FOOTNOTES:[62]Letter to Doctor Walter Jones, January 2, 1814.[63]In allusion to the annual and special messages of Washington at this time, the eminent Charles James Fox made the following remarks in the British parliament on the thirty-first of January, 1794:—“And here, sir, I can not help alluding to the president of the United States, General Washington, a character whose conduct has been so different from that which has been pursued by ministers of this country. How infinitely wiser must appear the spirit and principles manifested in his late addresses to Congress than the policy of modern European courts! Illustrious man! deriving honor less from the splendor of his situation than from the dignity of his mind; before whom all borrowed greatness sinks into insignificance, and all the potentates of Europe (excepting the members of our own royal family) become little and contemptible! He has had no occasion to have recourse to any tricks of policy or arts of alarm; his authority has been sufficiently supported by the same means by which it was acquired, and his conduct has uniformly been characterized by wisdom, moderation, and firmness. Feeling gratitude to France for the assistance received from her in that great contest which secured the independence of America, he did not choose to give up the system of neutrality. Having once laid down that line of conduct, which both gratitude and policy pointed out as most proper to be pursued, not all the insults and provocations of the French minister, Genet, could turn him from his purpose. Intrusted with the welfare of a great people, he did not allow the misconduct of another with respect to himself, for one moment, to withdraw his attention from their interest. He had no fear of the Jacobins; he felt no alarm for their principles, and considered no precaution as necessary in order to stop their progress.“The people over whom he presided he knew to be acquainted with their rights and their duties. He trusted to their own good sense to defeat the effect of those arts which might be employed to inflame or mislead their minds; and was sensible that a government could be in no danger while it retained the attachment and confidence of its subjects; attachment, in this instance, not blindly adopted—confidence not implicitly given, but arising from the conviction of its excellence, and the experience of its blessings. I can not, indeed, help admiring the wisdom and fortune of this great man. By the phrase 'fortune,' I mean not in the smallest degree to derogate from his merit. But, notwithstanding his extraordinary talent and exalted integrity, it must be considered as singularly fortunate that he should have experienced a lot which so seldom falls to the portion of humanity, and have passed through such a variety of scenes without stain and reproach. It must indeed create astonishment, that, placed in circumstances so critical, and filling for a series of years a station so conspicuous, his character should never once have been called in question; that he should in no one instance have been accused either of improper insolence or of mean submission in his transactions with foreign nations. For him it has been reserved to run the race of glory, without experiencing the smallest interruption to the brilliancy of his career.”
[62]Letter to Doctor Walter Jones, January 2, 1814.
[62]Letter to Doctor Walter Jones, January 2, 1814.
[63]In allusion to the annual and special messages of Washington at this time, the eminent Charles James Fox made the following remarks in the British parliament on the thirty-first of January, 1794:—“And here, sir, I can not help alluding to the president of the United States, General Washington, a character whose conduct has been so different from that which has been pursued by ministers of this country. How infinitely wiser must appear the spirit and principles manifested in his late addresses to Congress than the policy of modern European courts! Illustrious man! deriving honor less from the splendor of his situation than from the dignity of his mind; before whom all borrowed greatness sinks into insignificance, and all the potentates of Europe (excepting the members of our own royal family) become little and contemptible! He has had no occasion to have recourse to any tricks of policy or arts of alarm; his authority has been sufficiently supported by the same means by which it was acquired, and his conduct has uniformly been characterized by wisdom, moderation, and firmness. Feeling gratitude to France for the assistance received from her in that great contest which secured the independence of America, he did not choose to give up the system of neutrality. Having once laid down that line of conduct, which both gratitude and policy pointed out as most proper to be pursued, not all the insults and provocations of the French minister, Genet, could turn him from his purpose. Intrusted with the welfare of a great people, he did not allow the misconduct of another with respect to himself, for one moment, to withdraw his attention from their interest. He had no fear of the Jacobins; he felt no alarm for their principles, and considered no precaution as necessary in order to stop their progress.“The people over whom he presided he knew to be acquainted with their rights and their duties. He trusted to their own good sense to defeat the effect of those arts which might be employed to inflame or mislead their minds; and was sensible that a government could be in no danger while it retained the attachment and confidence of its subjects; attachment, in this instance, not blindly adopted—confidence not implicitly given, but arising from the conviction of its excellence, and the experience of its blessings. I can not, indeed, help admiring the wisdom and fortune of this great man. By the phrase 'fortune,' I mean not in the smallest degree to derogate from his merit. But, notwithstanding his extraordinary talent and exalted integrity, it must be considered as singularly fortunate that he should have experienced a lot which so seldom falls to the portion of humanity, and have passed through such a variety of scenes without stain and reproach. It must indeed create astonishment, that, placed in circumstances so critical, and filling for a series of years a station so conspicuous, his character should never once have been called in question; that he should in no one instance have been accused either of improper insolence or of mean submission in his transactions with foreign nations. For him it has been reserved to run the race of glory, without experiencing the smallest interruption to the brilliancy of his career.”
[63]In allusion to the annual and special messages of Washington at this time, the eminent Charles James Fox made the following remarks in the British parliament on the thirty-first of January, 1794:—
“And here, sir, I can not help alluding to the president of the United States, General Washington, a character whose conduct has been so different from that which has been pursued by ministers of this country. How infinitely wiser must appear the spirit and principles manifested in his late addresses to Congress than the policy of modern European courts! Illustrious man! deriving honor less from the splendor of his situation than from the dignity of his mind; before whom all borrowed greatness sinks into insignificance, and all the potentates of Europe (excepting the members of our own royal family) become little and contemptible! He has had no occasion to have recourse to any tricks of policy or arts of alarm; his authority has been sufficiently supported by the same means by which it was acquired, and his conduct has uniformly been characterized by wisdom, moderation, and firmness. Feeling gratitude to France for the assistance received from her in that great contest which secured the independence of America, he did not choose to give up the system of neutrality. Having once laid down that line of conduct, which both gratitude and policy pointed out as most proper to be pursued, not all the insults and provocations of the French minister, Genet, could turn him from his purpose. Intrusted with the welfare of a great people, he did not allow the misconduct of another with respect to himself, for one moment, to withdraw his attention from their interest. He had no fear of the Jacobins; he felt no alarm for their principles, and considered no precaution as necessary in order to stop their progress.“The people over whom he presided he knew to be acquainted with their rights and their duties. He trusted to their own good sense to defeat the effect of those arts which might be employed to inflame or mislead their minds; and was sensible that a government could be in no danger while it retained the attachment and confidence of its subjects; attachment, in this instance, not blindly adopted—confidence not implicitly given, but arising from the conviction of its excellence, and the experience of its blessings. I can not, indeed, help admiring the wisdom and fortune of this great man. By the phrase 'fortune,' I mean not in the smallest degree to derogate from his merit. But, notwithstanding his extraordinary talent and exalted integrity, it must be considered as singularly fortunate that he should have experienced a lot which so seldom falls to the portion of humanity, and have passed through such a variety of scenes without stain and reproach. It must indeed create astonishment, that, placed in circumstances so critical, and filling for a series of years a station so conspicuous, his character should never once have been called in question; that he should in no one instance have been accused either of improper insolence or of mean submission in his transactions with foreign nations. For him it has been reserved to run the race of glory, without experiencing the smallest interruption to the brilliancy of his career.”
