text:
Social contract
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Social Agreement" redirects here. For the Greek political party, see Social Agreement (Greece). For Rousseau's 1762 treatise on the concept, see The Social Contract. For other uses, see Social Contract (disambiguation).
The original cover of Thomas Hobbes's work Leviathan (1651), in which he discusses the concept of the social contract theory
In both moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment. Usually, the social contract concerns the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory. The term takes its name from The Social Contract (French: Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that discussed this concept.
Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent of any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the "state of nature".[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.
Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and Immanuel Kant (1797) are among the most prominent of 17th-century and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings had natural rights. Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature", human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (civil society) through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign, one man or an assembly of men. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchical or parliamentary). Pufendorf disputed Hobbes's equation of a state of nature with war.[3]
Alternatively, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The central assertion of social contract approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but are instead human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. According to Hobbes (in whose view government is not a party to the original contract) citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the "general will" in Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence.
Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority, and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Classical thought
1.2 Renaissance developments
2 Philosophers
2.1 Hugo Grotius (1625)
2.2 Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651)
2.3 John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689)
2.4 Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social (1762)
2.5 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)
2.6 John Rawls' Theory of Justice (1971)
2.7 David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement (1986)
2.8 Philip Pettit's Republicanism (1997)
3 Critical theories
3.1 Consent of the governed
3.2 Natural law and constitutionalism
3.3 Tacit consent
3.4 Explicit Consent
3.5 Voluntarism
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
History[edit]
The concept of the social contract was originally posed by Glaucon, as described by Plato in The Republic, Book II.
They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice;—it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.[4]
The social contract theory also appears in Crito, another dialogue from Plato. Over time, the social contract theory became more widespread after Epicurus (341-270 BC), the first philosopher who saw justice as a social contract, and not as existing in Nature due to divine intervention (see below and also Epicurean ethics), decided to bring the theory to the forefront of his society. As time went on, philosophers of traditional political and social thought, such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau put forward their opinions on social contract, which then caused the topic to become much more mainstream.
Classical thought[edit]
Social contract formulations are preserved in many of the world's oldest records.[5] The Buddhist text of the second century BCE, Mahāvastu, recounts the legend of Mahasammata. The story goes as follows:
In the early days of the cosmic cycle mankind lived on an immaterial plane, dancing on air in a sort of fairyland, where there was no need of food or clothing, and no private property, family, government or laws. Then gradually the process of cosmic decay began its work, and mankind became earthbound, and felt the need of food and shelter. As men lost their primeval glory, distinctions of class arose, and they entered into agreements with one another, accepting the institution of private property and the family. With this theft, murder, adultery, and other crime began, and so the people met together and decided to appoint one man from among them to maintain order in return for a share of the produce of their fields and herds. He was called "the Great Chosen One" (Mahasammata), and he received the title of raja because he pleased the people.[6]
In his rock edicts, the Buddhist king Asoka was said to have argued for a broad and far-reaching social contract. The Buddhist vinaya also reflects social contracts expected of the monks; one such instance is when the people of a certain town complained about monks felling saka trees, the Buddha tells his monks that they must stop and give way to social norms.
Epicurus in the fourth century BCE seemed to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law being rooted in mutual agreement and advantage, as evidenced by these lines, among others, from his Principal Doctrines (see also Epicurean ethics):
31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.
32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.
33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.[7]
Renaissance developments[edit]
Quentin Skinner has argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory are found in the writings from French Calvinists and Huguenots, whose work in turn was invoked by writers in the Low Countries who objected to their subjection to Spain and, later still, by Catholics in England.[8] Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), from the School of Salamanca, might be considered an early theorist of the social contract, theorizing natural law in an attempt to limit the divine right of absolute monarchy. All of these groups were led to articulate notions of popular sovereignty by means of a social covenant or contract, and all of these arguments began with proto-"state of nature" arguments, to the effect that the basis of politics is that everyone is by nature free of subjection to any government.
These arguments, however, relied on a corporatist theory found in Roman law, according to which "a populus" can exist as a distinct legal entity. Thus, these arguments held that a group of people can join a government because it has the capacity to exercise a single will and make decisions with a single voice in the absence of sovereign authority—a notion rejected by Hobbes and later contract theorists.
Philosophers[edit]
Hugo Grotius (1625)[edit]
In the early 17th century, Grotius (1583–1645) introduced the modern idea that individuals had natural rights that enabled self-preservation, employing this idea as a basis for moral consensus in the face of religious diversity and the rise of natural science. He seeks to find a parsimonious basis for a moral beginning for society, a kind of natural law that everyone could accept. He goes so far as to say in his On the Law of War and Peace that even if we were to concede what we cannot concede without the utmost wickedness, namely that there is no God, these laws would still hold.
The idea was considered incendiary since it suggested that power can ultimately go back to the individuals if the political society that they have set up forfeits the purpose for which it was originally established, which is to preserve themselves. In other words, individual persons are sovereign. Grotius says that the people are sui juris (under their own jurisdiction). People have rights as human beings, but there is a delineation of those rights because of what is possible for everyone to accept morally; everyone has to accept that each person as an individual is entitled to try to preserve himself. Each person should, therefore, avoid doing harm to, or interfering with, another, and any breach of these rights should be punished.
Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651)[edit]
Main article: Leviathan (Hobbes book)
The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the "social", or society. Life was "anarchic" (without leadership or the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract.
The social contract was an "occurrence" during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights so that others would cede theirs.[9] This resulted in the establishment of the state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all".
The state system, which grew out of the social contract, was, however, also anarchic (without leadership). Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (more powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by force. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the realism theories of international relations, advanced by E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that humans ("we") need the "terrour of some Power" otherwise humans will not heed the law of reciprocity, "(in summe) doing to others, as wee would be done to".[10]
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689)[edit]
John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by the Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possessions. Without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, Locke further believed people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Individuals, to Locke, would only agree to form a state that would provide, in part, a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it.[11]
While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that a government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their absolute right of violence (reserving the inalienable right of self-defense or "self-preservation"), along with elements of other rights (e.g. property will be liable to taxation) as necessary to achieve the goal of security through granting the state a monopoly of violence, whereby the government, as an impartial judge, may use the collective force of the populace to administer and enforce the law, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature.[citation needed]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social (1762)[edit]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), in his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract, outlined a different version of social contract theory, as the foundations of political rights based on unlimited popular sovereignty. Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government. Rousseau believed that liberty was possible only where there was direct rule by the people as a whole in lawmaking, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable. But he also maintained that the people often did not know their "real will", and that a proper society would not occur until a great leader ("the Legislator") arose to change the values and customs of the people, likely through the strategic use of religion.
Rousseau's political theory differs in important ways from that of Locke and Hobbes. Rousseau's collectivism is most evident in his development of the "luminous conception" (which he credited to Denis Diderot) of the general will. Rousseau argues a citizen cannot pursue his true interest by being an egoist but must instead subordinate himself to the law created by the citizenry acting as a collective.
[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.[12]
Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free"[13] should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and disobeys the law, he will be forced to listen to what was decided when the people acted as a collectivity (as citizens). Thus, the law, inasmuch as it is created by the people acting as a body, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but rather its expression.
Thus, enforcement of laws, including criminal law, is not a restriction on individual liberty: the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)[edit]
While Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by individualists, libertarians, and anarchists that do not involve agreeing to anything more than negative rights and creates only a limited state, if any.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather among individuals who refrain from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon him- or herself:
What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau's] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, ... is substituted for that of distributive justice ... Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.
—  Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)
John Rawls' Theory of Justice (1971)[edit]
Building on the work of Immanuel Kant with its presumption of limits on the state,[14] John Rawls (1921–2002), in A Theory of Justice (1971), proposed a contractarian approach whereby rational people in a hypothetical "original position" would set aside their individual preferences and capacities under a "veil of ignorance" and agree to certain general principles of justice and legal organization. This idea is also used as a game-theoretical formalization of the notion of fairness.
David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement (1986)[edit]
Main article: Contractarian ethics
David Gauthier "neo-Hobbesian" theory argues that cooperation between two independent and self-interested parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.[15] Gauthier notably points out the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to the challenge of the prisoner's dilemma. He proposes that, if two parties were to stick to the original agreed-upon arrangement and morals outlined by the contract, they would both experience an optimal result.[15][16] In his model for the social contract, factors including trust, rationality, and self-interest keep each party honest and dissuade them from breaking the rules.[15][16]
Philip Pettit's Republicanism (1997)[edit]
Philip Pettit (b. 1945) has argued, in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997), that the theory of social contract, classically based on the consent of the governed, should be modified. Instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured, Pettit argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy.
