FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[195]Compare Hamilton's "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States" with Marshall's opinion in McCulloch vs. Maryland, The student of Marshall cannot devote too much attention to Hamilton's great state papers, from the "First Report on the Public Credit" to "Camillus." It is interesting that Hamilton produced all these within five years, notwithstanding the fact that this was the busiest and most crowded period of his life.[196]Binney, in Dillon, iii, 301-02.[197]La Rochefoucauld, iii, 73. For a man even "to be passive ... is a satisfactory proof that he is on the wrong side." (Monroe to Jefferson, July 17, 1792; Monroe'sWritings: Hamilton, i, 238.)[198]George Mason to John Mason, July 12, 1791; Rowland, ii, 338.[199]Corbin to Hamilton, March 17, 1793; as quoted in Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 226.[200]"Patrick Henry once said 'that he could forgive anything else in Mr. Jefferson, but his corrupting Mr. Madison.'" (Pickering to Marshall, Dec. 26, 1828; Pickering MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc.) "His [Madison's] placing himself under the pupilage of Mr. Jefferson and supporting his public deceptions, are sufficient to put him out of my book." (Pickering to Rose, March 22, 1808;ib.)[201]Madison's course was irreconcilable with his earlier Nationalist stand. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 77; and see especially the remarkable and highly important letter of Hamilton to Carrington, May 26, 1792;Works: Lodge, ix, 513-35, on Madison's change, Jefferson's conduct, and the politics of the time.) Carrington was now the brother-in-law of Marshall and his most intimate friend. Their houses in Richmond almost adjoined. (Seeinfra, chap.v.)[202]See brief but excellent account of this famous journey in Gay:Madison(American Statesmen Series), 184-85; andcontra, Rives, iii, 191.[203]Jefferson to Madison, June 29, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 129-30.[204]No letters have been discovered from Hamilton to Marshall or from Marshall to Hamilton dated earlier than three years after Jefferson's letter to Madison.[205]"The length of the last session has done me irreparable injury in my profession, as it has made an impression on the general opinion that two occupations are incompatible." (Monroe to Jefferson, June 17, 1792; Monroe'sWritings: Hamilton, i, 230.)[206]Seeinfra, chap.x.[207]Ames to Dwight, Jan., 1793;Works: Ames, i, 126-27.[208]Rives, iii, 192-94; and see McMaster, ii, 52-53; also Hamilton to Carrington, May 26, 1792;Works: Lodge, ix, 513-35.[209]Washington to Jefferson, Aug. 23, 1792;Writings: Ford, xii, 174-75. This letter is almost tearful in its pleading.[210]Jefferson to Washington, Sept. 9, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 137et seq.The quotation in the text refers to Jefferson's part in the deal fixing the site of the Capital and passing the Assumption Act. Compare with Jefferson's letters written at the time. (Supra, 64.) It is impossible that Jefferson was not fully advised; the whole country was aroused over Assumption, Congress debated it for weeks, it was the one subject of interest and conversation at the seat of government, and Jefferson himself so testifies in his correspondence.[211]Washington to Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1792;Writings: Ford, xii, 177-78.[212]Hamilton to Washington, Sept, 9, 1792;Works: Lodge, vii, 306.[213]See Marshall, ii, 191-92.[214]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 28, 1793), 101.[215]Ib.The Legislature instructed Virginia's Senators and Representatives to endeavor to secure measures to "suspend the operation and completion" of the articles of the treaty of peace looking to the payment of British debts until the posts and negroes should be given up. (Ib., 124-25; also see Virginia Statutes at Large, New Series, i, 285.) Referring to this Ames wrote: "Thus, murder, at last, is out." (Ames to Dwight, May 6, 1794;Works: Ames, i, 143-44.)[216]Chisholmvs.Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419.[217]Journal, H.D. (1793), 92-99; also see Virginia Statutes at Large, New Series, i, 284. This was the origin of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. The Legislature "Resolved, That a State cannot, under the Constitution of the United States, be made a defendant at the suit of any individual or individuals, and that the decision of the Supreme Federal Court, that a State may be placed in that situation, is incompatible with, and dangerous to the sovereignty and independence of the individual States, as the same tends to a general consolidation of these confederated republics." Virginia Senators were "instructed" to make "their utmost exertions" to secure an amendment to the Constitution regarding suits against States. The Governor was directed to send the Virginia resolution to all the other States. (Journal, H.D. (1793), 99.)[218]Ib., 125.[219]Ib.; also Statutes at Large,supra, 284.[220]SeeAnnals, 2d Cong., 900-63.[221]Journal, H.D. (1793), 56-57. Of Giles's methods in this attack on Hamilton the elder Wolcott wrote that it was "such a piece of baseness as would have disgraced the council of Pandemonium." (Wolcott to his son, March 25, 1793; Gibbs, i, 91.)[222]Beard:Econ. O. J. D., chap. vi.[223]Professor Beard, after a careful treatment of this subject, concludes that "The charge of mere corruption must fall to the ground." (Ib., 195.)[224]"To the northward of Baltimore everybody ... speculates, trades, and jobs in the stocks. The judge, the advocate, the physician and the minister of divine worship, are all, or almost all, more or less interested in the sale of land, in the purchase of goods, in that of bills of exchange, and in lending money at two or three per cent." (La Rochefoucauld, iv, 474.) The French traveler was also impressed with the display of riches in the Capital. "The profusion of luxury of Philadelphia, on great days, at the tables of the wealthy, in their equipages and the dresses of their wives and daughters, are ... extreme. I have seen balls on the President's birthday where the splendor of the rooms, and the variety and richness of the dresses did not suffer, in comparison with Europe." The extravagance extended to working-men who, on Sundays, spent money with amazing lavishness. Even negro servants had balls; and negresses with wages of one dollar per week wore dresses costing sixty dollars. (Ib., 107-09.)[225]Jefferson to T. M. Randolph, March 16, 1792;Works: Ford, vi, 408.[226]Jefferson to Short, May 18, 1792;Works: Ford, vi, 413; and see "A Citizen" in theNational Gazette, May 3, 1792, for a typical Republican indictment of Funding and Assumption.[227]Gallatin'sWritings: Adams, i, 3.[228]Pennsylvania alone had five thousand distilleries. (Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 250.) Whiskey was used as a circulating medium. (McMaster, ii, 29.) Every contemporary traveler tells of the numerous private stills in Pennsylvania and the South. Practically all farmers, especially in the back country, had their own apparatus for making whiskey or brandy. (See chap.vii, vol.i, of this work.)Nor was this industry confined to the lowly and the frontiersmen. Washington had a large distillery. (Washington to William Augustine Washington, Feb. 27, 1798;Writings: Ford, xiii, 444.)New England's rum, on the other hand, was supplied by big distilleries; and these could include the tax in the price charged the consumer. Thus the people of Pennsylvania and the South felt the tax personally, while New Englanders were unconscious of it. Otherwise there doubtless would have been a New England "rum rebellion," as Shays's uprising and as New England's implied threat in the Assumption fight would seem to prove. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 250-51.)[229]Marshall, ii, 200.[230]Ib., 238.[231]Graydon, 372.[232]Sept. 25, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 467.[233]Sept. 15, 1792; Richardson, i, 124; Aug. 7, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 445.[234]Hamilton remained with the troops until the insurrection was suppressed and order fully established. (See Hamilton's letters to Washington, written from various points, during the expedition, from Oct. 25 to Nov. 19, 1794;Works: Lodge, vi, 451-60.)[235]Marshall, ii, 200, 235-38, 340-48; Gibbs, i, 144-55; and see Hamilton's Report to the President, Aug. 5, 1794;Works: Lodge, vi, 358-88. But see Gallatin'sWritings: Adams, i, 2-12; Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 250-60. For extended account of the Whiskey Rebellion from the point of view of the insurgents, see Findley:History of the Insurrection, etc., and Breckenridge:History of the Western Insurrection.[236]The claim now made by the Republicans that they were the only friends of the Constitution was a clever political turn. Also it is an amusing incident of our history. The Federalists were the creators of the Constitution; while the Republicans, generally speaking and with exceptions, had been ardent foes of its adoption. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D.)[237]Graydon, 374. Jefferson's party was called Republican because of its championship of the French Republic. (Ambler, 63.)[238]In the Fairfax purchase. (Seeinfra, chap.v.)