FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[86]Randall's Life of Jefferson, ii, 268.[87]The late Richard Rush relates an interesting incident, illustrative of the feelings of Washington on account of the misfortunes of his noble friend. Mr. Bradford, the attorney-general, who lived directly opposite the residence of Washington, was spending an evening with the president, when the conversation reverted to Lafayette. Washington spoke with great seriousness, contrasted the marquis's hitherto splendid career with that of his present forlorn and suffering condition; and at length became so deeply affected that his eyes filled with tears, and his whole great soul was stirred to its very depths. “Magnanimous tears they were,” says Mr. Rush, “fit for the first of heroes to shed—virtuous, honorable, sanctified!” Mr. Bradford, who deeply sympathized with the feelings of Washington, was much affected at the spectacle, and, retiring to his own house, wrote some simple and touching verses, called the “Lament of Washington.” They were an impromptu effusion from his heart.[88]SeeMount Vernon and its Associations, pages 285-293, inclusive.

[86]Randall's Life of Jefferson, ii, 268.

[87]The late Richard Rush relates an interesting incident, illustrative of the feelings of Washington on account of the misfortunes of his noble friend. Mr. Bradford, the attorney-general, who lived directly opposite the residence of Washington, was spending an evening with the president, when the conversation reverted to Lafayette. Washington spoke with great seriousness, contrasted the marquis's hitherto splendid career with that of his present forlorn and suffering condition; and at length became so deeply affected that his eyes filled with tears, and his whole great soul was stirred to its very depths. “Magnanimous tears they were,” says Mr. Rush, “fit for the first of heroes to shed—virtuous, honorable, sanctified!” Mr. Bradford, who deeply sympathized with the feelings of Washington, was much affected at the spectacle, and, retiring to his own house, wrote some simple and touching verses, called the “Lament of Washington.” They were an impromptu effusion from his heart.

[88]SeeMount Vernon and its Associations, pages 285-293, inclusive.

TOP

washington's seventh annual message—treaty with the indians—other indian relations—treaty with algiers—treaty with spain—picture of national prosperity—forbearance in congress recommended—responses to the president's message—action of legislatures on the treaty—letter to gouverneur morris—washington's political creed—he is prepared to meet any action of congress—presentation of the french flag to the united states—the french constitution and the national convention—action in congress concerning the french flag.

On the eighth of December, 1795, Washington read his seventh annual address to the assembled Congress. It contained a gratifying summary of the events of the year in which his government and country were concerned. He had the pleasure of informing them officially of the “termination of the long, expensive, and distressing war,” in which the army had been engaged with the Indians of the Northwest Territory, by the treaty made by Wayne at Grenville, to which we have already alluded. That treaty was doubtless more easily consummated, after Wayne's victories, because of the knowledge that the western posts were about to be given up to the United States. By that treaty, a tract of twenty-five thousand square miles was ceded to the United States, lying in one body east of a defined line, and including the eastern and southern part of the present state of Ohio. They also ceded sixteen detached portions of territory in the region westward of that line, most of them two miles square, but several of them much larger. These included the sites of some of our most flourishing villages and cities in the West. As an equivalent for these cessions, the Indians were to receive goods to the amount of twenty thousand dollars in presents, and an annual allowance of articles to the value of nine thousand, fivehundred dollars, to be distributed proportionately among the tribes who were parties to the treaty.

“At the exchange of prisoners which took place on this occasion,” (conclusion of the treaty,) says Hildreth, “many affecting incidents occurred. The war as against Kentucky had lasted for almost twenty years, during which period a large number of white people had been carried into captivity. Wives and husbands, parents and children, who had been separated for years, were now restored to each other. Many of the younger captives had quite forgotten their native language, and some of them absolutely refused to leave the savage connections, into whose families they had been taken by adoption.”[89]

The Indian relations on the southwestern frontier were not so satisfactory. Former treaties had been confirmed, and there were signs of permanent peace; but the reckless violence of some of the white settlers, in perpetrating bloody outrages upon the Indians, kept that section of the Union in a state of great inquietude.

In his message, the president announced amicable relations with the new emperor of Morocco, who in a letter had certified his recognition of a treaty made with his father. “With peculiar satisfaction I add,” said Washington, “that information has been received from an agent deputed on our part to Algiers, importing that the terms of a treaty with the dey and regency of that country had been adjusted, in such a manner as to authorize the expectation of a speedy peace, and the restoration of our unfortunate fellow-citizens from a grievous captivity.”

We have already observed the appointment of Colonel Humphreys as the agent to Algiers alluded to. He was then diplomatic agent of the United States at Lisbon. He came home for the special purpose of making arrangements for his negotiation, and returned to Lisbon deputed to purchase a peace of the Barbary powers. From Lisbon, Humphreys proceeded to Paris to confer with Mr. Monroe, and to solicit the mediation of the French government, leaving discretionary powers with Mr. Donaldson, whohad accompanied him as consul to Tunis and Tripoli; to conclude a peace upon the best terms to be obtained, when a favorable opportunity should occur. On the fifth of September, 1795, Donaldson signed a treaty, by which, in consideration of the release of the American captives and a guaranty of peace in the future, it was agreed to pay to the dey of Algiers the sum of seven hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars, besides an annual tribute in stores, which, at their real value, amounted to about forty-eight thousand dollars. Besides these sums, a biennial present of nine or ten thousand dollars was required, and twenty thousand more on the appointment of a consul.

The president also announced that Mr. Pinckney, who had been sent on a special mission to Spain concerning the navigation of the Mississippi river, had been successful, the stipulation being that it should be free to both parties throughout its entire length. He believed this would lead the way to the settlement of “a foundation of lasting harmony with a power whose friendship the United States had uniformly and sincerely desired to cultivate.”