“And here, sir, I can not help alluding to the president of the United States, General Washington, a character whose conduct has been so different from that which has been pursued by ministers of this country. How infinitely wiser must appear the spirit and principles manifested in his late addresses to Congress than the policy of modern European courts! Illustrious man! deriving honor less from the splendor of his situation than from the dignity of his mind; before whom all borrowed greatness sinks into insignificance, and all the potentates of Europe (excepting the members of our own royal family) become little and contemptible! He has had no occasion to have recourse to any tricks of policy or arts of alarm; his authority has been sufficiently supported by the same means by which it was acquired, and his conduct has uniformly been characterized by wisdom, moderation, and firmness. Feeling gratitude to France for the assistance received from her in that great contest which secured the independence of America, he did not choose to give up the system of neutrality. Having once laid down that line of conduct, which both gratitude and policy pointed out as most proper to be pursued, not all the insults and provocations of the French minister, Genet, could turn him from his purpose. Intrusted with the welfare of a great people, he did not allow the misconduct of another with respect to himself, for one moment, to withdraw his attention from their interest. He had no fear of the Jacobins; he felt no alarm for their principles, and considered no precaution as necessary in order to stop their progress.
“The people over whom he presided he knew to be acquainted with their rights and their duties. He trusted to their own good sense to defeat the effect of those arts which might be employed to inflame or mislead their minds; and was sensible that a government could be in no danger while it retained the attachment and confidence of its subjects; attachment, in this instance, not blindly adopted—confidence not implicitly given, but arising from the conviction of its excellence, and the experience of its blessings. I can not, indeed, help admiring the wisdom and fortune of this great man. By the phrase 'fortune,' I mean not in the smallest degree to derogate from his merit. But, notwithstanding his extraordinary talent and exalted integrity, it must be considered as singularly fortunate that he should have experienced a lot which so seldom falls to the portion of humanity, and have passed through such a variety of scenes without stain and reproach. It must indeed create astonishment, that, placed in circumstances so critical, and filling for a series of years a station so conspicuous, his character should never once have been called in question; that he should in no one instance have been accused either of improper insolence or of mean submission in his transactions with foreign nations. For him it has been reserved to run the race of glory, without experiencing the smallest interruption to the brilliancy of his career.”
TOP
debates on madison's resolutions—their fate—proceedings in regard to algerine corsairs—commencement of a navy—first committee of ways and means—frigates ordered to be built—naval officers appointed—genet recalled—arrival of his successor—genet marries and becomes an american citizen—excitement against great britain—appointment of a special envoy to the british court discussed—john jay appointed—belligerent action in congress—james monroe appointed morris's successor in france—adjournment of congress—washington visits mount vernon—rebellious movements in kentucky—washington's comments thereon.
debates on madison's resolutions—their fate—proceedings in regard to algerine corsairs—commencement of a navy—first committee of ways and means—frigates ordered to be built—naval officers appointed—genet recalled—arrival of his successor—genet marries and becomes an american citizen—excitement against great britain—appointment of a special envoy to the british court discussed—john jay appointed—belligerent action in congress—james monroe appointed morris's successor in france—adjournment of congress—washington visits mount vernon—rebellious movements in kentucky—washington's comments thereon.
1794
Madison's resolutions elicited very warm, and at times, violent debates. The subject was of a purely commercial nature; but the questions it involved were so interwoven with political considerations, that the debates inevitably assumed a political and partisan aspect. The federalists plainly saw that the recommendations in Jefferson's report, and in the resolutions of Madison, hostility to England and undue favor toward France, neither position being warranted by a wise policy, nor consistent with neutrality. The republicans, on the other hand, regarded the scheme as equitable in itself, and as absolutely necessary for the assertion of the rights of neutral nations, and the protection of American commerce from insult, aggression, and plunder. These debates, which commenced on the thirteenth of January, continued until the third of February, with few intermissions; and the house was so nearly equally divided in sentiment, that the first resolution, authorizing commercial restrictions, was passed by a majority of only five. This was subsequently rejected in the senate by the casting vote of the vice-president, and the further consideration of the whole subject was postponed until March. When it was resumed, the progress of events had givensuch new complexion to the whole matter, that it was indefinitely postponed.
A new and important subject for legislation was brought up at this time. Very soon after the close of the Revolution, the piratical practices of corsairs belonging to the Barbary powers on the southern shores of the Mediterranean sea, and particularly of Algiers, had suggested the importance of a naval establishment for the protection of the infant commerce of the new-born nation. Many American merchant-ships, trading in the Mediterranean sea, were captured by these corsairs, their cargoes appropriated by the pirates, and their crews sold into slavery. Toward the close of 1790, President Washington called the attention of Congress to the subject, and at the same time Mr. Jefferson, the secretary of state, who had made himself thoroughly acquainted with the facts when in France, gave many interesting details in an official report on the subject.
Colonel David Humphreys was appointed a commissioner to treat with the dey or governor of Algiers concerning his corsairs; but that semi-barbarian—proud, haughty, and avaricious—was not disposed to relinquish his share of the profitable sea-robberies carried on under his sanction. “If I were to make peace with everybody,” he said, “what should I do with my corsairs? What should I do with my soldiers? They would take off my head for the want of other prizes, not being able to live on their miserable allowance!”
This was certainly good logic for the perplexed dey, but it did not convince Humphreys of the justice of piratical practices; and, at the close of 1793, he wrote to the government of the United States, “If we mean to have a commerce, we must have a navy to defend it. Besides, the verysemblance of thiswould tend more toward enabling us to maintain our neutrality, in the actual critical state of affairs in Europe, than all the declarations, reasonings, concessions, and sacrifices, that can possibly be made.”
Washington had communicated to the house on the twenty-third day of December, in a confidential message, the state of affairs withAlgiers; and its consideration with closed doors brought about a debate as to whether the public should at any time, or under any circumstances, be excluded from the galleries of the halls of Congress. This, however, interrupted the business only for a short time.
On the second of January, a committee was appointed to report the amount of force necessary to protect American commerce against the Algerine corsairs, and the ways and means for its support. This was the first committee of ways and means ever appointed by Congress, questions of that sort having been hitherto referred to the secretary of the treasury. It indicated an opposition majority in the house, but, as we have seen in the case of Madison's resolutions, it was very small.
Finally, in the spring of 1794, Congress passed an act to provide for a naval armament, because, as the preamble recited, “the depredations committed by the Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States, render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection.” The bill met with strenuous opposition: first, because the time required to form a navy would be too long, the pressing exigency of the case requiring immediate action; and, secondly, because it would be cheaper to purchase the friendship of Algiers by paying a money-tribute, as had been done for some time by European nations, or to purchase the protection of those nations. It appears strange that suggestions so degrading to the character of a free and independent nation should not have been met with indignant rebuke.
The bill was passed by a small majority. The president was authorized to provide four frigates, to carry forty-four guns each, and two to carry thirty-six guns each, and to equip, man, and employ them. The act also gave him some discretion about the size and metal of the vessels. Washington, impressed with the stern necessity that called for this armament, immediately ordered the six vessels to be built, one each at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Portsmouth in Virginia, and Portsmouth in New Hampshire. He also, with the advice and consent of the senate,proceeded to appoint six naval commanders and other officers; and thus was commenced the navy of the United States.[64]
i0706American Naval Commanders
During the progress of the debates on Madison's resolutions, Washington communicated to Congress evidences of efforts on the part of Genet to excite the people of portions of the Union against the Spanish authorities on its southwestern border, and to organize military expeditions against Louisiana and the Floridas. It was now determined to bear with the insolence and mischievous meddling of the French minister no longer; and, at a cabinet council, it was agreed that his diplomatic functions should be suspended, the privileges resting thereon to be denied him, and his person arrested. This was the only course for the government to pursue for the preservation of its dignity, and perhaps the safety of the republic. This resolution was about to be put into execution, when a despatch was received from Gouverneur Morris announcing Genet's recall. The French minister of foreign affairs had, as soon as he heard of Genet's misconduct, reprobated it as unauthorized by his government, and appointed M. Fauchet secretary of the executive council to succeed him. At the same time the French government asked the recall of Gouverneur Morris, whose views of democracy, as he saw it daily in Paris, did not coincide with the doctrines of the Jacobins. Morris was recalled, and Washington, with a liberal spirit, nominated James Monroe, a political opponent, as his successor. He knew that Monroe would be acceptable to the French Convention, and likely, therefore, to be useful to his government.
