 
 ern shipbuilder stated that it was "an outrajje upon our 
 national manhood and a disj^race to our flap," and that it was 
 time for a "Declaration of Independence on the Lakes." In 
 a letter to a member of President Cleveland's cabinet he said 
 that "the whole treaty . . . ou^jht to be torn up and con- 
 signed to the waste basket," and he thought that if the 
 "rugged and forceful mind" of the President was brought to 
 bear on the question he would be disposed to "act in the 
 American fashion." Mr. Cleveland after thoroughly consid- 
 ering the matter approved the action of the Secretary of the 
 Navy in rejecting the bids. He said: "The agreement made 
 between the United States and Great Ihitaiu in 1817 con- 
 tains a stipulation that no such vessels shall be 'built' on the 
 great lakes. This agreement is too explicit to be explained 
 away. While the passing of the exigency in which it origi- 
 nated and the change of conditions that have since occurred 
 may furnish reasons for its annulment in the manner pro- 
 vided in the contract, they do not justify such a plain disre- 
 gard of it as the carrying out of the bid of the Detroit Dry 
 Dock Company would involve."'' 
 
 ' Philadelphia Ledger, Oct. 25, 1895. Ciiicago Times Herald, Oct. 
 27 and 29 an Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 29. Toledo Blade, Oct. 29. 
 
 ^Philadelphia Times, Nov. 3. Chicago yWj/, Nov. 2. Haltiniore 
 Sun, Nov. 4. 
 
After I fit' Slonn. 
 
 IM 
 
 It was also claimed, probably rorrcrlly. tliat if occasimi had 
 ■,\\\>(\\ tlic British would have placed upon the Aj^reement of 
 1817 a more liberal construction, which would have allowed 
 war vessels to be built on the lakes. Such an interiiretation, 
 however, could not be of much value to the ship-buildin,!^'- in- 
 terests of the lakes imlcss the I'liited .States had the ri;;ht of 
 passinf,' war-dii]>s lhrou};h the W'ellaud and St. Lawrence 
 canals. .'\ treaty or permit would be necessary to secure the 
 passaj^'e of our >,nmboats through Canadian canals to the 
 ocean. I Jut, haviufj; denied Canada the privilege of passing 
 her volunteers throuf^h the Sault .Stt-. Marie canal during 
 the Kiel rebellion, the United States ( iovermnent would 
 hardly desire to ask a similar favor of the Canadians,' and 
 especially so when diplomatic relations were not the best. 
 Even if such ])ermission had been obtained, only boats of 
 less than twelve feet dnift would have been able to ]niss. 
 
 Xotwitlislandiiig this fact. stei)s were taken in November, 
 i8<i5, to secure the abrogation of the agreement by Congress. 
 The Detroit city council took the initiative in urging this 
 policy.' Other lake cities were asked 10 join in the nujve- 
 nient. The mayor, in his message to the council, said: 
 
 "Primarily, it is an injustice to the capitalists whose money 
 is invested and the American architects whose brains are 
 actively engaged, and to the myriad of mechanics whose 
 labor, with the other (juantities mentioned, has built the 
 superb lleet of fresh water mercli.'intmen which is the pride 
 of the great lakes, that they are di'barred from eiUering into 
 legitimate competition with their competitors on the sea- 
 board in the construction of vessels for the American navy." 
 
 A circular letter, sent by the mayor of Detroit to the 
 mayors of the other lake cities, was in ])art as folknvs: 
 
 "The work of ship construction in the lake region has at- 
 tained to a degree of prominence that demands some recog- 
 nition from the general government in the award of con- 
 
 ' ^fa^■i)u• /iVfyrrf (Cleveland), Oct. 31, 1S95. 
 ''■ Di'hoil Free Press, Nov. 8. Detroit Tribune 
 Huron Times, Nov. 14. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Port 
 
 iFij 
 
 f 
 
 .'-% 
 
 
 
Vi 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 A 
 
 VI 
 
 S. 
 
 e/A 
 
 oS -'b 
 
 VJ 
 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 /A 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 IIIIM IIIIIM 
 
 IIIIM '""= 
 itt ill 2.0 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sdences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 & 
 
 // 
 
 {./ 
 
 >■ #? 
 
