Talk:Jay Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Should this be merged with Jay's Treaty? olderwiser 01:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No need -- I decided to start merging it myself after taking a closer look at the two. olderwiserC

Shouldn't it be called "Jay's Treaty", not the grammatically questionable title "Jay Treaty" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Angry at Jay?[edit]

Why exactly were the citizens angry at Jay?

As far as I can tell, noone has bothered to answer this question. Septentrionalis 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

American citizens were angry at Jay because he failed to achieve the original goals that Jay's treaty was supposed to accomplish. For example, "Jay was instructed to secure compensations for the British assaults on American shipping, to demand withdrawal of British forces from the frontier posts, and to negotiate a new commercial treaty" (Brinkley). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimmesomeoj (talkcontribs) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

John Jay was Chief Justice of the United State. NOT!!!! Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. WikiPedia's style sheet should correct this throughout. Gary47290 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Gary47290

Jay Treaty[edit]

What was the problem with the article in the treaty concerning Caribbean Trade?

-- 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

It's not a serious matter; but Jay's Treaty appears to be the more common name, and is more natural English. Bemis: Jay's Treaty is still the standard reference. It happened that Jay's Treaty was merged into Jay Treaty. Let's merge the other way.


  • Support as nom. Septentrionalis 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Negative. Bemis book was 75 years ago; more recent books use "Jay Treaty" as Elkins & McKitrcik; The leading journals use Jay Treaty: Estes Todd. "THE ART OF PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP: GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE JAY TREATY" Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 2001 109(2): 127-158. ISSN: 0042-6636; Todd, "SHAPING THE POLITICS OF PUBLIC OPINION: FEDERALISTS AND THE JAY TREATY DEBATE." Journal of the Early Republic 2000 20(3): 393-422. ISSN: 0275-1275; Farrell, James M. "FISHER AMES AND POLITICAL JUDGMENT: REASON, PASSION, AND VEHEMENT STYLE IN THE JAY TREATY SPEECH" Quarterly Journal of Speech 1990 76(4): 415-434. Fewster, Joseph M. "THE JAY TREATY AND BRITISH SHIP SEIZURES: THE MARTINIQUE CASES." William and Mary Quarterly 1988 45(3): 426-452. ISSN: 0043-5597 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talkcontribs) {{{2}}}.


  • Conflicted. Jay and Jay's are both visible in an Amazon search in recent (2000+) works. The State Department uses John Jay's Treaty and the Library of Congress Jay's Treaty, but the Senate uses Jay Treaty (as well as "John Jay's treaty). --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I take it nobody wants to follow the State department with John Jay's Treaty. The most official website is the John Jay papers that uses Jay Treaty. Rjensen 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Not particularly; it lets them start "Chief Justice of the United States John Jay..." Septentrionalis 23:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elkins and McKitrick[edit]

It would help if Rjensen would pay more attention to the sources he cites. Elkins and McKitrick do outline a "more positive view" of the treaty and its instructions, on page 396; they then immediately acknowledge "one big difficulty": the positive view requires a general process of cooperation between the two parties. In this view, the particular terms are less important than the process of cooperation; terms can always be revised. They then write, with visible regret, that there is little indication that the British had the necessary intention to cooperate. Septentrionalis 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that Rjensen persists in ascribing to Elkins and McKitrick a view of the treaty which they suggest but find unsupported. This is inaccurate; and the inclusion of the view, without the other negative views they themselves note, is tendentious. This is not the work of a serious editor. Septentrionalis 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson seems to know more about the Jay treaty than all the experts who are quoted. That is very poor editing and not allowed OR. Rjensen 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen's omissions from Elkins and McKitirick are misreprewsentation. Septentrionalis 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson simply misreads E&M who are correctly quoted. they say the treaty was a success. They refer to the Jeffersonian objections which are covered in the article. Rjensen 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen quoted E and M selectively and omits large parts of their content. Their final judgment is that the treaty did the minimum necessary. Septentrionalis 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Three paragraphs[edit]

Elkins and McKitrick, p. 396. "What one thinks about the treaty Jay brought back depends in very large part on how one views the instructions he took with him and whether the view is a broad or a narrow ine. The instructions might simply be seen as the agenda for a course of adversary bargaining, which most treaty-making amounts to, the evaluation of which depends on how much each side "wins". These instructions in particular could be judged, as they largely have been, as having a defeatist, defensive, and negative quality. Such was the suspicion many had of them at the time, and the tendency then was to conclude that Jay got much the worst of the "bargain". Such a view has to a great degree persisted ever since.