Fauchet was a keen diplomatist, and came as the representative of an administration more radical in its democracy than the one that appointed Genet. The Girondists had fallen, and the government of France had passed into the hands of Danton and Robespierre, the leaders of the Jacobins. The Reign of Terror was now in full force. The republican constitution had been suspended, and the Convention had assumed despoticpowers with bloody proclivities. Even the warmest sympathizers with the French Revolution, in America, stood appalled at the aspect of affairs there; and many began to doubt, after all, whether English liberty was not preferable to French liberty.[65]
Fauchet arrived at Philadelphia in February, and Genet had liberty to return to France. But he did not choose to trust his person to the caprices of his countrymen in that time of anarchy and blood, and he remained in America. He married Cornelia Tappen, daughter of Governor Clinton, of New York, and became a resident of that state. He at once disappeared from the firmament of politics, but was an excellent citizen of his adopted country, and took great interest in agriculture. His course as minister has been ably defended; but the verdict of impartial history condemns it as unwise and unwarrantable, to say the least. He died at his residence in Greenbush, opposite Albany, in July, 1834.
Another subject now violently agitated the American people. The news of the British orders in council concerning the French colonial trade had produced great excitement in commercial circles at Philadelphia and New York. It was considered a flagrant act of injustice toward neutrals, and both parties vehemently condemned the British government. In Congress a resolution was offered for the raising of fifteen thousand men to serve two years, and for other preparations for war; and it was at this juncture that Madison's commercial resolutions, as we have observed, were called up, debated, and indefinitely postponed. While the debateson these resolutions were pending, the feeling against Great Britain was further stimulated by the publication, in New York, of a reputed speech of Lord Dorchester (Carleton), governor of Canada, to a deputation of Indians of Lower Canada, who had attended a great council of savage tribes, in the Ohio country, in 1793. In this speech, Dorchester, it was alleged, openly avowed his opinion that war between the United States and Great Britain would be commenced that year, and that “a new line between the two nations must be drawn by the sword.” This document was pronounced a forgery. But it had its intended effect in increasing the hatred of Great Britain in the hearts of a very large portion of the American people. Congress, under the excitement of the moment, passed a joint resolution, laying an embargo for thirty days, and afterward for thirty days longer, for the purpose of preventing British supply-ships carrying provisions to their fleet in the West Indies. It was also proposed to enroll an army of eighty thousand minute-men, to man forts and be ready for action; also an additional standing army of twenty thousand men.
War with Great Britain now seemed inevitable. To avert it, was Washington's most anxious solicitude; and, firm in his purpose of preserving for his country neutrality and peace, he resolved to make an experiment for the maintenance of both, by sending an envoy extraordinary to England to open negotiations anew. It required great heroism to attempt such a course; for the popular excitement was intense, and the idea of holding any further intercourse with England was scouted as pusillanimous. The tri-colored cockade was seen upon every side, and the partisans of the French regicides appeared again to rule the popular will for the hour.
While the public mind was thus agitated, the president received despatches from Mr. Pinckney, the resident American minister in London, advising him that the offensive orders in council of the previous November, concerning neutral ships, had been revoked, and that Lord Grenville, in conversation, had assured Mr. Pinckney that that measure had not been intended for the special vexation of American commerce, but to distress France. This intelligencesubdued the belligerent tone of the opposition for a moment; yet they showed no reluctance to an open rupture with Great Britain, affecting to regard Grenville's words as insincere. Their vehement opposition to the appointment of a special envoy was speedily renewed, and unscrupulous partisans kept up the war-cry. The opposition press and the democratic societies used every means to inflame the populace and increase the exasperation of their feelings toward Great Britain; and they declared that the crisis had arrived when decision and energy, not moderation toward that government, was demanded.
But these manifestations had no sensible effect upon Washington. His purpose had been adopted after mature reflection. His sagacious mind perceived clearly the probability of success, and his moral heroism, as on all other occasions, was proof against animadversions. He hesitated only when the question, Who shall be appointed? was presented.
Washington's first preference for the mission was Hamilton; but the earliest intimation of this preference that reached the public ear raised a storm of opposition. The proposed mission itself was condemned as a cowardly advance to the British government; and a member of the house of representatives addressed an earnest letter to the president, opposing the mission in general terms, and in an especial manner deprecating the appointment of Hamilton as the envoy to be employed. Senator James Monroe also took upon himself the task of remonstrating with Washington, in writing, against the nomination of Hamilton, assuring him that it would be injurious to the public interest and to the interest of the president himself; and proposed to explain his reasons at a private interview. Washington declined the interview, but requested Mr. Monroe to submit to him, in writing, any facts he might possess which would disqualify the secretary of the treasury for the mission; and added: “Colonel Hamilton and others have been mentioned, but no one is yet absolutely decided upon in my mind. But, as much will depend, among other things, upon the abilities of the person sent, and his knowledge of the affairs of this country, and as I am aloneresponsible for a proper nomination, it certainly behooves me to name such a one as, in my judgment, combines the requisites for a mission so peculiarly interesting to the peace and happiness of this country.” Nothing more was heard from Mr. Monroe on the subject.
Hamilton, with his usual disinterestedness, relieved the president by advising him to choose, for the proposed envoy, Chief-Justice Jay. In a long letter to the president, written on the fifteenth of April, in which he took a general and comprehensive view of national affairs and the relative position of the country to England, he recommended him to nominate, as special minister to England, a person who should “have the confidence of those who think peace still within our reach, and who may be thought qualified for the mission,” with an observation to Congress that it was done “with an intention to make a solemn appeal to the justice and good sense of the British government;” at the same time, to make an “earnest recommendation that vigorous and effectual measures may be adopted to be prepared for war.”
Hamilton then alluded to the fact that Washington had contemplated nominating him for the mission; and after saying that he was well aware of the obstacles that existed, and that he would be “completely and entirely satisfied with the election of another,” he nominated Mr. Jay, as “the only man in whose qualifications for success there would be thorough confidence.... I think,” he continued, “the business would have the best chance possible in his hands, and I flatter myself that his mission would issue in a manner that would produce the most important good to the nation.”
“Let me add, sir,” said Hamilton in conclusion, “that those whom I call the sober-minded men of the country, look up to you with solicitude on the present occasion. If happily you should be the instrument of still rescuing the country from the dangers and calamities of war, there is no part of your life, sir, which will produce to you more real satisfaction, or true glory, than that which shall be distinguished by this very important service.”
