FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[55]Life and Writings of John Jay, i. 303.[56]Greenleaf'sPatriotic Register, at New York, and theBoston Chronicleechoed these sentiments, and the smaller opposition journals throughout the country re-echoed the strain.[57]Marshall, ii. 273.

[55]Life and Writings of John Jay, i. 303.

[56]Greenleaf'sPatriotic Register, at New York, and theBoston Chronicleechoed these sentiments, and the smaller opposition journals throughout the country re-echoed the strain.

[57]Marshall, ii. 273.

TOP

unpleasant relations with great britain—the united states aggrieved by the practice of the british cruisers toward neutrals, and in the impressment of seamen—also, concerning the giving up of western posts, and tampering with the indians—relations with spain—threatened dissolution of the cabinet—jefferson's uneasiness—his official letter to gouverneur morris—genet's anger and accusative insinuations—events in new york—genet's reception there—his insolent letter to jefferson unnoticed—his complaints—decline of his popularity—yellow fever in philadelphia—washington retires to mount vernon to avoid it—doctor rush—abatement of the fever—washington returns to philadelphia.

While Washington's cabinet was thus perplexed by the conduct of the French minister, it was equally so by the relations of the governments of the United States and Great Britain. As we have observed, a diplomatic intercourse between the two governments did not commence until the federal constitution had established the republic upon a more solid basis. Then Mr. Hammond was appointed British minister to the United States, and took up his residence in Philadelphia; and Mr. Pinckney, appointed United States minister to Great Britain, repaired to London. We have also observed that the evacuation of some of the western posts by the British, and other stipulations of the treaty of 1783, yet remained uncomplied with when Mr. Hammond came. These causes for complaint on the part of the United States, and the establishment of just commercial relations between the two governments, had been the chief subjects for negotiation since his arrival. At the time in question, no progress had been made toward accommodation, and for this reason a large number of the Americans felt more disposed to take part with their old ally, and against their old enemy.

In fact, the catalogue of grievances suffered by the people of the United States at the hand of Great Britain had increased, new difficulties having grown out of the belligerent position of Europe at the time we are considering. France, as we have seen, by a decree of her National Convention, had placed the shipping of neutrals during the pending war on the same footing as that of her own; and, in consequence, a rich commerce had presented itself to American merchantmen, of which they took advantage. Great Britain paid no attention to this decree, but claimed for its cruisers the right to seize French property, even on board American vessels. The British also refused to recognise as neutral the trade between France and her West India colonies, carried on in American bottoms, which the pressure of war had created.

The British government had also instructed their cruisers to seize and bring in all vessels employed in carrying breadstuffs to French ports, even though vessel and cargo should be neutral property; claiming the right, contrary to modern usage, of preventing, by all means in her power, supplies being carried to her enemy, her statesmen having conceived the idea of destroying the French Revolution by starvation. Such vessels and cargoes were, however, to be paid for on proof being presented of their neutral character, and bonds being given to land in countries at peace with Great Britain. It is proper to state, that, at about the time in question, the French government—under the pressure of circumstances, and driven to it, they said, “by their implacable and ferocious enemies”—authorized the same system of seizure, with promises to pay. The Britishdidpay, the French didnot, and on that score the Americans more highly respected the former than the latter.

A more serious ground of complaint against Great Britain was the authority given to the commanders of British ships of war to make up any deficiency in their crews, by pressing into their service British-born seamen, wherever found, not within the immediate jurisdiction of any foreign state. Under this authority, many American merchant-vessels were crippled, while in mid-ocean, by British seamen being taken from them. Nor were British seamenalone taken. It was sometimes difficult to distinguish an Englishman from an American; and as the commanders of vessels-of-war were not very strict in their scrutiny, native-born Americans were frequently dragged on board British vessels, and kept in slavery in the royal service for years. American seamen were thus pressed into foreign service, even within the jurisdiction of the United States. The remonstrances of the latter government against these outrages were unheeded, and bitter feelings were engendered.

And yet another serious cause of difficulty with, and resentment toward Great Britain existed in the hostile position of the Indian tribes in the Northwest. Abortive attempts were made by the United States' commissioners to form a treaty with some of them. The Indians insisted upon making the Ohio river the boundary between themselves and the white people, and to this they inflexibly adhered. It was generally believed that the government of Canada encouraged them to persevere in this claim. Indeed, information obtained from the Indians themselves made the suspicion plausible, and the justice of that suspicion was enforced by the tenacity with which the British held on to the western posts, under the pretext, however, that the portion of the treaty of 1783 relating to the payment of debts to British creditors, contracted by Americans previous to the Revolution, had not yet been fulfilled by the government of the United States, or promised to be by any decisions of the federal courts.