The treaty which had caused so much commotion throughout the Union was alluded to in a manner almost as if incidental. “Though not before officially disclosed to the house of representatives,” the president said, “you, gentlemen, are all apprized that a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation has been negotiated with Great Britain, and that the senate have advised and consented to its ratification upon a condition which excepts part of one article. Agreeably thereto, and to the best judgment I was able to form of the public interest, after full and mature deliberation, I have added my sanction. The result on the part of his Britannic majesty is unknown. When received, the subject will without delay be placed before Congress.”

In contemplation of the general relations of the United States, the president said: “While many of the nations of Europe, with their American dependencies, have been involved in a contest unusually bloody, exhausting, and calamitous, in which the evils of foreign war have been aggravated by domestic convulsion and insurrection,in which many of the arts most useful to society have been exposed to discouragement and decay; in which scarcity of subsistence has embittered other sufferings; while even the anticipations of a return of the blessings of peace and repose are alloyed by the sense of heavy and accumulating burdens, which press upon all the departments of industry, and threaten to clog the future springs of government, our favored country, happy in a striking contrast, has enjoyed general tranquillity—a tranquillity the more satisfactory because maintained at the expense of no duty. Faithful to ourselves, we have violated no obligation to others. Our agriculture, commerce, and manufactures prosper beyond example, the molestations of our trade (to prevent a continuance of which, however, very pointed remonstrances have been made) being overbalanced by the aggregate benefit which derives from a neutral position. Our population advances with a celerity which, exceeding the most sanguine calculations, proportionally augments our strength and resources, and guaranties our future security. Every part of the Union displays indications of rapid and various improvement; and with burdens so light as scarcely to be perceived, with resources fully adequate to our present exigencies, with governments founded on the genuine principles of rational liberty, and with mild and wholesome laws, is it too much to say that our country exhibits a spectacle of national happiness never surpassed, if ever before equalled.”

With such a picture before them, a picture faithful and true in form and coloring, how pitiful must have appeared to the wise, and thoughtful, and generous, those miserable party feuds and personal animosities which disturbed the peace of the commonwealth—mere loathsome cobwebs, spun by selfishness, across a piece of gorgeous tapestry—spots upon the sun of a glorious national career!

Foreseeing the heats of party strife in the national legislature, the president, after commending to their consideration several important objects, counselled temperate discussion, “and mutual forbearance where there may be a difference of opinion.” This advice, always timely, was especially apposite at that time.

The senate gave a cordial response to the message; but the opposition being in the majority in the lower house, a clause in the response reported by a committee appointed to prepare it, in which was expressed “undiminished confidence” in the president, was objected to. The opposition also desired to strike out from the senate's address the expression of a belief that the president's foreign policy was an “enlightened, firm, and persevering endeavor to preserve peace, freedom, and prosperity.” Some members affirmed that their confidence in the president had been very much diminished by “a late transaction” (signing the ratification of Jay's treaty); and that they believed such was the case among the people at large. The address of the representatives was finally, after much debate, recommitted, and the objectionable clause was modified so as to read thus: “In contemplating that spectacle of national happiness which our country exhibits, and of which you, sir, have been pleased to make an interesting summary, permit us to acknowledge and declare the very great share which your zealous and faithful services have contributed to it, and to express the affectionate attachment which we feel for your character.”

Already the legislatures of the different states had taken action on the treaty. Governor Shelby, in his message to the legislature of Kentucky, assailed it as containing stipulations that were unconstitutional. The lower house agreed with him, but the senate would not concur. The Virginia house of delegates approved of the action of their senators in voting against the treaty, and rejected a resolution declaring undiminished confidence in the president. The Maryland legislature denounced the assaults on the president, and declared their “unabated reliance on his integrity, judgment, and patriotism.” The Pennsylvania senate took similar action; and the legislature of New Hampshire denounced the seditious declaimers against the treaty and the administration. North Carolina would not stand by Virginia in her action; but the South Carolina legislature declared the treaty “highly injurious to the general interests of the United States.” The matter was not acted upon by the senate, however, and the subject was not again takenup. The legislature of Delaware approved of the treaty; while Governor Samuel Adams, in his address to the general court of Massachusetts, spoke of the treaty as “pregnant with evil.” The Massachusetts senate considered any action on the subject as an interference with the powers delegated to the general government; while the house, by a decided vote, suggested that “respectful submission on the part of the people to the constituted authorities,” was “the surest means of enjoying and perpetuating the invaluable blessings of our free and representative government.” Rhode Island approved of the action of the senate and the chief magistrate; and in New York, as well as in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, a proposition made by resolutions in the Virginia legislature, that the constitution of the United States should be so amended as to admit the house of representatives to a share in the treaty-making power, and otherwise abridging the powers of the government, was rejected or laid on the table.

The tardiness of the British government in the performance of its acts of justice toward the United States, and the present apparent hesitation in ratifying the treaty, perplexed Washington; for this seeming unfriendliness was used as a weapon by the opposition. Accordingly, toward the close of the year, he attempted to remind that government of its duty, in an unofficial way, through Gouverneur Morris, who, having been succeeded by Mr. Monroe as minister to the French republic, was now in England, and on quite intimate terms with Lord Grenville and other ministers, and members of the privy council. In a letter to Morris, on the twenty-second of December, after giving at much length a narrative of the causes of complaint against the British government, Washington said:—