Washington took Hamilton's advice, and, in the following message to the senate, nominated Mr. Jay for the mission:—
“Gentlemen of the Senate:—The communications which I have made to you during the present session, from the despatches of our minister in London, contain a serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain. But, as peace ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal before the last resource, which has so often been the scourge of nations, and can not fail to check the advancing prosperity of the United States, is contemplated, I have thought proper to nominate, and do hereby nominate, John Jay as envoy extraordinary of the United States to his Britannic majesty.“My confidence in our minister plenipotentiary in London continues undiminished. But a mission like this, while it corresponds with the solemnity of the occasion, will announce to the world a solicitude for a friendly adjustment of our complaints, and a reluctance to hostility. Going immediately from the United States, such an envoy will carry with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of our country, and will thus be taught to vindicate our rights with firmness, and to cultivate peace with sincerity.”
“Gentlemen of the Senate:—The communications which I have made to you during the present session, from the despatches of our minister in London, contain a serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain. But, as peace ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal before the last resource, which has so often been the scourge of nations, and can not fail to check the advancing prosperity of the United States, is contemplated, I have thought proper to nominate, and do hereby nominate, John Jay as envoy extraordinary of the United States to his Britannic majesty.
“My confidence in our minister plenipotentiary in London continues undiminished. But a mission like this, while it corresponds with the solemnity of the occasion, will announce to the world a solicitude for a friendly adjustment of our complaints, and a reluctance to hostility. Going immediately from the United States, such an envoy will carry with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of our country, and will thus be taught to vindicate our rights with firmness, and to cultivate peace with sincerity.”
Mr. Jay had recently arrived in Philadelphia from New York, and consented to accept the nomination. It was confirmed by the senate on Saturday, the nineteenth of April, by a majority of eighteen to eight; Aaron Burr being among the few who opposed it, it being his practice to dissent from every measure proposed by Washington.
Conscious of the urgency of his mission, Mr. Jay made immediate preparations for his departure; and on the twelfth of May he embarked at New York, with Colonel John Trumbull, the artist, as his secretary. He was accompanied to the ship by about a thousand of his fellow-citizens, who desired thus to testify their personal respect and their interest in his mission of peace. A few days preceding, the Democratic Society of Philadelphia issued a most inflammatory denunciation of the mission and the minister; and the opposition in the lower house of Congress succeeded in adopting a resolution to cut off all intercourse with Great Britain. Itwas lost in the senate by the casting vote of Vice-President Adams; “not,” as Washington remarked in a letter to Tobias Lear on the sixth of May, “as it is said and generally believed, from a disinclination to the ulterior expedience of the measure, but from a desire to try the effect of negotiation previous thereto.” Mr. Monroe, acting under instructions from the Virginia legislature, proposed in the senate to suspend by law the article of the treaty of peace which secured to British creditors the right of recovering in the United States their honest debts. This proposition was frowned down by every right-minded man in that chamber.
Another delicate matter connected with the foreign relations of the United States now occupied the mind of Washington. The French government, as we have observed, on recalling Genet, asked that of the United States to recall Mr. Morris. Washington was anxious to appoint a judicious successor—one that would be acceptable to the French, and who would not compromise the neutrality of his own country. He confided in Pinckney, and desired Mr. Jay, in the event of his mission being successful, to remain in London as resident minister. Pinckney would then be sent to France. But Jay would not consent to the arrangement. Washington then offered the French mission to Robert R. Livingston, chancellor of the state of New York, who, with his extensive and influential family connections, was in politics a republican. Livingston declined, and the president finally offered it to James Monroe. He consented to serve, and his nomination was confirmed by the senate on the twenty-eighth of May. Soon after this, John Quincy Adams, son of the vice-president, was appointed minister at the Hague in place of Mr. Short, Jefferson's secretary of legation in France, who went to Spain to ascertain what Carmichael, the American minister there, was doing, his government being unable to hear from him except at long intervals.
Mr. Monroe arrived in Paris toward the middle of August, and immediately sent to the president of the convention the following letter:—
“Citizen-President:—Having, several days since, arrived with a commission from the president of the United States of America, to represent those states in quality of minister plenipotentiary at the capital of the French republic, I have thought it my duty to make my mission known as early as possible to the national representatives. It belongs to them to determine the day, and to point out the mode, in which I am to be acknowledged the representative of their ally and sister republic. I make this communication with the greater pleasure, because it affords me an opportunity, not only to certify to the representatives of the free citizens of France my personal attachment to the cause of liberty, but to assure them at the same time, in the most positive way, that the government and people of America take the highest interest in the liberty, success, and prosperity of the French republic.”
“Citizen-President:—Having, several days since, arrived with a commission from the president of the United States of America, to represent those states in quality of minister plenipotentiary at the capital of the French republic, I have thought it my duty to make my mission known as early as possible to the national representatives. It belongs to them to determine the day, and to point out the mode, in which I am to be acknowledged the representative of their ally and sister republic. I make this communication with the greater pleasure, because it affords me an opportunity, not only to certify to the representatives of the free citizens of France my personal attachment to the cause of liberty, but to assure them at the same time, in the most positive way, that the government and people of America take the highest interest in the liberty, success, and prosperity of the French republic.”
Robespierre had lately fallen. His bloody rule was at an end. For some time he had been hated by the Convention, to which body reason and conscience were bringing their convictions. On the twenty-eighth of July the Convention resolved to crush him. Billaud Varennes, in a speech replete with invective, denounced him as a tyrant; and when Robespierre attempted to speak, his voice was drowned with cries of “Down with the tyrant! down with the tyrant!” A decree of outlawry was then passed, and he and some of his friends were ordered to immediate execution. With their fall the Reign of Terror ended. The nation breathed freer, and the curtain fell upon one of the bloodiest tragedies in the history of the race.
It was at this auspicious moment that Monroe appeared. The sentiments of his letter were so much in consonance with the feelings of the hour, that it is said the president of the Convention embraced Monroe affectionately when they met. It was decreed that the American and French flags should be entwined and hung up in the hall of the Convention, as an emblem of the union of the two republics; and Monroe, not to be outdone in acts of courtesy, presented the banner of his country to the Convention in the name of his people.
Congress adjourned on the ninth of June to the first Monday inthe succeeding November. The session had been a stormy one. Questions of national policy had arisen, which called forth some of the most animated and eloquent discussions ever held upon the floor of the house of representatives; and when the adjournment took place, questions were pending, the solution of which caused many an anxious hour to the president and the friends of the republic.
As soon as Washington could make proper arrangements, he set out on a flying visit to Mount Vernon. Many persons had predicted that the yellow fever would reappear in Philadelphia during that summer; and, to guard his family against the dangers of its presence, he removed them to a pleasant house at Germantown. On the eighteenth of June he left for the Potomac; and at Baltimore he wrote a brief letter to Gouverneur Morris, assuring him of his undiminished personal friendship, notwithstanding his recall. At Mount Vernon he wrote another, in which Washington evinced his consciousness that vigilant eyes were upon all his public movements, and not with friendly intent. “The affairs of this country,” he said to Morris ironically, “can not go wrong; there are so many watchful guardians of them, and such infallible guides, that no one is at a loss for a director at every turn.”
Washington did not return to Philadelphia quite as early as he had anticipated, owing to an injury to his back, received while using exertions to prevent himself and horse being precipitated among the rocks at the Falls of the Potomac, at Georgetown, whither he went on a Sunday morning to view the canal and locks at that place, in which he felt a deep interest. He was back, however, early in July, and was soon informed of popular movements in western Pennsylvania and in Kentucky, which presented the serious question whether the government had sufficient strength to execute its own laws.