[239]See Hamilton's orders to General Lee;Works: Lodge, vi, 445-51; and see Washington to Lee, Oct. 20, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 478-80.[240]Washington to Lee, Aug. 26, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 454-56.[241]Washington to Jay, Nov. 1, 1794;ib., 486.[242]Washington to Thruston, Aug. 10, 1794;ib., 452.[243]Washington to Morgan, Oct. 8, 1794;ib., 470. The Virginia militia were under the Command of Major-General Daniel Morgan.[244]General Order, June 30, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 202.[245]Carrington to Lieutenant-Governor Wood, Sept. 1, 1794;ib., 287.[246]Major-General Daniel Morgan to the Governor of Virginia, Sept. 7, 1794;ib., 297.[247]Jefferson to Washington, Sept. 18, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 153.[248]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 28, 1794;ib., viii, 157.[249]Ib.[250]Jefferson to Monroe, May 26, 1795;ib., 177.[251]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 28, 1794;ib., 157.[252]Wolcott to Wolcott, Dec. 15, 1792; Gibbs, i, 85.[253]Marshall, ii, 256; see Washington's "Farewell Address."[254]John Adams claimed this as his particular idea. "Washington learned it from me ... and practiced upon it." (Adams to Rush, July 7, 1805;Old Family Letters, 71.)"I trust that we shall have too just a sense of our own interest to originate any cause, that may involve us in it [the European war]." (Washington to Humphreys, March 23, 1793;Writings: Ford, xii, 276.)[255]Marshall, ii, 259; and see Rules of Neutrality,ib., note 13, p. 15. Washington's proclamation was drawn by Attorney-General Randolph. (Conway, 202.)[256]Marshall, ii, 259-60. "The publications in Freneau's and Bache's papers are outrages on common decency." (Washington to Lee, July 21, 1793;Writings: Ford, xii, 310.)[257]Marshall, ii, 256.[258]Graydon, 382.[259]Marshall, ii, 260. "A Freeman" in theGeneral Advertiserof Philadelphia stated the most moderate opinion of those who opposed Neutrality. "France," said he, "is not only warring against the despotism of monarchy but the despotism of aristocracy and it would appear rather uncommon to see men [Washington and those who agreed with him] welcoming the Ambassador of republicanism who are warring [against] their darling aristocracy. But ... shall the officers of our government prescribe rules of conduct to freemen? Fellow citizens, view this conduct [Neutrality] well and you will discover principles lurking at bottom at variance with your liberty. Who is the superior of the people? Are we already so degenerate as to acknowledge a superior in the United States?" (General Advertiser, April 25, 1793.)[260]"Our commercial and maritime people feel themselves deeply interested to prevent every act that may put our peace at hazard." (Cabot to King, Aug. 2, 1793; Lodge:Cabot, 74.)The merchants and traders of Baltimore, "as participants in the general prosperity resulting from peace, and the excellent laws and constitution of the United States ... beg leave to express the high sense they entertain of the provident wisdom and watchfulness over the concerns and peace of a happy people which you have displayed in your late proclamation declaring neutrality ... well convinced that the true interests of America consist in a conduct, impartial, friendly, and unoffending to all the belligerent powers." (Address of the Merchants and Traders of Baltimore to George Washington, President of the United States;General Advertiser, Philadelphia, June 5, 1793.)[261]Jefferson to Madison, May 19, 1793;Works: Ford, vii, 336.[262]Jefferson to Monroe, May 5, 1793;ib., 309.[263]Marshall, ii, 273.[264]Pacificus No. 1;Works: Lodge, iv, 432-44.[265]Marshall, ii, 327.[266]Marshall, ii, 322.[267]Jefferson to Washington, Dec. 31, 1793;Works: Ford, viii, 136.[268]Jefferson to Short, Jan. 28, 1792;ib., vi, 382.[269]Marshall, ii, 233.[270]Generally speaking, the same classes that secured the Constitution supported all the measures of Washington's Administration. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 122-24.)While the Republicans charged that Washington's Neutrality was inspired by favoritism to Great Britain, as it was certainly championed by trading and moneyed interests which dealt chiefly with British houses, the Federalists made the counter-charge, with equal accuracy, that the opponents of Neutrality were French partisans and encouraged by those financially interested.The younger Adams, who was in Europe during most of this period and who carefully informed himself, writing from The Hague, declared that many Americans, some of them very important men, were "debtors to British merchants, creditors to the French government, and speculators in the French revolutionary funds, all to an immense amount," and that other Americans were heavily indebted in England. All these interests were against Neutrality and in favor of war with Great Britain—those owing British debts, because "war ... would serve as a sponge for their debts," or at least postpone payment, and the creditors of the French securities, because French success would insure payment. (J. Q. Adams to his father, June 24, 1796;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 506.)[271]Story, in Dillon, iii, 350.[272]Gabriel Jones, the ablest lawyer in the Valley, and, of course, a stanch Federalist.[273]Monroe to Jefferson, Sept. 3, 1793; Monroe'sWritings: Hamilton, i, 274-75. Considering the intimate personal friendship existing between Monroe and Marshall, the significance and importance of this letter cannot be overestimated.[274]It was at this point, undoubtedly, that the slander concerning Marshall's habits was started. (Seeinfra, 101-03.)[275]The above paragraphs are based on Justice Story's account of Marshall's activities at this period, supplemented by Madison and Monroe's letters; by the well-known political history of that time; and by the untrustworthy but not negligible testimony of tradition. While difficult to reconstruct a situation from such fragments, the account given in the text is believed to be substantially accurate.[276]SeeWorks: Ford, xii, footnote to 451.[277]Madison to Jefferson, June 17, 1793;Writings: Hunt, vi, 134.[278]Seeinfra, chap.v.[279]Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 2, 1793;Writings: Hunt, vi, 196.[280]Seeinfra, chap.v. Robert Morris secured in this way all the money he was able to give his son-in-law for the Fairfax purchase.[281]Mrs. Carrington to her sister Nancy; undated; MS.[282]Ib.[283]Seesupra, vol.i, chap.vii.[284]See, for instance, Jefferson to Short (Sept 6, 1790;Works: Ford, vi, 146), describing a single order of wine for Washington and one for himself; and see Chastellux's account of an evening with Jefferson: "We were conversing one evening over a bowl of punch after Mrs. Jefferson had retired. Our conversation turned on the poems of Ossian.... The book was sent for and placed near the bowl, where by their mutual aid the night far advanced imperceptibly upon us." (Chastellux, 229.)Marshall's Account Book does not show any purchases of wine at all comparable with those of other contemporaries. In March, 1791, Marshall enters, "wine £60"; August, ditto, "£14-5-8"; September, 1792, "Wine £70"; in July, 1793, "Whisky 6.3.9" (pounds, shillings, and pence); in May, 1794, "Rum and brandy 6-4"; August, 1794, ditto, five shillings, sixpence; May, 1795, "Whisky £6.16"; Sept., "wine £3"; Oct., ditto, "£17.6."[285]Marshall to Stuart, March 27, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.[286]Major George Keith Taylor to Brigadier-General Mathews, July 19, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 223.[287]Mathews to Taylor, July 20, 1794;ib., 224.[288]Governor Henry Lee "Commander-in-chief," to Marshall, July 21, 1794; MS., "War 10," Archives, Va. St. Lib.[289]"Dark blue coat, skirts lined with buff, capes, lapels and cuffs buff, buttons yellow. Epaulets gold one on each shoulder, black cocked hat, with black cockade, black stock, boots and side arms." (Division Orders, July 4, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 204. But see Schoepf (ii, 43), where a uniform worn by one brigadier-general of Virginia Militia is described as consisting of "a large white hat, a blue coat, a brown waistcoat, and green breeches.")[290]Particular Orders,supra.[291]Marshall to Governor of Virginia, July 23, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 228; and same to same, July 28, 1794;ib., 234.[292]Ib.[293]Marshall to Governor of Virginia, July 28, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 235.[294]George Keith Taylor; seeinfra, chaps.xandxii.[295]Lee to the Secretary of War, July 28, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 234.[296]See, for instance, Thompson's speech,infra, chap.vi.[297]Marshall, ii, 293.[298]Ib., 285.[299]Ib., 285.[300]Marshall to Stuart, March 27, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.[301]"The idea that Great Britain was the natural enemy of America had become habitual" long before this time. (Marshall, ii, 154.)[302]One reason for Great Britain's unlawful retention of these posts was her purpose to maintain her monopoly of the fur trade. (Ib., 194. And see Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 279.)