These several causes of complaint against the British government, viewed superficially by the people, caused great irritation in the public mind, and a corresponding sympathy for France, the avowed and active enemy of Great Britain. That sympathy, as we have seen, gave strength to the insolent pretensions of Genet. Added to this was a decision in the federal court at Richmond, which declared that, according to the treaty of 1783, debts due from American citizens to British merchants previous to the Revolution must be paid. This gave intensity to the excitement, and the cry of usurpation on the part of the federal judiciary, which had frequently been raised by the opposition, now went over the land with vehement cadence.

The relations of the United States with Spain rather strengthened Genet's position. The Mississippi river was still closed to the Americans; and the Creek and Cherokee Indians, evidently encouraged by Spanish emissaries among them, assumed a position hostile to the United States. It was also asserted that propositions had been made by Spain to Great Britain inimical to the United States. These facts and rumors inflamed the people of the extreme South and West; and as a part of Genet's programme of operations in this country contemplated an armed invasion of Louisiana and the opening of the Mississippi, he and his cause were very popular with the settlers in the great valleys beyond the mountains of the Southwest.

While these things were perplexing Washington's cabinet, the dissentions in that cabinet were more perplexing to the president. And yet, so profoundly was Washington impressed with the skill, judgment, forecast, and patriotism of the chief contestants, Jefferson and Hamilton, that he contemplated the loss of their service, in their respective stations, with the greatest solicitude. Such contemplations were pressed upon his mind during the season of contest with Genet, which we have just considered. Toward the close of June, Hamilton notified the president that “considerations relative both to the public interest and to his own delicacy” had brought him to the conclusion of resigning at the close of the ensuing session of Congress; and on the thirty-first of July, Jefferson informed him that, at the close of the ensuing month of September, he should “beg leave to retire to scenes of greater tranquillity from those for which,” he said, “I am every day more and more convinced that neither my talents, tone of mind, nor time of life fit me.”

These communications distressed the president; and on the sixth of August he called upon Mr. Jefferson at his house, a little out of Philadelphia, and expressed himself greatly concerned because of the threatened desertion of those on whom he most relied, in this the hour of greatest perplexity to the government. He did not know where he should look to find suitable characters to fill up the offices. Mere talents, he said, did not suffice for the department ofstate; for its duties required a person conversant with foreign affairs, and perhaps with foreign courts.

“He expressed great apprehensions,” says Jefferson in hisAnas, “at the fermentation which seemed to be working in the mind of the public; that many descriptions of persons, actuated by different causes, appeared to be uniting [alluding to the democratic societies]; what it would end in he knew not; a new Congress was to assemble, more numerous, and perhaps of a different spirit; and the first expression of their sentiments would be important.” He then urged Jefferson to remain until the close of the next session, if no longer.

Jefferson pleaded his repugnance to public life, and especially the uneasiness of the position in which he was placed. He and Hamilton were bitter enemies, and his course, he said, had caused “the wealthy aristocrats, the merchants connected closely with England, the newly-created paper factions,” to bear him peculiar hatred. Thus surrounded, he said, his “words were caught, multiplied, misconstrued, and even fabricated and spread abroad,” to his injury. Disclaiming any knowledge of the views of the republican party at that time, he gave it as his opinion that they would be found strong supporters of the government in all measures for the public welfare; that in the next Congress they would attempt nothing material but to make that body independent; and that though the manœuvres of Mr. Genet might produce some embarrassment, he would be abandoned by the republicans and all true friends of the country the moment they knew the nature and tendency of his conduct.

The want of candor exhibited by Mr. Jefferson in these assurances, recorded by his own pen, must have been plainly visible to Washington. The idea that the secretary, the head and front of the republican party, should be ignorant of their “views,” and that the “party” would desert Genet when they should know “the nature of his conduct,” when that party were his continual backers and supporters, is simply absurd; and it is difficult to believe that Washington on that occasion, as Mr. Jefferson says,actually asserted his belief “in the purity of the motives” of that party.[58]

Jefferson consented to remain longer in the cabinet, and wrote the vigorous and high-toned letter to Gouverneur Morris on the subject of Genet's recall—a letter forming one of the most admirable state papers ever issued from that department. That letter gave Genet great umbrage, and in his comments he bitterly reproached Jefferson because he had allowed himself to be made “an ungenerous instrument” of attack upon him, after having made him believe that he was his friend, and “initiating him into the mysteries which had influenced his hatred against all those who aspired to absolute power.” It seems, from other remarks of Genet, that the tone of Jefferson's private conversations with the minister upon public topics had differed materially from that of his official communications. Genet intimated this when he said that “it was not in his character to speak,as many people do, in one way, and to act in another—to have an official language, and a language confidential.”[59]