The movement in Kentucky was the result, in a great degree, of Genet's machinations, and the influence of the Democratic societies. It is true, there had been dissatisfaction among the people there for several years, because the Spanish government kept the Mississippiclosed against American commerce. Now, that dissatisfaction assumed the form of menace. During the recent session of Congress, the people of that region sent a remonstrance to the supreme legislature respecting the navigation of the Mississippi. It was intemperate and indecorous in language. It charged the government with being under the influence of a local policy, which had prevented its making a single real effort for the security of the commercial advantages which the people of the West demanded, and cast aspersions upon the several departments of government. They also intimated that they would leave the Union if their grievances were not speedily redressed, and the “great territorial right” of the free navigation of the Mississippi secured to them.
This remonstrance was referred to a committee by the senate, who reported, that such rights to the navigation of the great river as were sought by the western people were well asserted in the negotiations then going on at Madrid; and on the recommendation of the committee, the senate resolved that the president should be requested to communicate to the governor of Kentucky such part of the pending treaty between the United States and Spain as he might deem advisable, and not inconsistent with the course of the negotiation. The house of representatives also passed a resolution, expressing their conviction that the president was doing all in his power to bring about the negotiation as speedily as possible.
The demagogues at the West, who hoped to profit by the excitement and bring about hostilities with the Spaniards in Louisiana, refused to be soothed by these assurances; and at a convention of a number of the principal citizens of Kentucky, assembled at Lexington, the following intemperate and indecorous resolutions were adopted:—
“That the general government, whose duty it is to put us in possession of this right [free navigation of the Mississippi] have, either through design or mistaken policy, adopted no effectual measures for its attainment.“That even the measures they have adopted have been uniformly concealed from us, and veiled in mysterious secrecy.“That civil liberty is prostituted, when the servants of the people are suffered to tell their masters, that communications which they may judge important may not be intrusted to them.”
“That the general government, whose duty it is to put us in possession of this right [free navigation of the Mississippi] have, either through design or mistaken policy, adopted no effectual measures for its attainment.
“That even the measures they have adopted have been uniformly concealed from us, and veiled in mysterious secrecy.
“That civil liberty is prostituted, when the servants of the people are suffered to tell their masters, that communications which they may judge important may not be intrusted to them.”
These resolutions concluded with a recommendation of county meetings, of county committees of correspondence, and of a convention when it might be judged expedient, to deliberate on the proper steps for the attainment and security of their just rights.
No doubt the leaders in these movements felt indignant because an expedition, which had been prepared in the West for an invasion of Louisiana under the auspices of Genet, had been frustrated by the vigilance of the president, who, when informed of the fact, had ordered General Wayne, then in the Ohio country, to establish a military post at an eligible place on the Ohio river, to stop any armed men who should be going down that stream. This interference with what they had been taught to believe were their inalienable rights was considered a very great grievance.
In a private letter, on the tenth of August, Washington referred to these movements in Kentucky, and said, after expressing a conviction that there “must exist a predisposition among them to be dissatisfied:” “The protection they receive, and the unwearied endeavors of the general government to accomplish, by repeated and ardent remonstrances, what they seem to have most at heart—namely, the navigation of the Mississippi—obtain no credit with them, or, what is full as likely, may be concealed from them, or misrepresented by thosesocieties, which, under specious colorings, are spreading far and wide, either from real ignorance of the measures pursued by the government, or from a wish to bring it, as much as they are able, into discredit; for what purposes, every man is left to his own conjectures.”
Washington continued: “That similar attempts to give discontent to the public mind have been practised with too much success in some of the western counties in this state [Pennsylvania], you are, I am certain, not to learn. Actual rebellion against the laws of the United States exists at this moment, notwithstanding every lenient measure, which could comport with the duties of the publicofficers, has been exercised to reconcile them to the collection of taxes upon spirituous liquors and stills. What may be the consequence of such violent and outrageous proceedings is painful in a high degree, even in contemplation. But, if the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity, and a minority, a small one too, is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put, at one stroke, to republican government; and nothing but anarchy and confusion are to be expected hereafter. Some other man or society may dislike another law, and oppose it with equal propriety, until all laws are prostrate, and every one—the strongest, I presume—will carve for himself.”
Washington alluded to the rebellious movement in western Pennsylvania, at that time, known in history as “The Whiskey Insurrection.”
FOOTNOTES:[64]The following are the names of the officers appointed by Washington: John Barry, Samuel Nicholson, Silas Talbot, Richard Dale, Thomas Truxton, James Sever,commanders; Joshua Humphreys, George Cleghorn, Forman Cheeseman, John Morgan, David Stodder, James Hackett,naval constructors; Isaac Coxe, Henry Jackson, John Blagge, W. Pennock, Jeremiah Yellott, Jacob Sheafe,navy agents.[65]A striking caricature appeared a little earlier than this, entitledThe Contrast. It was in the form of two medallions, one calledEnglish liberty, and the otherFrench liberty. On the former is seen Britannia, holding the pileus and cap of liberty in one hand with Magna Charta, and in the other the scales of justice. At her feet stoops a lion; and on the placid sea, in the distance, is a British merchant-vessel under full sail. Under the medallion are the words, “Religion, Morality, Loyalty, Obedience to the Laws, Independence, Personal Security, Justice, Inheritance, Protection, Property, Industry, National Prosperity, Happiness.” On the latter medallion is a fury, in the form of a woman; her hair formed of serpents; flames issuing from her cestus of snakes; in one hand a bloody sword, in the other a trident—the head of a man, streaming with blood upon one prong, and a human heart upon each of the others; while under her feet is a prostrate, naked, headless man. In the distance is seen a street lamp, with a man hanging by the neck from its supporting bracket. Under this medallion are the words, “Atheism, Perjury, Rebellion, Treason, Anarchy, Murder, Equality, Madness, Cruelty, Injustice, Treachery, Ingratitude, Idleness, Famine, National and Private Ruin, Misery.” Below all is the significant question, “Which is best?”
[64]The following are the names of the officers appointed by Washington: John Barry, Samuel Nicholson, Silas Talbot, Richard Dale, Thomas Truxton, James Sever,commanders; Joshua Humphreys, George Cleghorn, Forman Cheeseman, John Morgan, David Stodder, James Hackett,naval constructors; Isaac Coxe, Henry Jackson, John Blagge, W. Pennock, Jeremiah Yellott, Jacob Sheafe,navy agents.
[64]The following are the names of the officers appointed by Washington: John Barry, Samuel Nicholson, Silas Talbot, Richard Dale, Thomas Truxton, James Sever,commanders; Joshua Humphreys, George Cleghorn, Forman Cheeseman, John Morgan, David Stodder, James Hackett,naval constructors; Isaac Coxe, Henry Jackson, John Blagge, W. Pennock, Jeremiah Yellott, Jacob Sheafe,navy agents.
[65]A striking caricature appeared a little earlier than this, entitledThe Contrast. It was in the form of two medallions, one calledEnglish liberty, and the otherFrench liberty. On the former is seen Britannia, holding the pileus and cap of liberty in one hand with Magna Charta, and in the other the scales of justice. At her feet stoops a lion; and on the placid sea, in the distance, is a British merchant-vessel under full sail. Under the medallion are the words, “Religion, Morality, Loyalty, Obedience to the Laws, Independence, Personal Security, Justice, Inheritance, Protection, Property, Industry, National Prosperity, Happiness.” On the latter medallion is a fury, in the form of a woman; her hair formed of serpents; flames issuing from her cestus of snakes; in one hand a bloody sword, in the other a trident—the head of a man, streaming with blood upon one prong, and a human heart upon each of the others; while under her feet is a prostrate, naked, headless man. In the distance is seen a street lamp, with a man hanging by the neck from its supporting bracket. Under this medallion are the words, “Atheism, Perjury, Rebellion, Treason, Anarchy, Murder, Equality, Madness, Cruelty, Injustice, Treachery, Ingratitude, Idleness, Famine, National and Private Ruin, Misery.” Below all is the significant question, “Which is best?”
