tv Lectures in History 1783 Treaty of Paris CSPAN January 29, 2021 11:51am-12:28pm EST
on c-span3 every saturday at 8:00 p.m. history. "lectures in history" is also available as a podcast. find it where you listen to podcasts. university of north carolina at chapel hill professor kathleen doufl teaches a class about the end of the american revolution and the 1783 treaty of paris. she talked about the competing goals between the united states, british empire, france and spain and how delegates reached a compromise. the university of north carolina at chapel hill provided this video. welcome to history 238 at the university of north carolina chapel hill. in the last lecture that i gave to this class french and american forces defeated the british at the battle of yorktown, and british public opinion had shifted away from continuing this long war to put down the rebellion in the 13
british colonies that were rebeling, so now today we're going to go to paris in july of 1782 where britain and its former colonists were beginning to negotiate. what would be the result of this war for american independence? first of all, independence itself was a foregone conclusion. the former colonies, the 13 of them that have risen in rebellion against their empire, were going to be an independent nation there. had been several attempts by the british over the course of the war to negotiate an end to the war giving these colonies everything short of independence. the colonies had decided to keep fighting, and so one result of the treaty of paris in 1782 was definitely that they were going to be independent. there were three issues that were to be decided in paris.
first of all, the post-war relationship between great britain and its former colonies, especially the economic relationship where they have no relationship, would they be enemies? would they not trade? would they go back to the post-war status of an empire and its colonies in economic terms where the united states would produce raw materials for the industrializing empire of great britain? or would they find a way to be more equal, friendly nations, allied nations perhaps. what would be the relation between great britain and the united states? second, what would be the fate of loyalists, people in the united states who had opposed the rebellion and independents, including enslaved people who had escaped to british lines over the course of the war, and, third, how big would the united
states be? would britain surrender just the atlantic coast or also the lands west of the appalachians, canada, florida? would those places be part of the united states? would they continue to be part of the british empire? at the opening of negotiations, benjamin franklin told british officials that given the fact that there they would have to recognize american independence, they should mollify the american people, and importantly, franklin argued, keep the united states from being dependant on france, britain's main enemy, by bringing the united states into a good relationship with britain, bringing the united states back into the british fold, even as it continued as an independent nation. franklin warned the british this reconciliation may not be easy.
americans are very angry about this war. this war went on a long time. there was a lot of suffering. you're going to have to give them something big, and franklin suggested the solution to this problem, the way to bring the united states back into the arms of great britain was to give the united states all british lands on the continent as reparations for the war, give the united states canada, give them the west, give them florida. the that will appease them now, pull them away from france, and it will help prevent conflict in the future, he said, because if britain claims lands out there on the edge of the united states, that's going to lead to conflict before too long, between the united states and britain, so basically franklin's proposal looked something like
this. it was audacious. this new united states was in debt. they owed money to british merchants. they owed money to france and spain. they had no way of raising revenue, of forcing anybody to pay revenue to the federal treasury to repay this debt. they had an unpaid hungry army that knew it had just won a war and expected to be rewarded. the british still occupy new york city, charleston and savannah. all of canada was securely held by britain and had -- canadians had proved during the war that they did not want to be part of the united states. they had ever opportunity to join the united states. in the west, the posts and the great lakes were still held by the british. in west florida if you'll remember from a previous lecture the spanish had won several posts from britain. the spanish hold mobile and pensacola, and there were native
nations throughout the region, the continent, of course, that had not surrendered when the british surrendered at yorktown, but benjamin franklin could make the most outrageous appropriate sols sound reasonable. the new british prime minister listened to a point. he definitely said we will not give you canada. that is not happening, franklin, but he told franklin britain would be willing, we would be willing to surrender the west south of the great lakes, so not canada but everything to the south, and britain's reasoning here, in addition to franklin's reasons were this is a troublesome place. some of it at the end of the revolution was actually held by spain. spain had won from britain during the war. it was an expensive place to maintain, and it was full ever native allies of britain who very much ran the place themselves. britain really did not control the west in any way.