While the subject of Genet's recall was pending, the minister proceeded to New York. Already the common sense of the people began to prevail over the nonsense of passion and feeling. Business-men—and the whole population of the country had interests directly associated with business-men—began to reflect upon the tendency of the doctrines of Genet, and clearly perceived that their practical effect would be the involvement of the United States in a war with England, and the sweeping of all their commerce from the ocean. From the moment when these reflections were heeded, there was a pause in the popular expressions of enthusiasm in favor of Genet. The last libations of fulsome adulation werepoured out on his arrival in New York in September, while the whole town and surrounding country were wild with excitement. The frigateL'Embuscade, while lying in the harbor of New York, had been challenged to single combat by the British frigateBoston, then cruising off Sandy Hook.L'Embuscadeaccepted the challenge; a severe battle ensued; Captain Courtenay, commander of theBoston, was killed; and the French vessel returned in triumph to New York. Multitudes of people gathered upon the wharves and greeted her with loud cheers. The excitement was intensified by the arrival, on the same day, of a French fleet from Chesapeake bay, which anchored in the Hudson river. The commander ofL'Embuscade, and the officers of the other French vessels, were regarded as almost superhuman by the most enthusiastic sympathizers with the French Revolution; and tri-colored ribbons and cockades were seen on every side, while the streets were made resonant with the Marsellaise Hymn and the Carmagnole.

While this new phase of excitement was at its culmination, the booming of cannon and the merry peal of the bells announced the approach of Citizen Genet. He was at Paulus' Hook (now Jersey City), opposite New York, and thousands of his friends immediately gathered in “The Fields” (now City-hall park) to adopt measures for his reception. A committee of escort was appointed, and Genet entered the city, amid the acclamations of an excited populace, with all the pomp of a conqueror. “Addresses were made to him,” says Mr. Irving, “expressing devoted attachment to the French republic, and abjuring all neutrality in regard to its heroic struggle. 'The cause of France is the cause of America,' cried the enthusiasts; 'it is time to distinguish its friends from its foes.' Genet looked around him. The tri-colored cockade figured in the hats of the shouting multitude; tri-colored ribbons fluttered from the dresses of females in the windows; the French flag was hoisted on the top of the Tontine coffee-house (the city exchange), surmounted by the cap of liberty. Can we wonder that what little discretion Genet possessed was completely overborne by this tide of seeming popularity?”

Genet had scarcely touched this cup of delight with his lips, when a copy of Jefferson's letter to Morris came to embitter the intoxicating draught. He received the document on the fifteenth of September, with assurances that, out of regard to the interests of France, the president would receive Mr. Genet's communications in writing, and respect him as the representative of his government until his successor should arrive, as long as his deportment should be of the tenor usually observed by embassadors toward independent nations. Genet was stung to the quick; and, three days after the receipt of this letter, he wrote a most angry reply to Jefferson, in which, as we have just noticed, he accused him of playing false to his professions of friendship, and charged the disfavor in which he was held by the government to the machinations of “aristocrats, partisans of monarchy, partisans of England and her constitution and consequently enemies of the principles which all good Frenchmen had imbued with religious enthusiasm;” and who, “instead of a democratic embassador, would prefer a minister of the ancientregimé, very complaisant, very gentle, very disposed to pay court to people in office, to conform blindly to everything which flattered their views and projects; above all, to prefer to the sure and modest society of good farmers, simple citizens, and honest artisans, that of distinguished personages who speculate so patriotically in the public funds, in the lands, and in the paper of government.”

Among the twelve enumerated great grievances of which Genet complained, was, that at his first interview with the president, the latter did not speak tohim, specially, but of the friendship of the United States toward France; that he did not, with partisan enthusiasm, announce a single sentiment on the French Revolution, “while all the towns from Charleston to Philadelphia had made the air resound with their most ardent wishes for the French republic.” He complained that the president had admitted to a private audience, before his arrival, “Noailles[60]and Talon, known agents of the French counter-revolutionists;” that the “first magistrate of a free people decorated his parlor with certain medallions” of the murdered king and his family, “which served at Paris as signals of rallying;” that when he applied to the secretary of war to lend his government some cannon and firearms for defensive use in the Windward islands, that functionary had “the front to answer, with an ironical carelessness, that the principles established by the president did not permit him to lend the French “so much as a pistol!” and,lastly, that the president, in spite of the French minister's “respectful insinuations,” had deferred “to convoke Congress immediately in order to take the true sentiments of the people, to fix the political system of the United States, and to decide whether they would break, suspend, or tighten their bonds with France.”

Jefferson, who had become heartily disgusted with Genet, took no notice of this angry and insolent letter, and the speedily-changed tone of public feeling toward the writer justified the silence. His threat of appealing from the president to the people—in other words, to excite an insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the government—had shocked the national pride, and many considerate republicans, who had been zealous in the cause of the French Revolution, paused while listening to the audacious words of a foreigner, who presumed to dictate a course of conduct for the beloved Washington to pursue.

