Update this timeline entry

Arredondo wrapped up his argument on the boundary of SC/FL

Source: Historical proof of the right of the Catholic King to the territory held to-day by the British King under the name of New Georgia #558

Project ID

Chapter

Timeline title

Start date

End date

Filename received

Filename assigned

Content

46. There is no doubt that if Great Britain now has legal rights of ownership over the country under discussion, it would have had the same rights in the past century and in the preceding one, both because the Spaniards have never held possession of any territory , that has not been theirs by absolute ownership, and because the English would know when and how they had acquired it. In that case, when these controversies began, which perhaps would not have occurred, they would have been quickly terminated through exhibition by Great Britain of her legal titles, such as would have the necessary force not only to satisfy the world, but also to set aside the true right of the Crown of Spain by obscuring the deeds of her subjects and proving false the original discoveries of the Spaniards as far as 36° 30' made by Juan Ponce de León, by the elder of his two sons, by Lucas Vasquez de Ayllón, by Pamphilo de Narvaez, by Hernando de Soto, and by Don Tristan de Luna. In such a view the Spanish conquests, which were made with so many hardships, such effusion of blood, and the expenditure of great fortunes, by Pedro Menendez Marques and his successors, of all the lands as far as Santa Elena, with the settlements and forts which they built, on the coasts as well as in the interior, were mere inventions. The physical and actual possession by the Spaniards of Santa Elena and Santa Catharina from the year 1566 up to 1686 and of the province of Guale up to 1702 was but a dream. The evident and well-established plots of the English of Carolina against their Spanish neighbors, practiced by themselves and the Indians, their allies, were chimeras; and, the treaties of Madrid made in 1670 and 1721, and that of Utrecht in 1713, being useless, it would have been nonsensical of the Court of Spain to give orders to its governors for the recovery and conservation of its dominions, by force or by good will, and to its ministers for the official communications that they were to present in the Court of London in regard to these matters. All the documents, occurrences, and acts which fully justify the right of the Crown of Spain would be null, imaginary, and suppositious. On the other hand, that of the British Crown would be established and legitimate, solely because upon its word, without other authority, power, or justification than that of Sic volo sic iubeo, the decree of gift by Don Carlos II would be true, regardless of the fact that if England had legal right she would not need it, and that if it existed it would not be hidden. It would be true that up to the year 1702 the Spaniards inhabited the district of Guale, now contained in Georgia, and that the English were in possession of it at the same time, even though in the year 1724 it was only forty years since they had begun to trade with the Indians of Tamaja River. It would be true that the predecessors of his British Majesty had granted to his subjects the regions as far as 29° before the treaty of 1670, notwithstanding that those of his Catholic Majesty were inhabiting them. The doubts of the British ministry in regard to the matter would become certainties, notwithstanding its need of a report from Nicholson and from the Council of Carolina for its information. The right acquired through the imaginary exploration of Cabot, sustained ninety years afterwards by Drake, would be unassailable, solely because the former came in sight of land at 60° and farther north, and because the latter, for different purposes and other reasons, went to America, sacked Santo Domingo and Cartagena, burned San Agustin, and returned to England with 60,000 pounds sterling in spoils. It would be clear that in the treaty of 1670 there is no description of boundaries touching upon the rights of his Catholic Majesty, while there is such regarding those of his British Majesty, for the British ministry extends its power to the impossible, reconciling two self-contradictory facts. Injustice would be equity. The violation of the sanctity of laws and the rights of peoples would be friendship. And, finally, the proved usurpation of his dominions would be a wish on the part of the British King to please his Catholic Majesty.