 
 Q, 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ;v 
 
 ^9) 
 
 .V 
 
 40^^ 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 # 
 
 rv^ 
 
 6^ 
 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 

 <° mPx. 
 
 
 % 
 
 i mp< 
 
 Q, 
 
 A 
 
 1^ 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 6^ 
 
;l.'i 
 
 .! i' 
 
 
 186 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 tracts for naval vessels. And the excuse of a possible conflict 
 between rival naval forces on the lakes, is no more to he ac- 
 cepted seriously than a possible conflict of the same naval 
 forces in the Gulf of Mexico, or the harbors of Hawaii or 
 China in time of peace. If a navy is to be maintained at all, 
 there is as good reason for maintaining a fleet upon the 
 Great Lakes as upon the eastern coast of the United States, 
 and far greater reason, in view of the relative importance of 
 the commercial vessel interest, than to maintain it on the 
 Chinese or Japanese coast." 
 
 Considerable newspaper comment followed the publica- 
 tion of this circular.' It would be hard to analy/.c all the ele- 
 ments which influenced the discussion. Personal and local 
 as well as national interests entered into the considerations. 
 In some cases the desire to "attract" Canada was avowed. 
 Some wanted a show of naval force to "protect'' the lake 
 commerce and to inspire "Miss Canada" with the respect 
 which coy maidens have for strength and power. Others 
 held that the timid maiden across the lines would be 
 come alarmed by the paraphernalia of war. Still others pre- 
 ferred friendship to matrimonial advances. Though there 
 was no small expression in favor of a modification of the 
 agreement, the agitation for its abrogation was unsuccessful. 
 The Detroit Tribune hold that any benefits which might 
 flow from the abrogation would be dearly paid with a system 
 of rival navies racing upon the waters where the United 
 States had hitherto held absolute strategic possession. The 
 Chicago Tribune said: "If England wants the agreement to 
 stand and is willing to live up to it honestly, the United 
 States should interpose no objection." In reply to the De- 
 troit circular letter the mayor of Port Huron stated that he 
 was not ready to join in an efifort to abrogate a treaty which 
 had "for over fifty years given the United States almost un- 
 
 ' Detroit Evening News, Nov. 14. San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 
 II. Chicago Tribune, Nov. 15, 16 and 18. Baltimore Herald, Nov. 
 18. Detroit 7ri/>iine, Nov. 18. Detroit Evening Press, Nov. 19. 
 Port Hiiro n Times, Nov. 19. Detroit Free Press, Nov. 27. 
 
■i""^ 
 
 After the Storm. 
 
 187 
 
 disputed possession of our great inland seas upon which the 
 white-winged messengers of American commerce, flying the 
 American flag, manned by American seamen, built by 
 American capital, pass and repass our very doors unmo- 
 lested by a single ship of war." If the mayors of other cities 
 favored the proposed abrogation the matter was at least 
 never brought before Congress. 
 
 In the newspaper discussions it was claimed, perhaps with 
 some grounds, that the British had in convenient warehouses 
 an equipment which could transform some good Canadian 
 lake merchant boats into dangerous war vessels. General 
 Miles also called attention to this fact, and stated that "in 
 case of a war with England this country would be at a fright- 
 ful disadvantage on the lakes." He did not think a war with 
 England was likely, but he contended that the United States 
 should be prepared for any emergency. In November and 
 December the newspapers were full of dispatches and edi- 
 torials relating to the defense of the lakes.' In the Navy De- 
 partment at Washington it was proposed to accumulate a 
 supply of rppid-fire rifles, so that the large American lake 
 vessels coul iberai)idly armed and converted into gunboats in 
 case of an emergency. In this way it was said that a formid- 
 able fleet could quickly be put afloat on the lakes. Some 
 men occupying front seats in their party spoke often of an 
 approaching irrepressible conflict between ihe two great 
 English-speaking nations, said it had as well come to blows 
 as to be postponed, and began to settle plans of foreign alli- 
 ances in their minds. But luckily they were not the guiding 
 stars of that true American foreign policy which neither cul- 
 tivates special enmities nor "entangling alliances." 
 