[303]Marshall, ii, 320-21; and seeAnnals, 3d Cong., 1st Sess., 1793, 274-90; also Anderson, 29; and see prior war-inviting resolves and speeches inAnnals, 3d Cong.,supra, 21, 30, 544et seq.; also Marshall, ii, 324et seq.[304]Ames to Dwight, Dec. 12, 1794;Works: Ames, i, 154.[305]Ames to Gore, March 26, 1794;Works: Ames, i, 140. And see Marshall, ii, 324et seq.[306]See Washington to Ball, Aug. 10, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 449.[307]See Van Tyne, chap. xi.[308]Marshall, ii, 286, 287.[309]Ib.[310]John Quincy Adams, who was in London and who was intensely irritated by British conduct, concluded that: "A war at present with Great Britain must be total destruction to the commerce of our country; for there is no maritime power on earth that can contend with the existing naval British force." (J. Q. Adams to Sargent, The Hague, Oct. 12, 1795;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 419.)[311]"I believe the intention is to draw the United States into it [war] merely to make tools of them.... The conduct of the British government is so well adapted to increasing our danger of war, that I cannot but suppose they are secretly inclined to produce it." (J. Q. Adams to his father, The Hague, Sept. 12, 1795;ib., 409.)[312]Marshall, ii, 194.[313]Marshall, ii, 337.[314]Ib., 195; and see Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 279.[315]See this speech in Rives, iii, footnote to 418-19. It is curious that Marshall, in hisLife of Washington, makes the error of asserting that the account of Dorchester's speech was "not authentic." It is one of the very few mistakes in Marshall's careful book. (Marshall, ii, 320.)[316]Marshall to Stuart, May 28, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.[317]It must not be forgotten that we were not so well prepared for war in 1794 as the colonies had been in 1776, or as we were a few years after Jay was sent on his mission. And on the traditional policy of Great Britain when intending to make war on any country, see J. Q. Adams to his father, June 24, 1796;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 499-500.Also, see same to same, The Hague, June 9, 1796;ib., 493, predicting dissolution of the Union in case of war with Great Britain. "I confess it made me doubly desirous to quit a country where the malevolence that is so common against America was exulting in triumph." (Ib.)"The truth is that the AmericanGovernment... have not upon earth more rancorous enemies, than the springs which move the machine of this Country [England] ... Between Great Britain and the United States nocordialitycan exist." (Same to same, London, Feb. 10, 1796;ib., 477; also, March 24, 1794;ib., 18, 183, 187.)[318]Marshall, ii, 363.[319]American Remembrancer, i, 9.[320]Resolution of Wythe County (Va.) Democratic Society, quoted in Anderson, 32.[321]Ames to Dwight, Feb. 3, 1795;Works: Ames, i, 166.[322]Marshall, ii, 362-64.[323]Ib., 366.[324]The Boston men, it appears, had not even read the treaty, as was the case with other meetings which adopted resolutions of protest. (Marshall, ii, 365et seq.) Thereupon the Boston satirists lampooned the hasty denunciators of the treaty as follows:—"I've never read it, but I say 'tis bad.If it goes down, I'll bet my ears and eyes,It will the people all unpopularize;Boobies may hear it read ere they decide,I move it quickly be unratified."On Dr. Jarvis's speech at Faneuil Hall against the Jay Treaty; Loring:Hundred Boston Orators, 232. The Republicans were equally sarcastic: "I say the treaty is a good one ... for I do not think about it.... What did we choose the Senate for ... but to think for us.... Let the people remember that it is their sacred right to submit and obey; and that all those who would persuade them that they have a right to think and speak on the sublime, mysterious, and to them incomprehensible affairs of government are factious Democrats and outrageous Jacobins." (Essay on Jacobinical Thinkers:American Remembrancer, i, 141.)[325]See Marshall's vivid description of the popular reception of the treaty; Marshall, ii, 365-66.[326]Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795;Works: Lodge, x, 103.[327]"An Emetic for Aristocrats.... Also a History of the Life and Death of Independence; Boston, 1795." Copies of such attacks were scattered broadcast—"Emissaries flew through the country spreading alarm and discontent." (Camillus, no. 1;Works: Lodge, v, 189-99.)[328]McMaster, ii, 213-20; Gibbs, i, 207; and Hildreth, iv, 548.[329]Present-day detraction of our public men is gentle reproof contrasted with the savagery with which Washington was, thenceforth, assailed.[330]Marshall, ii, 370. Of the innumerable accounts of the abuse of Washington, Weld may be cited as the most moderate. After testifying to Washington's unpopularity this acute traveler says: "It is the spirit of dissatisfaction which forms a leading trait in the character of the Americans as a people, which produces this malevolence [against Washington]; if their public affairs were regulated by a person sent from heaven, I firmly believe his acts, instead of meeting with universal approbation, would by many be considered as deceitful and flagitious." (Weld, i, 108-09.)[331]Washington almost determined to withhold ratification. (Marshall, ii, 362.) The treaty was signed November 19, 1794; received by the President, March 7, 1795; submitted to the Senate June 8, 1795; ratified by the Senate June 24; and signed by Washington August 12, 1795. (Ib., 360, 361, 368.)[332]"Washington now defies the whole Sovereign that made him what he is——and can unmake him again. Better his hand had been cut off when his glory was at its height before he blasted all his Laurels!" (Dr. Nathaniel Ames's Diary, Aug. 14, 1795;Dedham (Mass.) Historical Register, vii, 33.) Of Washington's reply to the address of the merchants and traders of Philadelphia "An Old Soldier of '76," wrote: "Has adulation ... so bewildered his senses, that relinquishing even common decency, he tells 408 merchants and traders of Philadelphia that they are more immediately concerned than any other class of his fellow citizens?" (American Remembrancer, ii, 280-81.)[333]Washington to Jay, May 8, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, 189.[334]American Remembrancer, ii, 265.[335]Journal, H.D. (1795), 54-55; and see Anderson, 43.[336]American Remembrancer, ii, 269.[337]Ames to Gore, Jan. 10, 1795;Works: Ames, i, 161.[338]"This treaty in one page confines,The sad result of base designs;The wretched purchase here beholdOf Traitors—who their country sold.Here, in their proper shape and mien,Fraud, perjury, and guilt are seen."(Freneau, iii, 133.)[339]Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 187-88.[340]Ib.[341]Jefferson to Tazewell, Sept. 13, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 191. The Jay Treaty and Neutrality must be considered together, if the temper of the times is to be understood. "If our neutrality be still preserved, it will be due to the President alone," writes the younger Adams from Europe. "Nothing but his weight of character and reputation, combined with his firmness and political intrepidity could have stood against the torrent that is still tumbling with a fury that resounds even across the Atlantic.... If his system of administration now prevails, ten years more will place the United States among the most powerful and opulent nations on earth.... Now, when a powerful party at home and a mighty influence from abroad, are joining all their forces to assail his reputation, and his character I think it my duty as an American to avow my sentiments." (J. Q. Adams to Bourne, Dec. 24, 1795;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 467.)[342]Charles Pinckney's Speech;American Remembrancer, i, 7.[343]Marshall, ii, 378. The Republicans insisted that the assent of the House of Representatives is necessary to the ratification of any treaty that affects commerce, requires appropriation of money, or where any act of Congress whatever may be necessary to carry a treaty into effect. (Ib.; and see Livingston's resolutions and debate;Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1795, 426; 628.)[344]"Priestly's Emigration," printed in Cobbett, i, 196, quoting "Agricola."[345]"Camillus";Works: Lodge, v and vi. It is impossible to give a satisfactory condensation of these monumental papers. Struck off in haste and under greatest pressure, they equal if not surpass Hamilton's "First Report on the Public Credit," his "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States," or his "Report on Manufactures." As an intellectual performance, the "Letters of Camillus" come near being Hamilton's masterpiece.[346]Washington to Hamilton, July 29, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 76.[347]The whole country was against the treaty on general grounds; but Virginia was especially hostile because of the sore question of runaway slaves and the British debts.[348]Washington to Randolph, Aug. 4, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, footnote to 86. See Resolutions, which were comparatively mild;American Remembrancer, i, 133-34; and seeRichmond and Manchester Advertiser, of July 30, and Aug. 6, 1795.[349]Jefferson to Coxe, Sept. 10, 1795;Works: Ford, vii, 29.[350]Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795;ib., 27.