“I give you these details (and if you should again converse with Lord Grenville on the subject, you are at liberty unofficially to mention them, or any of them, according to circumstances) as evidences of the impolitic conduct of the British government towards these United States, that it may be seen how difficult it has been for the executive, under such an accumulation of irritating circumstances, to maintain the ground of neutrality which had been taken;and at a time when the remembrance of the aid we had received from France in the Revolution was fresh in every mind, and while the partisans of that country were continually contrasting the affections ofthatpeople with the unfriendly disposition of theBritish government. And that, too, as I have observed before, whiletheir ownsufferings during the war with the latter had not been forgotten.“It is well known that peace has been (to borrow a modern phrase) the order of the day with me since the disturbances in Europe first commenced. My policy has been, and will continue to be while I have the honor to remain in the administration, to maintain friendly terms with, but be independent of, all the nations of the earth; to share in the broils of none; to fulfil our own engagements; to supply the wants and be carriers for them all, being thoroughly convinced that it is our policy and interest to do so. Nothing short of self-respect, and that justice which is so essential to a national character, ought to involve us in war; for sure I am, if this country is preserved in tranquillity twenty years longer, it may bid defiance in a just career to any power whatever; such, in that time, will be its population, wealth, and resources....“In a government as free as ours, where the people are at liberty and will express their sentiments (oftentimes imprudently, and, for want of information, sometimes unjustly), allowances must be made for occasional effervescences; but, after the declaration I have here made of my political creed, you can run no hazard in asserting that the executive branch of this government never has suffered, nor will suffer while I preside, any improper conduct of its officers to escape with impunity, nor give its sanction to any disorderly proceedings of its citizens.“By a firm adherence to these principles, and to the neutral policy which has been adopted, I have brought on myself a torrent of abuse in the factious papers of this country, and from the enmity of the discontented of all descriptions. But, having no sinister objects in view, I shall not be diverted from my course by these, nor any attempts which are or shall be made to withdraw the confidence of my constituents from me. I have nothing to ask; and,discharging my duty, I have nothing to fear from invective. The acts of my administration will appear when I am no more, and the intelligent and candid part of mankind will not condemn my conduct without recurring to them.”

“It is well known that peace has been (to borrow a modern phrase) the order of the day with me since the disturbances in Europe first commenced. My policy has been, and will continue to be while I have the honor to remain in the administration, to maintain friendly terms with, but be independent of, all the nations of the earth; to share in the broils of none; to fulfil our own engagements; to supply the wants and be carriers for them all, being thoroughly convinced that it is our policy and interest to do so. Nothing short of self-respect, and that justice which is so essential to a national character, ought to involve us in war; for sure I am, if this country is preserved in tranquillity twenty years longer, it may bid defiance in a just career to any power whatever; such, in that time, will be its population, wealth, and resources....

“In a government as free as ours, where the people are at liberty and will express their sentiments (oftentimes imprudently, and, for want of information, sometimes unjustly), allowances must be made for occasional effervescences; but, after the declaration I have here made of my political creed, you can run no hazard in asserting that the executive branch of this government never has suffered, nor will suffer while I preside, any improper conduct of its officers to escape with impunity, nor give its sanction to any disorderly proceedings of its citizens.

“By a firm adherence to these principles, and to the neutral policy which has been adopted, I have brought on myself a torrent of abuse in the factious papers of this country, and from the enmity of the discontented of all descriptions. But, having no sinister objects in view, I shall not be diverted from my course by these, nor any attempts which are or shall be made to withdraw the confidence of my constituents from me. I have nothing to ask; and,discharging my duty, I have nothing to fear from invective. The acts of my administration will appear when I am no more, and the intelligent and candid part of mankind will not condemn my conduct without recurring to them.”

Fortified by such conscious rectitude, Washington was well prepared to meet whatever action the supreme legislature of his country might take concerning the great question at issue.

We have already observed the cordial reception of Mr. Monroe by the French government, and the decree of the National Convention that the respective flags of the American and French republics should be united and suspended in their hall, as a token of eternal friendship between the two nations. Mr. Monroe, it will be remembered, reciprocated this generous feeling, by presenting to the Assembly the flag of the United States. When, afterward, Mr. Adet came to America as the successor of Fauchet, the French minister, he bore a letter from the Committee of Safety to the Congress, and the banner of the French republic for the government of the United States. He arrived in the summer of 1795, when the whole country was in a ferment respecting the treaty with Great Britain; and partly on that account, but chiefly because he supposed his communication on the subject of the flag must be made to the Congress direct, he did not announce to the president that complimentary portion of his mission until late in December. Adet had then been made aware that the presentation of the colors to the government must be made through the president only; and as that presentation would be an occasion for rejoicing, because of a friendly feeling between the two nations, Washington appointed the first of January, 1796—“a day of general joy and congratulation”—as the time when he would receive the token of amity.

1796

The colors of France were presented to the president for his country, together with the letter of the French Committee of Safety to the Congress, at Washington's residence, in the presence of a large number of distinguished characters. Adet, in a speech on the occasion, presented in glowing colors the position of France as the great dispensatory of free opinions in the old world—as“struggling not only for her own liberty, but for that of the human race. Assimilated to, or rather identified with, free people by the form of her government,” he said, “she saw in them only friends and brothers. Long accustomed to regard the American people as her most faithful allies, she sought to draw closer the ties already formed in the fields of America, under the auspices of victory, over the ruins of tyranny.”

A reply to this address, under the peculiar circumstances in which Washington was placed, required the exercise of much discretion. It was necessary to express generous feelings adapted to the occasion, without the utterance of sentiments, concerning the powers then at war, inconsistent with the position of neutrality which the United States had assumed. The president accordingly said:—