 The crisis in the Venezuelan dispute was reached a few 
 days before Christmas, when Tresidcnt Cleveland, in a delib- 
 erately prepared message, announced the attitude, of the 
 
 ' Haltimore Herald, Nov. 7. Detroit Free Press, Nov. 7. Cliicago 
 Times- Herald, Dec. 20. l];Utiinore Herald, iJec. 21. Superior 
 (Wis.) Leader, Dec. 24. Washington Evening 'limes, Dec. 24. 
 
 
 
 • ^ • 
 
 ^1 
 
 :rj'::' 
 
 
 
 ■'•/ 
 
 r. n 
 
 ■« ^ 
 
 \ A 
 
 ;*'/LilJ 
 
 HWa 
 
 
 :M1 
 
;?:p' 
 
 188 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 HP ■ ' 
 
 m\. 
 
 United States. Affairs moved at a rai)id pace for several 
 days. The Canadian Government took steps to negotiate for 
 lake vessels which coidd be converted into cruisers in case of 
 war. Commercial interests were disturbed, and there were 
 panics in securities, but the waves of belligerenc}' which had 
 been sv.eeping over the country for several months had 
 already reached their greatest height. They rapidly sub- 
 sided at the beginning of 1896, when it became evident that 
 the English Government showed no disposition to precipi- 
 tate a quarrel by adopting a policy which would call into 
 question any interpretation which the United States Govern- 
 ment might place upon the "Monroe doctrine." The Vene- 
 zuelan question was adjusted satisfactorily to all parties. 
 The relations between England and the United States be- 
 came more harmonious than they had been for years. It was 
 felt that future differences could be settled by the mutual 
 good sense and righteous feeling of the two peoples. There 
 was a growth of sentiment in favor of providing for the set- 
 tlement of disputes by arbitration. The people on each side 
 of the lakes continued their usual peaceful vocations, with no 
 other source of irritation than that which arose from the con- 
 flicts of commercial interests. 
 
 Though another war with England is not a probable con- 
 tingency, sources of friction are liable to arise in the future 
 as they have in the past. International difficulties between 
 England and the United States will hardly play so large a 
 part in future American history as they have in the past. The 
 principal questions for future adjustment in Anglo-Ameri- 
 can relations are likely to be connected with the British pos- 
 sessions in North America.^ This fact has been urged as a 
 reason v.-hy these dependencies should become a part of our 
 great American Union. In December, 1894, Senator Gal- 
 
 ' The Behring Sea question has been the source of much discussion. 
 It directly affects the relations between the United States and Canada. 
 The discovery of gold on the upper Yukon may j^ive rise to new 
 international problems. Questions in regard to the eastern boundary 
 of Alaska are liable to arise. 
 
IW! 
 
 Aftn- the Storm. 
 
 189 
 
 linger, of New liampshiro, offered a resolution for the union 
 of Canada with the United States in order to stop the danger 
 of war. In ]\Iarch, 1895, Senator Higgins, in a speech on the 
 Naval Appropriation Dill, after referring to the military char- 
 acter of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the inexpediency 
 of as.iistiug Canada in joint ship canals between the lakes and 
 the St. Lawrence, said: "Every day that Canada remains a 
 part of the British Empire she is a standing menace to us. . . 
 We shall be in an incipient stage of conflict until . . . the 
 whole American continent is governed in peace under the 
 dome of this Capitol." 
 