[195]Compare Hamilton's "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States" with Marshall's opinion in McCulloch vs. Maryland, The student of Marshall cannot devote too much attention to Hamilton's great state papers, from the "First Report on the Public Credit" to "Camillus." It is interesting that Hamilton produced all these within five years, notwithstanding the fact that this was the busiest and most crowded period of his life.

[196]Binney, in Dillon, iii, 301-02.

[197]La Rochefoucauld, iii, 73. For a man even "to be passive ... is a satisfactory proof that he is on the wrong side." (Monroe to Jefferson, July 17, 1792; Monroe'sWritings: Hamilton, i, 238.)

[198]George Mason to John Mason, July 12, 1791; Rowland, ii, 338.

[199]Corbin to Hamilton, March 17, 1793; as quoted in Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 226.

[200]"Patrick Henry once said 'that he could forgive anything else in Mr. Jefferson, but his corrupting Mr. Madison.'" (Pickering to Marshall, Dec. 26, 1828; Pickering MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc.) "His [Madison's] placing himself under the pupilage of Mr. Jefferson and supporting his public deceptions, are sufficient to put him out of my book." (Pickering to Rose, March 22, 1808;ib.)

[201]Madison's course was irreconcilable with his earlier Nationalist stand. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 77; and see especially the remarkable and highly important letter of Hamilton to Carrington, May 26, 1792;Works: Lodge, ix, 513-35, on Madison's change, Jefferson's conduct, and the politics of the time.) Carrington was now the brother-in-law of Marshall and his most intimate friend. Their houses in Richmond almost adjoined. (Seeinfra, chap.v.)

[202]See brief but excellent account of this famous journey in Gay:Madison(American Statesmen Series), 184-85; andcontra, Rives, iii, 191.

[203]Jefferson to Madison, June 29, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 129-30.

[204]No letters have been discovered from Hamilton to Marshall or from Marshall to Hamilton dated earlier than three years after Jefferson's letter to Madison.

[205]"The length of the last session has done me irreparable injury in my profession, as it has made an impression on the general opinion that two occupations are incompatible." (Monroe to Jefferson, June 17, 1792; Monroe'sWritings: Hamilton, i, 230.)

[206]Seeinfra, chap.x.

[207]Ames to Dwight, Jan., 1793;Works: Ames, i, 126-27.

[208]Rives, iii, 192-94; and see McMaster, ii, 52-53; also Hamilton to Carrington, May 26, 1792;Works: Lodge, ix, 513-35.

[209]Washington to Jefferson, Aug. 23, 1792;Writings: Ford, xii, 174-75. This letter is almost tearful in its pleading.