"Yet these are not the only grounds for viewing the instructions and the spirit in which they were devised. They may well have represented not a cramped holding action on the part of a weak power, but a bold initiative, a grand imaginative projection, simply the first step of a comprehensive policy that would not merely settle outstanding past differences but usher in a new era of prosperity in Anglo-American trade. With the objective so seen, the results might look somewhat different. Jay might then reappear as having made very few errors, and having conducted his mission with a good measure of skill. And evidence, thus re-examined, would give surprizingly little warrant for the traditional assumption that Jay was "outwitted" and "outmaneuvered".

"A more positive view such as this would not be wrong, except that it carries one big difficulty. It would require that Jay's conception and that of his British as to the overall objectives of the negiotiation be essentially similar, whereas there is little indication that they were. True, the negiotiators got on very well, and neither seems to have behaved in a mean and haggling way. Yet the American had a sweeping view of the future , while that of the British was distinctly limited, their minds being essentially elsewhere. They may have been more accommodating than usual, and even more enlightened; they may actually have altered some of their fixed prejudices to for the occasion, in order to placate the Americans. But this was the limit of their concern, which was not really for the future at all. It was simply for reverting to a state of things in which America did not constitute a problem.


Three paragraphs; three points.

  1. There is a negative view of Jay and his instructions, which is still widely held.
    • Compare also p 663: At best, historians have tended to treat the Convention of 1800 rather as they have the Jay Treaty - that is, equivocally.
  2. There is also a positive future-oriented view.
  3. This positive view, however, requires that the British have negotiated in the same spirit, for which there is little evidence; and in fact they were simply interested in getting the Americans off their list of problems.
    • Compare p. 402. in which "both versions" require "a set of assumptions [which] almost certainly amounts to a distortion": that the British had a "central and pressing concern" with America.

In short, many historians have held the negative view [and it can easily be cited since E & M too]; and E and M think the positive view is probably wrong, because it implies that the British cared about America, whereas "they would have been just as glad" for them to "require no particular attention". To omit their first paragraph is tendentious; to omit their last is inaccuracy. Septentrionalis 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The "negative view" of course is that of Jefferson. It was widely held in the 1790s and is fully represented in the article. Note that Perkins has by far the fullest treatment and he is quoted more than Elkins and McKitrick. Are there historians in recent decades who are negative on the treaty. Pmanderson has not found so he should remove his misleading POV flag. Rjensen 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course there are. The difficulty is to find one that isn't. To pick one at random, Bernard Weisberger: America Afire (2000), p. 151. "The final draft, signed on November 19, was heavily loaded in England's favor. [Fur posts]...[mixed commissions]. What Jay gave up for these points, however, was considerable..." Septentrionalis 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty is that the negative and positive view address different things, which is why Ellis can be quoted on both sides. (Jefferson is, btw, more negative than the negative view; neither Weisberger nor Bemis thought the treaty should have been rejected. Weisberger does make a point that Jay could have gotten slightly better terms than he did; as the Senate demonstrated, the British would have yielded on cotton.) The negative view also tends to exculpate Jay: he got the necessary conditions, and he did almost as well as anyone could with his negotiating position. Septentrionalis 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ellis says "the consensus reached by most historians who have studied the subject is that Jay's treaty was a shrewd bargain for the United States." [Founding Brothers 136] Rjensen 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
An evaluation for which he cites no examples, and which omits "the specific terms of the treaty were decidedly one-sided in England’s favor" (from the same page). It is expressly and repeatedly contradicted by E & M (Such a view has to a great degree persisted ever since. and historians have tended to treat ... the Jay Treaty - that is, equivocally.) snd they themselves, although they find the positive view worth discussing, do not endorse it.Septentrionalis 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I see no reason to adopt any view, and never have. Septentrionalis 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now added a paragraph which represents what E & M and Ellis actually say, and their respective views of their fellow historians. Septentrionalis 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


The article had a very detailed analysis based on numerous scholars, along with a detailed bibliography. This all got vandalized so I have restored it. If people want to introduce additional viepoints please do so without blanking large sections. This was one of the main diplomatic and political events of the early republic and demands detailed coverage. Rjensen 01:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

this edit is not vandalism; that would be a personal attack. It is merely inaccurate and misleading:
  • It misstates Elkins' and McKitrick's considered opinion of the treaty, quoted in #three paragraphs above.
  • It omits the large body of opinion, mentioned by them and others, which views the results of the treaty (in purely diplomatic terms) as unfortunate.
  • There are various answers to this:
    • That Jay did return with the necessary minimum
    • That Jay did (almost) as well as possible.
    • That Jay established a long-term relationship with the British.
      • Elkins and McKitrick expressly disagree with the last point. This is also unmentioned.