 A union of Canada and the United States, even if it should 
 be favored by the people of the United States, is not feasible. 
 The greatest objection would not come from England, but 
 from Canada herself. Canada at present practically governs 
 herself. She has her own system of taxation. Her tarifT 
 favors England no more than it favors the United States. 
 Her people, with their present political freedom, have no de- 
 sire to break their connection with the British Empire. In 
 case future expediency should lead to their separation from 
 the Empire their national aspirations would probably lead 
 them to form an independent nation. It is at least certain 
 that there is at the present time no widespread desire of an- 
 nexation to the United States. William Kingsford, in the 
 preface of his eighth volume on the "History of Canada," 
 writes: "In Canada we can have no feeling towards the 
 United States but the desire to be the best of neighbors and 
 the truest of friends." Canada would oppose an imperial 
 federation with England as much as she would oppose being 
 annexed to the United States. Under present conditions she 
 desires to work out her own destiny. 
 
 In case Canada should ever become one of the independent 
 nations of the earth, there need be no more use of frowning 
 fleets to darken the inland waters than there is to-day. There 
 would probably be no desire to establish an armed truce in 
 place of the neutrality which has existed during the long 
 period since British fleets went to the bottom of Lake Erie. 
 
 I i 
 
 
 M 
 
 m'^ 
 
 m 
 
190 
 
 Neutrality of the American Lakes. 
 
 If the waters of the Great Lakes, sometimes rcposinpf in 
 ap])arent shig^.c^ishness, and sometimes lashed into spray and 
 rolHng' waves by the tempests wliioh sweep over them, and 
 ahvays rushing to the sea tnrouj.'!! the St. Lawrence, are for- 
 ever to separate two nations, they may nevertheless be the 
 means of washinf]^ out all enmity between the people on their 
 shores and aid in preserving one common civilization/ 
 
 ' It has been urged by many persons interested in the lake com- 
 merce that the United States and Canada should secure a co-opera- 
 tive arrangement for the joint improvement and use of the water- 
 ways connecting the lakes witli each other and with liie sea. (See 
 Proceedings of International Deep-Waterways Association, Cleve- 
 land, 1S95.) 
 
 \H 
 
 \ \ ^ 
 
 I 1 f 
 
 til: 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Ada:\is, C. F., minister at London 137 
 
 Adams, J. Q., proposal to Castlereagh 68 
 
 Agukkmknt of iSry — 
 
 suggested 60, 6r 
 
 propositirn for 68, 73-78 
 
 exchange (n notes 83 
 
 ratified by Senate 84 
 
 proclamation of 84 
 
 provisions of 13. 84 
 
 interpretation of . 13, 14, 120, 12S, 133, 13S, 139, 142, 14S, 153, 157, 
 
 166, .76, 177, 178, 1S4, 185 
 
 no exact precedent for 20 
 
 advantages 21 
 
 opinions and comments 20, 15S, 162, 1S2 
 
 ignorance of otlicers concerning 108 
 
 agitation for abrogation 19, 150, 158, 179, 185 
 
 notice to abrogate 17, 151, 153, 159 
 
 withdrawal of notice to abrogate 19, 163, 166 
 
 opposition to abrogation 182, 186 
 
 reported violations 9,=^, 127 
 
 revision suggested 128, 181 
 
 modification opposed 182 
 
 British attitude toward 106, 121, 122, 125, 126, 151, 165 
 
 British attitude, information asked concerning . . . .103,115,118 
 
 not a restriction on revenue cutters 148 
 
 Congress requests information as to 158, 179 
 
 discussed in British Parliament 160, 163-5 
 
 regarded as still in force 181 
 
 American Advantage ON THE Lakes 112, 113 
 
 American Vessels ox the Lakes (see "Naval force" and 
 
 "Vessels"). 
 Arbitration 25 
 
 Armaments — 
 
 source of irritatio 66 
 
 augmentation of 66-7 
 
 
 0M 
 
1^ 
 
 192 
 
 Index. 
 
