MXVIII. FROM ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON. PHILADELPHIA, 7 January, 1782. DEAR SIR:-As it does not appear improbable that the humiliation and misfortunes of Great Britain may produce the same sentiments which a spirit of moderation dictates to the other belligerent powers, and lead her to concur with them in their wishes for peace, it cannot be improper to acquaint you with the objects America most wishes to attain, and to furnish you with the arguments on which they found their claim to them. For such is the confidence, not only in the justice of his most Christian Majesty, but in his friendship, that they firmly persuade themselves that he will not only preserve for them their undoubted rights, but that he will even go so far as to procure for them those advantages they may reasonably demand on the close of a successful war, and I am perfectly satisfied that the loose hints that a detail of their sentiments may afford you and our other Commissioners, will be strengthened and improved by your lights in such manner as to come before his Majesty in the most advantageous form. The first point of discussion will be the limits of the United States. The instructions given to Mr. Adams' explain the wishes of Congress on that subject; nor can they admit of many doubts, except so far as they relate to our southern extent, the boundary between us and Canada being very well ascertained by grants, charters, proclamations, and other acts of government, and more particularly by the settlements of people who are engaged in the same cause with us, and who have the same rights with the rest of the subjects of the United States. Our western and northwestern extent will probably be contested with some warmth, and the reasoning on that 1 "" subject be deduced from general principles, and from proclamations and treaties with the Indians. The subject is undoubtedly intricate and delicate; yet, upon candid investigation, I believe it will appear that our extension to the Mississippi is founded in justice, and that our claims are at least such as the events of the war give us a right to insist upon. Your situation furnishing you amply with the various documents on which Great Britain founded her claim to all the country east of the Mississippi previous to the treaty of Paris, I will not trouble you with references to them, which would at any rate be imperfect from the want which prevails here of books and papers. Taking it for granted that the king of Great Britain was entitled to that extent of country (which he at least cannot contravene), it only remains to examine how far he considers it as within the limits of some of the United States, because he can no more pretend to abridge those limits, than claim any other right of which the United States are in possession. His idea of these limits is apparent from charters granted by the crown; and, from recent grants made by its representatives in several of the States, it appears that they considered their authority to grant lands to the westward, as coextensive with the right of Great Britain, unless they were restricted by their interference with other governments. Upon this principle the servants of the crown in New York granted land on the borders of Lake Erie to the westward of Niagara. And Virginia, even after the proclamation in 1763, patented considerable tracts upon the Ohio, far beyond the Appalachian Mountains. It is true, the several governments were prohibited at different times from granting lands beyond certain limits, but these were clearly temporary restrictions, which the policy of maintaining a good understanding with the natives dictated, and were always broken through after a short period, as is evinced by the grants above mentioned, made subsequent to the proclamation in 1763. And, indeed, the proclamation itself fur nishes a substantial argument of the opinion of Britain, with respect to the right which some of the States had to extend to the westward of the limits it prescribed; otherwise it would not have been necessary to prohibit their governors from granting, as their patents would, in such cases, have been invalid, and themselves subjected to the -censure of their master, upon whom they were dependent. Unless, therefore, these proclamations absolutely destroyed the right, they must be considered as proofs of its existence at least, and after they were issued. The slightest examination of them shows that they did not take away, but restrained, an existing right; and the subsequent grants by the governors evidence that they were, as is before asserted, mere temporary restrictions. The same reasoning applies to the treaty at Fort Stanwix, and to other agreements taken from treaties with the Indians. Strong evidence in our favor is also found in the map made by the king's geographer, in which Virginia and the Carolinas are laid down as extending to the Mississippi, shortly after the last war. Arguments may be drawn against us by the Quebec Bill; but as this is one of the laws that occasioned the war, to build any thing upon it would be to urge one wrong in support of another. But this matter may perhaps be seen in a different light, and our pretensions placed upon a more extensive basis, by recurring to general principles, and asking whence Great Britain derived her right to the waste lands in America. Evidently from the allegiance which a subject is supposed to carry with him wherever he goes, even though he dislikes his constitution and seeks one that pleases him better. Upon this principle the oppressed subjects of Great Britain, seeking freedom in the wilds of America, were supposed to extend to it the sovereignty of the kingdom they had left. The rights of the king of Great Britain, then, to America were incident to his right of sovereignty over those of his subjects that settled America and explored the lands he claims. For the idea of right derived from mere discovery, and the vain ceremony of taking possession without planting and continuing that possession, is now fully exploded. If, then, we admit what is necessary to our independence, that the right of sovereignty over the people of America is forfeited, it must follow that all rights founded in that sovereignty are forfeited with it; and that, upon our setting up a new sovereign in America, the rights which the first claimed, as such, devolve upon the second. Upon this principle Great Britain is left without a foot of land in America beyond the limits of those governments which acknowledge her jurisdiction. It is in vain to say that the king of Great Britain holds these back lands by a cession from other powers; since those cessions were grounded upon a prior claim, derived through the people of America, and only served to confirm the right which they gave the king of Great Britain while he was their sovereign, and which he loses with his sovereignty over them. This mode of reasoning is warranted by the practice Great Britain uniformly held, of treating with the Indian nations through their American governors, who have frequently executed with them the most solemn acts, and sometimes extended the king's protection to the nations who occupy the waste lands, which are the subject of our present claim. The expense of retaining these in friendship almost always devolved upon the respective States, who, till lately, particularly in New York, voted the sums necessary to support smiths among them, and to procure the presents which were annually made them. From hence, then, it follows that, if the king of Great Britain has any right over the back lands in America, it must be as king of the people of America; ceasing to be king of those people, his right also ceases. If he has no right over the back lands, but merely as protector of the savage nations that inhabit them, that connection and duty also devolve upon us, since they evidently claimed that protection from him as king of the colonies, and through the governors of those colonies and not as sovereign of a country three thousand miles from them. This country having chosen a new sovereign, they may rightfully claim its protection. There is some reason to believe that Great Britain consid ered their rights in many instances as extending no further than their right of preemption and protection, as may be inferred from passages in the negotiations for a peace with France in the year 1761, referred to in the margin. This suggests a new idea, which, however, I am not warranted by an act of Congress in mentioning, and therefore you will only consider it as the sentiment of an individual. If the mediators should not incline to admit our claim, but determine on restricting our limits, either by the extent of our grants, the course of the mountains, the sources of the rivers, or any other of those arbitrary rules that must be sought for when solid principles are relinquished, perhaps it would be difficult to bring them to agree that the country beyond those limits belongs to the nations which inhabit it; that it should enjoy its independence under the guaranty of France, Spain, Great Britain, and America, and be open to the trade of those whose lands border upon them. This, though restrictive of our rights, would free us from the well grounded apprehensions that the vicinity of Great Britain and her command of the savages would give us. They already possess Canada and Nova Scotia; should that immense territory, which lies upon the rear of the States, from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, be acknowledged to be vested in Great Britain, it will render our situation truly hazardous. The lands, as you know, are infinitely better than those on the coast; they have an open communication with the sea by the rivers St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, and with each other by those extensive inland seas with which America abounds, They will be settled with the utmost rapidity from Europe, but more particularly from these States. Attachment to the government, freedom from taxes, a prospect of bettering their fortunes, |