Signed on November 19, 1794[4] during the Thermidorian Reaction in France, the treaty was submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent the following June.

Democratic-Republican politicians feared that closer American economic and political ties with Britain would strengthen Hamilton's Federalist Party, promote aristocracy and undercut republicanism.

[5] The outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in Europe in 1792 ended the long peace that had enabled the new United States to flourish in terms of trade and finance.

"[8] After Britain became involved in the conflict against France in 1793, the Royal Navy seized nearly 300 American merchant ships trading with the French West Indies.

[9] The American public was outraged and Republicans in Jefferson's coalition demanded a declaration of war on Britain, but James Madison instead called for an embargo on British trade instead.

[10] At the same time, the British continued to supply weapons to Native Americans resisting U.S. expansion in the Ohio Country, further worsening Anglo-American relations.

[12] At the national level American politics was divided between the factions of Jefferson and Madison, which favored the French, and the Federalists led by Hamilton, who saw Britain as a natural ally and thus sought to normalize relations with the British, especially in the area of trade.

Several issues were sent to arbitration, which (after years of discussion) were resolved amicably mostly in favor of the U.S. Britain paid $11,650,000 for damages to American shipping and received £600,000 for unpaid pre-1775 debts.

[21] In return, the United States gave most favored nation trading status to Britain, and acquiesced in British anti-French maritime policies.

[24] Jay was unsuccessful in negotiating a temporary end to the impressment of American citizens into the Royal Navy, which later became a key issue leading to the War of 1812.

Article III states, "It is agreed, that it shall at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects, and to the citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said boundary line, freely to pass and repass, by land or inland navigation into the respective territories and countries of the two parties on the continent of America, (the country within the limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only excepted) ... and freely carry on trade and commerce with each other."

As a result of the Jay Treaty, "Native Indians born in Canada are therefore entitled to enter the United States for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration" if they can prove that they have at least 50% blood quantum, and cannot be deported for any reason.

[29] Unlike other legal immigrants, Canadian-born Native Americans residing in the US are entitled to public benefits and domestic tuition fees on the same basis as citizens.

[31] Town hall meetings in Philadelphia turned from debate to disorder in the summer of 1795 as rocks were thrown, British officials harassed, and a copy of the treaty burnt at the door of one of America's wealthiest merchants and U.S.

The Jeffersonians raised public opinion to fever pitch by accusing the British of supporting Native American attacks on U.S. colonizers on the frontier.

The Senate passed a resolution in June, advising the President to amend the treaty by suspending the 12th article, which concerned trade between the U.S. and the West Indies.

The year before he had led protests that included burning copies of the Jay Treaty in front of the home of the British ambassador to the United States, George Hammond.

[42] One feature of this nationwide constitutional debate was an advisory opinion on the subject written by Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, in which he rejected any alleged right of the House of Representatives to decide upon the merits of the treaty.

Jefferson wrote a scathing private letter that secretly called Washington senile and an “apostate” who subverted American liberty to “the harlot England”.

[36][44][45][46] Historians Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick note that, in conventional diplomatic terms and as a "piece of adversary bargaining", Jay "got much the worst of the 'bargain'.

[50] Bradford Perkins argued in 1955 that the treaty was the first to establish a special relationship between Britain and the United States, with a second installment under Lord Salisbury.

In his view, the treaty worked for ten years to secure peace between Britain and America: "The decade may be characterized as the period of 'The First Rapprochement'."

As Perkins concludes, For about ten years there was peace on the frontier, joint recognition of the value of commercial intercourse, and even, by comparison with both preceding and succeeding epochs, a muting of strife over ship seizures and impressment.

[51]Starting at swords' point in 1794, the Jay Treaty reversed the tensions; Perkins concludes: "Through a decade of world war and peace, successive governments on both sides of the Atlantic were able to bring about and preserve a cordiality which often approached genuine friendship.

"[52] Perkins suggests that, except perhaps the opening of trade with British India, "Jay did fail to win anything the Americans were not obviously entitled to, liberation of territory recognized as theirs since 1782, and compensation for seizures that even Britain admitted were illegal".

In addition, Perkins noted that the Royal Navy treated American commerce with "relative leniency" during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and many impressed seamen were returned to America.

As Spain assessed the informal Anglo-American alliance, it softened its previous opposition to the United States' use of the Mississippi River and signed Pinckney's Treaty, which the Americans wanted.

"[56] Joseph Ellis finds the terms of the treaty "one-sided in Britain's favor", but asserts with a consensus of historians that it was a shrewd bargain for the United States.

In a sense it was a precocious preview of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), for it linked American security and economic development to the British fleet, which provided a protective shield of incalculable value throughout the nineteenth century.