Critical theories[edit]
Consent of the governed[edit]
An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau's friend, the philosopher David Hume, who in 1742 published an essay "Of Civil Liberty". The second part of this essay, entitled "Of the Original Contract",[17] stresses that the concept of a "social contract" is a convenient fiction:
As no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. ... The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him.
—  David Hume, "On Civil Liberty" [II.XII.1][17]
Hume argued that consent of the governed was the ideal foundation on which a government should rest, but that it had not actually occurred this way in general.
My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted.
—  Ibid II.XII.20
Natural law and constitutionalism[edit]
Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued[18] that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, this does not constitute consent to all rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O. A. Brownson,[19] who argued that, in a sense, three "constitutions" are involved: first, the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law"; second, the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.
Tacit consent[edit]
The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government, if any. This consent is what gives legitimacy to such a government.
Other writers have argued that consent to join the society is not necessarily consent to its government. For that, the government must be set up according to a constitution of government that is consistent with the superior unwritten constitutions of nature and society.[19]
Explicit Consent[edit]
The theory of an implicit social contract also goes under the principles of explicit consent[20]. The main difference between Tacit consent and explicit consent is that explicit consent is meant to leave no room for misinterpretation. Moreover, you should directly state what it is that you want and the person has to respond in a concise manner that either confirms or denies the proposition.
Voluntarism[edit]
According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties voluntarily agree to it, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.
Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; at that time more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that certain features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.[21]
See also[edit]
Philosophy portal
Mandate of Heaven
Classical republicanism
Consent
Contract
Epicurean ethics
Federalism
Mandate (politics)
Mayflower Compact
Monarchomachs
The Racial Contract
Right of rebellion
School of Salamanca
Social capital
Social cohesion
Social Contract (Britain) - British Labour Party policy involving trade-offs between employment conditions and social welfare
Social disintegration
Social Justice in the Liberal State
Social rights (social contract theory)
Social solidarity
Societal collapse
Consent theory
Crito – dialogue by Plato
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "For the name social contract (or original contract) often covers two different kinds of contract, and, in tracing the evolution of the theory, it is well to distinguish them. Both were current in the 17th century and both can be discovered in Greek political thought. ... [The first] generally involved some theory of the origin of the state. The second form of social contract may be more accurately called the contract of government, or the contract of submission.... Generally, it has nothing to do with the origins of society, but, presupposing a society already formed, it purports to define the terms on which that society is to be governed: the people have made a contract with their ruler which determines their relations with him. They promise him obedience, while he promises his protection and good government. While he keeps his part of the bargain, they must keep theirs, but if he misgoverns the contract is broken and allegiance is at an end." J. W. Gough, The Social Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), pp. 2–3. Modern revivals of social contract theories have not been as concerned with the origin of the state.
Jump up ^ Ross Harrison writes that "Hobbes seems to have invented this useful term." See Ross Harrison, Locke, Hobbs, and Confusion's Masterpiece (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 70. The phrase "state of nature" does occur, in Thomas Aquinas's Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, Question 19, Article 1, Answer 13. However, Aquinas uses it in the context of a discussion of the nature of the soul after death, not in reference to politics.
^ Jump up to: a b Patrick Riley, The Social Contract and Its Critics, chapter 12 in The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought, Eds. Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler, Vol 4 of The Cambridge History of Political Thought (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 347–75.
Jump up ^ The Republic, Book II. Quoted from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.3.ii.html
Jump up ^ "https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/enlightenment--33?print=1". www.timetoast.com. Retrieved 2016-11-10. External link in |title= (help)
Jump up ^ AL Basham, The Wonder That Was India, pp. 83
Jump up ^ Vincent Cook (2000-08-26). "Principal Doctrines". Epicurus. Retrieved 2012-09-26.
Jump up ^ Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume 2: The Age of the Reformation (Cambridge, 1978)
Jump up ^ E.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same.
Jump up ^ Hobbes, Thomas (1985). Leviathan. London: Penguin. p. 223.
Jump up ^ Gaba, Jeffery (Spring 2007). "John Locke and the Meaning of the Takings Clause". Missouri Law Review. 72 (2).
Jump up ^ Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Oeuvres complètes, ed. B. Gagnebin and M. Raymond (Paris, 1959–95), III, 361; The Collected Writings of Rousseau, ed. C. Kelley and R. Masters (Hanover, 1990–), IV, 139.
Jump up ^ Oeuvres complètes, III, 364; The Collected Writings of Rousseau, IV, 141.
Jump up ^ • Gerald Gaus and Shane D. Courtland, 2011, "Liberalism", 1.1, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Immanuel Kant, ([1797]). The Metaphysics of Morals, Part 1.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Social Contract Theory [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". Iep.utm.edu. 2004-10-15. Retrieved 2011-01-20.
^ Jump up to: a b "Contractarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2011-01-20.
^ Jump up to: a b Hume, David. Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, Part II, Essay XII, Of The Original Contract.
Jump up ^ Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, Randy Barnett (2004)
^ Jump up to: a b O. A. Brownson (1866). "The American Republic: its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny". Retrieved 2011-02-13.
Jump up ^ "Gaining explicit consent under the GDPR". IT Governance Blog. 2017-07-05. Retrieved 2018-02-08.
Jump up ^ Joseph Kary, "Contract Law and the Social Contract: What Legal History Can Teach Us About the Political Theory of Hobbes and Locke", 31 Ottawa Law Review 73 (Jan. 2000)
Further reading[edit]
Ankerl, Guy. Towards a Social Contract on a Worldwide Scale: Solidarity contracts. Research series. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies [Pamphlet], 1980, ISBN 92-9014-165-4.
Carlyle, R. W. A History of mediæval political theory in the West. Edinburgh London: W. Blackwood and sons, 1916.
Falaky, Faycal (2014). Social Contract, Masochist Contract: Aesthetics of Freedom and Submission in Rousseau. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-4989-0
Gierke, Otto Friedrich Von and Ernst Troeltsch. Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500 to 1800. Translated by Sir Ernest Barker, with a Lecture on "The Ideas of Natural Law and Humanity", by Ernst Troeltsch. Cambridge: The University Press, 1950.
Gough, J. W.. The Social Contract. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1936.
Harrison, Ross. Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion's Empire: an Examination of Seventeenth-Century Political Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651.
Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government 1689.
Narveson, Jan; Trenchard, David (2008). "Contractarianism/Social Contract". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 103–05. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n66. ISBN 978-1412965804. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
Pettit, Philip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, ISBN 0-19-829083-7, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997
Pufendorf, Samuel, James Tully and Michael Silverthorne. Pufendorf: On the Duty of Man and Citizen according to Natural Law. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge University Press 1991.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice (1971)
Riley, Patrick. "How Coherent is the Social Contract Tradition?" Journal of the History of Ideas 34: 4 (Oct. – Dec., 1973): 543–62.
Riley, Patrick. Will and Political Legitimacy: A Critical Exposition of Social Contract Theory in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1982.
Riley, Patrick. The Social Contract and Its Critics, chapter 12 in The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought. Eds. Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler. Vol 4 of The Cambridge History of Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, 2006. pp. 347–75.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right (1762)
External links[edit]
Library resources about
Social contract
Resources in your library
Resources in other libraries
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Social Contract.
"The Social Contract". In Our Time (7 Feb 2008). BBC Radio Program. Melvyn Bragg, moderator; with Melissa Lane, Cambridge University; Susan James, University of London; Karen O'Brien, University of Warwick.
"Game Theory". In Our Time (May 10, 2012). BBC Radio Program. Melvin Bragg, moderator, with Ian Stewart, Emeritus, University of Warwick, Andrew Colman, University of Leicester, and Richard Bradley, London School of Economics. Discussion of game theory that touches on relation of game theory to the Social Contract.
Foisneau, Luc. "Governing a Republic: Rousseau's General Will and the Problem of Government". Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts 2, no. 1 (December 15, 2010)
"The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics". Constitution Society, website.
Sigmund, Paul E. "Natural Law, Consent, and Equality: William of Ockham to Richard Hooker". Published on website Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism. A We the People project of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Cudd, Ann. "Contractarianism". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
D'Agostino, Fred. "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
"Social contract". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jan Narveson. "The Contractarian Theory of Morals:FAQ". On website Against Politics: Anarchy Naturalized.
A satirical example of a social contract for the United States from the Libertarian Party. Parody.
Social Contract: A Basic Contradiction in Western Liberal Democracy, Eric Engle. A critique of social contract theory as counter-factual myth.
[show]
v
t
e
Social and political philosophy
Pre-modern
philosophers
Aquinas
Aristotle
Averroes
Augustine
Chanakya
Cicero
Confucius
Al-Ghazali
Han Fei
Laozi
Marsilius
Mencius
Mozi
Muhammad
Plato
Shang
Socrates
Sun Tzu
Thucydides
Modern
philosophers
Bakunin
Bentham
Bonald
Bosanquet
Burke
Comte
Emerson
Engels
Fourier
Franklin
Grotius
Hegel
Hobbes
Hume
Jefferson
Kant
Kierkegaard
Le Bon
Le Play
Leibniz
Locke
Machiavelli
Maistre
Malebranche
Marx
Mill
Montesquieu
Möser
Nietzsche
Paine
Renan
Rousseau
Royce
Sade
Smith
Spencer
Spinoza
Stirner
Taine
Thoreau
Tocqueville
Vivekananda
Voltaire
20th–21st-century
Philosophers
Ambedkar
Arendt
Aurobindo
Aron
Azurmendi
Badiou
Baudrillard
Bauman
Benoist
Berlin
Judith Butler
Camus
Chomsky
De Beauvoir
Debord
Du Bois
Durkheim
Foucault
Gandhi
Gehlen
Gentile
Gramsci
Habermas
Hayek
Heidegger
Irigaray
Kirk
Kropotkin
Lenin
Luxemburg
Mao
Marcuse
Maritain
Michels
Mises
Negri
Niebuhr
Nozick
Oakeshott
Ortega
Pareto
Pettit
Plamenatz
Polanyi
Popper
Radhakrishnan
Rand
Rawls
Rothbard
Russell
Santayana
Sarkar
Sartre
Schmitt
Searle
Simonović
Skinner
Sombart
Spann
Spirito
Strauss
Sun
Taylor
Walzer
Weber
Žižek
Social theories
Ambedkarism
Anarchism
Authoritarianism
Collectivism
Communism
Communitarianism
Conflict theories
Confucianism
Consensus theory
Conservatism
Contractualism
Cosmopolitanism
Culturalism
Fascism
Feminist political theory
Gandhism
Individualism
Legalism
Liberalism
Libertarianism
Mohism
National liberalism
Republicanism
Social constructionism
Social constructivism
Social Darwinism
Social determinism
Socialism
Utilitarianism
Concepts
Civil disobedience
Democracy
Four occupations
Justice
Law
Mandate of Heaven
Peace
Property
Revolution
Rights
Social contract
Society
War
more...
Related articles
Jurisprudence
Philosophy and economics
Philosophy of education
Philosophy of history
Philosophy of love
Philosophy of sex
Philosophy of social science
Political ethics
Social epistemology
Category
Portal
Task Force
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_contract&oldid=841983205"
Categories:
Political concepts
Social theories
John Locke
Sovereignty
Social agreement
Sociological terminology
Hidden categories:
CS1 errors: external links
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from February 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikiquote
Languages
العربية
Asturianu
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
हिन्दी
Ido
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Occitan
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
தமிழ்
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
中文
40 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 19 May 2018, at 11:59.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Social_Contract_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
Social Contract (disambiguation)