the now, of course, the very native allies would be outraged, would be disgusted by britain's betrayal of them in giving this place away and even imagining that they could give this place away to the united states but there were no nate f-american representatives in paris in 1782. now, americans' european allies france and spain were there in paris and spain was absolutely knew. they had won a lot of this territory from britain during the war and spain also held louisiana and texas and florida so the entire western two-thirds or so of the continent was recognized by europeans as being part of the spanish empire as well as, of course, mexico and places to the south.
place benjamin franklin would have to maneuver around this. so we can compare -- if we sort of think of this rather than benjamin franklin's audacious proposal that all of north america that britain has any claim to should be part of the united states. this is the sort of more reasonable why of the united states, that they get the eastern seaboard which had been the 13 colonies and pretty much everything else to the mississippi river except for the narrowest definition of what belongs to spain, posts that spain had won during the war and britain has already said they will return florida, the state of florida to spain at the end of the revolution. so that's what the united states more realistically wants. spain made a proposal of a smaller united states, that the united states can have the places that they cleary role,
that was granted independence to from maine to georgia but that everything west of the a latchians should be spain's because it was won during the course of the american revolution as well as florida. now france needed to appease spain for the participation into the war. france had a drowned spain into the war and once of the things france promised to spain was they would win back begin $. that's the very piece of land at the tip of spain and it irritated to no end that the british had occupied in 1704. now gibraltar had been contested. it's obviously a key position, entrance to the mediterranean there between the atlantic and the mediterranean. gibraltar had been contested since antiquity ata occupied in fun byxlñ' venetans
romans, visigohts, british, spain in 1974. in 1979 after spain joined the american revolutionary war against britain the spanish and the french began what historians count as the 14th ever seize of gibraltar. they besieged the british at land from spain by sea. gibraltar was blockaded for three years, seven months and 12 days. the final days of the seize of begin $came in early of september 1882. during the negotiations that were ongoing in paris that had begun in july. in a six-day battle, the british destroyed the floating batteries that the spanish had
constructed. the british drove back the spanish and killed more than 1,000 of the spanish and others who were besieging gibraltar so france needed a compensation package for spain because they were not going to get gibraltar back so here's photographs's proposal, and you can see it's sort of in between what the united states is asking for and what the spanish suggest. the french say, okay, yes. the americans obviously get what had been the 13 colonies. they also get to keep eastern kentucky, what we know as eastern kentucky and tennessee, the lands between the ohio and tennessee rivers. the spanish get the floridas, of course, because they won them in the war and will draw that border where the spanish have won at -- at the tennessee river. so you can see part of what's now mississippi and alabama and
western georgia. it will go to spain under the french proposal. the british said they should keep the northwest and the region north of the ohio river. now, this seems like a strange proposal for the french to be suggesting that they give more to their british enemies than -- than the americans would give to the british. but the reason for that is that the french were determined to keep the united states as weak as possible and keeping them weak and dependent on the france which is what france wants would be easier if the british are a strong neighbor on the u.s. border. if the u.s. is scared of the british, they will more dependant on the french. 9 american delegation faced a delicate situation. the enemy was offering them a deal that they wanted and their
ally was opposed to it. congress sent john adams to help. now, benjamin franklin is a consummate diplomat, politician. he had some resentment at britain for sure. he wore the same coat to the peace negotiations in france that he had been wearing when he was humiliated in front of parliament in 1774, and he had a good experience in paris during the war. but john adams was firmly anti-french and grumbled that the policy of the count of verheijens, listens to how adams described it, to keep his hand under our chin to prevent us from drowning but not to lift our heads above the water so adams is very suspicious of the french and their motives and their desire to keep the united states under their thumb.