The rumor of Genet's threat first went abroad in August, and met him, while on a visit to New York, in the form of a statement in one of the public papers. His partisans denied the truth of thestatement, when Chief-Justice Jay and Rufus King (the latter a leading member of Congress) assumed the responsibility of it in a published note dated the twelfth of August. The fact was thus established, notwithstanding the violent assaults made by Genet's partisans upon the integrity of Messrs. Jay and King; and on the very day when, as we have observed, he was received in New York in the midst of pealing bells and roaring cannon, a public meeting was held, in which his insolence was rebuked, and the policy of Washington's proclamation of neutrality strongly commended. Similar meetings were held throughout the Union, and there soon appeared a demonstration of public sentiment, the existence of which was not suspected by the partisans of Genet. His more violent friends attempted to check the counter-current, but in vain. When they could no longer deny the fact of his menace, they unwisely advocated his right to appeal from the president to the people. But this advocacy, and Genet's own intemperate conduct, damaged his interests past recovery. The tide of his popularity began rapidly to ebb, and in the public mind there was commenced a strong and irresistible reaction in favor of the federal government.

During the summer of 1793, a malignant fever, with slow but sure steps, invaded the city of Philadelphia. One after another of the inhabitants fell before its pestilential breath, until at length physicians and the voice of daily experience pronounced it infectious. It was, in truth, the deadlyyellow feverthat had fastened its fangs upon the doomed city. With the conviction of imminent peril, the population began to move. Those whose circumstances permitted them to leave fled to the country; and as August, with its hot days and cool, moist nights, drew to a close, its intensity fearfully increased. It respected neither age nor class. Early in September, Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, was prostrated by it, but recovered; and on the ninth, Washington with his family left for Mount Vernon, leaving directions about his household with General Knox, who resolved to remain, contrary to the advice of the president.

“I think it would not be prudent,” said Washington, “either foryou or the clerks in your office, or the office itself, to be too much exposed to the malignant fever, which, by well-authenticated report, is spreading through the city.... I sincerely wish and pray that you and yours may escape untouched, and when we meet again, that it may be under circumstances more pleasing than the present.”

Washington would have remained longer, but Mrs. Washington, alarmed for the safety of the whole family (the house in which they lived being in a manner blockaded by the disorder), prevailed on him to leave. The fever continued to rage with great violence until late in October, when frost checked its progress. Before it ceased, between three and four thousand of the inhabitants of Philadelphia perished. There was mourning in almost every family; and during the ensuing session of Congress, there was very little gayety in the federal capital. Some of the physicians fled like cowards from the field of battle, while others remained and assumed the two-fold functions of physicians and nurses, during those dark days of the autumn of 1793. Among the latter was the eminent Doctor Rush, whose courage and philanthropy are matters of history.[61]

The progress of the disease in Philadelphia was watched by the president at Mount Vernon with great solicitude, as the autumn woreaway, for it was near the time for the assembling of a new Congress, and public affairs demanded their earliest and most serious attention. September passed away, and much of October had gone, before the fever abated. Meanwhile, he proposed to call the Congress together at Germantown, or some other place near Philadelphia, at a safe distance from the pestilence. He had some doubt concerning his power to change the place of meeting, or to call them together at all, and asked the opinion of Mr. Randolph, the attorney-general. That gentleman expressed his belief that the president had not the power, and suggested the propriety of the Congress assembling at some place within the limits of Philadelphia, and then adjourning to some more remote and safe position. In the event of their not so assembling at the proper time, the “extraordinary occasion” contemplated by the constitution would occur, and the president then, clearly, had the right to call them together at the most suitable place. He also asked the opinions of other members of his cabinet on the subject; but the abatement of the disease rendered any change unnecessary.

At the close of October Washington set out for Philadelphia with his family, and there, on the second of December, the new Congress assembled.