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: img

attrs: href class

value: i

attrs: class style

values:
/wiki/Moral_philosophy
mw-redirect
Moral philosophy

values:
/wiki/Tacit_consent
mw-redirect
Tacit consent

values:
/wiki/Power_(philosophy)
mw-redirect
Power (philosophy)

values: United States Declaration of Independence

values:
/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)
mw-redirect
The Republic (Plato)

values:
/wiki/Divine_Right_of_Kings
mw-redirect
Divine Right of Kings

values: Edit section: Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651)

values:
/wiki/Natural_rights
mw-redirect
Natural rights

values:
/wiki/Political_realism
mw-redirect
Political realism

values: Edit section: John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (February 2017)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: Edit section: Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social (1762)

values:
/wiki/Political_rights
mw-redirect
Political rights

values:
/wiki/Representative_government
mw-redirect
Representative government

values:
/wiki/Inalienable_right
mw-redirect
Inalienable right

values: Edit section: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)

values: The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

values: Edit section: John Rawls' Theory of Justice (1971)

values:
/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance_(philosophy)
mw-redirect
Veil of ignorance (philosophy)

values: Edit section: David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement (1986)

values:
/wiki/Contractarian_ethics
mw-redirect
Contractarian ethics

values: Edit section: Philip Pettit's Republicanism (1997)

values: Edit section: Natural law and constitutionalism

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
/wiki/Right_of_rebellion
mw-redirect
Right of rebellion

values:
/wiki/Social_cohesion
mw-redirect
Social cohesion

values:
/wiki/Social_solidarity
mw-redirect
Social solidarity

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH3b

values:
nofollow
http://www.randybarnett.com/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://constitution.org/oab/am_rep.htm

values:
nofollow
external text
//lccn.loc.gov/2008009151

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/750831024

values:
plainlist
padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;text-align:left;

values: float:right;clear:right;width:auto;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

values: wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Social Contract

values:
nofollow
external text
http://constitution.org/soclcont.htm

values: Template:Social and political philosophy

values: Template talk:Social and political philosophy

values: List of social and political philosophers

values: Index of social and political philosophy articles

values: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Social and political

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Social_contract
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: عقد اجتماعي – Arabic

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ast
display: none;

values: সামাজিক চুক্তি তত্ত্ব – Bangla

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bn
display: none;

values: Тэорыя грамадскага дагавора – Belarusian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-be
display: none;

values: Обществен договор – Bulgarian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-bg
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ca
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cs
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-da
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-de
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-et
display: none;

values: Κοινωνικό συμβόλαιο – Greek

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-el
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-eo
display: none;

values: قرارداد اجتماعی – Persian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fa
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ko
display: none;

values: सामाजिक संविदा – Hindi

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-io
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-is
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-it
display: none;

values: אמנה חברתית – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values: სოციალური კონტრაქტი – Georgian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ka
display: none;

values: Коомдук келишим теориясы – Kyrgyz

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ky
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-la
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lv
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-lt
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hu
display: none;

values: സോഷ്യൽ കോണ്ട്രാക്റ്റ് – Malayalam

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ml
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nl
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ja
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-oc
display: none;

values: ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਸਮਝੌਤਾ – Punjabi

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pa
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pl
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ro
display: none;

values: Общественный договор – Russian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-simple
display: none;

values: Друштвени уговор – Serbian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sr
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sh
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fi
display: none;

values: சமுதாய ஒப்பந்தம் – Tamil

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ta
display: none;

values: สัญญาประชาคม – Thai

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-th
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-tr
display: none;

values: Теорія суспільного договору – Ukrainian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-uk
display: none;

values: معاہدہ عمرانی – Urdu

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-vi
display: none;

values: געזעלשאפטלעכער אפמאך – Yiddish

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-yi
display: none;