[65]A striking caricature appeared a little earlier than this, entitledThe Contrast. It was in the form of two medallions, one calledEnglish liberty, and the otherFrench liberty. On the former is seen Britannia, holding the pileus and cap of liberty in one hand with Magna Charta, and in the other the scales of justice. At her feet stoops a lion; and on the placid sea, in the distance, is a British merchant-vessel under full sail. Under the medallion are the words, “Religion, Morality, Loyalty, Obedience to the Laws, Independence, Personal Security, Justice, Inheritance, Protection, Property, Industry, National Prosperity, Happiness.” On the latter medallion is a fury, in the form of a woman; her hair formed of serpents; flames issuing from her cestus of snakes; in one hand a bloody sword, in the other a trident—the head of a man, streaming with blood upon one prong, and a human heart upon each of the others; while under her feet is a prostrate, naked, headless man. In the distance is seen a street lamp, with a man hanging by the neck from its supporting bracket. Under this medallion are the words, “Atheism, Perjury, Rebellion, Treason, Anarchy, Murder, Equality, Madness, Cruelty, Injustice, Treachery, Ingratitude, Idleness, Famine, National and Private Ruin, Misery.” Below all is the significant question, “Which is best?”
TOP
the whiskey insurrection in western pennsylvania—a glance at its progress—washington's proclamation—his opinion of the influence of the democratic societies—a military force called out—their leaders—peace commissioners and the result of their mission—washington joins the military at carlisle—the veteran morgan in the field—his correspondence with washington—insurgents alarmed—washington at fort cumberland and bedford—lee the commander-in-chief of the army—washington returns to philadelphia—march of the army over the mountains—the insurrection quelled without bloodshed.
the whiskey insurrection in western pennsylvania—a glance at its progress—washington's proclamation—his opinion of the influence of the democratic societies—a military force called out—their leaders—peace commissioners and the result of their mission—washington joins the military at carlisle—the veteran morgan in the field—his correspondence with washington—insurgents alarmed—washington at fort cumberland and bedford—lee the commander-in-chief of the army—washington returns to philadelphia—march of the army over the mountains—the insurrection quelled without bloodshed.
While the inhabitants of Kentucky were talking of insurrection, those of some of the western counties of Pennsylvania actually lifted the arm of defiance against the general government. In August, 1794, acts were committed in opposition to the ministers of the law, which called for the interference of the powers of the federal executive, and the episode in our history known as “The Whiskey Insurrection” was inaugurated. Properly to understand its character, we must take a brief glance at its antecedents. Some of these have already been alluded to in our consideration of the revenue system of the new government.
Among other taxes recommended by Secretary Hamilton for the support of the government, and authorized by a bill reported in the house of representatives in January, 1791, was one upon domestic distilled spirits and distilleries. As whiskey was almost entirely a luxury, and not a necessity, it seemed a just subject for levying a duty upon. And the College of Physicians of Philadelphia advocated it as desirable both to the morals and bodily health of the people. The bill was passed and received Washington's signature. It imposed a tax of from nine to twenty-six cents a gallon uponspirits distilled from grain. Regulations for the collection of these duties were made and officers appointed to collect them. Opposition to the law manifested itself in various parts of the Union immediately after its passage, but nowhere so prominently as in Pennsylvania. In July, 1791, a public meeting on the subject was held at Red Stone (Brownsville), when it was arranged that county committees should be convened at the different shire towns of Alleghany, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. In August, at a meeting of another committee already alluded to,[66]one of the resolutions adopted, as we have seen, declared, after condemning the law, that whosoever should accept office under it should be considered an enemy to his country, should be treated with contempt, and all intercourse with him be dissolved. These resolutions were published in a Pittsburgh paper and produced a feverish excitement.
Early in September another meeting was held in Pittsburgh. Twelve delegates were present, and many complaints against the government, in connection with the excise law, were recited. They adopted a representation to Congress, and a remonstrance to the legislature of Pennsylvania, against the excise on whiskey. Not long after this, a collector of the revenue for two of the counties before-named was seized, tarred and feathered, and deprived of his horse, by some armed men in disguise. The perpetrators were known, however, and processes were issued against them from the district court of Pennsylvania; but the public feeling was so strongly against the law, west of the Alleghany mountains, that, as a marshal to whom the writ was committed for execution said, “any attempt to serve it would have occasioned the most violent opposition from a greater portion of the inhabitants;” and he declared that if he had attempted it, he believed he would not have returned alive.
The resistance to law now assumed most alarming aspects. The meetings, said Secretary Hamilton in a report upon the subject, “composed of very influential persons, and conducted without moderationand prudence, were justly chargeable with the excesses which have from time to time been committed, serving to give consistency to an opposition, which had at length matured to a point that threatened the foundations of the government and the Union, unless speedily and effectually subdued.”
The working of the federal government was then merely experimental, and those who had charge of the complicated and precious machine, and regarded it as the very ark of freedom, used its powers with wise caution. Therefore, while occasional outrages in connection with the excise laws were perpetrated, it was thought best to let coercive measures against the law-breakers remain untried, until at the next session of Congress some modifications of the law might be made to allay excitement.
In May, 1792, an act of Congress became a law which materially modified the provisions of the excise act. The duty on whiskey and stills was so reduced as to silence all complaints on that head. All serious objections to the old law were considered, and the act was so amended as to promise peace; but there were men of influence who would not accept these concessions, and they kept up the opposition excitement. The well-disposed citizens were intimidated by the violent ones of the opposition. In August, 1792, a meeting of the malcontents was held at Pittsburgh, at which resolutions were passed no less objectionable than those adopted the year before. After denouncing the tax on spirituous liquors, they concluded by declaring that they considered it their duty to “persist in remonstrances to Congress and every other legal measure that might obstruct the operations of the law.” Almost daily outrages were committed, and three or four counties of western Pennsylvania assumed many of the features of openly rebellious communities. It was then that Washington, under the advice of Hamilton and others, issued his proclamation of September the sixteenth, 1792, warning all persons to desist from such unlawful combinations,et cetera.[67]Some legal steps were taken against the malcontents, but these and the proclamation were of little effect toward subduingthe rebellious and quieting the excitement. The officers of the law were still defied, denounced, insulted, and abused.
At the next session of Congress (1792-'93) inefficient efforts were made to amend the excise laws. The forbearance of the federal government was construed by the ringleaders of the opposition as weakness, and they became more bold. Distillers who were willing to comply with the law were abused. Finally, the Congress passed an act, which became a law in 1794, calculated to strengthen the executive arm in enforcing obedience. This law made the opposition still more earnest and bold; and few men in the district of country where they exercised a sort of reign of terror dared openly to dissent from their views. So general was the combined influence of actual disaffection upon one portion of the community, and dread of the violence of the turbulent, among the others, that out of the family connection of General Neville, inspector of revenues, the employées of the government, and two others, there were none in Pittsburgh who dared to condemn these lawless proceedings, for fear of personal harm. Mails were robbed; Neville's house was twice attacked and finally burned by an armed party of lawless men; and preparations were made to seize Fort Fayette, in that region. Among the leaders of the insurgents was one Bradford, who, by common consent, appears to have assumed the position of commander-in-chief. At this time the insurrectionary spirit had spread into adjoining counties of Maryland and Virginia, and Bradford and his associate leaders issued a call for the assembling of the militia on Braddock's field, on the first of August, with arms and accoutrements, and provisions for four days. Within three days seven thousand men were assembled, some of them out of curiosity, but a greater part with the determination to follow, in resistance to the federal and state governments, wherever Bradford and others might lead.