at dinner he went -- he was convinced that the count of vergens and his wife were hosting his dinner and trying to get him to put down his guard. adams wrote she made me sit next to her at her right and and was attentive to me at all times. the count who sat opposite was constantly calling out to see what i was eat. he was convinced that they weren't just being good hosts, offering wine and making conversation. it was a plot to get him to reveal the american negotiating strategy. now adams was the descendant of puritans. he was proud, writes how proud he was to triumph over this temptation, to not reveal anything, not to enjoy himself in paris. adams, franklin and john jay, also part of the negotiators from the united states were in a bind. under the treaty that they had
signed with france they were not allowed to make a separate peace with great britain, and france under its treaty of alliance with spain was not allowed to make peace without spain's agreement so the americans really felt that they were being held hostage for spain's benefit, and they realized the best terms for the united states would be a separate peace with great britain, and that's what they did, despite their alliance with france. the united states and great britain signed the treaty of paris. commissioners from both sides signed the treaty of paris on september 2nd, 1783. the british commissioners were disgusted enough to sit for the portrait of they were done with this revolution completely and that's why benjamin west's planned portrait of the british and u.s. commissioners only has the u.s. commissioners in it.
is vergennes, the french foreign minister, was appalled at this betrayal, but franklin hinted to vergennes that if he made too much fuss about it he would be even further push the united states into the arms of the british. better to act upon it now and try to keep the u.s. and french relationships strong. france signed treaties with brit eastern as well and the war was over. the united states delegation went behind their back because they got all that i hoped for and almost all they dreamed of. the treaty of paris gave the united states independence, of course. it declared the united states free, sovereign and independent. the british agreed to withdraw their troops from american territory with all -- with all
convenient speed. the british gave them to john adams' demands about the right to fish off of newfoundland in nova scotia. that was important to new england. the british promised the united states unencumbered navigation of the mississippi river. we'll return to that in a moment. and the british backed off on their demand for loyalists. all they did in the british of paris, the british, insist that congress recommend to the states that refugees, loyalist refugees be allowed to come home and reclaim their property. both the united states and the british knew that the states would probably ignore this recommendation. the article 7 of the treaty promised that britain would evacuate occupied areas without, and this is quoting from the treaty, without carrying a way any negroes or other property of
the american inhabitants. in other words, those enslaved africans, african-americans who had gone to british lines would just be returned to their masters. finally the treaty gave everything between the atlantic and the mississippi river, including the entire transappalachian west from the great lakes, to canada south to florida to the united states, completely ignoring spain except for that sliver of florida and completely ignoring britain's native allies and all of the native people who lived in and controlled that place, so to recap. in the treaty of paris the united states sold out its french and spanish allies, and britain sold out its native and african-american allies. the british evacuated new york city, charleston and savannah. many generals on the crowned though ignored article 7. they took black and white
loyalists with them when they left. they just were not going to abandon enslaved people who had run to the british for safety back into the hands of their former masters. so, for example, in new york city in late fall of 1783 more than 27,000 soldiers, british soldiers and three -- more than -- let me start over. more than 27,000 british soldiers and 30,000 more, 30,000 black and white loyalists were evacuated from new york city on 100 ships. before they left new york city british soldiers cut the threes were used to hoist the flag and let the british fly until the southern tip of manhattan and then they greased the flag pole to make it as hard as possible for the americans to replace the british flag although they did. on paper, the paper that the u.s. and the british delegates signed in 1983, the united
states gained a vast western empire on. on the ground though it was much more complicatedch the british continued to occupy forts, including niagara and detroit along the great lakes, and they said the united states had to repay its war debts from before the watch britain would evacuate those posts. spain ended up, as i said, signing a separate treaty with britain in which it received east florida as well as west florida that it had been during the war, that spain had won during the war. the spanish declard that parts of the treaty signed between britain and the united states that gave places that spain claimed as part of its empire to the united states were invalid, and spain basically began to try to enforce its proposal, its
version of the ways that north america should be divided up after the war. spain was already occupied west of the appalachians that it hads soed during the war and because spain had control of new orleans, which it had had as part of louisiana as part of the seven years war, spain closed the mississippi to the united states. now, this is tremendously important to the united states because if they are going to expand, their farms are going to expand across the appalachians, they need to get the agricultural products to market. it's extremely expensive to bring them to ports on the east coast so it would be much more easier, much more prfrtable way are to send them down the ohio and tennessee rivers to the port of new orleans. spain, says you're not use the port of new orleans and if we catch on the mississippi river
that we control we'll seize your goods and your$% boats. >> later thevd;gk6■ nations occ almost all of the contest land, almost all of the land between the appalachians and the mississippi river. some 25,000 square miles. their sovereignty over that land was not only true on the ground. it had been recognized repeatedly by european empires, including by the british in 1763 at the end of the seven-year war and pontiac's war. the leader there did not explain the domination of their land based on a throaty they haven't been a part of and based on a war they had not settled in. it was said we could never believe that your king to pretend to cede to america what
was not his own to give. spain and britain, even though they are enemies of each other, spain and britain both continued to supply native nations with military goods, nuclear weapon and ammunition. they continued to supply the ohio valley confederacy, the shaunees and others there, and they supplied an emerging confederacy, native confederacy, in the south made up of creeks and choctaws and chick saws and some cherokees. both spain and britain hoped to keep native nations as a buffer between their claims, theburyish and the canada and the spanish to the west. the mississippi do you know through mexico as a buffer against american expansion into those places, so if you united states wanted to expant west for which they did they would have to win it on the battlefield.