FOOTNOTES:[58]In a letter to Richard Henry Lee, written at Mount Vernon a few weeks later, Washington said: “On fair ground it would be difficult to assign reasons for the conduct of those [the republican party] who are arraigning, and, so far as they are able, constantly embarrassing, the measures of government with respect to its pacific disposition towards the belligerent powers in the convulsive dispute which agitates them. But their motives are too obvious to those who have the means of information, and have viewed the different grounds which they have taken, to mistake their object. It is not the cause of France, nor I believe of liberty, which they regard; for, could they involve this country in war (no matter with whom) and disgrace, they would be among the first and loudest of the clamorous against the expense and impolicy of the measure.”[59]Genet's Letter to Jefferson, September 18, 1793.[60]De Noailles was a young French nobleman, who married a sister of Madame Lafayette, and served with distinction at the siege of Yorktown, in 1781. Like his brother-in-law, the marquis, he had engaged warmly in the French Revolution, in its earlier stages, but, like him, found himself in a proscribed party, and obliged to fly for safety. He came to the United States by way of England, and early in May he was in Philadelphia with his friend Talon, seeking an audience with Washington. The latter, with his usual circumspection, declined any direct communication with him until the object of his visit should be known. In a note to Hamilton, Washington remarked, “I pray you intimate to him [Viscount de Noailles], gently and delicately, that if the letters or papers which he has to present are, knowingly to him, of a nature which relates to public matters, and not particularly addressed to me, or if he has any verbal communications to make of a similar kind, I had rather they should come through a proper channel. Add thereto, generally, that the peculiar situation of European affairs at this moment, my good wishes for his nation aggregately, my regard for those of it, in particular, with whom I have had the honor of an acquaintance, my anxious desire to keep this country in peace, and the delicacy of my situation, render a circumspect conduct indispensably necessary on my part. I do not, however, mean by this that I am to withhold from him such civilities as are common to others. Those more marked, notwithstanding our former acquaintance, would excite speculations, which had better be avoided.”[61]Dr. Benjamin Rush was then in the prime of life, being forty-eight years of age. He had already achieved the highest success in his profession as a writer and practitioner; and as a member of the continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, he had a wide-spread popularity. He founded the Philadelphia dispensary in 1786, and was one of the principal founders of Dickinson college, at Carlisle, in Pennsylvania. He was professor of medical science in the medical college of Philadelphia, and also in the medical college of Pennsylvania. He was president of the American Anti-slavery society and other associations for the good of mankind.“In private life,” says Doctor John W. Francis, “his disposition and deportment were in the highest degree exemplary. Admired and courted for his intellectual endowments, he riveted to him the affections of all who enjoyed the pleasure of an intimate acquaintance. The affability of his manners, the amiableness of his temper, and the benevolence of his character, were ever conspicuous. He was ardent in his friendships, and forgiving in his resentments; and yet, entertaining a due regard for himself and a high sense of honor, he possessed a manly independence of spirit which disdained everything mean and servile. He had an extraordinary command of language, and always imparted his thoughts in a peculiarly impressive and eloquent manner. Those who had the happiness to experience the delights of his conversation will long recollect with pleasure his unassuming modesty, and the rich stores of knowledge he poured forth on the most instructive topics. Even when his opinions were solicited, they were given, not as the dictates or admonitions of a superior, but as the kind advice of a friend and equal. He never evinced any of that haughtiness and affectation of importance which sometimes attaches to men of eminence, and which so materially lessens the pleasures and comforts of social life.”—Sketch of the Life and Character of the late Doctor Benjamin Rush, in theAmerican Medical and Philosophical Register, July, 1813.

[58]In a letter to Richard Henry Lee, written at Mount Vernon a few weeks later, Washington said: “On fair ground it would be difficult to assign reasons for the conduct of those [the republican party] who are arraigning, and, so far as they are able, constantly embarrassing, the measures of government with respect to its pacific disposition towards the belligerent powers in the convulsive dispute which agitates them. But their motives are too obvious to those who have the means of information, and have viewed the different grounds which they have taken, to mistake their object. It is not the cause of France, nor I believe of liberty, which they regard; for, could they involve this country in war (no matter with whom) and disgrace, they would be among the first and loudest of the clamorous against the expense and impolicy of the measure.”

[59]Genet's Letter to Jefferson, September 18, 1793.

[60]De Noailles was a young French nobleman, who married a sister of Madame Lafayette, and served with distinction at the siege of Yorktown, in 1781. Like his brother-in-law, the marquis, he had engaged warmly in the French Revolution, in its earlier stages, but, like him, found himself in a proscribed party, and obliged to fly for safety. He came to the United States by way of England, and early in May he was in Philadelphia with his friend Talon, seeking an audience with Washington. The latter, with his usual circumspection, declined any direct communication with him until the object of his visit should be known. In a note to Hamilton, Washington remarked, “I pray you intimate to him [Viscount de Noailles], gently and delicately, that if the letters or papers which he has to present are, knowingly to him, of a nature which relates to public matters, and not particularly addressed to me, or if he has any verbal communications to make of a similar kind, I had rather they should come through a proper channel. Add thereto, generally, that the peculiar situation of European affairs at this moment, my good wishes for his nation aggregately, my regard for those of it, in particular, with whom I have had the honor of an acquaintance, my anxious desire to keep this country in peace, and the delicacy of my situation, render a circumspect conduct indispensably necessary on my part. I do not, however, mean by this that I am to withhold from him such civilities as are common to others. Those more marked, notwithstanding our former acquaintance, would excite speculations, which had better be avoided.”