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Social_contract rootpage-Social_contract skin-vector action-view


text:
Adams–Onís Treaty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Adams–Onís Treaty
Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits between the United States of America, and His Catholic Majesty
Map showing results of the Adams–Onís Treaty.
Type
Bilateral treaty
Context
Territorial cession
Signed
February 22, 1819 (1819-02-22)
Location
Washington
Effective
February 22, 1821
Expiry
April 14, 1903 (1903-04-14)
Original
signatories
Spain
United States
Citations
8 Stat. 252; TS 327; 11 Bevans 528; 3 Miller 3
Terminated by treaty of friendship and general relations of July 3, 1902 (33 Stat. 2105; TS 422; 11 Bevans 628).
The Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819,[1] also known as the Transcontinental Treaty,[2] the Florida Purchase Treaty,[3] or the Florida Treaty,[4][5] was a treaty between the United States and Spain in 1819 that ceded Florida to the U.S. and defined the boundary between the U.S. and New Spain. It settled a standing border dispute between the two countries and was considered a triumph of American diplomacy. It came in the midst of increasing tensions related to Spain's territorial boundaries in North America against the United States and Great Britain in the aftermath of the American Revolution; and also during the Latin American Wars of Independence. Florida had become a burden to Spain, which could not afford to send settlers or garrisons. Madrid decided to cede the territory to the United States through the Adams–Onís Treaty in exchange for settling the boundary dispute along the Sabine River in Spanish Texas. The treaty established the boundary of U.S. territory and claims through the Rocky Mountains and west to the Pacific Ocean, in exchange for the U.S. paying residents' claims against the Spanish government up to a total of $5,000,000 and relinquishing the US claims on parts of Spanish Texas west of the Sabine River and other Spanish areas, under the terms of the Louisiana Purchase.
The treaty remained in full effect for only 183 days: from 22 February 1821 to 24 August 1821 when Spain signed the Treaty of Córdoba acknowledging the independence of Mexico. The Treaty of Limits, signed in 1828 and effective in 1832, recognized the border defined by the Adams–Onís Treaty as the boundary between the United States and Mexico.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Florida
1.2 Louisiana
1.3 Oregon Country
1.4 Russian America
1.5 New Spain
1.6 Details of the treaty
2 Border
3 Implementation
4 Later developments
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
History[edit]
The Treaty was negotiated by John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State under U.S. President James Monroe, and the Spanish foreign minister Luis de Onís y González-Vara, during the reign of King Ferdinand VII.[6]
Florida[edit]
Expandable map of Spanish West Florida and East Florida 1810–1821
Spain had long rejected repeated American efforts to purchase Florida. But by 1818, Spain was facing a troubling colonial situation in which the cession of Florida made sense. Spain had been exhausted by the Peninsular War in Europe and needed to rebuild its credibility and presence in its colonies. Revolutionaries in Central America and South America were beginning to demand independence. Spain was unwilling to invest further in Florida, encroached on by American settlers, and it worried about the border between New Spain (a large area including today's Mexico, Central America, and much of the current US Western States) and the United States. With minor military presence in Florida, Spain was not able to restrain the Seminole warriors who routinely crossed the border and raided American villages and farms, as well as protected southern slave refugees from slave owners and traders of the southern United States.[7]
By 1819, Spain was forced to negotiate, as it was losing hold on its American empire, with its western territories primed to revolt. While fighting escaped black slaves, outlaws, and Native Americans in U.S.-controlled Georgia during the First Seminole War, American General Andrew Jackson had pursued them into Spanish Florida. He attacked and captured forts, such as the so-called "Negro Fort" (an abandoned British fort manned by escaped slaves and Native Americans), in Florida that he thought were assisting the raids into American territory.
To stop the Seminole Indians based in East Florida from raiding Georgia settlements and offering havens for runaway slaves, the U.S. Army led increasingly frequent incursions into Spanish territory. This included the 1817–1818 campaign by Andrew Jackson that became known as the First Seminole War, after which the U.S. effectively seized control of Northeastern Florida; albeit for purposes of lawful government and administration (in the state of Georgia); but not for the outright annexation of territory for Georgia; for additional US Territory; or, for the creation of another US State.
Secretary of State John Quincy Adams said the US had to take control because Florida (along the border of Georgia & Alabama Territory) had become "a derelict open to the occupancy of every enemy, civilized or savage, of the United States, and serving no other earthly purpose than as a post of annoyance to them."[8] Spain asked for British intervention, but London declined to assist Spain in the negotiations. Some of President James Monroe's cabinet demanded Jackson's immediate dismissal for invading Florida, but Adams realized that his success had given the U.S. a favorable diplomatic position. Adams was able to negotiate very favorable terms.[7]
Louisiana[edit]
Expandable map of the Mississippi River Basin
In 1521, the Spanish Empire created the Virreinato de Nueva España (Viceroyalty of New Spain) to govern its conquests in the Caribbean, North America, and later the Pacific Ocean. In 1682, La Salle claimed La Louisiane for France.[9] For the Spanish Empire, this was an intrusion into the northeastern frontier of Nueva España. In 1691, Spain created the Province of Tejas in Nueva España in an attempt to inhibit French settlement west of the Mississippi River. Fearing the loss of his American territories in the Seven Years' War, King Louis XV of France ceded La Louisiane to King Charles III of Spain with the secret Treaty of Fontainebleau in 1762. The Treaty of Paris of 1763 split La Louisiane with the portion east of the Mississippi River becoming a part of British North America and the portion west of the river becoming the District of Luisiana of Nueva España. This eliminated the French threat to Nueva España, and the Spanish provinces of Luisiana, Tejas, and Santa Fe de Nuevo México coexisted with only loosely defined borders. In 1800, French General Napoleon Bonaparte forced King Charles IV of Spain to cede Luisiana to France with the secret Third Treaty of San Ildefonso. Spain continued to administer Luisiana until 1802, when Spain publicly transferred the district to France. The following year, Napoleon sold La Louisiane to the United States to raise money for his military campaigns.
The United States and the Spanish Empire disagreed over the territorial boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The United States maintained the claim of France that Louisiana included the Mississippi River and "all lands whose waters flow to it." To the west of New Orleans, the United States assumed the French claim to all land east and north of the Sabine River.[10][11] Spain maintained that all land west of the Calcasieu River and south of the Arkansas River belonged to Tejas and Santa Fe de Nuevo México (see #New Spain.)
Oregon Country[edit]
Expandable map of the Columbia River Basin
The United Kingdom claimed the region west of the Continental Divide between the undefined borders of Alta California and Russian Alaska on the basis of (1) the third voyage of James Cook in 1778, (2) the Vancouver Expedition in 1791–1795, (3) the solo journey of Alexander Mackenzie to the North Bentinck Arm (52°22′43″N 127°28′14″W / 52.37861°N 127.47056°W / 52.37861; -127.47056 (Alexander Mackenzie marker)) in 1792–1793, and (4) the exploration of David Thompson in 1807–1812. The Third Nootka Convention of 1794 called for the joint and exclusive British–Spanish exploitation of the region.
The United States claimed essentially the same region on the basis of (1) the voyage of Robert Gray up the Columbia River in 1792, (2) the United States Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804–1806, and (3) the establishment of Fort Astoria (46°11′18″N 123°49′39″W / 46.18820278°N 123.8274694°W / 46.18820278; -123.8274694 (Fort Astoria)) on the Columbia River in 1811. On 20 October 1818, the Anglo-American Convention of 1818 was signed setting the border between British North America and the United States east of the Continental Divide along the 49th parallel north and calling for joint Anglo-American occupancy west of the Great Divide. The Anglo-American Convention ignored the Nootka Convention of 1794 which gave Spain joint rights in the region. The Convention also ignored Russian settlements in the region. The United States referred to this region as the Oregon Country, while the United Kingdom referred to the region as the Columbia District.
Russian America[edit]
Expandable map of Russian claims in the Americas 1812–1824
On 16 July 1741, the crew of the Imperial Russian Navy ship Saint Peter (Апостол Пётр), captained by Vitus Bering, sighted Mount Saint Elias (60°17′38″N 140°55′44″W / 60.2937540°N 140.9289760°W / 60.2937540; -140.9289760 (Mount Saint Elias)), the fourth highest summit in North America. They became the first Europeans to land in northwestern North America. The Russian fur trade soon followed the discovery. By 1812, the Russian Empire claimed Alaska and the Pacific Coast of North America as far south as the Russian settlement of Fortress Ross (Крѣпость Россъ) (38°30′51″N 123°14′37″W / 38.5140796°N 123.2436186°W / 38.5140796; -123.2436186 (Fortress Ross)), only 105 kilometers (65 miles) northwest of the Spain's Presidio Real de San Francisco.