[210]Jefferson to Washington, Sept. 9, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 137et seq.The quotation in the text refers to Jefferson's part in the deal fixing the site of the Capital and passing the Assumption Act. Compare with Jefferson's letters written at the time. (Supra, 64.) It is impossible that Jefferson was not fully advised; the whole country was aroused over Assumption, Congress debated it for weeks, it was the one subject of interest and conversation at the seat of government, and Jefferson himself so testifies in his correspondence.

[211]Washington to Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1792;Writings: Ford, xii, 177-78.

[212]Hamilton to Washington, Sept, 9, 1792;Works: Lodge, vii, 306.

[213]See Marshall, ii, 191-92.

[214]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 28, 1793), 101.

[215]Ib.The Legislature instructed Virginia's Senators and Representatives to endeavor to secure measures to "suspend the operation and completion" of the articles of the treaty of peace looking to the payment of British debts until the posts and negroes should be given up. (Ib., 124-25; also see Virginia Statutes at Large, New Series, i, 285.) Referring to this Ames wrote: "Thus, murder, at last, is out." (Ames to Dwight, May 6, 1794;Works: Ames, i, 143-44.)

[216]Chisholmvs.Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419.

[217]Journal, H.D. (1793), 92-99; also see Virginia Statutes at Large, New Series, i, 284. This was the origin of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. The Legislature "Resolved, That a State cannot, under the Constitution of the United States, be made a defendant at the suit of any individual or individuals, and that the decision of the Supreme Federal Court, that a State may be placed in that situation, is incompatible with, and dangerous to the sovereignty and independence of the individual States, as the same tends to a general consolidation of these confederated republics." Virginia Senators were "instructed" to make "their utmost exertions" to secure an amendment to the Constitution regarding suits against States. The Governor was directed to send the Virginia resolution to all the other States. (Journal, H.D. (1793), 99.)

[218]Ib., 125.

[219]Ib.; also Statutes at Large,supra, 284.

[220]SeeAnnals, 2d Cong., 900-63.

[221]Journal, H.D. (1793), 56-57. Of Giles's methods in this attack on Hamilton the elder Wolcott wrote that it was "such a piece of baseness as would have disgraced the council of Pandemonium." (Wolcott to his son, March 25, 1793; Gibbs, i, 91.)

[222]Beard:Econ. O. J. D., chap. vi.

[223]Professor Beard, after a careful treatment of this subject, concludes that "The charge of mere corruption must fall to the ground." (Ib., 195.)

[224]"To the northward of Baltimore everybody ... speculates, trades, and jobs in the stocks. The judge, the advocate, the physician and the minister of divine worship, are all, or almost all, more or less interested in the sale of land, in the purchase of goods, in that of bills of exchange, and in lending money at two or three per cent." (La Rochefoucauld, iv, 474.) The French traveler was also impressed with the display of riches in the Capital. "The profusion of luxury of Philadelphia, on great days, at the tables of the wealthy, in their equipages and the dresses of their wives and daughters, are ... extreme. I have seen balls on the President's birthday where the splendor of the rooms, and the variety and richness of the dresses did not suffer, in comparison with Europe." The extravagance extended to working-men who, on Sundays, spent money with amazing lavishness. Even negro servants had balls; and negresses with wages of one dollar per week wore dresses costing sixty dollars. (Ib., 107-09.)

[225]Jefferson to T. M. Randolph, March 16, 1792;Works: Ford, vi, 408.

[226]Jefferson to Short, May 18, 1792;Works: Ford, vi, 413; and see "A Citizen" in theNational Gazette, May 3, 1792, for a typical Republican indictment of Funding and Assumption.

[227]Gallatin'sWritings: Adams, i, 3.

[228]Pennsylvania alone had five thousand distilleries. (Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 250.) Whiskey was used as a circulating medium. (McMaster, ii, 29.) Every contemporary traveler tells of the numerous private stills in Pennsylvania and the South. Practically all farmers, especially in the back country, had their own apparatus for making whiskey or brandy. (See chap.vii, vol.i, of this work.)Nor was this industry confined to the lowly and the frontiersmen. Washington had a large distillery. (Washington to William Augustine Washington, Feb. 27, 1798;Writings: Ford, xiii, 444.)New England's rum, on the other hand, was supplied by big distilleries; and these could include the tax in the price charged the consumer. Thus the people of Pennsylvania and the South felt the tax personally, while New Englanders were unconscious of it. Otherwise there doubtless would have been a New England "rum rebellion," as Shays's uprising and as New England's implied threat in the Assumption fight would seem to prove. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 250-51.)

Nor was this industry confined to the lowly and the frontiersmen. Washington had a large distillery. (Washington to William Augustine Washington, Feb. 27, 1798;Writings: Ford, xiii, 444.)

New England's rum, on the other hand, was supplied by big distilleries; and these could include the tax in the price charged the consumer. Thus the people of Pennsylvania and the South felt the tax personally, while New Englanders were unconscious of it. Otherwise there doubtless would have been a New England "rum rebellion," as Shays's uprising and as New England's implied threat in the Assumption fight would seem to prove. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 250-51.)

[229]Marshall, ii, 200.

[230]Ib., 238.

[231]Graydon, 372.

[232]Sept. 25, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 467.

[233]Sept. 15, 1792; Richardson, i, 124; Aug. 7, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 445.

[234]Hamilton remained with the troops until the insurrection was suppressed and order fully established. (See Hamilton's letters to Washington, written from various points, during the expedition, from Oct. 25 to Nov. 19, 1794;Works: Lodge, vi, 451-60.)

[235]Marshall, ii, 200, 235-38, 340-48; Gibbs, i, 144-55; and see Hamilton's Report to the President, Aug. 5, 1794;Works: Lodge, vi, 358-88. But see Gallatin'sWritings: Adams, i, 2-12; Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 250-60. For extended account of the Whiskey Rebellion from the point of view of the insurgents, see Findley:History of the Insurrection, etc., and Breckenridge:History of the Western Insurrection.

[236]The claim now made by the Republicans that they were the only friends of the Constitution was a clever political turn. Also it is an amusing incident of our history. The Federalists were the creators of the Constitution; while the Republicans, generally speaking and with exceptions, had been ardent foes of its adoption. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D.)

[237]Graydon, 374. Jefferson's party was called Republican because of its championship of the French Republic. (Ambler, 63.)

[238]In the Fairfax purchase. (Seeinfra, chap.v.)

[239]See Hamilton's orders to General Lee;Works: Lodge, vi, 445-51; and see Washington to Lee, Oct. 20, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 478-80.

[240]Washington to Lee, Aug. 26, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 454-56.

[241]Washington to Jay, Nov. 1, 1794;ib., 486.

[242]Washington to Thruston, Aug. 10, 1794;ib., 452.

[243]Washington to Morgan, Oct. 8, 1794;ib., 470. The Virginia militia were under the Command of Major-General Daniel Morgan.