 I ' 
 
 Akmamkxts — 
 
 ndtiction of i.), 15, 65, 130 
 
 distnantlin.i:; of S5, 130 
 
 recommciuled 152 
 
 (See " Naval force ") 
 
 Bagot, Sir Chaklks, negotiations with 73-8 
 
 Border Dissunsions, sources of . . .17, 66, 136, 139, 145, 149, 152 
 removal of 86, S7, 129, 173 
 
 Boundary — 
 
 as proposed by Continental Congress 31 
 
 instructions to commissioners 31,32 
 
 factors in determining 33 
 
 changes proposed by liritish 34, 49, 54 
 
 conunent on 34, 35 
 
 detail of, settled by conmiissioners 88 
 
 British — 
 
 defences increased 15 
 
 efforts to control the fur trade 37, 43 
 
 vessels attacked on the lakes 43 
 
 fear of American conquest 53, j6i 
 
 monopoly of the lake trade 60 
 
 armaments, sources of irritation 66 
 
 attitude during the civil war 157 
 
 British Traders — 
 
 petition for armed vessels 3S 
 
 influence with the Indians 39-4S 
 
 necessity of preventing their navigation of the lakes 48 
 
 British Advantage ok Access to Lakes 112, 150 
 
 Canada — 
 
 rebellion in 15, 9' 
 
 invasion of, proposed 29-30, 44, 98 
 
 proposed cession to United States 32 
 
 proposed cession opposed by the ministry 33 
 
 cession of, urged 49, 50, 55 
 
 conquest of, not a policy of the United States 54 
 
 annexation, feeling in favor of 139, 171 
 
 Madison's views as to 87 
 
 "Patriot" plans for invasion of 98,99, 116 
 
 Confederate agent? in 16, 145-7, 152-4, 156 
 
 apprehended "sudden blow" from 116, 117 
 
 attitude after the TV^w/afTair 139 
 
 Canal Convention at Chicago 143 
 
 
■J^* 
 
 Index. 
 
 198 
 
 Canals— 
 
 petitions for i6 
 
 Canadians biiildin},' 88 
 
 tile Erie 90 
 
 proposed for protection of nortliern frontier 144,162 
 
 recommended to connect tiie lakes witii tlie Mississippi and 
 
 the Hudson 142, 150, 180 
 
 recommended around the Niagara 122, 144 
 
 needed for Western commerce 143 
 
 Canadian advantage in 150 
 
 recommended by Canada for defensive purposes 162 
 
 free use of, granted 173 
 
 free use of, denied 174 
 
 cooperation in building urged 190 
 
 Cannon for the Lakes 126, 128 
 
 Caroline AvvwK 15. 93, 96, 102 
 
 Castlereagh, plans to prevent rival fleets 61 
 
 meets the proposal of Adams 71 
 
 Civil War, difficulties arising in 16, 136, 139, 145, 149, 152 
 
 Clarke's Expedition 30 
 
 Colonist, winning the West by the 28 
 
 Commerce, dellection of Western 16, 90, 143, 160 
 
 of the lakes 21 
 
 with Canada, prevention advocated 40 
 
 growth of Western 91, 131 
 
 Confedkratk Agents, in Canada 16, 145-7, 152, 153 
 
 their (lag upon the lakes 17, 152 
 
 false rumors concerning 154, 156 
 
 Cl'TTERS, REVENUE, 
 
 13, 17. 74, 130, 133-4, 139, 148, 157, 166, 177, 178, 183 
 Defences for the Lakes— 
 
 during the war of 1812 .44-6,52 
 
 British, increase by 15 
 
 reports of increase by 102, 103, 104, 129 
 
 call for information concerning 103, 105 
 
 reports upon, to Congress 109 
 
 discussion in Congress no, in, 114 
 
 views of Cass 90 
 
 views of Polk 129 
 
 petitions for increase of 113, 117 
 
 Seward draws attention to n7, 139 
 
 plan for in case of war 131 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
:;i !? 
 
 ill 
 
 104 
 
 bidex . 
 