Rjensen insists on making this article a mass of selective and tendentious quotations. If he does, the result will at least be labelled appropriately. Septentrionalis 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • For example, representing E and M's mixed verdict: Jay's record on the "soft" side was open to many objections; on the "hard" side, it was a substantial success, which included the prevention of war with Great Britain. by its final clause only: It was a substantial success, which included the prevention of war with Great Britain. is a textbook example of selective quotation. Septentrionalis 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That;s fuller accounts of several of the historians involved; the historians, like Bemis and Weisberger, who take the purely diplomatic view are still missing (and I will have to take some time with Perkins' eccentric view. Considering that Salisbury came twice to the brink of war with the United States, it will require close examination.) Septentrionalis 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Friends of the French[edit]

The treaty angered supporters of the French, who were at war with Britain, and became a central issue in the politics of the First Party System. The treaty avoided a threatened war and resolved most (but not all) of the grievances between the two nations and opened a decade of peace and commercial prosperity

I include this silly text in the hope that the next version will not look like it was written by Fisher Ames. The assertion that the actual grievance against the terms of the treaty is what it did to the French is unsupported Federalist propaganda. The extent to which the treaty failed to redress the grievances of Americans was quite enough. Septentrionalis 21:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Our friend Citizen Genet can put all the twist he wants, but the article does report the consensus of historians, to wit "a shrewd bargain for the United States...for it linked American security and economic development to the British fleet, which provided a protective shield of incalculable value throughout the nineteenth century. Mostly, it postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one." What more couls anyone possible ask of a treaty? The point is that the Jeffersonians wanted a war and were very angry they did not get one. Rjensen 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What, pray tell, are the sources Rjensen alleges for this fabrication? I see no claims that Jefferson wanted war; he wanted better terms, and even Bradford Pickens admits that a "more astute negotiator than the Chief Justice" (p.3) could have gotten them. The actual Citizen Genet also believed that Jefferson really wanted to go to war for the Republic; but he was mistaken. And I would appreciate an apology for this series of personal attacks, at last. I am reminded of the old legal adage, "When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, abuse the plaintiff's attorney." Septentrionalis 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Did TJ want war with britain in 1794? He felt that Britain was very weak and that the US should threaten war and punish British trade. If that brought war, then OK, but he thought the threats would succeed. (TJ was therefore very angry when Jay brought home a peace agreement. Some quotes:
TJ TO TENCH COXE. May 1, 1794 We are alarmed here with the apprehensions of war; and sincerely anxious that it may be avoided; but not at the expense either of our faith or honor. It seems much the general opinion here, the latter has been too much wounded not to require reparation, and to seek it even in war, if that be necessary. As to myself, I love peace, and I am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. I love, therefore, Mr. Clarke's proposition of cutting off all communication with the nation which has conducted itself so atrociously. This, you will say, may bring on war. If it does, we will meet it like men; but it may not bring on war, and then the experiment will have been a happy .one. I believe this war would be vastly more unanimously approved than any one we ever were engaged in; because the aggressions have been so wanton and bare-faced, and so unquestionably against our desire."
Merrill Peterson bio (1975) p 545 "When British attacks on American neutral shipping brought the two countries to the verge of war in 1794, the administration, instead of adopting an experiment in commercial warfare such as he and Madison had long advocated, sent Chief Justice John Jay to London in a suit for peace." TJ opposed Jay Treaty because (p 546) "Soon Britain, wracked within by sedition, grain shortages, rising unemployment, and fiscal crisis, would stand alone against France. Peace and commmerce with the United States had become vital to British survival. Yet the American envoy played his cards as if he held the losing hand."
This fails to support the assertion that TJ wanted war. Skyemoor 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Dumas Malone said "rarely did he sound so bellicose" (3:183)
On the other hand, see Bemis 139: "Despite his stiff attitude toward Great Britain, Jefferson never desired war with any nation under any circumstances. He often spoke loudly of it, but his real pull was for peace." Rjensen 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"sincerely anxious it should be avoided", in the letter you quote, seems clear enough. He did not desire war with GB for its own sake, or that of France, but regarded the concessions Jay brought back, which did not include one main point at all, as inadequate; and please note that the proposal he actually endorsed was an embargo. Septentrionalis 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I admire these artful additions:

The Jay Treaty (also known as Jay's Treaty or the Treaty of London), was a treaty between the United States and Great Britain signed in November 1794, and ratified in 1795. It was in effect from 1795 to 1805. The American goals were to avoid war with Britain, to improve trade with Britain, to remove British forts from the American western lands, and to resolve issues of debts and boundaries left over from the Revolution. The goals were designed primarily by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, with strong support from President George Washington and chief negotiator John Jay. With Britain at war with France, the main British goal was to come to friendly terms with the U.S. lest it fall into the French orbit. The treaty was vehemently opposed by Thomas Jefferson and his allies, who favored France over Britain. The treaty became one of the central issues in domestic American politics.

This manages to repeat material already clearly set forth, while omitting the major American goals on which Jay did not succeed. It makes assertions about the British goals which even those historians who agree present as speculation. And the assertion that it was repudiated in 1805 is not sourced; is this a misreading of Perkins' asertion that it kept the peace for a decade? It again makes the same unsourced attack on Jefferson and his friends. Ingenious, but hardly ingenuous. Septentrionalis 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas we have one editor who appears very unhappy that the Jay Treaty exists and blanks all sorts of noncontroversial material including statistics and quotes regarding economics. We really don't need Wiki editors who are unable to come up with an alternative of their own. Ideas are best presented using the qwerty keys rather than the DEL key. Rjensen 02:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC
As usual, Rjensen cites no sources for hiis fabrication, which omits the American goal of ending impressment and the violation of neutral rights. He also commits this peculiar edit summary,("summary is accurate enough--please list any complaints om talk page before blanking") which complains of the absence of the very analysis to which he has just responded. Septentrionalis 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ending impressment was not part of Jay's instructions, nor was dealing with "violation of neutral rights". The Jeffersonians indeed complained Jay did not get these--but of course nobody got them from Britain in wartime--certainly not Jefferson in 1793 or after 1801. It was non-negotiable for the Brits (Elkins & McK p 410) So we have a mere partisan bickering that is simply very old POV. Fact is Jay did better than anyone else and got ALL his sina qua non [Elk & McK 412] as for Jensen's "fabrications" --pray tell, name a few of these. Rjensen 07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"Which, translated into English, means he got the minimum necessary; even that is debateable and was debated then and since. Beyond the minimum, he was given some commercial concessions, which both sides considered unimportant, in exchange for limits on the export of cotton, which he and the British also considered unimportant. The rosy-eyed view that Rjensen would impose on this lead is not serious; it makes the opposition unintelligible, which is presumably why this page is haunted with pro-French conspiracy theories.
As for "neutral rights", E & M mention them in the same sentence as sine qua nons [sic] They at least discuss tnem; the present text sweeps them under the rug. Septentrionalis 19:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's one fabrication. Let's see a source for the treaty expiring in 1805, shall we? Septentrionalis 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From "James Madison: The Quest for National Identity", Harry Ammon: (letter from Monroe to Secretary of State Randolph, 18 Dec 1795 - "Jay, he maintained, had allowed himself to be made an instrument of Pitt's determination to produce a rupture between France and the United States, for it could not be doubted that ratification of the treaty would renew the hostility of recent years. Although Randolph himself was opposed to the treaty, he made no reply, nor did he show the letter to the President as Monroe hoped." Skyemoor 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It was in effect from 1795 to 1805.
And it continued in effect, such as it was, after 1805; the posts were not returned to GB, and the West Indies trade continued. What ceased to exist was the special relationship, if it ever did. Septentrionalis 17:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Jefferson tried and failed to get a new treaty (Monroe). The ned of a treaty of course does not mean that settled issues become unsettled. In the case of the western forts, the US indeed did think the Brits were egging on the Indians again. The point though is that historians say it was effectively a 10-year treaty and so Wiki must say that too. Rjensen 08:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
They don't say so; Rjensen says so. There is a distinction. Those historians who argue for a special relationship admit that that ended in 1805, but that is not the same statement. Septentrionalis 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Jay's negotiations with the British were largely successful. " is strictly POV. Even Randolph was opposed to it according to Monroe. The British continued to harass and impress American seamen and did not live up to the bulk of the treaty, so in many senses it can be viewed as a failure. Skyemoor 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So fix it. Septentrionalis 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1803? 1805? treaty breakdown[edit]