[244]General Order, June 30, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 202.

[245]Carrington to Lieutenant-Governor Wood, Sept. 1, 1794;ib., 287.

[246]Major-General Daniel Morgan to the Governor of Virginia, Sept. 7, 1794;ib., 297.

[247]Jefferson to Washington, Sept. 18, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 153.

[248]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 28, 1794;ib., viii, 157.

[249]Ib.

[250]Jefferson to Monroe, May 26, 1795;ib., 177.

[251]Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 28, 1794;ib., 157.

[252]Wolcott to Wolcott, Dec. 15, 1792; Gibbs, i, 85.

[253]Marshall, ii, 256; see Washington's "Farewell Address."

[254]John Adams claimed this as his particular idea. "Washington learned it from me ... and practiced upon it." (Adams to Rush, July 7, 1805;Old Family Letters, 71.)"I trust that we shall have too just a sense of our own interest to originate any cause, that may involve us in it [the European war]." (Washington to Humphreys, March 23, 1793;Writings: Ford, xii, 276.)

[254]John Adams claimed this as his particular idea. "Washington learned it from me ... and practiced upon it." (Adams to Rush, July 7, 1805;Old Family Letters, 71.)

"I trust that we shall have too just a sense of our own interest to originate any cause, that may involve us in it [the European war]." (Washington to Humphreys, March 23, 1793;Writings: Ford, xii, 276.)

[255]Marshall, ii, 259; and see Rules of Neutrality,ib., note 13, p. 15. Washington's proclamation was drawn by Attorney-General Randolph. (Conway, 202.)

[256]Marshall, ii, 259-60. "The publications in Freneau's and Bache's papers are outrages on common decency." (Washington to Lee, July 21, 1793;Writings: Ford, xii, 310.)

[257]Marshall, ii, 256.

[258]Graydon, 382.

[259]Marshall, ii, 260. "A Freeman" in theGeneral Advertiserof Philadelphia stated the most moderate opinion of those who opposed Neutrality. "France," said he, "is not only warring against the despotism of monarchy but the despotism of aristocracy and it would appear rather uncommon to see men [Washington and those who agreed with him] welcoming the Ambassador of republicanism who are warring [against] their darling aristocracy. But ... shall the officers of our government prescribe rules of conduct to freemen? Fellow citizens, view this conduct [Neutrality] well and you will discover principles lurking at bottom at variance with your liberty. Who is the superior of the people? Are we already so degenerate as to acknowledge a superior in the United States?" (General Advertiser, April 25, 1793.)

[260]"Our commercial and maritime people feel themselves deeply interested to prevent every act that may put our peace at hazard." (Cabot to King, Aug. 2, 1793; Lodge:Cabot, 74.)The merchants and traders of Baltimore, "as participants in the general prosperity resulting from peace, and the excellent laws and constitution of the United States ... beg leave to express the high sense they entertain of the provident wisdom and watchfulness over the concerns and peace of a happy people which you have displayed in your late proclamation declaring neutrality ... well convinced that the true interests of America consist in a conduct, impartial, friendly, and unoffending to all the belligerent powers." (Address of the Merchants and Traders of Baltimore to George Washington, President of the United States;General Advertiser, Philadelphia, June 5, 1793.)

[260]"Our commercial and maritime people feel themselves deeply interested to prevent every act that may put our peace at hazard." (Cabot to King, Aug. 2, 1793; Lodge:Cabot, 74.)

The merchants and traders of Baltimore, "as participants in the general prosperity resulting from peace, and the excellent laws and constitution of the United States ... beg leave to express the high sense they entertain of the provident wisdom and watchfulness over the concerns and peace of a happy people which you have displayed in your late proclamation declaring neutrality ... well convinced that the true interests of America consist in a conduct, impartial, friendly, and unoffending to all the belligerent powers." (Address of the Merchants and Traders of Baltimore to George Washington, President of the United States;General Advertiser, Philadelphia, June 5, 1793.)

[261]Jefferson to Madison, May 19, 1793;Works: Ford, vii, 336.

[262]Jefferson to Monroe, May 5, 1793;ib., 309.

[263]Marshall, ii, 273.

[264]Pacificus No. 1;Works: Lodge, iv, 432-44.

[265]Marshall, ii, 327.

[266]Marshall, ii, 322.

[267]Jefferson to Washington, Dec. 31, 1793;Works: Ford, viii, 136.

[268]Jefferson to Short, Jan. 28, 1792;ib., vi, 382.

[269]Marshall, ii, 233.

[270]Generally speaking, the same classes that secured the Constitution supported all the measures of Washington's Administration. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 122-24.)While the Republicans charged that Washington's Neutrality was inspired by favoritism to Great Britain, as it was certainly championed by trading and moneyed interests which dealt chiefly with British houses, the Federalists made the counter-charge, with equal accuracy, that the opponents of Neutrality were French partisans and encouraged by those financially interested.The younger Adams, who was in Europe during most of this period and who carefully informed himself, writing from The Hague, declared that many Americans, some of them very important men, were "debtors to British merchants, creditors to the French government, and speculators in the French revolutionary funds, all to an immense amount," and that other Americans were heavily indebted in England. All these interests were against Neutrality and in favor of war with Great Britain—those owing British debts, because "war ... would serve as a sponge for their debts," or at least postpone payment, and the creditors of the French securities, because French success would insure payment. (J. Q. Adams to his father, June 24, 1796;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 506.)

[270]Generally speaking, the same classes that secured the Constitution supported all the measures of Washington's Administration. (See Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 122-24.)

While the Republicans charged that Washington's Neutrality was inspired by favoritism to Great Britain, as it was certainly championed by trading and moneyed interests which dealt chiefly with British houses, the Federalists made the counter-charge, with equal accuracy, that the opponents of Neutrality were French partisans and encouraged by those financially interested.

The younger Adams, who was in Europe during most of this period and who carefully informed himself, writing from The Hague, declared that many Americans, some of them very important men, were "debtors to British merchants, creditors to the French government, and speculators in the French revolutionary funds, all to an immense amount," and that other Americans were heavily indebted in England. All these interests were against Neutrality and in favor of war with Great Britain—those owing British debts, because "war ... would serve as a sponge for their debts," or at least postpone payment, and the creditors of the French securities, because French success would insure payment. (J. Q. Adams to his father, June 24, 1796;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 506.)

[271]Story, in Dillon, iii, 350.

[272]Gabriel Jones, the ablest lawyer in the Valley, and, of course, a stanch Federalist.

[273]Monroe to Jefferson, Sept. 3, 1793; Monroe'sWritings: Hamilton, i, 274-75. Considering the intimate personal friendship existing between Monroe and Marshall, the significance and importance of this letter cannot be overestimated.

[274]It was at this point, undoubtedly, that the slander concerning Marshall's habits was started. (Seeinfra, 101-03.)