 I Da 
 
 Dkkknces roR the I.akks— 
 
 Canadian preparation a source of alarm 117, 160 
 
 abandoned as unnecessary 131, 132 
 
 plans considered • 139-42, 187, 18S 
 
 recommended by committee of Congress 142 
 
 7;M>«^rf/rt/^ advantage of British 140 
 
 canals proposed for military purposes 143 
 
 discussion in Canadian Parliament 162 
 
 " British " 160, 163-5 
 
 (See " Naval force.") 
 
 Dei'OTs, Navai- — recommended 142, 150 
 
 Disarmament, suggested 60, 61, 63, 64 
 
 proposed 11, 62, 63, 67-9, 75-6 
 
 negotiations for 11, 67-84 
 
 provisional arrangement for 77, 80 
 
 agreement for • ... 13, 84 
 
 advantages of 23, 66 
 
 Madison's idea of 73-4 
 
 Monroe's "precise project" 75 
 
 Dissension, sources of 17, 86, 175-6 
 
 removal of sources of 86, 87, 129 
 
 Dix Order 155, 159 
 
 Duties, on American vessels passing British posts 37 
 
 on British goods passing the portages 42 
 
 seizure of vessels, for avoiding 42 
 
 a source of some friction '74-5 
 
 " Era OK Good Feeling " 86 
 
 Fenians Desire TO Invade Canada 154,167,168-172 
 
 Fisheries, treaty concerning 173 
 
 source of friction 175-6 
 
 Fortifications, removal of 89 
 
 views of Cass as to 89-90 
 
 (See "Defences.") 
 France and England, conflict between 28 
 
 French Fur Trade 28 
 
 French Policy AS TO Canada 30, 31, 33 
 
 Ghent, treaty of 10, 56 
 
 Great Lakes, theatre of early conflicts 27, 36 
 
 (See "Lakes.") 
 
 Harbors, improvement of 90, 1 1 1 
 
 Head, Governor-Generai " 96 
 
 *■ .t., 
 
Index. 
 
 196 
 
 Invasions— 
 
 proposed 29-30, 44, 98, n6 
 
 Fenian 18, 167-172 
 
 rumors of plans for 94, 116, 117 
 
 Confederate plots for 145 
 
 Indian Barrier, English attempts to secure 39i 51, 52 
 
 Jay Treaty 39, 40, 46, 60 
 
 Jefferson, on war and peace 10,56-8 
 
 on Clarke's expedition 30 
 
 on alliance with England 41 
 
 on acquisition of Canada 47. 53 
 
 Jingoism, decline of 23 
 
 Lake Builders, bids of rejected 19, 179, 183 
 
 Lake Commerce, growth of 132 
 
 restrictions proposed 40 
 
 under the Jay treaty 46-7, 60 
 
 threatened by Confederates 146 
 
 Lake Defences. (See "Defences.") 
 
 Lake Frontier, sources of dissension on 16, 17,86, 175-6 
 
 American advantage of defence on 131 
 
 Lake Harbors, needed improvement in 
 
 Lake Posts and British Traders 10, 33, 37 
 
 Lake Steamers, early 90 
 
 Lakes— 
 
 French lose control of 28 
 
 Spain's desires as to 31 
 
 Morris' expectations as to 31 
 
 first American flag on 36 
 
 relation to western growth 37 
 
 necessity of reciprocity in navigation of 40 
 
 rival navies on 11, 60, 66 
 
 neutrality of for trade 43 
 
 proposal to restrict navigation on 49 
 
 plans to control in 1812 44, 48 
 
 British desire for military occupation of 50, 54, 62 
 
 Confederate flag on 152 
 
 naval forces on. (See " Naval force.'') 
 