“Born, sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it; having, in a word, devoted the best years of my life to its permanent establishment in my own country, my anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best wishes, are irresistibly attracted wheresoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom. But, above all, the events of the French Revolution have produced the deepest solicitude, as well as the highest admiration. To call your nation brave, were to pronounce but common praise. Wonderful people! Ages to come will read with astonishment the history of your brilliant exploits. I rejoice that the period of your toils and your immense sacrifices is approaching. I rejoice that the interesting revolutionary movements of so many years have issued in the formation of a constitution,[90]designed to give permanency to the great objectfor which you have contended. I rejoice that liberty, which you have so long embraced with enthusiasm—liberty, of which you have been the invincible defenders—now finds an asylum in the bosom of a regularly organized government;a government which, being formed to secure the happiness of the French people, corresponds with the ardent wishes of my heart, while it gratifies the pride of every citizen of the United States by its resemblance to their own. On these glorious events, accept, sir, my sincere congratulations.“In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own feelings only, but those of my fellow-citizens, in relation to the commencement, the progress, and the issue of the French Revolution; and they will certainly join with me in purest wishes to the Supreme Being, that the citizens of our sister-republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy in peace that liberty which they have purchased at so great a price, and all the happiness that liberty can bestow.“I receive, sir, with lively sensibility the symbol of the triumphs and of the enfranchisements of your nation, the colors of France, which you have now presented to the United States. The transaction will be announced to Congress, and the colors will be deposited with the archives of the United States, which are at once the evidence and the memorials of their freedom and independence. May these be perpetual, and may the friendship of the two republics be commensurate with their existence!”

“In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own feelings only, but those of my fellow-citizens, in relation to the commencement, the progress, and the issue of the French Revolution; and they will certainly join with me in purest wishes to the Supreme Being, that the citizens of our sister-republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy in peace that liberty which they have purchased at so great a price, and all the happiness that liberty can bestow.

“I receive, sir, with lively sensibility the symbol of the triumphs and of the enfranchisements of your nation, the colors of France, which you have now presented to the United States. The transaction will be announced to Congress, and the colors will be deposited with the archives of the United States, which are at once the evidence and the memorials of their freedom and independence. May these be perpetual, and may the friendship of the two republics be commensurate with their existence!”

Washington transmitted to Congress the letter from the Committee of Safety, the French colors, and copies of the speeches of Adet and himself at the presentation, on the fourth of January; whereupon, the house of representatives, by resolution, requested the president to make known to the representatives of the French people “the most sincere and lively sensibility” which was excited by this honorable testimony of the existing sympathy and affections of the two republics; that the house rejoiced “in the opportunity thereby afforded to congratulate the French nation upon the brilliant and glorious achievements” which they had accomplished during the present afflictive war; and hoped that those achievements would be attended with a perfect attainment of their object, and “the permanent establishment of the liberty and happiness of a great and magnanimous people.”

On the sixth of January, the senate also passed resolutions expressive of the pleasure they felt on the reception of this evidence of the continued friendship of the French republic, and of a desire that the “symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement of that great people,” as expressed by Washington in his reply to the French minister, might contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere affection by which the two republics were so happily united. It was at first proposed, in a resolution offered in the senate, that the president should communicate the sentiments of that body to the proper organ of the French government; but this was opposed, because, it was said, the complimentary correspondence between the two nations had reached a point where, if ever, it ought to cease. This amendment was carried by a strict party vote.

FOOTNOTES:[89]History of the United States, second series, i, 566.[90]The letter brought by Adet was from the Committee of Safety, which, under the revolutionary system in France, was the department charged with foreign intercourse. After his departure a new order of things was established. On the thirty-first of May, 1795, the revolutionary tribunal was, by a decree of the National Convention, abolished in France. On the twenty-third of June, a committee, appointed for the purpose, presented the draft of a new constitution, modelled in many respects after that of the United States. The reading of it, which occupied several hours, was frequently interrupted by the loudest bursts of applause. At the conclusion, it was decreed that the discussion of the instrument should be opened on the fourth of July. On the sixth of September, the people of France met in primary assemblies for the purpose of accepting or rejecting the new constitution. The armies of the eastern and western Pyrenees accepted it on that day, and so did a great majority of the French nation. The result was announced in the convention on the tenth of September, with information that two thirds of the members of that body had been re-elected. In consequence of that acceptance, a dreadful riot broke out in Paris on the sixth of October, which lasted several days; but the insurgents were finally overpowered by the convention troops. Many persons were slain on both sides, and ringleaders of the riot were soon afterward executed.The French constitution established an Executive Directory, composed of five members, who ruled in connection with two legislative chambers, called respectively The Council of Ancients, and the Council of Five Hundred. The directory were formally installed at the Luxembourg, in Paris, on the first of November, 1795. On the same day a pen-picture of the convention was published at Paris, signedReal. “The convention,” he said, “has terminated its sittings. Where is the Tacitus who shall write the history of its glorious actions and its abominable excesses? Obscure men, sent to devise laws, have during a dictation of three years displayed an energy, a greatness, and a ferocity, which no longer allow us to envy either the virtues of ancient Rome or the wild atrocities of the first Cesars. Physicians, lawyers, and attorneys' clerks, became suddenly professed legislators, and warriors full of boldness. They have overturned all Europe, and changed its system.“With a daring hand they have signed the death-warrant of the successor of an hundred kings, and in one day broken the sceptre for which an existence of fourteen centuries had procured a religious and fanatical veneration. On that day they threw down the gauntlet before astonished Europe; and William the Conqueror, when he burnt his fleet, did not place himself with more audaciousness between victory and death. Without money, without credit, without arms, artillery, saltpetre, and armies; betrayed by Dumorier; Valenciennes being taken by the Austrians; Toulon in the hands of the English; the king of Prussia under the walls of Landau, and a country of ninety leagues extent devoured by one hundred and fifty thousand Vendeans, they published a decree, and on a sudden all France became a vast manufactory of arms and saltpetre; one million, four hundred thousand men sprang up ready armed; the king of Prussia was defeated near Landau, the Austrians repulsed near Maubenge, the English routed near Hondschoote, the Vendeans annihilated at Lavenay, and the tri-colored flag was hoisted on the walls of Toulon.“Their folly disconcerted the wisdom of ancient politics; songs and the charging step defeated the celebrated tactics of the Germans; generals just left the ranks—obscure generals, who but a few months before were simple sergeants—conceived and executed the plan of the campaign of 1795 which will always remain the admiration of military men, and defeated the most celebrated generals, the pupils and companions of the great Frederick. Holland was conquered in January by the inexperienced troops; and what Louis XIV, in the zenith of his glory, did not dare to conceive, the French, by founding a republic, have carried into effect, and planted the tri-colored standard on the banks of the Rhine.“It is amidst this long tempest, amidst proscriptions and scaffolds, this dreadful convention has opened the road to glory; after having desolated the world, it has exhausted against itself its devouring energy. Two parties, by turns victorious and vanquished, have been sent to the scaffold by a third, which, embracing always the cause of the strongest, preserved itself by sometimes striking against the mountain, sometimes against the plain.“Voracious men! your pernicious versatility has produced all the evils which have devastated France; your wickedness, which you call wisdom, has overflowed my native land with blood; and posterity will ask, with wonder, 'What was the political opinion of those who condemned Danton, Brissot, Lacroix, and Ducos; who advised with Robespierre and Lanjunais, Billaud de Varennes, and Barrere?' Voracious men! you will be despised by the present generation, and detested by posterity. Convention! the murders and atrocities which thy reign has produced will be handed down to posterity, and will not be credited.”Such was a life-picture, drawn by a master-hand, of the men and the government with whose operations the leaders of a strong party in the United States endeavored with mad zeal, for three years, to involve their own government; a catastrophe prevented only, so far as human agency was concerned, by the fearless courage and profound wisdom of Washington in maintaining neutrality.