[61]Dr. Benjamin Rush was then in the prime of life, being forty-eight years of age. He had already achieved the highest success in his profession as a writer and practitioner; and as a member of the continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, he had a wide-spread popularity. He founded the Philadelphia dispensary in 1786, and was one of the principal founders of Dickinson college, at Carlisle, in Pennsylvania. He was professor of medical science in the medical college of Philadelphia, and also in the medical college of Pennsylvania. He was president of the American Anti-slavery society and other associations for the good of mankind.“In private life,” says Doctor John W. Francis, “his disposition and deportment were in the highest degree exemplary. Admired and courted for his intellectual endowments, he riveted to him the affections of all who enjoyed the pleasure of an intimate acquaintance. The affability of his manners, the amiableness of his temper, and the benevolence of his character, were ever conspicuous. He was ardent in his friendships, and forgiving in his resentments; and yet, entertaining a due regard for himself and a high sense of honor, he possessed a manly independence of spirit which disdained everything mean and servile. He had an extraordinary command of language, and always imparted his thoughts in a peculiarly impressive and eloquent manner. Those who had the happiness to experience the delights of his conversation will long recollect with pleasure his unassuming modesty, and the rich stores of knowledge he poured forth on the most instructive topics. Even when his opinions were solicited, they were given, not as the dictates or admonitions of a superior, but as the kind advice of a friend and equal. He never evinced any of that haughtiness and affectation of importance which sometimes attaches to men of eminence, and which so materially lessens the pleasures and comforts of social life.”—Sketch of the Life and Character of the late Doctor Benjamin Rush, in theAmerican Medical and Philosophical Register, July, 1813.

“In private life,” says Doctor John W. Francis, “his disposition and deportment were in the highest degree exemplary. Admired and courted for his intellectual endowments, he riveted to him the affections of all who enjoyed the pleasure of an intimate acquaintance. The affability of his manners, the amiableness of his temper, and the benevolence of his character, were ever conspicuous. He was ardent in his friendships, and forgiving in his resentments; and yet, entertaining a due regard for himself and a high sense of honor, he possessed a manly independence of spirit which disdained everything mean and servile. He had an extraordinary command of language, and always imparted his thoughts in a peculiarly impressive and eloquent manner. Those who had the happiness to experience the delights of his conversation will long recollect with pleasure his unassuming modesty, and the rich stores of knowledge he poured forth on the most instructive topics. Even when his opinions were solicited, they were given, not as the dictates or admonitions of a superior, but as the kind advice of a friend and equal. He never evinced any of that haughtiness and affectation of importance which sometimes attaches to men of eminence, and which so materially lessens the pleasures and comforts of social life.”—Sketch of the Life and Character of the late Doctor Benjamin Rush, in theAmerican Medical and Philosophical Register, July, 1813.

TOP

assembling of the third congress—its character—recommendations in washington's annual message—his special message concerning relations with europe—his notice of genet—opinions of the cabinet concerning the message—washington supported by congress—jefferson's report on commercial relations—his parting missile cast at genet—jefferson's retirement from office—washington's confidence in him—correspondence—jefferson at home—madison's resolutions based on jefferson's report.

The third Congress assembled at Philadelphia on the second of December. In the senate, many of the leading members of former sessions remained, having their places either by holding over or by re-election. Many of the old members of the house of representatives had also been re-chosen, and yet there were a great many changes in that body. The elements of party strife were active among them all, and it was evident to every man that a great struggle was impending. The aggressions of the British and the intrigues of Genet continued to inflame the zeal of the republicans, and they carried their partiality to France to a degree of absolute fanaticism. To many minds, open war between England and the United States appeared inevitable.

Washington's annual message, delivered at the opening of Congress, was calculated to still the turbulent waves of faction, had reason and judgment, and not passion and fanaticism, swayed the opinions of men. He expressed his sense of the continued confidence of the people in re-electing him to the high office of chief-magistrate of the nation; and then, in firm, explicit, and dignified terms, spoke of existing public affairs, especially the measures he had taken, in consequence of the war in Europe, to preserve peace at home and to protect the rights and interests of the United States.He pressed upon Congress the necessity of placing the country in a condition of complete defence, and of exacting from other governments the fulfilment of their duties toward his own.

“The United States ought not,” he said, “to indulge a persuasion that, contrary to the order of human events, they will for ever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every other nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it. If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” With such suggestions, he urged them to adopt measures for increasing the amount of arms and ammunition in the arsenals, and to improve the militia establishment. He assured them that every reasonable effort had been made to adjust the causes of dissention with the Indians north of the Ohio, and yet war with them continued. He alluded to the political connection of the United States with Europe, and promised to give them, in a subsequent communication, a statement of occurrences which related to it, that had passed under the knowledge of the executive.

The president urged the house of representatives to adopt measures for the “regular redemption and discharge of the public debt,” as a matter of the first importance; and announced the necessity of an augmentation of the public revenue to meet all proper demands upon the treasury. He concluded by saying, “Permit me to bring to your remembrance the magnitude of your task. Without an unprejudiced coolness, the welfare of the government may be hazarded; without harmony, as far as consists with freedom of sentiment, its dignity may be lost. But, as the legislative proceedings of the United States will never, I trust, be reproached for the want of temper or of candor, so shall not the public happiness languish for the want of my strenuous and warmest co-operation.”