 McLeod, arrest of no 
 
 release requested no 
 
 border feeling preceding his trial 115,117, 119 
 
 Madison, ideas of as to disarmament 73-4 
 
 
 
 irfNT 
 
 
■1; 
 
 « 
 
 . ■: 
 
 i * 
 
 ir 
 
 i:! 
 
 106 
 
 Index. 
 
 Maink Boundakv Disi'i tk 96 
 
 Mic/iiffiin, The 16, 18 
 
 history of its constnictioii 123-5 
 
 British ol)jection to 125-6, 132, 133, 138 
 
 not considered as violating the Agreement of 1817 138 
 
 Confederate attempt to capture 152 
 
 used in preventing P'enian invasions 169, 172 
 
 proposals to replace it with new vessel 177 
 
 Militia, Navai 18 
 
 MoNCK, Lord— 
 proposed increase of British force to protect American com- 
 merce 146 
 
 his idea of the Agreement of 1817 147 
 
 efforts of to prese'-ve neutrality 146, 149 
 
 MONROK— 
 
 his " precise project " for reduction of fleets 87 
 
 his Northern tour 87 
 
 Naval Depots, recommended 142, 150 
 
 Naval Forces — 
 
 Canadian plans for 40, 56 
 
 Hull suggests armed vessels for Erie 42 
 
 in the war of 181 2 44-46 
 
 condition of the forces in 1816 81-2 
 
 mutu. 1 reduction of i3i 83 
 
 dismantling of, and decline of 85 
 
 temporary increase by British 98,99, loi, 169-70 
 
 increase considered by United States 97,100,122, 157 
 
 British increase discussed in Congress 104, 105 
 
 reports on British increase 107, 108, 115, 127, 130 
 
 counter-preparation agitated in United States, 
 
 proposed in Congress 1 11, 112 
 
 not to exceed treaty stipulations 123 
 
 petitions for 114 
 
 plans for 117, 123 
 
 British increase leads to diplomatic correspondence 120 
 
 " " defended by Fox 121, 125 
 
 British, decline of 122, 130 
 
 Americans build the Michigan 123-125 
 
 increase of, advised by Monck 146, 147 
 
 by American officials 152 
 
 temporary increase by United States 152 
 
 suggested as a means to repress political agitators . . . 155-6, 169 
 
 debated in British Parliament 163 
 
 advocated for " show " 177, t86 
 
 \i 
 
m 
 
 Index 
 
 197 
 
 NAVAI. Mll.lTIA l8 
 
 Navai. Vksski,— brick model at World's Fair i8 
 
 (See "Vessels.") 
 
 Naviks, r^ivAi.— on lakes in 1S15 11, 60, 66 
 
 Reduction of '4. 'S. 65 
 
 Navic.ation of iiik Lakes, proposed to restrict United Stales 
 in 49 
 
 NiaiTKAi.iTv OK I-AKKS, necessary for trade 43 
 
 siiKKeslcd by Wasiiinj^ton 60 
 
 contemplated by Castlereagh 61 
 
 propositions for 6S, 87 
 
 proiioscd extension of tile principle 164 
 
 Ni:rrKAt. Poi.icv ok tiik Unitkd States, 
 
 ,^9, 94, 95. 99. '"I. 102, 118 
 Governor-Cieneral Head's opinion 96 
 
 j\\7i' Orleans, The - 
 
 inqniry as to completion of 123 
 
 reckoned on the navy list 130, 138 
 
 NoRTiiwicsr, contest for American riglits in 10 
 
 made a part of Canada by Quebec Act 29 
 
 Clark's expedition to 30 
 
 Okdnance Stokes, inquiry as to 118 
 
 Orkcon Boundarv 87, 129 
 
 "PATKior " Kehem.ion 15. 91 
 
 sympathizers' lodjjes 92 
 
 enlistments at Buflalo 92 
 
 decline of 94. 96 
 
 sympathizers warned by Scott 10; 
 