The page gives two different years for the breakdown of the treaty, but no specifics as to what instigated the breakdown. Does anybody have specifics? The Gomm 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The 2007 treaties in force, page 28, at the US State Department with the following note:
"Only articles 9 and 10 appear to remain in force between the United States and the United Kingdom. Article 3, so far as it relates to the right of Indians to pass across the border, apppears to reman in force between the United States and Canada. But see Akins v. U.S., 551 F.2d 1222 (1977)."
Ferritecore 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rights of American Indians / Canadian Status Indians[edit]

It is a little known fact that Canadian Status Indians that can prove 50% Aboriginal blood (a letter from the band council or an Aboriginal government is necessary as is a long-form birth certificate showing both parents) can cross the American border and obtain a Green Card [1] (see page 73). This is a right afforded by the Jay Treaty. 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong / NPOV[edit]

Lots of the information on this page describes success of Jay's Treaty.

For instance, "The Jay's Treaty solved many issues left over from the American Revolution, and opened ten years of largely peaceful trade in the midst of the French Revolutionary Wars." In reality, this treaty solved nothing. It asked for a lot, but the English government basically laughed at the idea of kow-towing to American wants.

Also, claiming "the treaty averted war" is so wrong it's not even funny. Firstly, there was no eminent war before the treaty. It would be is correct that Jay's Treaty sought to end impressment. However, did it? The answer is no. Britain kept on kidnapping sailors until it stopped needing to.

Wikipedia, this article needs some major clean-up. 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Tom Groh

I'm going to have to agree with him even though I am not an expert on this topic but there does seem to be many inaccuracies in this article. From what I just learned in my AP American class the reason why Jay was sent to negotiate the treaty was mainly over the issue of impressment. I also agree that treaty didn't do much since it did not mention impressment and the British kept on impressing American sailors and violate the treaty concerning its forts out west.
This article definitely needs to be corrected
(Noneforall 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC))
historians generally agree that war with Britain was a major risk in 1794 and that it was postponed until after 1805 (after the treaty ended). The newest history of US foreign policy says, in 1794, "the United States and Britain edged toward war." Herring, From Colony to Superpower (2008) p 73; he mentions impressment as a minor issue (p 75), He concludes, "The Jay Treaty brought the United States important concessions and served its interests well." (p.78) So no POV here. Rjensen (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)



An IP ( changed "Treaty of London of 1794" to "Treaty of London of 1795". That prompted me to check dates. The US State Department's treaties in force gives "Signed at London November 19, 1794. Entered into force October 28, 1795." Somebody beat me to the revert. Our article also says that the treaty "was not proclaimed in effect until February 29, 1796." That seems to be wrong unless there is some diffence between "entered into force" and "proclaimed in effect." Ferritecore (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the semantics of the terminology indicates, but Hunter Miller's notes on the Jay Treaty at the Avalon Project describe the difficulties surrounding the ratification process and mentions that the treaty was proclaimed on February 29, 1796. olderwiser 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't change anything because I was so uncertain about the whole business. The State Department source is far from primary, too. The first external link (Jay's Treaty and Related Resources at the Library of Congress) has a number of dates:
  • Signed on November 19, 1794
  • Submitted to the Senate on June 8, 1795
  • Ratified by the Senate on June 24, 1795
  • Required apropriation passed by the House on April 30, 1796
The October 28, 1895 date from the State department site corresponds to the date the site you linked to gives for the exchange of instruments of ratification in London. I suppose it took a few months to get back and "proclaim" the treaty. I have no idea whatsoever why I thought this mattered. Ferritecore (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Canada or "British North America"?[edit]

Wondering if it is misleading to refer, as Canada, the territories to the north of the United States. Pertinent to the entire time that the treaty was in force, the United States bordered on the British North American colonies of Upper Canada, Lower Canada and New Brunswick.

obtained the primary American requirements: British withdrawal from the posts that they occupied in the Northwest Territory of the United States, which they had promised to abandon in 1783. Wartime debts and the US-British North America boundary were sent to arbitration —

Article III of the Jay Treaty declared the right of aboriginal peoples (people indigenous to British North America and/or the US) as well as to US and British citizens in colonies to the north to trade and travel between there and the United States.