[275]The above paragraphs are based on Justice Story's account of Marshall's activities at this period, supplemented by Madison and Monroe's letters; by the well-known political history of that time; and by the untrustworthy but not negligible testimony of tradition. While difficult to reconstruct a situation from such fragments, the account given in the text is believed to be substantially accurate.

[276]SeeWorks: Ford, xii, footnote to 451.

[277]Madison to Jefferson, June 17, 1793;Writings: Hunt, vi, 134.

[278]Seeinfra, chap.v.

[279]Madison to Jefferson, Sept. 2, 1793;Writings: Hunt, vi, 196.

[280]Seeinfra, chap.v. Robert Morris secured in this way all the money he was able to give his son-in-law for the Fairfax purchase.

[281]Mrs. Carrington to her sister Nancy; undated; MS.

[282]Ib.

[283]Seesupra, vol.i, chap.vii.

[284]See, for instance, Jefferson to Short (Sept 6, 1790;Works: Ford, vi, 146), describing a single order of wine for Washington and one for himself; and see Chastellux's account of an evening with Jefferson: "We were conversing one evening over a bowl of punch after Mrs. Jefferson had retired. Our conversation turned on the poems of Ossian.... The book was sent for and placed near the bowl, where by their mutual aid the night far advanced imperceptibly upon us." (Chastellux, 229.)Marshall's Account Book does not show any purchases of wine at all comparable with those of other contemporaries. In March, 1791, Marshall enters, "wine £60"; August, ditto, "£14-5-8"; September, 1792, "Wine £70"; in July, 1793, "Whisky 6.3.9" (pounds, shillings, and pence); in May, 1794, "Rum and brandy 6-4"; August, 1794, ditto, five shillings, sixpence; May, 1795, "Whisky £6.16"; Sept., "wine £3"; Oct., ditto, "£17.6."

Marshall's Account Book does not show any purchases of wine at all comparable with those of other contemporaries. In March, 1791, Marshall enters, "wine £60"; August, ditto, "£14-5-8"; September, 1792, "Wine £70"; in July, 1793, "Whisky 6.3.9" (pounds, shillings, and pence); in May, 1794, "Rum and brandy 6-4"; August, 1794, ditto, five shillings, sixpence; May, 1795, "Whisky £6.16"; Sept., "wine £3"; Oct., ditto, "£17.6."

[285]Marshall to Stuart, March 27, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.

[286]Major George Keith Taylor to Brigadier-General Mathews, July 19, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 223.

[287]Mathews to Taylor, July 20, 1794;ib., 224.

[288]Governor Henry Lee "Commander-in-chief," to Marshall, July 21, 1794; MS., "War 10," Archives, Va. St. Lib.

[289]"Dark blue coat, skirts lined with buff, capes, lapels and cuffs buff, buttons yellow. Epaulets gold one on each shoulder, black cocked hat, with black cockade, black stock, boots and side arms." (Division Orders, July 4, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 204. But see Schoepf (ii, 43), where a uniform worn by one brigadier-general of Virginia Militia is described as consisting of "a large white hat, a blue coat, a brown waistcoat, and green breeches.")

[290]Particular Orders,supra.

[291]Marshall to Governor of Virginia, July 23, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 228; and same to same, July 28, 1794;ib., 234.

[292]Ib.

[293]Marshall to Governor of Virginia, July 28, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 235.

[294]George Keith Taylor; seeinfra, chaps.xandxii.

[295]Lee to the Secretary of War, July 28, 1794;Cal. Va. St. Prs., vii, 234.

[296]See, for instance, Thompson's speech,infra, chap.vi.

[297]Marshall, ii, 293.

[298]Ib., 285.

[299]Ib., 285.

[300]Marshall to Stuart, March 27, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.

[301]"The idea that Great Britain was the natural enemy of America had become habitual" long before this time. (Marshall, ii, 154.)

[302]One reason for Great Britain's unlawful retention of these posts was her purpose to maintain her monopoly of the fur trade. (Ib., 194. And see Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 279.)

[303]Marshall, ii, 320-21; and seeAnnals, 3d Cong., 1st Sess., 1793, 274-90; also Anderson, 29; and see prior war-inviting resolves and speeches inAnnals, 3d Cong.,supra, 21, 30, 544et seq.; also Marshall, ii, 324et seq.

[304]Ames to Dwight, Dec. 12, 1794;Works: Ames, i, 154.

[305]Ames to Gore, March 26, 1794;Works: Ames, i, 140. And see Marshall, ii, 324et seq.

[306]See Washington to Ball, Aug. 10, 1794;Writings: Ford, xii, 449.

[307]See Van Tyne, chap. xi.

[308]Marshall, ii, 286, 287.

[309]Ib.

[310]John Quincy Adams, who was in London and who was intensely irritated by British conduct, concluded that: "A war at present with Great Britain must be total destruction to the commerce of our country; for there is no maritime power on earth that can contend with the existing naval British force." (J. Q. Adams to Sargent, The Hague, Oct. 12, 1795;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 419.)

[311]"I believe the intention is to draw the United States into it [war] merely to make tools of them.... The conduct of the British government is so well adapted to increasing our danger of war, that I cannot but suppose they are secretly inclined to produce it." (J. Q. Adams to his father, The Hague, Sept. 12, 1795;ib., 409.)

[312]Marshall, ii, 194.

[313]Marshall, ii, 337.

[314]Ib., 195; and see Beard:Econ. O. J. D., 279.

[315]See this speech in Rives, iii, footnote to 418-19. It is curious that Marshall, in hisLife of Washington, makes the error of asserting that the account of Dorchester's speech was "not authentic." It is one of the very few mistakes in Marshall's careful book. (Marshall, ii, 320.)

[316]Marshall to Stuart, May 28, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.

[317]It must not be forgotten that we were not so well prepared for war in 1794 as the colonies had been in 1776, or as we were a few years after Jay was sent on his mission. And on the traditional policy of Great Britain when intending to make war on any country, see J. Q. Adams to his father, June 24, 1796;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 499-500.Also, see same to same, The Hague, June 9, 1796;ib., 493, predicting dissolution of the Union in case of war with Great Britain. "I confess it made me doubly desirous to quit a country where the malevolence that is so common against America was exulting in triumph." (Ib.)"The truth is that the AmericanGovernment... have not upon earth more rancorous enemies, than the springs which move the machine of this Country [England] ... Between Great Britain and the United States nocordialitycan exist." (Same to same, London, Feb. 10, 1796;ib., 477; also, March 24, 1794;ib., 18, 183, 187.)

Also, see same to same, The Hague, June 9, 1796;ib., 493, predicting dissolution of the Union in case of war with Great Britain. "I confess it made me doubly desirous to quit a country where the malevolence that is so common against America was exulting in triumph." (Ib.)

"The truth is that the AmericanGovernment... have not upon earth more rancorous enemies, than the springs which move the machine of this Country [England] ... Between Great Britain and the United States nocordialitycan exist." (Same to same, London, Feb. 10, 1796;ib., 477; also, March 24, 1794;ib., 18, 183, 187.)

[318]Marshall, ii, 363.

