What Happened On September 3rd?
On September 3, 1783, diplomats gathered at the Hôtel d’York in Paris to put an official end to the eight-year conflict between Britain and its former American colonies. The Treaty of Paris confirmed the United States’ independence and reshaped the political map of North America. As Franklin, Adams, and Jay sat down with British representative David Hartley, they recognized that this document would chart the course of their new nation’s future.
The American delegation worked tirelessly to secure favorable terms. Franklin led the charge for territorial expansion, pushing Britain to cede lands stretching west to the Mississippi River. Initially, British negotiators hoped to limit American expansion to the Appalachian Mountains, but Franklin’s insistence prevailed. Franklin strategically leveraged British fears of French influence in the region, convincing them that allowing American control of the territory would serve as a buffer against future French incursions. This expansion effectively doubled the size of the United States and opened vast lands rich in resources like timber and fertile soil, setting the stage for economic growth.
British leaders, still stinging from their defeat, wanted to restrict American access to these valuable waters. Franklin, aware of the New England economy’s reliance on fishing, knew that securing these rights would be critical for the livelihood of many Americans. Franklin drew on his deep personal relationships with French officials to subtly apply pressure on Britain. He hinted that France, America’s ally, could potentially offer fishing concessions to the United States if Britain refused. Faced with this possibility, British negotiators relented. As a result, American fishermen retained access to the rich fishing grounds of the Grand Banks, ensuring a steady source of income for the New England economy.
Debt repayment was another contentious issue. The war had disrupted transatlantic trade, leaving American merchants in debt to British creditors. British negotiators pushed for guarantees that these debts would be repaid in full. The American delegation, recognizing that restoring trade was vital for their economy, agreed. Interestingly, Franklin had once been a debtor himself during his early years in London as a young printer. His own experience dealing with British creditors made him sympathetic to their concerns. Agreeing to repay these debts helped rebuild trust between the two nations and facilitated the reopening of trade channels that had been vital before the war.
The fate of Loyalists—American colonists who had supported Britain during the war—proved to be a thorny issue. Many Loyalists had fled to Canada or Britain during the conflict, leaving behind property that had been confiscated by the new American state governments. British negotiators pushed hard for restitution, but John Adams, among others, staunchly opposed the idea of returning properties to individuals who had supported the enemy. In the end, the treaty included a vaguely worded clause suggesting that states should “recommend” the return of confiscated property, but enforcement was left to local authorities.
While the public often viewed the property clause as minor, it hid significant political implications. Jay and Adams recognized that pushing back against British demands in this area gave them leverage in other areas of the treaty. By offering only a token gesture on Loyalist property, they successfully gained more favorable terms on territorial issues and fishing rights. This tactic allowed the United States to keep what it had seized during the war while still moving the treaty forward.
France, Spain, and the Netherlands had all supported the American cause to varying degrees, each hoping to weaken Britain. Franklin, aware of these competing interests, steered the negotiations carefully. France, for example, hoped to keep the new United States from growing too powerful, particularly in the west, where France had its own territorial ambitions. Franklin, always a master diplomat, managed to keep France at arm’s length while focusing on securing American interests.
In one of the more daring moves of the negotiations, Franklin and Jay bypassed France when they discovered that the French had been quietly negotiating with Spain to limit American territorial claims. Franklin understood that France and Spain wanted to keep the United States hemmed in by restricting access to the Mississippi River. Not wanting to be caught in a European power struggle, Franklin and Jay opened direct talks with Britain, securing better terms that included full access to the Mississippi River and western lands. This maneuver ensured that the United States would not only survive but thrive independently of European influence.
Franklin, despite this diplomatic sleight of hand, managed to keep Franco-American relations intact. After the treaty was signed, he remained in Paris to smooth over any ruffled feathers, maintaining strong ties with the French court. His ability to negotiate with Britain while keeping French relations positive speaks volumes about his diplomatic skill.
In Britain, reactions to the treaty varied. For many, the treaty represented the end of a costly and unpopular war. The British treasury had been severely drained, and the public had grown tired of the ongoing conflict. The loss of the American colonies dealt a blow to British pride, but for the pragmatic, it marked an opportunity to regroup and rebuild elsewhere.
Lord Shelburne, the British Prime Minister who oversaw much of the negotiations, faced heavy criticism from his political rivals. They accused him of giving away too much territory and of failing to protect Britain’s imperial interests. Despite the backlash, Shelburne defended the treaty, pointing out that prolonging the war would have only worsened Britain’s financial position. In private, Shelburne believed that the United States, now independent, would eventually return to Britain’s economic fold. He speculated that the strong trade ties between Britain and America would continue, even without formal colonial control.