[89]History of the United States, second series, i, 566.

[90]The letter brought by Adet was from the Committee of Safety, which, under the revolutionary system in France, was the department charged with foreign intercourse. After his departure a new order of things was established. On the thirty-first of May, 1795, the revolutionary tribunal was, by a decree of the National Convention, abolished in France. On the twenty-third of June, a committee, appointed for the purpose, presented the draft of a new constitution, modelled in many respects after that of the United States. The reading of it, which occupied several hours, was frequently interrupted by the loudest bursts of applause. At the conclusion, it was decreed that the discussion of the instrument should be opened on the fourth of July. On the sixth of September, the people of France met in primary assemblies for the purpose of accepting or rejecting the new constitution. The armies of the eastern and western Pyrenees accepted it on that day, and so did a great majority of the French nation. The result was announced in the convention on the tenth of September, with information that two thirds of the members of that body had been re-elected. In consequence of that acceptance, a dreadful riot broke out in Paris on the sixth of October, which lasted several days; but the insurgents were finally overpowered by the convention troops. Many persons were slain on both sides, and ringleaders of the riot were soon afterward executed.The French constitution established an Executive Directory, composed of five members, who ruled in connection with two legislative chambers, called respectively The Council of Ancients, and the Council of Five Hundred. The directory were formally installed at the Luxembourg, in Paris, on the first of November, 1795. On the same day a pen-picture of the convention was published at Paris, signedReal. “The convention,” he said, “has terminated its sittings. Where is the Tacitus who shall write the history of its glorious actions and its abominable excesses? Obscure men, sent to devise laws, have during a dictation of three years displayed an energy, a greatness, and a ferocity, which no longer allow us to envy either the virtues of ancient Rome or the wild atrocities of the first Cesars. Physicians, lawyers, and attorneys' clerks, became suddenly professed legislators, and warriors full of boldness. They have overturned all Europe, and changed its system.“With a daring hand they have signed the death-warrant of the successor of an hundred kings, and in one day broken the sceptre for which an existence of fourteen centuries had procured a religious and fanatical veneration. On that day they threw down the gauntlet before astonished Europe; and William the Conqueror, when he burnt his fleet, did not place himself with more audaciousness between victory and death. Without money, without credit, without arms, artillery, saltpetre, and armies; betrayed by Dumorier; Valenciennes being taken by the Austrians; Toulon in the hands of the English; the king of Prussia under the walls of Landau, and a country of ninety leagues extent devoured by one hundred and fifty thousand Vendeans, they published a decree, and on a sudden all France became a vast manufactory of arms and saltpetre; one million, four hundred thousand men sprang up ready armed; the king of Prussia was defeated near Landau, the Austrians repulsed near Maubenge, the English routed near Hondschoote, the Vendeans annihilated at Lavenay, and the tri-colored flag was hoisted on the walls of Toulon.“Their folly disconcerted the wisdom of ancient politics; songs and the charging step defeated the celebrated tactics of the Germans; generals just left the ranks—obscure generals, who but a few months before were simple sergeants—conceived and executed the plan of the campaign of 1795 which will always remain the admiration of military men, and defeated the most celebrated generals, the pupils and companions of the great Frederick. Holland was conquered in January by the inexperienced troops; and what Louis XIV, in the zenith of his glory, did not dare to conceive, the French, by founding a republic, have carried into effect, and planted the tri-colored standard on the banks of the Rhine.“It is amidst this long tempest, amidst proscriptions and scaffolds, this dreadful convention has opened the road to glory; after having desolated the world, it has exhausted against itself its devouring energy. Two parties, by turns victorious and vanquished, have been sent to the scaffold by a third, which, embracing always the cause of the strongest, preserved itself by sometimes striking against the mountain, sometimes against the plain.“Voracious men! your pernicious versatility has produced all the evils which have devastated France; your wickedness, which you call wisdom, has overflowed my native land with blood; and posterity will ask, with wonder, 'What was the political opinion of those who condemned Danton, Brissot, Lacroix, and Ducos; who advised with Robespierre and Lanjunais, Billaud de Varennes, and Barrere?' Voracious men! you will be despised by the present generation, and detested by posterity. Convention! the murders and atrocities which thy reign has produced will be handed down to posterity, and will not be credited.”Such was a life-picture, drawn by a master-hand, of the men and the government with whose operations the leaders of a strong party in the United States endeavored with mad zeal, for three years, to involve their own government; a catastrophe prevented only, so far as human agency was concerned, by the fearless courage and profound wisdom of Washington in maintaining neutrality.