so it ended with the treaty in 1782 is or the sign mc from 17138 because we do know that some fight issing did continue after yorktown even in mainland north america, but if those battles end by 1783 war continued in the west for another 12 years. this war went badly at first for the new american nation. there were many raids by native warriors on settlements that tried to creep out on native land. there were stifrmishes between native fighting forces and settlers, and there were some important defeats of u.s. troops in this era. in october 1790 the miami war chief little turtle lured an american force that was led by general josiah harmer across the ohio river and deep into pair
try that was controlled by him and shawnees and other members. the regulars were devastatard, many, many, many of them were killed by the confederacy sources. a year later in the fall of fall of 1781 he had a new american army west this. were over 2,000 men in the army and militia and some 200 women, both enlisted women and camp followers. sinclair led them into ohio country to try to defeat the confederacy. by then george washington was president, and he wrote st. claire as st. clair was leaving to warn st. clair. as one whose early life was particularly engaged in indian
warfare, i follow myself competent to counsel general st. clair in three words, beware of subsees. again, and again, general, be wear of surprise. recall george washington was a great general. st. clair not so much. during 1775 st. clair was the commander at fortt ticonderoga and he allowed it to be captured without a shot because he failed to fortify a high ground around the fort. st. clair was more negligent in 1791. posted just a few sent rids overnight and confederate forces, mostly shawnees, swept into the camp virtually unopposed. the militia broke and ran and left the regulars to be killed.
the united states side 630 men were killed and 286 wounded so more than half the men were casualties, and most of the 200 women were either killed or captured. it was an overwhemg defeat for the united states, as devastating as braddock defeat has been at the gunning of the seven-years war. harmer's defeat and st. clair recall's defeat were embarrassing to the u.s. national government and many native fighters persisted in their ways against the american settlers who are trying to move on to their land. now, war also continued in the south, particularly between georgia and the creeks, the creeks being supplied by the spanish. the alexander mcgilvery was one of the creek leaders in this
war. alexander mcgilvery as you can tell from his name, he had spottish parentage. his father was a scottish trader and merchant and his mother was creek and the creeks are natural lineal and by having a creek family and mother through her, alexander mcgivery, despite the name we know him by was fully creek. he was a creek leader. this is not a picture of him. this is a creek leader from around the same time. we don't have a picture of alexander mcgilvery, but this gives you some idea of how he might have dressed. alexander mcgilvery had the ambition of building a sort of southern confederacy to parallel the confederacy we've been talking about, in the ohio valley. the to build it out of his creeks, is chick twos and cherokees. today with the -- with chock that yous and chick saws he wrote that it is well known from
the beginning of the settlement of the english colonies of carolina and georgia up to the date of that treaty, the treaty of paris, never have they had title to or pretended to own these, our lands, so it's reflectioning what the six nations diplomat says. britain cannot give away lands that don't belong to them. they belong to us. >> mcgilvery worked we hard to bring the spanish. the spanish knew that the best opportunity for holding on to it in the face of the united states and the u.s. growing population was a strong alliance with the creeks and other strong native nations. one spanish official wrote about his worries of the unmeasured ambition of a new and vigorous people, hogs tile to all subjection and multiplying with
rapidity. nobody can believe how fast the u.s. population is growing in these years, so the creeks and the spaniards banded together and they officially allied both with each other and with other southeastern native nations, including the choctaws, the chick saws and the group of cher keys who were fill tighting in this era. so, for example, in the treaty of pensacola in 1784, the treaty of pensacola was signed between the spanish and the creeks. the treaty of pensacola declared that the treaty of paris signed between the britain and the united states was invalid in its claim that the british could give to the united states land that belonged to native nations and it was part of the the empire and what it showed us is a native nation can be agree to be part of the spanish empire