New Spain[edit]
Expandable map of Spanish claims north of Alta California 1789–1795
Expandable map of the Viceroyalty of New Spain in 1800
Expandable map of the Viceroyalty of New Spain in 1819
The Spanish Empire claimed all lands west of the Continental Divide throughout the Americas.[12] Between 1774 and 1779, King Charles III of Spain ordered three naval expeditions north along the Pacific Coast to assert Spain's territorial claims. In July 1774, Juan José Pérez Hernández reached latitude 54°40′ north off the northwestern tip of Langara Island before being forced to turn south. On 15 August 1775, Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra reached the latitude 59°0′ before returning south. On 23 July 1779, Ignacio de Arteaga y Bazán and Bodega y Quadra reached Puerto de Santiago on Isla de la Magdalenda (now Port Etches on Hinchinbrook Island) (60°19′49″N 146°36′16″W / 60.3302778°N 146.6044444°W / 60.3302778; -146.6044444 (Puerto de Santiago)) where they held a formal possession ceremony commemorating Saint James, the patron saint of Spain. This marked the northernmost Spanish exploration in the Pacific Ocean.
Between 1788 and 1793, Spain launched several more expeditions north of Alta California. On 24 June 1789, Esteban José Martínez Fernández y Martínez de la Sierra established the Spanish colony of Santa Cruz de Nuca (49°35′30″N 126°36′56″W / 49.59163°N 126.615458°W / 49.59163; -126.615458 (Santa Cruz de Nuca)) on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island. Asserting Spain's claim of exclusive sovereignty and navigation rights, Martínez seized several ships in Nootka Sound provoking the Nootka Crisis with the British Empire. In negotiations to resolve the crisis, Spain claimed that its Territorio de Nuca (Nootka Territory) extended north from Alta California to the 61st parallel north and from the Continental Divide of the Americas west to the 147th meridian west. On 11 January 1794, the Spanish Empire and the British Empire signed the Third Nootka Convention which called for the abandonment of all permanent settlements on Nootka Sound. Santa Cruz de Nuca was formally abandoned on 28 March 1795. The Convention also called for joint and exclusive British–Spanish exploitation of the Nootka Territory. On 19 August 1796, the Spanish Empire joined the French First Republic in war against the British Empire with the signing of the Second Treaty of San Ildefonso, thus ending Spanish and British cooperation in the Americas.
East of the Continental Divide, the Spanish Empire claimed all land south of the Arkansas River that was west of the Medina River and all land south of the Red River that was west of the Calcasieu River.[13] The vast disputed region between the territorial claims of the United States and Spain was occupied primarily by native peoples with very few traders of either Spain or the United States. In the south, the disputed region between the Calcasieu River and the Sabine River encompassed Los Adaes, the first capital of the Nueva España Province of Tejas. The region between the Calcasieu and Sabine rivers become a lawless no man's land. The United States saw great potential in these western lands, and hoped to settle their borders. Spain, seeing the end of New Spain, hoped to employ its territorial claims before it would be forced to grant Mexico its independence (later in 1821.) Spain hoped to regain much of its territory after the regional demands for independence subsided.
Details of the treaty[edit]
Expandable map of the Adams–Onís Treaty
The treaty, consisting of 16 articles[14] was signed in Adams' State Department office at Washington,[15] on February 22, 1819, by John Quincy Adams, U.S. Secretary of State, and Luis de Onís, Spanish minister. Ratification was postponed for two years, because Spain wanted to use the treaty as an incentive to keep the United States from giving diplomatic support to the revolutionaries in South America. As soon as the treaty was signed, the U.S. Senate ratified unanimously; but because of Spain's stalling, a new ratification was necessary and this time there were objections. Henry Clay and other Western spokesmen demanded that Spain also give up Texas. This proposal was defeated by the Senate, which ratified the treaty a second time on February 19, 1821, following ratification by Spain on October 24, 1820. Ratifications were exchanged three days later and the treaty was proclaimed on February 22, 1821, two years after the signing.[16]
The Treaty closed the first era of United States expansion by providing for the cession of East Florida under Article 2; the abandonment of the controversy over West Florida under Article 2 (a portion of which had been seized by the United States); and the definition of a boundary with the Spanish province of Mexico, that clearly made Spanish Texas a part of Mexico, under Article 3, thus ending much of the vagueness in the boundary of the Louisiana Purchase. Spain also ceded to the U.S. its claims to the Oregon Country, under Article 3.
The U.S. did not pay Spain for Florida, but instead agreed to pay the legal claims of American citizens against Spain, to a maximum of $5 million, under Article 11.[17] Under Article 12, Pinckney's Treaty of 1795 between the U.S. and Spain was to remain in force. Under Article 15, Spanish goods received exclusive most-favored-nation tariff privileges in the ports at Pensacola and St. Augustine for twelve years.
Under Article 2, the U.S. received ownership of Spanish Florida (British East Florida and West Florida 1763–1783). Under Article 3, the U.S. relinquished its own claims on parts of Texas west of the Sabine River and other Spanish areas.
Border[edit]
[show]Map this section's coordinates using OSM
Map this section's coordinates using Google
Export this section's coordinates as KML
Export this section's coordinates as GPX
Map all microformatted coordinates
Place data as RDF
Article 3 of the treaty states:
The Boundary Line between the two Countries, West of the Mississippi, shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the River Sabine in the Sea (29°40′42″N 93°50′03″W / 29.67822°N 93.83430°W / 29.67822; -93.83430 (Sabine Pass)), continuing North, along the Western Bank of that River, to the 32d degree of Latitude (32°00′00″N 94°02′45″W / 32°N 94.04574°W / 32; -94.04574 (Sabine River at 32°N)); thence by a Line due North to the degree of Latitude, where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or Red-River (33°33′04″N 94°02′45″W / 33.55112°N 94.04574°W / 33.55112; -94.04574 (Red River at 94°2′45"W)), then following the course of the Rio-Roxo Westward to the degree of Longitude, 100 West from London and 23 from Washington (34°33′37″N 100°00′00″W / 34.56038°N 100°W / 34.56038; -100 (Red River at 100°W)), then crossing the said Red-River, and running thence by a Line due North to the River Arkansas (37°44′38″N 100°00′00″W / 37.74375°N 100°W / 37.74375; -100 (Arkansas River at 100°W)), thence, following the Course of the Southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in Latitude, 42. North and thence by that parallel of Latitude to the South-Sea. The whole being as laid down in Melishe's Map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January 1818. But if the Source of the Arkansas River shall be found to fall North or South of Latitude 42, then the Line shall run from the said Source (39°15′30″N 106°20′38″W / 39.2583225°N 106.3439141°W / 39.2583225; -106.3439141 (Arkansas River source)) due South or North, as the case may be, till it meets the said Parallel of Latitude 42 (42°00′00″N 106°20′38″W / 42°N 106.3439141°W / 42; -106.3439141 (42°N 106°20′38″W)), and thence along the said Parallel to the South Sea (42°00′00″N 124°12′46″W / 42°N 124.21266°W / 42; -124.21266 (Pacific Coast at 42°N)).
At the time the treaty was signed, the course of the Sabine River, Red River, and Arkansas River had only been partially charted. Furthermore, the rivers changed course periodically. It would take many years before the location of the border would be fully determined.
South of the 32nd parallel north, the Spanish Empire and the United States settled for the U.S. claim along the Sabine River. Between the meridians 94°2′45" and 100° west, the parties settled on the Spanish claim along the Red River. West of the 100th meridian west, the parties settled on the Spanish claim along the Arkansas River. From the source of the Arkansas River in the Rocky Mountains, the parties settled on a border due north along that meridian (106°20′37″W) to the 42nd parallel north, thence west along the 42nd parallel to the Pacific Ocean.
Spain won substantial buffer zones around its provinces of Tejas, Santa Fe de Nuevo México, and Alta California in Nueva España. While the United States relinquished substantial territory east of Continental Divide, the newly defined border allowed settlement of the southwestern part of the State of Louisiana, the Territory of Arkansaw, and the Territory of Missouri.
Spain relinquished all claims in the Americas north of the 42nd parallel north. This was a historic retreat in its 327-year pursuit of lands in the Americas. The previous Anglo-American Convention of 1818 meant that both the United States and the British Empire could settle land north of the 42nd parallel and west of the Great Divide. The United States now had a firm foothold on the Pacific Coast and could commence settlement of the jointly occupied Oregon Country (known as the Columbia District to the rival United Kingdom.) The Russian Empire also claimed this entire region as part of Russian America.