The French constitution established an Executive Directory, composed of five members, who ruled in connection with two legislative chambers, called respectively The Council of Ancients, and the Council of Five Hundred. The directory were formally installed at the Luxembourg, in Paris, on the first of November, 1795. On the same day a pen-picture of the convention was published at Paris, signedReal. “The convention,” he said, “has terminated its sittings. Where is the Tacitus who shall write the history of its glorious actions and its abominable excesses? Obscure men, sent to devise laws, have during a dictation of three years displayed an energy, a greatness, and a ferocity, which no longer allow us to envy either the virtues of ancient Rome or the wild atrocities of the first Cesars. Physicians, lawyers, and attorneys' clerks, became suddenly professed legislators, and warriors full of boldness. They have overturned all Europe, and changed its system.

“With a daring hand they have signed the death-warrant of the successor of an hundred kings, and in one day broken the sceptre for which an existence of fourteen centuries had procured a religious and fanatical veneration. On that day they threw down the gauntlet before astonished Europe; and William the Conqueror, when he burnt his fleet, did not place himself with more audaciousness between victory and death. Without money, without credit, without arms, artillery, saltpetre, and armies; betrayed by Dumorier; Valenciennes being taken by the Austrians; Toulon in the hands of the English; the king of Prussia under the walls of Landau, and a country of ninety leagues extent devoured by one hundred and fifty thousand Vendeans, they published a decree, and on a sudden all France became a vast manufactory of arms and saltpetre; one million, four hundred thousand men sprang up ready armed; the king of Prussia was defeated near Landau, the Austrians repulsed near Maubenge, the English routed near Hondschoote, the Vendeans annihilated at Lavenay, and the tri-colored flag was hoisted on the walls of Toulon.

“Their folly disconcerted the wisdom of ancient politics; songs and the charging step defeated the celebrated tactics of the Germans; generals just left the ranks—obscure generals, who but a few months before were simple sergeants—conceived and executed the plan of the campaign of 1795 which will always remain the admiration of military men, and defeated the most celebrated generals, the pupils and companions of the great Frederick. Holland was conquered in January by the inexperienced troops; and what Louis XIV, in the zenith of his glory, did not dare to conceive, the French, by founding a republic, have carried into effect, and planted the tri-colored standard on the banks of the Rhine.

“It is amidst this long tempest, amidst proscriptions and scaffolds, this dreadful convention has opened the road to glory; after having desolated the world, it has exhausted against itself its devouring energy. Two parties, by turns victorious and vanquished, have been sent to the scaffold by a third, which, embracing always the cause of the strongest, preserved itself by sometimes striking against the mountain, sometimes against the plain.

“Voracious men! your pernicious versatility has produced all the evils which have devastated France; your wickedness, which you call wisdom, has overflowed my native land with blood; and posterity will ask, with wonder, 'What was the political opinion of those who condemned Danton, Brissot, Lacroix, and Ducos; who advised with Robespierre and Lanjunais, Billaud de Varennes, and Barrere?' Voracious men! you will be despised by the present generation, and detested by posterity. Convention! the murders and atrocities which thy reign has produced will be handed down to posterity, and will not be credited.”

Such was a life-picture, drawn by a master-hand, of the men and the government with whose operations the leaders of a strong party in the United States endeavored with mad zeal, for three years, to involve their own government; a catastrophe prevented only, so far as human agency was concerned, by the fearless courage and profound wisdom of Washington in maintaining neutrality.

TOP

return of jay's treaty—it is proclaimed to be the law of the land—the opposition offended—house of representatives call upon the president for all papers relating to the treaty—debates thereon—action of the cabinet—the president's reply—he refuses to accede to the call of the house—consideration of his refusal in the house of representatives—blount's resolutions—debates on the treaty—speeches of madison, gallatin, and ames—effect of ames's speech—decision of the committee of the whole house—final vote.

The treaty with Great Britain, ratified by King George, was returned to the United States government in February, much to the relief of its friends, and indeed of all parties. “We are wasting our time in the most insipid manner, waiting for the treaty,” wrote John Adams to his wife on the tenth of January. “Nothing of any consequence will be done till that arrives, and is mauled and abused, and then acquiesced in. For theantismust be more numerous than I believe them, and made of sterner stuff than I conceive, if they dare hazard the surrender of the posts and the payment for spoliations, by any resolution of the house that shall render precarious the execution of the treaty on our part.”

The federal constitution declaring a treaty, when duly ratified by the contracting powers, to be the law of the land, Washington, on the last day of February, issued a proclamation announcing the one just concluded with Great Britain, as such. This had been a mooted point. The president's proclamation decided that the treaty was law without further action of Congress; and it now remained for that body to make provision for carrying it into effect. The president sent it to both houses on the first day of March, with the following brief message:—

“The treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation concluded between the United States and his Britannic majesty having been duly ratified, and the ratifications having been exchanged at London on the twenty-eighth of October, one thousand, seven hundred and ninety-five, I have directed the same to be promulgated, and herewith transmit a copy thereof for the information of Congress.”

This action was the signal for both parties to prepare for a great struggle. The opposition, who had openly denied the right of the president to evennegotiatea treaty of commerce, because, they said, it practically gave to the executive and senate the power to regulate commerce, were highly offended because the president had ventured to issue this proclamation before the sense of the house of representatives had been declared on the obligations of the instrument. This feeling assumed tangible form when, on the seventh of March, Edward Livingston, of New York, offered a resolution calling upon the president for copies of all papers relating to the treaty. This resolution, as modified on motion of Madison, was as follows:—

“Resolved, That the president of the United States be requested to lay before this house a copy of the instructions given to the minister of the United States, who negotiated the treaty with Great Britain, communicated by his message of the first instant, together with the correspondence and documents relating to the said treaty, excepting such of said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed.”

