Delegates to Congress . Letters of delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 23, November 7 1785-November 5 1786
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library

| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

Rufus King to To: Elbridge Gerry


My Dear Friend:
New York, June 4, 1786.

   I have long entertained doubts concerning the line of conduct, which Congress ought to pursue relative to the Territory of the U.S. Northwest of the Ohio, and am every day more confirmed in the opinion that no paper engagements, or stipulations, can be formed which will insure a desirable connection between the Atlantic States


-332-

and those which will be erected to the Northwestward of the Apalachian or Alleghany Mountains, provided the Mississippi is immediately opened. The pursuits and interests of the people on the two sides will be so different, and probably so opposite, that an entire separation must eventually ensue. This consequence appears to me so obvious, that I very much doubt whether the U.S. would ever receive a penny of revenue from the Inhabitants who may settle the Western Territory. Should there be an uninterrupted use of the Mississippi at this time by the citizens of the U.S, I should consider every emigrant to that country from the Atlantic States as forever lost to the Confederacy. Perhaps I am in error, but when they have no interest in an Union inconvenient to them in many points, I can discover no principle, which will attach them to such a connexion. I know not what advantages the Inhabitants of the Western Territory would acquire by becoming members of the Confederacy. They will want no protection; their location would sufficiently secure them from all foreign hostility; the exchange of Merchandize, or commerce, would not be across the Apalachian Mountains, but wholly confined to the Mississippi. If these conjectures are just, in true policy ought the U.S. to be very assiduous to encourage their citizens to become settlers of the country beyond the Apalachian? The object of Congress appears hitherto to have been a sale of this country for the sinking of the domestic debt; the immediate extinguishment of this debt is certainly a very important consideration; but it has its price. I suppose that a treaty could be formed between Spain & the U.S. upon principles of exact reciprocity, so that the Citizens of the latter might introduce into the European & African dominions of the former, all sorts of goods & merchandize upon the same terms on which the subjects of Spain could introduce the same articles; and on the other hand, that the subjects of Spain might import into any of the U.S. all sorts of goods & merchandize, upon the same terms, as the citizens of the U.S would introduce the same.

   I suppose farther, that the Treaty should stipulate that all the Masts, Spars, Timber &c. &c. wanted for the national marine of Spain should be purchased and paid for in the U.S. with specie, provided the quality of the materials equalled that of the same articles in other countries. I suppose yet farther that the Philippine Islands be opened to the American ships and in consequence the gold and silver of Acapulco placed within their reach. Add to the foregoing an article, not to relinquish the right to the free navigation of the Mississippi, but "stipulating that the U.S. should forbear to use the navigation of the Mississippi for 20 or 25 years." Would not such a treaty be of vast importance to the Atlantic States, particularly to the Western division of them? Would not the Fish, Flour and other products of the U.S. acquire thereby a manifest superiority in Spain over similar commodities of


-333-

any other country? Would not the conventional forbearance of the use of the Mississippi implicate most strongly the right of the U.S. independent of the Convention or Treaty? If these queries are answered in the affirmative, what objection is there on the part of the U.S. to conclude such a Treaty? This question brings into view the plan of extinguishing the domestic debt by the Sale of the Western Territory, the system whereby it is proposed to govern the people, who shall settle Westward of the Apalachian Mountains, within the U.S., and the ability of the U.S. at this time to contend with Spain in vindicating their right to the free use and navigation of the Mississippi. I am very sensible that the popular opinion throughout the U.S. is in favor of the free navigation of the Mississippi, and the reasons must be strong and important, which could be offered to oppose this opinion. I am also pretty well satisfied that the free navigation of that River will some day be of vast importance to the inhabitants within the Territories of the U.S.; yet admitting, what will not be denied, that Spain will on no condition agree that any people, except those of their own Nation, shall navigate the Mississippi, are the U.S. in a condition to assert their right? If you answer this question as I should, (believing as I do that a war with Spain, France, or England would terminate in the loss of the Fisheries, and the restriction of boundaries, perhaps by the Kennebeck on one part and the Apalachian Mountains on the other) is there any substantial objection against an Article in a Treaty with Spain relative to the Mississippi such as is alluded to? It is a consent to what we cannot alter, considering other benefits to be obtained. It must be wisdom then to consent.

   But how will this article affect the sale of the Western Territory? The answer which the delegates of Virginia (all of whom are probably deeply interested in the Ohio and Kentucky lands) would give is, that the value of the country west of the Allaghany Mountains depends in a high degree upon the opening of the Mississippi. Admit the fact; it is desired that the U.S. should under these circumstances open that River to their navigation. If so the value placed upon these lands which depends upon the opening of the Mississippi, is an ideal value, at this time. With those therefore who do not wish to involve the U.S. in a war against policy and sound reason, this objection is of little consequence. The lands perhaps will not produce so much under the present circumstances of the Mississippi, as they would if the river was open. But to all persons desirous of becoming settlers, they will sell for a reasonable price and go a good way in extinguishing the domestic debt. But how will such an article affect the intercourse between the inhabitants of the Western Territory and those of the Atlantic States? In my judgment, very favorably. If the former are cut off for a time from any connections, except with the old States, across the mountains, I should not despair that a Government might be instituted so


-334-

connecting them with the Atlantic States, as would be highly beneficial to them both & promise a considerable trade.

   My dear friend, after all, these are but speculative opinions, and I am very doubtful of them, when a variety of influential motives, which seem to promise well for my country, authorizes my assent. I alluded to this subject in my last letter to you; I wish for your counsel; I wish the New England States were here. I pray you to read these remarks with candor, and in confidence. If I had taken time and care to have expressed my sentiments on this subject, I would have requested you to have communicated this paper to your friend Gov. Bowdoin and prayed through you his advice. I shall be brought to a decision on this question. Congress must determine. If Spain don't conclude a Treaty with the U.S., I think they will endeavour to guard against the Evils they fear from us, by an intimate connexion with Great Britain. I am of a committee now in conference with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs on this subject.(1) Spain should form a treaty with us, in preference to any other nation, and there is no nation with whom the U.S. could form more beneficial treaties than with Spain and Portugal. Spain will not give up the Mississippi. But I will not add, I write in great haste and in full confidence. If you are at Boston and can consult Mr. Bowdoin I should thank you to do it. I intended to have written to him relative to the Barbary treaties, but have not been able to find time.

   Adieu yours affectionately, R. King

   [P.S.] Inform me of the receipt of this and of my last.

   Reprinted from King, Correspondence (King), 1:175-79. Tr (NHi: King Papers).



1 For the appointment of this committee on May 31, see James Monroe to James Madison, May 31, note 2.