For the United States, this Treaty (and the Treaty of 1818 with Britain agreeing to joint occupancy of the Pacific Northwest) meant that its claimed territory now extended far west from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. For Spain, it meant that it kept its colony of Texas and also kept a buffer zone between its colonies in California and New Mexico and the U.S. territories. Many historians consider the Treaty to be a great achievement for the U.S., as time validated Adams's vision that it would allow the U.S. to open trade with the Orient across the Pacific.[18]
Informally this new border has been called the "Step Boundary," although the step-like shape of the boundary was not apparent for several decades — the source of the Arkansas, believed to be near the 42nd parallel north, was not known until John C. Frémont located it in the 1840s, hundreds of miles south of the 42nd parallel.
Implementation[edit]
Washington set up a commission, 1821 to 1824, that handled American claims against Spain. Many notable lawyers, including Daniel Webster and William Wirt, represented claimants before the commission. During its term, the commission examined 1,859 claims arising from over 720 spoliation incidents, and distributed the $5 million in a basically fair manner.[19] The treaty reduced tensions with Spain (and after 1821 Mexico), and allowed budget cutters in Congress to reduce the army budget and reject the plans to modernize and expand the army proposed by Secretary of War John C. Calhoun.
The treaty was honored by both sides, although inaccurate maps from the treaty meant that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma remained unclear for most of the 19th century. The American boundary was expanded in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico.
Later developments[edit]
An 1833 map of the United States in the shape of an eagle
The treaty was ratified by Spain in 1820, and by the United States in 1821 (during the time that Spain and Mexico were engaged in the prolonged Mexican War of Independence). Spain finally recognized the independence of Mexico with the Treaty of Córdoba signed on August 24, 1821. While Mexico was not initially a party to the Adams–Onís Treaty, in 1831 Mexico ratified the treaty by agreeing to the 1828 Treaty of Limits with the U.S.[20]
With the Russo-American Treaty of 1824, the Russian Empire ceded its claims south of parallel 54°40′ north to the United States. With the Treaty of Saint Petersburg in 1825, Russia set the southern border of Alaska on the same parallel in exchange for the Russian right to trade south of that border and the British right to navigate north of that border. This set the absolute limits of the Oregon Country/Columbia District between the 42nd parallel north and the parallel 54°40′ north west of the Continental Divide of the Americas.
By the mid-1830s, a controversy developed regarding the border with Texas, during which the United States demonstrated that the Sabine and Neches rivers had been switched on maps, moving the frontier in favor of Mexico. As a consequence, the eastern boundary of Texas was not firmly established until the independence of the Republic of Texas in 1836. It was not agreed upon by the United States and Mexico until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which concluded the Mexican–American War. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo formalized the cession by Mexico of Alta California and today's American Southwest, except for the territory of the later Gadsden Purchase of 1854.[21]
Another dispute occurred after Texas joined the Union. The treaty stated that the boundary between the French claims on the north and the Spanish claims on the south was Rio Roxo de Natchitoches (Red River) until it reached the 100th meridian, as noted on the John Melish map of 1818. But, the 100th meridian on the Melish map was marked some 90 miles (140 km) east of the true 100th meridian, and the Red River forked about 50 miles (80 km) east of the 100th meridian. Texas claimed the land south of the North Fork, and the United States claimed the land north of the South Fork (later called the Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River). In 1860 Texas organized the area as Greer County. The matter was not settled until a United States Supreme Court ruling in 1896 upheld federal claims to the territory, after which it was added to the Oklahoma Territory.[22]
The treaty gave rise to a later border dispute between the states of Oregon and California, which remains unresolved. Upon statehood in 1850, California established the 42nd parallel as its constitutional de jure border as it had existed since 1819 when the territory was part of Spanish Mexico. In an 1868–1870 border survey following the admission of Oregon as a state, errors were made in demarcating and marking the Oregon-California border, creating a dispute that continues to this day.[23][24][25][26]
See also[edit]
History portal
Geography portal
New Spain portal
United States portal
Mexico portal
List of treaties
John Quincy Adams
Luis de Onís y Gonzalez-Vara
Spain–United States relations
Spanish expeditions to the Pacific Northwest
Alta California (Spanish Upper California)
Santa Fe de Nuevo México (Spanish New Mexico)
Tejas (Spanish Texas)
Louisiana
Territory of Arkansaw
Missouri Territory
Republic of East Florida
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Crutchfield, James A.; Moutlon, Candy; Del Bene, Terry. The Settlement of America: An Encyclopedia of Westward Expansion from Jamestown to the Closing of the Frontier. Routledge. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-317-45461-8. The formal name of the agreement is Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits Between the United States of America and His Catholic Majesty.
Jump up ^ The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Military and Diplomatic History. OUP USA. January 31, 2013. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-19-975925-5.
Jump up ^ Danver, Steven L. (May 14, 2013). Encyclopedia of Politics of the American West. SAGE Publications. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-4522-7606-9.
Jump up ^ Weeks, p.168.
Jump up ^ A History of British Columbia, p. 90, E.O.S. Scholefield, British Columbia Historical Association, Vancouver, British Columbia 1913
Jump up ^ Weeks, pp. 170–175.
^ Jump up to: a b Weeks
Jump up ^ Alexander Deconde, A History of American Foreign Policy (1963) p. 127
Jump up ^ On April 9, 1682, René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle claimed the Mississippi River and "all lands whose waters flow to it" for King Louis XIV of France. La Salle named the region La Louisiane in honor of the king.
Jump up ^ Hämäläinen, Pekka (2008), The Comanche Empire, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 156, ISBN 978-0-300-12654-9 .
Jump up ^ At the time of the treaty negotiations, the exploration of the western Mississippi River Basin had only begun. A modern definition of the border initially claimed by the United States begins at the mouth of Sabine Pass on the Gulf of Mexico (29°40′42″N 93°50′03″W / 29.67822°N 93.83430°W / 29.67822; -93.83430 (Sabine Pass)), thence up the Sabine River to its source (33°19′16″N 96°12′58″W / 33.32108°N 96.21598°W / 33.32108; -96.21598 (Source of Sabine River)), thence due north (a distance of about 400 meters (1,300 ft) along meridian 96°12'58"W) to the southern extent of the Red River drainage basin (33°19′29″N 96°12′57″W / 33.32474°N 96.21589°W / 33.32474; -96.21589 (33°19′29″N 96°12′57″W)), thence westward along the southern extent of the Red River drainage basin to the tripoint of the Red River, Arkansas River, and Brazos River drainage basins (34°42′11″N 103°39′37″W / 34.70300°N 103.66035°W / 34.70300; -103.66035 (Red–Arkansas–Brazos tripoint)), thence northwestward along the southern extent of the Arkansas River drainage basin to the tripoint of the Mississippi River, Colorado River, and San Luis drainage basins (38°20′51″N 106°15′10″W / 38.34760°N 106.25274°W / 38.34760; -106.25274 (Mississippi–Colorado–San Luis tripoint)), thence northward along the Continental Divide of the Americas to the tripoint of the Mississippi River, Colorado River, and Columbia River drainage basins (on Three Waters Mountain) (43°23′12″N 109°46′57″W / 43.38676°N 109.78260°W / 43.38676; -109.78260 (Mississippi–Colorado–Columbia tripoint)). At this tripoint the United States claim to the Oregon Country began (see #Oregon Country.)
Jump up ^ The claim of Spain to all lands west of the Continental Divide in the Americas dated to the papal bull Inter caetera issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, which granted to the Crowns of Castile and Aragon the rights to colonize all "pagan lands" 100 leagues west of the Azores and south of the Cabo Verde islands. This edict was superseded by the Treaty of Tordesillas signed on June 7, 1494, which divided the Earth into hemispheres along a meridian 370 leagues west of the Cabo Verde islands. In 1513, explorer Vasco Núñez de Balboa claimed the entire "Mar de Sur" (Pacific Ocean) and all lands adjacent for the Crowns of Castile and Aragon.
