Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow GALLATIN TO ALEXANDER BARING. - The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1

Return to Title Page for The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory

GALLATIN TO ALEXANDER BARING. - Albert Gallatin, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1 [1879]

Edition used:

The Writings of Albert Gallatin, ed. Henry Adams (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1879). 3 vols.

Part of: The Writings of Albert Gallatin, 3 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


GALLATIN TO ALEXANDER BARING.

St. Petersburg, 27th August, 1813.

Dear Sir,—

The letter (of 22d July) with which you have favored me was received on the 17th inst. For this I return you my sincere thanks, and duly appreciate the importance of the information you have obtained, and the motives which have actuated you. Although I cannot write as freely as a person whose communications do not commit his own government, the hope that our correspondence may be of some public utility induces me to enter as far in the subject as is consistent with my situation.

We have not received, as you had suggested, the information that the mediation of Russia had been refused by Great Britain, with expressions of a desire to treat with us separately and directly at London or at Gottenburg. It is possible that Lord Walpole, who is said here to have gone to the Emperor’s headquarters, may be the bearer of that communication. We have in the mean while been notified that the Emperor had, on the arrival of our mission, given orders that his offer of mediation should be renewed; and we will wait here the result. But if your government should, after due consideration, persist in its absolute refusal of that offer, a negotiation with us cannot be opened, since our powers in that respect are to treat of peace with Great Britain expressly under the mediation of Russia. We have a distinct commission to treat afterwards of commerce, if agreeable to your government, and without reference to any mediation. This was alluded to by the President of the United States in his last message, and is now mentioned as an evidence of his sincere desire not only to make peace, but to establish the relations between the two countries on the most friendly footing.

It does not belong to me to discuss the objections which your government may have to treat of peace under the mediation of Russia; but we were altogether unaware, when we left America, that any such could exist. Russia had an interest in the restoration of peace between the two countries, since the war interrupted her commercial relations with America, and diverted a certain portion of the British force from the important object of European warfare. In the terms on which peace should be made, in the essential point at issue,—a point which, as you suggest, could not in practice arise with respect to her,—she had no immediate interest. In those respects she united therefore the essential requisites in a mediating power, a sincere wish that peace might be made, and impartiality as to the subjects of dispute. On the other hand, with Russia we had only friendly and commercial relations, but no political connection. You had also with her relations of the same nature with ours and on a much more extensive scale. And you had at the same time an intimate political connection, necessarily arising from your being united in a most important conflict against a formidable common enemy. You are her ally in a war which to her is an object of so much superior importance to the interest she has in the restoration of peace between you and us, that America might have hesitated to accept her mediation had it not been for the great confidence we place in the personal character of the Emperor. This we considered a sufficient pledge of impartiality; and, certain that your government at least in that respect entertained sentiments similar to ours, we did not presuppose that if the mediation was accepted by us there could be any hesitation on the subject on the part of Great Britain, unless she considered peace as, at all events at this moment, either impracticable or undesirable. We did also believe that our accepting as a mediator a sovereign at war with France was such a clear evidence of our neither having nor wishing to have any political connection with this last power, that it must remove those suspicions on the part of your government to which you allude, and which, although altogether erroneous and destitute of foundation, might probably continue to have an unfavorable effect on its dispositions and determination.

Such was the view of the subject under which our government acted in the appointment of the extraordinary mission; and you must at once perceive that if a rejection of the mediation on the part of Great Britain had been anticipated, the result would have been, not a direct mission to that country for which there was no preliminary foundation, but merely a declaration that the United States accepted the mediation, and would be ready to act upon it whenever it was accepted by Great Britain.

It will be a matter of regret if this frank proceeding on the part of America, this effort to re-establish peace in an honorable manner and without suing for it, should, on the threshold, be defeated by the absolute refusal of your government of the offered mediation. Without at all entering in a discussion of the objections they have to that measure, still, so far as those objections are exhibited in your letter they do not appear to me to go beyond a belief that a direct negotiation would afford a better prospect of success than one conducted under the mediation of any third power. This may be true; but as it does not, however, seem necessarily to imply that the attempt to negotiate under a mediation may not under certain circumstances be made, or that a mediation, where America is concerned, is at all events and in itself inadmissible, I still indulge the hope that your government, finding that a rejection of the mediation is, so far as this mission is concerned, a refusal to negotiate, and placing that confidence in the sincerity of our dispositions and views to which we feel ourselves entitled, will, on a due consideration of the subject, find it practicable to reconcile an acceptance of the mediation with their views and principles.

With respect to the main question, the probability of an arrangement, you are sensible that I cannot at this time and on this occasion enter into details. That I would not have given up my political existence and separated myself from my family unless I had believed an arrangement practicable and that I might be of some utility in effecting it, you are sufficiently aware. The law to which you allude is a municipal regulation, which may, however, be considered as a primary evidence of the general disposition of the American government to advance towards a compromise. On that subject I could not be more explicit without in fact entering into the negotiation itself. I will only state that, however desirable it might be to define with precision and in a permanent manner the respective rights of the two countries on the subject of impressment, I do not hope that this can be effected at this time, or that either nation can be induced to abandon its rights or pretensions in that respect. All that, in my opinion, can be done is an arrangement, by way of experiment, which, reserving to both nations their respective abstract rights real or assumed, shall be founded on mutual engagements in such manner that the failure of either nation to fulfil her engagement shall absolve the other nation from her own and leave her in as full exercise of her rights and pretensions as if the arrangement had not been made.

I have thus freely communicated as far as our relative situation seemed to permit, being well assured that what I have said will be used for its intended purpose of assisting in promoting a restoration of peace. I know how dear this object is to you, and that we both have an equal desire that not only peace but the most friendly relations and understanding should subsist between the two countries. I can assure you that such also is the sincere and earnest desire of my government, and that nothing which can be done in that respect will be omitted on my part or on that of my colleagues. Whatever the result may be, I will preserve a just sense of your friendly conduct on this occasion, and remain with great consideration and sincere regard, dear sir, your very obedient servant.