On the fifth of December, according to promise, Washington laid before Congress the documents relating, not only to Genet and hismission, but to negotiations with England and other European governments. In his message accompanying these documents, after alluding to the general feeling of friendship for the United States exhibited by the representative and executive bodies of France, the president spoke as follows of the insolent Genet:—

“It is with extreme concern I have to inform you, that the proceedings of the person whom they have unfortunately appointed their minister plenipotentiary here have breathed nothing of the friendly spirit of the nation which sent him. Their tendency, on the contrary, has been to involve us in war abroad, and discord and anarchy at home. So far as his acts, or those of his agents, have threatened our immediate commitment in the war, or flagrant insult to the authority of the laws, their effect has been counteracted by the ordinary cognizance of the laws, and by an exertion of the powers confided to me. Where their danger was not imminent, they have been borne with from sentiments of regard to his nation, from a sense of their friendship toward us, from a conviction that they would not suffer us to long remain exposed to the action of a person who has so little respected our mutual dispositions, and from a reliance on the firmness of my fellow-citizens in their principles of peace and order.” He then alluded to the spoliations which had been committed upon the commerce of the United States by the cruisers of the belligerent powers, and the restrictions upon American commerce attempted to be enforced by the commanders of British vessels pursuant to instructions of their government. He also called attention to the inexecution of the treaty of 1783, and the relations of the United States and Spain.

“The message,” says Hildreth, “as originally drafted by Jefferson, contained a contrast between the conduct of France and England, especially in relation to commercial facilities, highly favorable to the former. This had been objected to by Hamilton, who considered the disposition of the people toward France a serious calamity, and that the executive ought not, by echoing her praises, to nourish that disposition. In his opinion, the balance of commercial favors was decidedly with the British; the commercial offers madeby France were the offspring of the moment, growing out of circumstances that could not last. To evade Hamilton's objections, Jefferson consented to some modifications of the message. Hamilton then insisted that the papers relating to the non-execution of the treaty of peace, and to the stopping of the corn-ships, ought not to be communicated, unless in a secret message, as the matters therein discussed were still unsettled, and the tendency of the communication was to inflame the public mind against Great Britain. Jefferson was a good deal alarmed at this threatened suppression of his diplomatic labors; but Washington decided that all the papers should be communicated without any restrictions of secrecy, even those respecting the corn-ships, which all the cabinet except Jefferson had advised to withhold.”

In a letter to his wife, written on the nineteenth of December, John Adams, referring to the sentence in Washington's special message in relation to the French minister, said, “The president has considered the conduct of Genet very nearly in the same light with Columbus, and has given him a bolt of thunder. We shall see how this is supported by both houses. We shall soon see whether we have any government or not in this country.” Doubting whether Washington would be sustained by Congress, Adams continued: “But, although he stands at present as high in the admiration and confidence of the people as ever he did, I expect he will find many bitter and desperate enemies arise in consequence of his just judgment against Genet.”

In this, Adams was mistaken. The house, where the opposition was most rampant, determined, and unscrupulous, responded most affectionately to the president's message, and tacitly rebuked the demagogues for their personal abuse of Washington. They expressed their satisfaction at his re-election, and their confidence in the purity and patriotism of his motives, in all his acts, especially in again consenting, at the call of his country, to fill the presidential chair. “It is to virtues which have commanded long and universal reverence, and services from which have flowed great and lasting benefits, that the tribute of praise may be paid, without the reproachof flattery; and it is from the same sources that the fairest anticipations may be derived in favor of the public happiness.”

Both houses, likewise, in the face of the popular excitement in favor of France, approved of the president's course in regard to that country and its representative; and while the lower house was guarded in its terms of approval of the proclamation of neutrality that had been so loudly condemned by the partisan press, the senate pronounced it “a measure well-timed and wise, manifesting a watchful solicitude for the welfare of the nation and calculated to promote it.”

Jefferson's official connection with Washington was now drawing to a close. He had consented to remain in the cabinet until the end of the current year. With the completion and submission of some able state papers he finished his career as secretary of state. One of them was an elaborate report called for by a resolution of Congress adopted in February, 1791, on the state of trade of the United States with different countries; the nature and extent of exports and imports, and the amount of tonnage of American shipping. It also specified the various restrictions and prohibitions by which American commerce was embarrassed and greatly injured, and recommended the adoption of discriminating duties, as against Great Britain, to compel her to put the United States on a more equal footing, she having thus far persistently declined to enter into any treaty stipulations on the subject.

Jefferson's last official act was the administration of a deserved rebuke to Genet. That meddling functionary had sent to him translations of the instructions given him by the executive council of France, desiring the president to lay them officially before both houses of Congress, and proposing to transmit, from time to time, other papers to be laid before them in like manner. “I have it in charge to observe,” said Jefferson to Genet in a letter on the thirty-first of December, “that your functions as the minister of a foreign nation here are confined to the transactions of the affairs of your nation with the executive of the United States; that the communications which are to pass between the executive and legislativebranches can not be a subject for your interference; and that the president must be left to judge for himself what matters his duty, or the public good, may require him to propose to the deliberations of Congress. I have, therefore, the honor of returning you the copies sent for distribution, and of being, with great respect, sir, your most obedient and most humble servant.” Even this did not keep Genet quiet.