A warm debate immediately arose, and speedily took the form of a discussion on the nature and extent of the treaty-making power. “The friends of the administration maintained,” says Marshall, “that a treaty was a contract between two nations, which, under the constitution, the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, had a right to make; and that it was made when, by and with such advice and consent, it had received his final act. Its obligations then became complete on the United States, and to refuse to comply with its stipulations was to break the treaty and to violate the faith of the nation.

“The opposition contended that the power to make treaties, ifapplicable to every object, conflicted with powers which were vested exclusively in Congress. That either the treaty-making power must be limited in its operations, so as not to touch objects committed by the constitution to Congress, or the assent and co-operation of the house of representatives must be required to give validity to any compact, so far as it might comprehend those objects. A treaty, therefore, which required an appropriation of money or any act of Congress to carry it into effect, had not acquired its obligatory form until the house of representatives had exercised its powers in the case. They were at full liberty to make, or to withhold, such appropriation, or other law, without incurring the imputation of violating any existing obligation, or breaking the faith of the nation.”[91]

At the outset, a member had inquired the object of Mr. Livingston's motion, since on that would depend its propriety. It was contended, that if the impeachment of either Mr. Jay or the president was intended, it was a proper motion; but not so if the constitutionality of the treaty was to be questioned, because that must depend on the treaty itself. It was further inquired whether the house proposed to consider whether a better treaty might not have been made. Mr. Livingston did not disavow either of the objects suggested, but stated as his principal reason, a firm conviction that the house was vested with a discretionary power, allowing it to carry the treaty into execution or not. This consideration was made the chief point in the debate, in which Albert Gallatin took a leading part in favor of the resolution, well supported by Madison, Livingston, Giles, and Baldwin, and others of less note. It was opposed by Smith, of South Carolina, Murray, Harper, Hillhouse, and others. About thirty speeches on either side were made, and the debate did not terminate until the twenty-fourth of the month.

During this debate, the eloquent Fisher Ames was a member of the house, but was compelled by ill health to be silent. It was a great trial for the patriot, for he saw the need of soldiers for the contest. He had been, from the beginning, a warm friend of the government; and now, at what he deemed a crisis, he wished to lift up his voice in defence of its measures. To a friend in Springfield he wrote on the ninth of March, saying:—

“I sit now in the house; and, that I may not lose my temper and my spirits, I shut my ears against the sophisms and rant against the treaty, and divert my attention by writing to you.“Never was there a time when I so much desired the full use of my faculties, and it is the very moment when I am prohibited even attention. To be silent, neutral, useless, is a situation not to be envied. I almost wish ***** was here, and I at home, sorting squash and pumpkin seeds for planting.“It is a new post for me to be in. I am not a sentry, not in the ranks, not in the staff. I am thrown into the wagon as part of the baggage. I am like an old gun that is spiked or the trunnions knocked off, and yet am carted off, not for the worth of the old iron, but to balk the enemy of a trophy. My political life is ended, and I am the survivor of myself, or rather the troubled ghost of a politician, that am condemned to haunt the field of battle where I fell. Whether the government will long outlive me is doubtful. I know it is sick, and, many of the physicians say, of a mortal disease. A crisis now exists, the most serious I ever witnessed, and the more dangerous because it is not dreaded. Yet, I confess, if we should navigate the federal ship through this strait, and get out again into the open sea, we shall have a right to consider the chance of our government as mended. We shall have a lease for years—say four or five; not a freehold—certainly not a fee simple.“How will the Yankees feel and act when the day of trial comes? It is not, I fear, many weeks off. Will they let the casuists quibble away the very words, and adulterate the generous spirit of the constitution? When a measure passes by the proper authorities, shall it be stopped by force? Sophistry may change the form of the question, may hide some of the consequences, and may dupe some into an opinion of its moderation when triumphant; yet the fact will speak for itself. The government can not go to the halves. It would be another, a worse government, if the mob, or the leadersof the mob in Congress,[92]can stop the lawful acts of the president, and unmake a treaty. It would be, either no government, or instantly a government of usurpation and wrong.... I think we shall beat our opponents in the end, but the conflict will light up a fierce war.”

“I sit now in the house; and, that I may not lose my temper and my spirits, I shut my ears against the sophisms and rant against the treaty, and divert my attention by writing to you.

“Never was there a time when I so much desired the full use of my faculties, and it is the very moment when I am prohibited even attention. To be silent, neutral, useless, is a situation not to be envied. I almost wish ***** was here, and I at home, sorting squash and pumpkin seeds for planting.

“It is a new post for me to be in. I am not a sentry, not in the ranks, not in the staff. I am thrown into the wagon as part of the baggage. I am like an old gun that is spiked or the trunnions knocked off, and yet am carted off, not for the worth of the old iron, but to balk the enemy of a trophy. My political life is ended, and I am the survivor of myself, or rather the troubled ghost of a politician, that am condemned to haunt the field of battle where I fell. Whether the government will long outlive me is doubtful. I know it is sick, and, many of the physicians say, of a mortal disease. A crisis now exists, the most serious I ever witnessed, and the more dangerous because it is not dreaded. Yet, I confess, if we should navigate the federal ship through this strait, and get out again into the open sea, we shall have a right to consider the chance of our government as mended. We shall have a lease for years—say four or five; not a freehold—certainly not a fee simple.

“How will the Yankees feel and act when the day of trial comes? It is not, I fear, many weeks off. Will they let the casuists quibble away the very words, and adulterate the generous spirit of the constitution? When a measure passes by the proper authorities, shall it be stopped by force? Sophistry may change the form of the question, may hide some of the consequences, and may dupe some into an opinion of its moderation when triumphant; yet the fact will speak for itself. The government can not go to the halves. It would be another, a worse government, if the mob, or the leadersof the mob in Congress,[92]can stop the lawful acts of the president, and unmake a treaty. It would be, either no government, or instantly a government of usurpation and wrong.... I think we shall beat our opponents in the end, but the conflict will light up a fierce war.”