 "Peace Establishments," tendency of 24, 69, 70 
 
 Peace, negotiations for 51-55 
 
 Proci-amations ok President to Preserve Nkitkality, 
 
 94. 99. i>8 
 
 Recii'ROCitv Treatv 132 
 
 terminated 158 
 
 Rkdiction ok Armaments — 
 
 growing sentiment in favor of 25 
 
 good effects of 14, 15, 65, 130 
 
 REDl'CTKiN OK LAKE F'ORCES 83, I3I 
 
 Revenue Vessels — 
 
 not apart of naval force 13, 148 
 
 for the lakes 17. i57 
 
 
 ■■A 
 
 A/.-\ 
 
 >•■■■ 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 !,SI 
 
 ■• ;t' 
 
 
 M 
 
Hi 
 
 198 
 
 Index. 
 
 U;M ■: 
 
 11^'! ! 
 
 T' 
 
 Revenue Vksski.s— 
 
 Madison's idea of not allowing 74 
 
 transferred from lakes to ocean 130, 139 
 
 American increase of upon lakes 132, 148 
 
 British inquiries concerning 133-4, 166 
 
 Canadian, source of some apprehension 183 
 
 American, size of 178 
 
 St. Alban's Raid 153 
 
 Search of Lake Vessels . . 72, 79, So 
 
 Secret Societies — to aid revolution in Canada 116 
 
 Seward, W. H., letters as to border feeling 115, 117 
 
 recommends lake defences 139 
 
 as to Confederates in Canada 137, 153, 155 
 
 concerning the Agreement of 1817 138, 148, 151, 165 
 
 suggests some co-operation in repressing political agitators, 155-6 
 
 Ship Canal Convention 143 
 
 Sources ok Material 7 
 
 Spanish Desires in the West 31 
 
 Statement 01- Naval Vessels in 1816 Si, 82 
 
 Treat ''s — of 1783, disputes over 38, 39 
 
 proposed abrogation of 150 
 
 of Reciprocity 132, 158 
 
 of Washington 173 
 
 (See Agreement of 181 7.) 
 
 7>-^«/ afihir 16, 139 
 
 Vessels, Naval — brick model at World's Fair 18 
 
 Vessels, seizure of Canadian 42 
 
 early lake steamers 90 
 
 dismantling of 85, 130 
 
 A'oi^y/ /(?<?/, burned by " Patriots " 97 
 
 of " Patriots," seizure by United States 99 
 
 British, fired upon in Niagara river 118 
 
 revenue, taken from lakes 130, 139 
 
 Confederate attempts to obtain 137 
 
 armed, recommended for the lakes 152 
 
 War — danger ofin 1839 and 184 1 105-6, 114-19 
 
 War of 181 2 — 
 
 causes 43 
 
 American plans to get control of lakes 44 
 
 lake force in 44-6, 52 
 
 American plan to stop British trade 47 
 
 ifti 
 
 '• ' 
 
 IH 
 
 
 f ■ y 
 
 
 * • • 
 
 
 i 
 
 A-^ 
 
 ' iJa 1 ; i ; 
 
 
 \ \ 
 
IF 
 
 Index 
 
 199 
 
 War ok 1812 — 
 
 Purpose of invasion of Canada 48 
 
 negotiations for peace 51-55 
 
 peace 56, 57 
 
 War, Civil. — 
 
 a source of new difficulties 136, 139, 145, 149 
 
 talli of Canadian defences 137 
 
 Confederates in Canada 137 
 
 on the lakes 152 
 
 fears of American conquest 161 
 
 Webster, notes as to Britisli forces 120 
 
 West, Tiie — 
 
 intercourse with 29, 37 
 
 emigration to 48, 91 
 
 aslis for its share of appropriations iir, U2 
 
 (See "Northwest" and "Commerce.") 
 
 West India Tkadk 88, 89 
 
 
 >A 
 
 w