Throughout all the storm that had agitated his cabinet, and the hostility of Jefferson and his party to the measures of the administration, Washington never withheld from the secretary of state his confidence in his wisdom and patriotism; and the latter left office with the happy consciousness that he carried with him into retirement the friendship of one, of whom he said in after years, “His integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known; no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision. He was indeed, in every sense of the word, a wise, and good, and great man"[62]

On the last day of the year, Mr. Jefferson offered his resignation in the following letter to the president: “Having had the honor of communicating to you, in my letter of the last of July, my purpose of retiring from the office of secretary of state at the end of the month of September, you were pleased, for particular reasons, to wish its postponement to the close of the year. That time being now arrived, and my propensities to retirement daily more and more irresistible, I now take the liberty of resigning the office into your hands. Be pleased to accept with it my sincere thanks for all the indulgences which you have been so good as to exercise toward me in the discharge of its duties. Conscious that my need of them have been great, I have still ever found them greater, without any other claim on my part than a firm pursuit of what has appeared to me to be right, and a thorough disdain of all means which were not as open and honorable as their object was pure. I carry into my retirement a lively sense of your goodness, and shall continue gratefully to remember it.

“With very sincere prayers for your life, health, and tranquillity, I pray you to accept the homage of great and constant respect and attachment.”

To this Washington replied the next day as follows: “I yesterday received, with sincere regret, your resignation of the office of secretary of state. Since it has been impossible to prevail upon you to forego any longer the indulgence of your desire for private life, the event, however anxious I am to avert it, must be submitted to.

“But I can not suffer you to leave your station without assuring you that the opinion which I had formed of your integrity and talents, and which dictated your original nomination, has been confirmed by the fullest experience, and that both have been eminently displayed in the discharge of your duty.

“Let a conviction of my most earnest prayers for your happiness accompany you in your retirement; and while I accept, with the warmest thanks, your solicitude for my welfare, I beg you to believe that I always am, dear sir, &c.”

Edmund Randolph, the attorney-general, took Jefferson's place in the cabinet, and his own was filled by William Bradford, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Jefferson left the seat of government as soon as possible after withdrawing from public life; and a fortnight after his resignation he arrived at Monticello, his beautiful home in the interior of Virginia, in full view of the Blue Ridge along a continuous line of almost sixty miles. He was then fifty years of age. His whole family, with all his servants, were at his home to receive him; and so delightful was this, his first experience of private life for many long years, that he resolved to abandon himself to it entirely.

He boasted, almost a month after he left Philadelphia, that he had not seen a newspaper since his flight from the cares of government, and he declared that he thought of never taking one again. “I think it is Montaigne,” he wrote to Edmund Randolph on the third of February, “who has said that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can rest his head. I am sure it is true, as to anything political, and shall endeavor to estrange myself to everything of that character.” But his hatred of Hamilton, and his persistencein regarding the political friends of that gentleman as necessarily corrupt, would not allow party feud to sleep in his mind, and he added, in the next sentence, “I indulge myself on one political topic only; that is, in declaring to my countrymen the shameless corruption of a portion of the representatives to the first and second Congress, and their implicit devotion to the treasury.”

Meanwhile, the report of Jefferson on commercial affairs was eliciting warm debates in Congress. In that report he had suggested two methods for modifying or removing commercial restrictions: first, by amicable arrangements with foreign powers; and, secondly, by counteracting acts of the legislature. With the design, as we have seen, of distressing France by cutting off her supplies, two orders in council were issued by the British government, one in June and the other in November, which bore heavily upon the commercial prosperity of the United States. By the first order, British cruisers were instructed to stop all ships laden with corn, flour, or meal (corn-ships already alluded to), bound to any French port, and send them to any convenient port, home or continental, where the cargoes might be purchased in behalf of the British government. By the second, British ships-of-war and privateers were required to detain all vessels laden with goods produced in any colony belonging to France, or with provisions for any such colony, and bring them to adjudication before British courts of admiralty. These were such flagrant outrages upon the rights of neutrals, that the United States government strongly remonstrated against them as unjust in principle and injurious in their practical effects. It was to these orders in council and their effects that the president pointed in his annual message, when urging the necessity of placing the country in a state of defense, and in a position to assert its just rights.[63]

Mr. Jefferson's report gave rise to a series of resolutions offered, by Mr. Madison on the third of January, 1794, the leading idea of which was that of opposing commercial resistance to commercial injury, and to enforce a perfect equality by retaliating impositions on the assumption that the commercial system of Great Britain was hostile to that of the United States. This scheme embodied the idea of a proposition made by Madison in the first Congress. His resolutions now took wider range, however, than did his proposition then. It was now proposed to impose restrictions and additional duties on the manufactures and navigation of nations which had no commercial treaties with the United States, and a reduction of duties on the tonnage of vessels belonging to nations with which such treaties existed.

Back to Index Next