Jump up ^ At the time of the treaty negotiations, the course of the Calcasieu River, Red River and Arkansas River were only partially known and the location of the Continental Divide of the Americas was yet to be determined. A modern definition of the border initially claimed by Spain begins at the mouth of Calcasieu Pass on the Gulf of Mexico (29°45′41″N 93°20′39″W / 29.76125°N 93.34429°W / 29.76125; -93.34429 (Calcasieu Pass)), thence up the Calcasieu River to its source (31°15′56″N 93°12′47″W / 31.2654598°N 93.2129426°W / 31.2654598; -93.2129426 (Source of Calcasieu River)), thence due north (along meridian 93°12'47"W) to the Red River (31°53′34″N 93°12′47″W / 31.89271°N 93.2129426°W / 31.89271; -93.2129426 (Red River at 96°12′58″W)), thence up the Red River to the meridian (99°15′19″W) of the source of the Medina River (34°22′20″N 99°15′19″W / 34.37222°N 99.25532°W / 34.37222; -99.25532 (Red River at 99°15′19″W)), thence due north along that meridian (99°15′19″W) to the Arkansas River (38°03′10″N 99°15′19″W / 38.05290°N 99.25532°W / 38.05290; -99.25532 (Arkansas River at 99°15′19″W)), thence up the Arkansas River to its source (39°15′30″N 106°20′37″W / 39.25832°N 106.34364°W / 39.25832; -106.34364 (Source of Arkansas River)), thence due west (a distance of about 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) along the parallel 39°15'30"N) to the Continental Divide of the Americas (39°15′30″N 106°28′58″W / 39.25832°N 106.48266°W / 39.25832; -106.48266 (Continental Divide at 39°15'30"N)), thence northward along the Continental Divide of the Americas presumably all the way to the Bering Strait.
Jump up ^ "Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819". Sons of Dewitt Colony. TexasTexas A&M University,. Archived from the original on April 28, 2015.
Jump up ^ Adams, John Quincy. "Diary of John Quincy Adams". 31: 44.
Jump up ^ Deconde, History of American Foreign Policy, p 128
Jump up ^ The U.S. commission established to adjudicate claims considered some 1,800 claims and agreed that they were collectively worth $5,454,545.13. Since the treaty limited the payment of claims to $5 million, the commission reduced the amount paid out proportionately by 8⅓ percent.
Jump up ^ Howard Jones, Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations to 1913 (2009), p. 112
Jump up ^ Cash, Peter Arnold (1999), "The Adams–Onís Treaty Claims Commission: Spoliation and Diplomacy, 1795–1824", DAI, PhD dissertation U. of Memphis 1998, 59 (9), pp. 3611–A. DA9905078 Fulltext: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Jump up ^ The Border: Adams–Onís Treaty, PBS
Jump up ^ Brooks (1939) ch 6
Jump up ^ Meadows, William C. (January 1, 2010). Kiowa Ethnogeography. University of Texas Press. p. 193. ISBN 9780292778443. Retrieved February 21, 2017.
Jump up ^ Barnard, Jeff (May 19, 1985). "California–Oregon Dispute : Border Fight Has Townfolk on Edge". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. Preliminary studies indicate that, as the result of an 1870 surveying error, Oregon has about 31,000 acres of California, while California has about 20,000 acres of Oregon.
Jump up ^ Turner, Wallace (March 24, 1985). "SEA RICHES SPUR FEUD ON BORDER". New York Times. The border should follow the 42d parallel straight west from the 120th meridian to the Pacific. Instead it zigzags, and only one of the many surveyor's markers put down in 1868 actually is on the 42d parallel.
Jump up ^ Sims, Hank (June 14, 2013). "Will the North Coast Marine Protected Areas Spark a War With Oregon?". Lost Coast Outpost.
Jump up ^ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (1 Mar 2016). Map: Pyramid Point State Marine Conservation Area (PDF) (Map). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available from: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117182
[show]Map this section's coordinates using OSM
Map this section's coordinates using Google
Export this section's coordinates as KML
Export this section's coordinates as GPX
Map all microformatted coordinates
Place data as RDF
This article incorporates material from the Citizendium article "Adams–Onís Treaty", which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but not under the GFDL.
Further reading[edit]
Bailey, Hugh C. (1956). "Alabama's Political Leaders and the Acquisition of Florida" (PDF). Florida Historical Quarterly. 35 (1): 17–29. ISSN 0015-4113.
Bemis, Samuel Flagg (1949). John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy. New York: A. A. Knopf. , the standard history.
Brooks, Philip Coolidge (1939). Diplomacy and the borderlands: the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819.
Weeks, William Earl (1992). John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-9058-4. .
Sources
Avalon Project – Treaty Text
Text of the Adams–Onís Treaty
External links[edit]
Find more aboutAdams–Onís Treatyat Wikipedia's sister projects
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Learning resources from Wikiversity
Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture – Adams–Onís Treaty
[show]
v
t
e
John Quincy Adams
United States House of Representatives, 1831–1848
6th President of the United States, 1825–1829
8th U.S. Secretary of State, 1817–1825
U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, 1814–1817
1st U.S. Minister to Russia, 1809–1814
Massachusetts State Senate, 1803–1808
U.S. Minister to Prussia, 1797–1801
U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, 1794–1797
Presidency
Inauguration
American System
Internal improvements
Tariff of 1828
First Treaty of Prairie du Chien
Treaty of Fond du Lac
Treaty of Limits
United States Naval Observatory
Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori
State of the Union Address, 1825
1827
1828
Federal judiciary appointments
Other
events
Monroe Doctrine, author
Treaty of Ghent
Adams–Onís Treaty
Treaty of 1818
Smithsonian Institution
United States v. The Amistad
Mendi Bible
President, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
President, Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences
Writings
Lifelong diary
Massachusetts Historical Society holdings
Life and
homes
Early life
Abigail Adams Cairn
John Quincy Adams and abolitionism
Adams National Historical Park
Birthplace and family home
Peacefield
Presidential Library
United First Parish Church and gravesite
Elections
United States presidential election, 1824
Corrupt Bargain
United States presidential election, 1828
Legacy
Adams Memorial
Adams House at Harvard University
U.S. Postage stamps
Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar
Popular
culture
Profiles in Courage (1957 book
1965 television series)
The Adams Chronicles (1976 miniseries)
Mutiny on the Amistad (1987 book)
Amistad (1997 film)
John Adams (2001 book
2008 miniseries)
Adams family
Quincy family
Louisa Adams (wife)
George W. Adams (son)
Charles Adams Sr. (son)
John Adams II (son)
Henry Adams (grandson)
Brooks Adams (grandson)
John Quincy Adams II (grandson)
John Adams
father
presidency
Abigail Adams
mother
First Lady
Quincy family
Abigail Adams Smith (sister)
Charles Adams (brother)
Thomas Boylston Adams (brother)
John Adams Sr. (paternal grandfather)
Susanna Boylston (paternal grandmother)
Elihu Adams (paternal uncle)
John Quincy (great-grandfather)
Related
National Republican Party
Republicanism
Quincy Patriot
← James Monroe
Andrew Jackson →
Category
[show]
v
t
e
James Monroe
5th President of the United States (1817–1825)
5th U.S. Secretary of State (1811–1817)
United States Secretary of War (1814–1815)
Governor of Virginia (1799–1802, 1811)
United States Minister to the United Kingdom (1803–1808)
United States Minister to France (1794–1796)
United States Senator from Virginia (1790–1794)
Delegate to the Congress of the Confederation from Virginia (1783–1786)
Founding events
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Founding Fathers
Presidency
First inauguration
Second inauguration
Florida Treaty
Treaty of 1818
Panic of 1819
Era of Good Feelings
Missouri Compromise
Seminole Wars
Monroe Doctrine
Tariff of 1824
State of the Union Address, 1824
Cabinet
Federal judiciary appointments
Other noted
accomplisments
Negotiated the Louisiana Purchase
Monroe–Pinkney Treaty
War of 1812
Life
Early life and career
Birthplace and boyhood home
Revolutionary War service
Battle of Trenton
Monroe Hill home and office
James Monroe Law Office, Museum, and Memorial Library
Ash Lawn–Highland
Oak Hill
James Monroe Tomb
Elections
U.S. Senate election, 1790
1792
Governor of Virginia election, 1799
U.S. presidential election, 1808
1816
1820
Legacy and
popular culture
Monrovia, capital of Liberia
List of places named for James Monroe
Monroe, Michigan
Monroe, Georgia
Monroe County, Kentucky
Monroe County, New York
Monroe Township, New Jersey
Monroe Hill (2015 film)
U.S. postage stamps
Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar
Related
Virginia Dynasty
Monroe on slavery
American Colonization Society
Family
Elizabeth Kortright (wife)
George Hay (son-in-law)
Samuel L. Gouverneur (son-in-law)
Spence Monroe (father)
Elizabeth Jones (mother)
← James Madison
John Quincy Adams →
Commons
Wikibooks
Wikiquote
Wikisource texts
US Presidency Portal
[hide]
v
t
e
Territorial expansion of the United States
Thirteen Colonies (1776)
Treaty of Paris (1783)
Louisiana Purchase (1803)
Red River Cession (1818)
Adams–Onís Treaty (1819)
Texas Annexation (1845)
Oregon Treaty (1846)
Mexican Cession (1848)
Gadsden Purchase (1853)
Guano Islands Act (1856)
Alaska Purchase (1867)
Annexation of Hawaii (1898)
Treaty of Paris (1898)
Tripartite Convention (1899)
Treaty of Cession of Tutuila (1900)
Treaty of Cession of Manuʻa (1904)
Treaty of the Danish West Indies (1917)
Concept: Manifest destiny
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adams–Onís_Treaty&oldid=802878816"
Categories:
1819 treaties
Boundary treaties
New Spain
Missouri Territory
Spanish Florida
Spanish Texas
Treaties of the Spanish Empire
Treaties of the United States
Mexico–United States border
1819 in New Spain
1819 in the United States
1819 in Alta California
1819 in Mexico
16th United States Congress
History of United States expansionism
History of the United States (1789–1849)
Pre-statehood history of Florida
Spain–United States relations
Red River of the South
February 1819 events
Purchased territories
Hidden categories:
Lists of coordinates
Geographic coordinate lists
Articles with Geo
Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Citizendium
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 29 September 2017, at 01:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: caption