GBC (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably the right path is to make the first reference "British North America (now known as Canada)", then subsequent references should be to "British North America", except for any discussion of the current status of the treaty. The U.S. Department of State still listed the treaty in their "Treaties in Force" publication the last time I checked a year or so ago. The current artical has lost all information about how most of the treaty has been superceeded and only the bit about aboriginal peoples having freedom to cross the boarder remains in effect. Ferritecore (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
good idea. Note that minor portions of the treaty remain, but the main parts were explictly for 10 years only and were not renewed in 1805 because Jefferson rejected Monroe's treaty that Britain had signed.Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Indiana?[edit]

Why is this article in Wikiproject Indiana? Indiana was admitted to the Union in December, 1816, well after this treaty. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

George Washington[edit]

"with strong support from President George Washington,"

this is incorrect. As Hugh Brogan suggests in "The Pelican History of the United States of America"

"a treaty which President Washington himself accepted only with the greatest reluctance. It was four months before he could bring himself accepted only with the greatest reluctance. It was four months before he could bring himself to submit it to the Senate, which very nearly rejected it; and then it was two months before he could bring himself to it (August 1795). The country was bitterly divided: as one Federalist had rightly predicted, 'the success of Mr Jay will secure peace abroad, and kindle war at home'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, support or not it was signed under the direction and authority of President Washington, which I have reflected in my edit. Int21h (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

the latest scholarship by Estes (2001) shows GW kept his peace until late July--and then told his cabinet he would sign it and allowing the Federalists to build their grass roots campaign for the treaty around GW's prestige. Estes saus that proved decisive in securing the two thirds vote needed Rjensen (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014[edit]

Notes section, item 19 link to American Foreign Relations site may have been right at some point but links now to an E-N page with no info on Jay Treaty. I searched from the main page of the site and a corrected link would be: GretchenRPH (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinarily biased[edit]

Even by the standards of WP, this article is one of the most nakedly biased and US-Centric pages I’ve come across for some time. It consists of a series of extremely questionable statements, almost exclusively without adequate references. It’s as if written by someone from their half –remembered school history lessons, and unless we get some consensus on this pretty quickly and insert some balance, I’m going to remove a lot of it. As usual when editors discuss the Jay Treaty, it states that Britain failed to vacate the forts. As usual, no mention that this was because America reneged on Articles 4 and 6 of the Paris Treaty and that its state courts impeded the collection of debts owed the British and upheld the confiscation of Loyalist estates, despite an explicit promise not to do so. I have changed this, please don’t revert it.

The article also states that the Royal Navy captured ‘hundreds’ of American merchant ships prior to the treaty. Further down it gives a figure of 250. I would like to see proof of this highly dubious, unsourced claim. In many cases what the RN was actually doing was intercepting cargos of grain under the right of Angary since there was a famine going on. As such it was basically compulsory purchasing the cargoes, hence the arbitration to agree a proper figure. If the 250 figure is accurate then fine, but we need a reliable source. It states also that the British were ‘funding’ American Indian attacks on settlers in the Northwest. Again, where is the source for this? Britain did not ‘explicitly cede’ the Ohio territory. What it did was accept - under extreme pressure from Franklin who wanted the whole of Canada as well – that the Ohio territory was within the borders of the United States. This is very different, since there was no reason why the Indian tribes could not exist within US borders the same as the Amish, Mormon and Puritan communities did, and did not mean Britain accepted the right of Americans to push the Indians off their land and take it. Clearly they had a lot of faith in the patriots to keep their word, but it was not until the Presidency of Andrew Jackson that the US government definitely declared that there would be no independent Indian states within US borders. And of course the ‘Indian attacks’ were people trying to defend their freedom, liberty & way of life, something that was fine for Americans to do in 1775 but clearly not applicable to Native Americans. And as usual no mention that the ‘American sailors’ were generally ex-British sailors. Finally, where it says that ‘American merchants wanted the British West Indies to be reopened to American trade’, this implies that it was yet another villainous British measure done to spite the Americans, whereas it was simply a result of independence; they were not British citizens anymore, so not automatically entitled to trade there.--Godwhale (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)