It was Bradford's design to seize Fort Pitt and its arms and ammunition; but he found most of the militia officers unwilling to co-operate in such an overt act of treason. But they readily consented to the perpetration of outrages against excise officers, andthe whole country in that region was governed, for the moment, by the combined powers of mobocracy and military despotism.
When intelligence of these proceedings reached the president, he called his cabinet into council. All regarded the movement as a critical one for the republic. The example of the insurgents in Pennsylvania might become infectious; for the Democratic societies, spread all over the land, while they professed to oppose and deprecate violence, openly denounced the excise laws, and, no doubt, secretly fomented rebellion against the federal government. It was agreed in the cabinet council that forbearance must now end, and the effective power of the executive be put forth to suppress the rising rebellion. Accordingly, on the seventh of August, Washington issued a proclamation warning the insurgents to disperse, and declaring, that if tranquillity should not be restored in the disturbed counties before the first of September, an armed force would be employed to compel submission to the laws.[68]Atthe same time the president made a requisition on the governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, for militia sufficient to compose an army of twelve thousand men.
To the chief magistrate of the latter state, his friend and companion-in-arms, General Henry Lee, Washington wrote privately, from Germantown, on the twenty-sixth of August, and said, “It is with equal pride and satisfaction I add, that, as far as my information extends, this insurrection is viewed with universal indignation and abhorrence, except by those who have never missed an opportunity, by side-blows and otherwise, to attack the general government.... I consider this insurrection as the first formidable fruit of the Democratic societies, brought forth, I believe, too prematurely for their own views, which may contribute to the annihilation of them.
“That these societies were instituted by the artful and designing members (many of their body, I have no doubt, mean well, but know little of the real plan), primarily to sow among the people the seeds of jealousy and distrust of the government, by destroying all confidence in the administration of it, and that their doctrines have been budding and blowing ever since, is not new to any one who is acquainted with the character of their leaders and has been attentive to their manœuvres. I early gave it as my opinion, to the confidential characters around me, that if these societies were not counteracted (not by prosecutions, the ready way to make them grow stronger), or did not fall into disesteem from the knowledge of their origin, and the views with which they had been instituted by their father, Genet, for purposes well known to the government, they would shake the government to its foundation. Time and circumstances have confirmed me in this opinion, and I deeply regret the probable consequences; not as they will effect me personally—for I have not long to act on this theatre, and sure I am that not a man amongst them can be more anxious to put me aside than I am to sink into the profoundest retirement—but because I see, under a display of popular and fascinating disguises, the most diabolical attempts to destroy the best fabric of human government and happiness that has ever been presented for the acceptance of mankind.”
Washington's proclamation had very little effect in suppressing the lawless acts of the insurgents, and on the twenty-fifth of Septemberhe issued a second proclamation, in which he vividly described the perverse spirit in which the lenient propositions of the government had been met, and declared his determination to reduce the refractory and lawless men to obedience.[69]
The president now determined to act with vigor against the insurgents. He appointed Governor Lee, of Virginia, the commander-in-chief. General Mifflin, of Pennsylvania, was appointed his second in command. Governor Howell, of New Jersey, the third; and General Daniel Morgan, the veteran leader of the riflemen in the War for Independence, the fourth. General Hand, of Pennsylvania, was appointed adjutant-general.
From the best information that the president could obtain, it was supposed that there were in the rebellious counties about sixteen thousand men capable of bearing arms, and that at least seven thousand of them might be brought into the field. It was therefore resolved to employ a sufficient force at once to put down all opposition. The number of militia first called for was twelve thousand; it was subsequently increased to fifteen thousand. The place of rendezvous appointed for the New Jersey troops under Howell, and the Pennsylvanians under Mifflin, was Bedford, in Pennsylvania. Those from Virginia and Maryland—the former under General Morgan, and the latter under General Smith, the hero of Fort Mifflin in 1777, and now the Baltimore member of Congress—assembled at Cumberland, on the Potomac. The latter formed the left wing of the gathering army, and were directed to march across the mountains by Braddock's road. Those under Mifflin and Howell composed the right wing, and were ordered to cross the mountains by the more northern route, over which Forbes and his army crossed in 1758.
These martial preparations were made after every peaceful effort had been exhausted. As we have observed, the president had issued two proclamations before ordering the militia into the field. He had also, at the time of issuing the first proclamation, appointed three federal commissioners—Senator Ross, Mr. Bradford, the attorney-general, and Yates, a judge of the supreme court of Pennsylvania—to visit the insurgent counties, with discretionary powers to arrange, if possible, prior to the fourteenth of September, an effectual submission to the laws, offering lenient terms to the offenders. These were joined by Chief-Justice M'Kean and General Irvine, commissioners appointed by the state of Pennsylvania. At the sametime, Governor Mifflin issued two proclamations—one calling the Pennsylvania legislature together; the other requiring submission on the part of the rioters, and announcing his determination to obey the president's call for militia.
These commissioners had crossed the mountains together, and at Parkinson's ferry they found representatives from almost every town of four insurgent counties, two hundred in number, assembled in convention, having Judge Cook, of Fayette county, for their president, and Albert Gallatin, afterward a distinguished officer of the federal government, for their secretary. The business was in charge of a vigilance committee of sixty. Near the place of meeting, which was upon a commanding eminence under the shade of trees, stood a liberty-pole, bearing a placard with the words, “Liberty and no excise! No asylum for cowards and traitors!”
The vigilance committee appointed a sub-committee of fifteen to confer with the state and federal commissioners. On that committee were, Bradford, the chief leader of the insurgents, Gallatin, Cook, Marshall, and Brackenridge, the latter a young and ambitious lawyer of Pittsburgh. All of these, except Bradford, perceiving the dangers with which they were surrounded, were favorable to submission. Bradford's voice was for war, and the organization of a separate and independent state west of the mountains. This committee declared the propositions of the commissioners to be reasonable, and to the town organizations the whole matter of submission was referred. These generally refused compliance. The federal commissioners returned to Philadelphia and reported the virtual failure of their mission. Then it was that the president issued his proclamation of the twenty-fifth of September, and prepared to use coercive measures.
Washington determined to lead the army in person against the insurgents, if it should appear to be expedient. He accordingly left Philadelphia at the beginning of October, accompanied by the secretary of war, whose department was left in charge of Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury. Just before he left, the president received a letter from the venerable Morgan, written at Winchester on thetwenty-fourth of September. “I am sorry to understand,” wrote the brave old rifleman, “the difficulty experienced in the state of Pennsylvania to raise the quota of men to suppress that horrid insurrection on their frontiers.[70]The state of Virginia seems to be unanimous and determined to suppress it; and it is my opinion that we shall, in a very few days, have men enough to do that business. For my part, I wish I was at Morgantown at this time with two thousand men, which would be as many as I could ask, with what would join me at this place, to bring these people to order.... I wish an accommodation may not be patched up with these rioters, under an apprehension of not getting troops to suppress them. Virginia could, and would, furnish an army sufficient for that purpose.... I don't wish to spill the blood of a citizen; but I wish to march against these people, to show them our determination to bring them to order, and to support the laws. I took the liberty to write you this, lest your intelligence might not be so good, or that this might throw some light, or be of some service.”