[319]American Remembrancer, i, 9.

[320]Resolution of Wythe County (Va.) Democratic Society, quoted in Anderson, 32.

[321]Ames to Dwight, Feb. 3, 1795;Works: Ames, i, 166.

[322]Marshall, ii, 362-64.

[323]Ib., 366.

[324]The Boston men, it appears, had not even read the treaty, as was the case with other meetings which adopted resolutions of protest. (Marshall, ii, 365et seq.) Thereupon the Boston satirists lampooned the hasty denunciators of the treaty as follows:—"I've never read it, but I say 'tis bad.If it goes down, I'll bet my ears and eyes,It will the people all unpopularize;Boobies may hear it read ere they decide,I move it quickly be unratified."On Dr. Jarvis's speech at Faneuil Hall against the Jay Treaty; Loring:Hundred Boston Orators, 232. The Republicans were equally sarcastic: "I say the treaty is a good one ... for I do not think about it.... What did we choose the Senate for ... but to think for us.... Let the people remember that it is their sacred right to submit and obey; and that all those who would persuade them that they have a right to think and speak on the sublime, mysterious, and to them incomprehensible affairs of government are factious Democrats and outrageous Jacobins." (Essay on Jacobinical Thinkers:American Remembrancer, i, 141.)

"I've never read it, but I say 'tis bad.If it goes down, I'll bet my ears and eyes,It will the people all unpopularize;Boobies may hear it read ere they decide,I move it quickly be unratified."

On Dr. Jarvis's speech at Faneuil Hall against the Jay Treaty; Loring:Hundred Boston Orators, 232. The Republicans were equally sarcastic: "I say the treaty is a good one ... for I do not think about it.... What did we choose the Senate for ... but to think for us.... Let the people remember that it is their sacred right to submit and obey; and that all those who would persuade them that they have a right to think and speak on the sublime, mysterious, and to them incomprehensible affairs of government are factious Democrats and outrageous Jacobins." (Essay on Jacobinical Thinkers:American Remembrancer, i, 141.)

[325]See Marshall's vivid description of the popular reception of the treaty; Marshall, ii, 365-66.

[326]Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795;Works: Lodge, x, 103.

[327]"An Emetic for Aristocrats.... Also a History of the Life and Death of Independence; Boston, 1795." Copies of such attacks were scattered broadcast—"Emissaries flew through the country spreading alarm and discontent." (Camillus, no. 1;Works: Lodge, v, 189-99.)

[328]McMaster, ii, 213-20; Gibbs, i, 207; and Hildreth, iv, 548.

[329]Present-day detraction of our public men is gentle reproof contrasted with the savagery with which Washington was, thenceforth, assailed.

[330]Marshall, ii, 370. Of the innumerable accounts of the abuse of Washington, Weld may be cited as the most moderate. After testifying to Washington's unpopularity this acute traveler says: "It is the spirit of dissatisfaction which forms a leading trait in the character of the Americans as a people, which produces this malevolence [against Washington]; if their public affairs were regulated by a person sent from heaven, I firmly believe his acts, instead of meeting with universal approbation, would by many be considered as deceitful and flagitious." (Weld, i, 108-09.)

[331]Washington almost determined to withhold ratification. (Marshall, ii, 362.) The treaty was signed November 19, 1794; received by the President, March 7, 1795; submitted to the Senate June 8, 1795; ratified by the Senate June 24; and signed by Washington August 12, 1795. (Ib., 360, 361, 368.)

[332]"Washington now defies the whole Sovereign that made him what he is——and can unmake him again. Better his hand had been cut off when his glory was at its height before he blasted all his Laurels!" (Dr. Nathaniel Ames's Diary, Aug. 14, 1795;Dedham (Mass.) Historical Register, vii, 33.) Of Washington's reply to the address of the merchants and traders of Philadelphia "An Old Soldier of '76," wrote: "Has adulation ... so bewildered his senses, that relinquishing even common decency, he tells 408 merchants and traders of Philadelphia that they are more immediately concerned than any other class of his fellow citizens?" (American Remembrancer, ii, 280-81.)

[333]Washington to Jay, May 8, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, 189.

[334]American Remembrancer, ii, 265.

[335]Journal, H.D. (1795), 54-55; and see Anderson, 43.

[336]American Remembrancer, ii, 269.

[337]Ames to Gore, Jan. 10, 1795;Works: Ames, i, 161.

[338]"This treaty in one page confines,The sad result of base designs;The wretched purchase here beholdOf Traitors—who their country sold.Here, in their proper shape and mien,Fraud, perjury, and guilt are seen."(Freneau, iii, 133.)

[338]

"This treaty in one page confines,The sad result of base designs;The wretched purchase here beholdOf Traitors—who their country sold.Here, in their proper shape and mien,Fraud, perjury, and guilt are seen."(Freneau, iii, 133.)

[339]Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 187-88.

[340]Ib.

[341]Jefferson to Tazewell, Sept. 13, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 191. The Jay Treaty and Neutrality must be considered together, if the temper of the times is to be understood. "If our neutrality be still preserved, it will be due to the President alone," writes the younger Adams from Europe. "Nothing but his weight of character and reputation, combined with his firmness and political intrepidity could have stood against the torrent that is still tumbling with a fury that resounds even across the Atlantic.... If his system of administration now prevails, ten years more will place the United States among the most powerful and opulent nations on earth.... Now, when a powerful party at home and a mighty influence from abroad, are joining all their forces to assail his reputation, and his character I think it my duty as an American to avow my sentiments." (J. Q. Adams to Bourne, Dec. 24, 1795;Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 467.)

[342]Charles Pinckney's Speech;American Remembrancer, i, 7.

[343]Marshall, ii, 378. The Republicans insisted that the assent of the House of Representatives is necessary to the ratification of any treaty that affects commerce, requires appropriation of money, or where any act of Congress whatever may be necessary to carry a treaty into effect. (Ib.; and see Livingston's resolutions and debate;Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1795, 426; 628.)

[344]"Priestly's Emigration," printed in Cobbett, i, 196, quoting "Agricola."

[345]"Camillus";Works: Lodge, v and vi. It is impossible to give a satisfactory condensation of these monumental papers. Struck off in haste and under greatest pressure, they equal if not surpass Hamilton's "First Report on the Public Credit," his "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States," or his "Report on Manufactures." As an intellectual performance, the "Letters of Camillus" come near being Hamilton's masterpiece.

[346]Washington to Hamilton, July 29, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 76.

[347]The whole country was against the treaty on general grounds; but Virginia was especially hostile because of the sore question of runaway slaves and the British debts.

[348]Washington to Randolph, Aug. 4, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, footnote to 86. See Resolutions, which were comparatively mild;American Remembrancer, i, 133-34; and seeRichmond and Manchester Advertiser, of July 30, and Aug. 6, 1795.

[349]Jefferson to Coxe, Sept. 10, 1795;Works: Ford, vii, 29.

[350]Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795;ib., 27.

Back to Index Next