because it doesn't except this in any way emt september providing them had a sood srs of mille try change. they would know being part of theouts, it job i have to sounder much of the land-in-the-united states. . the language here is really important. the free nation of xheeks, emergency the history of the king of spain from those who believe they have a sovereign right to their ville amounts. continuing the careful wording the treat of pensacola says spain agrees that the creekmation is proprietor. over and over it says, yes, indian own these lands and other native americans have the same language. the king prompted the creeks to secure and guarantee to them the
lands which they actually hold according to the right by which they possess them. so spain nicks these treat us with the creeks, the choctaws and chickasaws and they even sent more hate to. the united states, so to in -- the united states got everything, that john adams hoped for everything short of canada, that peng minifranklin hoped for. much beyond what they expected, but what was promised on paper was very different from the reality in the early decades of the united states. >> weeknights this month we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span 3. tonight we look at the apollo
space program. less than one year after the nearly disastrous apollo 13 mission that failed to land on the moon and barely made it back to earth, apollo 14 astronauts alan shepard, edgar mitchell and stuart russo blasted off on january 31st, 1971. apollo 14, mission to fromara is a nasa film documenting the third successful mission to land on the moon. fromaro is a large crater where they touch down and spent other two hours execs plorg the surface and collecting specimens. american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up this weekend saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern retired u.s. army general vincent brooks on african-american military service and modern day challenges with cbs "60 minutes"
correspondent bill whitaker. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on real america, the nasa film "apollo 14, mission to fromaro" on the third successful mission to the moon 6 4 less than one y after the nearly disastrousgdc; apollo 13 failed lunar mission. at 6 p.m. eastern on american at facts we visit plymouth, pawtuxet in plymouth, massachusetts to explore a recreated 17th century colonial village depicted in 1627, seven years after the may flower landed and when about 160 pill grimts lived there. at 6 30k p.m. eastern a discussion on the post-world war i era in the u.s. on u.s. army command and general staff college professor richard faulkner explaining a time of racial unrest, violence, a deadly pandemic and the first red scare. exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3.
every saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3 go inside a different college classroom and hear about topics ranging from the american revolution, civil rights and u.s. presidents to 9/11. >> thanks for your patience and for logging into class. >> with most college campuses closed due to the impact of the coronavirus, watch professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting to engage with their students. >> gosh gosh did most of the work to try to change the soviet union, but reagan met him halfway. reagan encouraged him. reagan supported him. >> freedom of the press which we'll get to later, i should just mention madison originally called it freedom. use of the press and it is indeed freedom to print things and publishing things. it is not a freedom for what we now refer to institutionally as the preface. >> "lectures in history" on american history tv on c-span3 every saturday at 8:00 p.m.
eastern. "lectures in history" is also available as a podcast. find it where you are listen to podcasts. "lectures in history" continues now with another class from the university of north carolina at chapel hill professor kathleen duval. next, she teaches about political issues in the early american republic, including clashes between federalists and anti-federalists and u.s. relationships with britain and photographs. she describes the mixed reception to the french and haitian revolutions as well as domestic unrest over whiskey taxes and the alien and sedition acts. the university of north carolina at chapel hill provided this video. >> the articles of confederation passed during the revolution had created a national government that was too weak to run the country. the u.s. constitution written and ratified at the end of the 1780s was intended to d