value: th

attrs: colspan class style

value: tr

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: td

attrs: colspan style

value: span

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
external text
http://legislink.org/us/stat-8-252

values:
/wiki/United_States_Treaty_Series
mw-redirect
United States Treaty Series

values: Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776–1949

values: Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America

values:
nofollow
external text
http://legislink.org/us/stat-33-2105

values:
/wiki/First_Seminole_War
mw-redirect
First Seminole War

values:
/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_New_Spain
mw-redirect
Viceroyalty of New Spain

values: Maps, aerial photos, and other data for this location

values: Spanish expeditions to the Pacific Northwest

values:
/wiki/U.S._Secretary_of_State
mw-redirect
U.S. Secretary of State

values:
/wiki/U.S._Senate
mw-redirect
U.S. Senate

values:
/wiki/GPS_eXchange_Format
mw-redirect
GPS eXchange Format

values: width: 23em; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em

values:
/wiki/Anglo-American_Convention_of_1818
mw-redirect
Anglo-American Convention of 1818

values:
/wiki/American_Southwest
mw-redirect
American Southwest

values: wikisource:United States v. Texas (162 U.S. 1)

values:
/wiki/Spanish_Mexico
mw-redirect
Spanish Mexico

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
/wiki/ProQuest_Dissertations_%26_Theses
mw-redirect
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

values:
/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Service
mw-redirect
Public Broadcasting Service

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

values: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0015-4113

values: padding-bottom: 0.75em; text-align: center;

attrs: alt src width height style srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: display: inline-block; width: 31px; line-height: 31px; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;

values: display: inline-block; margin-left: 4px; width: 182px; vertical-align: middle;

values: border-top:1px solid #aaa; padding-top: 0.75em;

values: metadata plainlinks plainlist mbox-small

values: border:1px solid #aaa; padding:0.75em; background:#f9f9f9;

values: List of United States Secretaries of State

values: United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/United_States_Minister_to_Russia
mw-redirect
United States Minister to Russia

values:
/wiki/Massachusetts_State_Senate
mw-redirect
Massachusetts State Senate

values:
/wiki/United_States_Minister_to_Prussia
mw-redirect
United States Minister to Prussia

values: United States Ambassador to the Netherlands

values:
/wiki/Tariff_of_1828
mw-redirect
Tariff of 1828

values: List of federal judges appointed by John Quincy Adams

values: United First Parish Church (Quincy, Massachusetts)

values: United States presidential election, 1824

values:
/wiki/Corrupt_Bargain#1824_election
mw-redirect
Corrupt Bargain

values: United States presidential election, 1828

values:
/wiki/Adams_House_(Harvard_University)
mw-redirect
Adams House (Harvard University)

values: Presidents of the United States on U.S. postage stamps

values:
/wiki/First_Ladies_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
First Ladies of the United States

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Template talk:James Monroe (page does not exist)

values: List of Secretaries of State of the United States

values: United States Minister to the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/United_States_Minister_to_France
mw-redirect
United States Minister to France

values:
/wiki/United_States_Senator
mw-redirect
United States Senator

values: List of federal judges appointed by James Monroe

values: United States Senate elections, 1790 and 1791

values: United States Senate elections, 1792 and 1793

values: United States presidential election, 1808

values: United States presidential election, 1816

values: United States presidential election, 1820

values: Monroe Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey

values:
/wiki/Virginia_Dynasty
mw-redirect
Virginia Dynasty

values:
/wiki/Elizabeth_Kortright_Monroe
mw-redirect
Elizabeth Kortright Monroe

values: Portal:Government of the United States/Executive branch

values:
navbox-image
2
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Category:History of United States expansionism

values: Category:History of the United States (1789–1849)

values: Category:Pre-statehood history of Florida

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Citizendium

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: معاهدة آدمز-أونيس – Arabic

values: پیمان فلوریدا – Persian

values: 애덤스-오니스 조약 – Korean

values: הסכם אדמס-אוניס – Hebrew

values: アダムズ＝オニス条約 – Japanese

values: Договор Адамса — Ониса – Russian

values: Договір Адамса — Оніса – Ukrainian

values: 亞當斯-奧尼斯條約 – Chinese

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Adams–Onís_Treaty rootpage-Adams–Onís_Treaty vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view