This letter, from his old companion-in-arms, was only one of many of similar tone that Washington received at that time. Coming from such an esteemed veteran (with whom was the president's favorite nephew, Lawrence Lewis, as aid-de-camp), it was peculiarly grateful to Washington, and he responded in earnest tone, from Carlisle, on the eighth of October. “Although I regret the occasion,” he said, “which has called you into the field, I rejoice to hear you are there, and because it is probable I may meet you at Fort Cumberland, whither I shall proceed as soon as I see the troops at this rendezvous in condition to advance. At that place, or atBedford, my ulterior resolution must be taken, either to advance with the troops into the insurgent counties of this state, or to return to Philadelphia, for the purpose of meeting Congress, the third of next month. Imperious circumstances alone can justify my absence from the seat of government whilst Congress is in session; but if these, from the disposition of the people in the refractory counties and the state of the information I expect to receive at the advanced posts, should appear to exist, the lesser must yield to the greater duties of my office, and I shall cross the mountains with the troops; if not, I shall place the command of the combined troops under the orders of Governor Lee, of Virginia, and repair to the seat of government.”
In a private letter to Randolph, the secretary of state, on the following day, the president said, “The insurgents are alarmed, but not yet brought to their proper senses. Every means is devised by themselves and their associates to induce a belief that there is no necessity for troops crossing the mountains; although we have information, at the same time, that part of the people there are obliged to embody themselves to repel the insults of another part.”
The Pennsylvania troops moved forward from Carlisle on the tenth of October, and Washington proceeded to Fort Cumberland, the place of rendezvous for the Maryland and Virginia troops, where he arrived on the sixteenth. Quite a large number were already there, and fifteen hundred more from Virginia were near at hand. There Washington received such information as convinced him that the spirits of the insurgents were broken, and that the greatest alarm prevailed in their ranks. He hastened on to Bedford, thirty miles distant, and there this intelligence was confirmed. Satisfied that his presence would be no longer needed with the army, he arranged a plan of operations against the insurgents, and prepared to return to Philadelphia; “but not,” he said in a letter to Randolph, “because the impertinence of Mr. Bache [editor of the “General Advertiser,” the opposition paper] or his correspondent has undertaken to pronounce that I can not constitutionally command the army whilst Congress are in session.”
The command of the army was left with Governor Lee. On the twentieth of October he received from Washington his instructions, drawn by Hamilton, with a letter from the president's own hand, in which he said, “I can not take my departure without conveying to you, through the army under your command, the very high sense I entertain of the enlightened and patriotic zeal for the constitution and the laws, which has led them cheerfully to quit their families, homes, and the comforts of private life, to undertake, and thus far to perform, a long and fatiguing march, and to encounter and endure the hardships and privations of a military life.... No citizens of the United States can ever be engaged in a service more important to their country. It is nothing less than to consolidate and to preserve the blessings of that Revolution which, at much expense of blood and treasure, constituted us a free and independent nation. It is to give the world an illustrious example, of the utmost consequence to the cause of mankind.” Then cautioning the troops against committing the least infraction of the laws, or trenching upon the functions of the civil authorities, he thanked them for the readiness with which they had seconded him “in the most delicate and momentous duty the chief magistrate of a free people can have to perform.”
Hamilton remained with the army as the president's civil representative; also the secretary of war; and Washington hastened back to Philadelphia, where he arrived on the twenty-sixth of October. The troops crossed the Alleghany mountains in a heavy rain, marching sometimes in mud up to their knees. The two wings formed a junction at Uniontown; and as they advanced into the insurgent country, all signs of rebellion disappeared. The leaders fled, and all upon whom rested the eye of suspicion quailed in its glance and hastened to make excuses. Early in November, Lee issued a proclamation, confirming an amnesty that had been offered to those entitled to it, and calling upon all of the inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Many arrests were soon afterward made. A large number were dismissed at once because of a want of evidence against them; others were bound over tokeep the peace; and a few were sent to Philadelphia for trial.[71]Two only were convicted of capital offences—one of arson, the other of robbing the mails—and these, because of palliating circumstances, were finally pardoned by the president. Most of the troops were speedily withdrawn from the disaffected counties and dismissed; but a body of twenty-five hundred, under General Morgan, remained encamped in the district through the winter.
Thus terminated a rebellion, that at one time threatened the very existence of the Union, without the shedding of a drop of blood. This result was owing chiefly to the wisdom, prudence, energy, and personal popularity of Washington; and that which appeared so ominous of evil was overruled for the production of good. The government was amazingly strengthened by the event. The federal authority was fully vindicated; and the general rally in its support when the chief sounded his bugle-call, even of those who had hitherto leaned toward the opposition, was a significant omen of future stability and power. Every honest man expressed his reprobation of the violent resistance to law; and the democratic societies, the chief fomenters of the insurrection, showed symptoms of a desire to be less conspicuous. Hamilton, who had always distrusted the strength of the government in such an emergency, was now perfectly convinced of its inherent power; and both he and Washington regarded the affair as a fortunate circumstance for the nation.
In relation to this event and its effects, Washington, in a letter to Mr. Jay, written soon after his return to Philadelphia from the different rendezvous of the troops, said that the subject would be represented differently according to the wishes of some and the prejudices of others, who might exhibit it as an evidence of what had been predicted, namely, that the people of the new republic were unableto govern themselves. “Under this view of the subject,” he said, “I am happy in giving it to you as the general opinion that this event having happened at the time it did was fortunate, although it will be attended with considerable expense.
“That the self-created societies,” he continued, “which have spread themselves over this country have been laboring incessantly to sow the seeds of distrust, jealousy, and of course discontent, thereby hoping to effect some revolution in the government, is not unknown to you. That they have been the fomenters of the western disturbances, admits of no doubt in the mind of any one who will examine their conduct; but, fortunately, they precipitated a crisis for which they were not prepared, and thereby have unfolded views which will, I trust, effectuate their annihilation sooner than it might otherwise have happened; at the same time, that it has afforded an occasion for the people of this country to show their abhorrence of the result, and their attachment to the constitution and the laws; for I believe that five times the number of militia that was required would have come forward, if it had been necessary, in support of them.
“The spirit which blazed out on this occasion, as soon as the object was fully understood and the lenient measures of the government were made known to the people, deserves to be communicated. There are instances of general officers going at the head of a single troop, and of light companies; of field-officers, when they came to the places of rendezvous, and found no command for them in that grade, turning into the ranks, and proceeding as private soldiers, under their own captains; and of numbers, possessing the first fortunes in the country, standing in the ranks of private men, and marching day by day with their knapsacks and haversacks at their backs, sleeping on straw with a single blanket in a soldier's tent, during the frosty nights which we have had, by way of example to others. Nay, more; many young Quakers of the first families, character, and property, not discouraged by the elders, have turned into the ranks and are marching with the troops.
“These things have terrified the insurgents, who had no conceptionthat such a spirit prevailed; but, while the thunder only rumbled at a distance, were boasting of their strength, and wishing for and threatening the militia by turns, intimating that the arms they should take from them would soon become a magazine in their hands. Their language is much changed indeed, but their principles want correction.
“I shall be more prolix in my speech to Congress on the commencement and progress of this insurrection than is usual in such an instrument, or than I should have been on any other occasion; but as numbers at home and abroad will hear of the insurrection, and will read the speech, that may know nothing of the documents to which it might refer, I conceived it would be better to encounter the charge of prolixity by giving a cursory detail of facts, that would show the prominent features of the thing, than to let it go naked into the world, to be dressed up according to the fancy or inclination of the readers, or the policy of our enemies.”[72]