Ames grew stronger; and at length, in the final debate in Congress upon the subject of the treaty, his eloquence was heard, like the tones of a trumpet, and with great effect, as we shall presently observe.

Livingston's motion was carried, on the twenty-fourth of March, by the decisive vote of sixty-two to thirty-seven. A committee of the house, deputed for the purpose, carried the vote to the president, who replied that he would take the request into consideration. He immediately summoned a cabinet council, and laid the matter before them in the form of two queries; first, on the right of the house, under the circumstances, to make such a call; and secondly, whether it would be expedient to furnish the papers, even though the belief might be entertained that the house had no right to call for them. He also referred the matter to Colonel Hamilton for his opinion.

The cabinet members were unanimous in opinion, that he ought not to comply with the requisitions of the house. Each of them stated, in writing, the grounds of his opinion; and Chief-Justice Ellsworth, who had lately been appointed to the bench of the supreme court of the United States, had, while the debate was in progress, drawn up an opinion coincident with the views of Washington and his cabinet. Hamilton also transmitted to the president a long and able paper, in which, with his usual force of unanswerable logic, he sustained the action of the cabinet, and fortified the president's views. In acknowledging the receipt of this paper on the thirty-first of March, the president said:—

“I had from the first moment, and from the fullest conviction in my own mind, resolved toresist the principle, which was evidently intended to be established by the call of the house of representatives; and only deliberated on the manner in which this could be done with the least bad consequences. To effect this, three modes presented themselves. First, a denial of the papersin toto, assigning concise but cogent reasons for that denial; secondly, to grant them in whole; or, thirdly, in part; accompanied in both the last-mentioned cases with a pointed protest against the right of the house to control treaties, or to call for papers without specifying their object, and against the compliance being drawn into a precedent.“I had as little hesitation in deciding that the first was the most tenable ground; but, from the peculiar circumstances of the case, it merited consideration, if theprinciplecould be saved, whether facility in the provision might not result from a compliance. An attentive examination of the subject and papers, however, soon convinced me that to furnishallthe papers would be highly improper, and that a partial delivery of them would leave the door open for as much calumny as a refusal of them altogether; perhaps more, as it might, and I have no doubt would, be said that all such as were essential to the purposes of the house were withheld.“Under these impressions, I proceeded, with the heads of departments and the attorney-general, to collect materials, and to prepare an answer, subject, however, to revision and change according to circumstances. This was ready on Monday, and proposed to be sent in on Tuesday; but it was delayed until I should hear from you, which happened on that day about noon. This induced a further postponement until yesterday, notwithstanding the apparent and anxious solicitude, which was visible in all quarters, to learn the result of the application.“Finding that the draft which I had prepared embraced the most if not all the principles, which were detailed in yours of yesterday, though not the reasonings; that it would take considerable time to copy yours; and, above all, having understood that if the papers were refused, a fresh demand with strictures on my conduct wasto be expected, I sent in the answer, which was ready, and have reserved yours, as a copious resource, in case the matter should go any further.”[93]

“I had as little hesitation in deciding that the first was the most tenable ground; but, from the peculiar circumstances of the case, it merited consideration, if theprinciplecould be saved, whether facility in the provision might not result from a compliance. An attentive examination of the subject and papers, however, soon convinced me that to furnishallthe papers would be highly improper, and that a partial delivery of them would leave the door open for as much calumny as a refusal of them altogether; perhaps more, as it might, and I have no doubt would, be said that all such as were essential to the purposes of the house were withheld.

“Under these impressions, I proceeded, with the heads of departments and the attorney-general, to collect materials, and to prepare an answer, subject, however, to revision and change according to circumstances. This was ready on Monday, and proposed to be sent in on Tuesday; but it was delayed until I should hear from you, which happened on that day about noon. This induced a further postponement until yesterday, notwithstanding the apparent and anxious solicitude, which was visible in all quarters, to learn the result of the application.

“Finding that the draft which I had prepared embraced the most if not all the principles, which were detailed in yours of yesterday, though not the reasonings; that it would take considerable time to copy yours; and, above all, having understood that if the papers were refused, a fresh demand with strictures on my conduct wasto be expected, I sent in the answer, which was ready, and have reserved yours, as a copious resource, in case the matter should go any further.”[93]

Washington gave a decided negative to the request of the house.It appears to have been unexpected. The opposition were not prepared for such boldness and firmness on the part of the executive, and it “appeared to break,” says Marshall, “the last cord of that attachment which had theretofore bound some of the active leaders of the opposition to the person of the president.” Amid all the excitements of party contests, there was real affection and respect for Washington on the part of those who were politically opposed to him; but this act, so much like defiance of the popular will as expressed by the house of representatives, in the eyes of the unreflecting, seemed, for the moment, to extinguish every lingering spark of affection in the bosom of his old friends, now his political enemies.

After a week's delay, the president's message was taken up in committee of the whole, with two resolutions offered by Blount, of North Carolina, declaratory of the sense of the house respecting its own power on the subject of treaties. These embodied doctrines contrary to those expressed in the message. The first, after disclaiming any pretensions on the part of the house to “any agency in making treaties,” asserted, that “when a treaty stipulated regulations on any of the subjects submitted by the constitution tothe power of Congress, it must depend for its execution, as to such stipulations, on a law to be passed by Congress,” and that the house had a right to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such law, and pass or reject it as they might determine. The second resolution asserted, that in applications to the president for information, the house was not bound to specify for what purpose such information was wanted.

These resolutions took a rather less untenable position than had been maintained in argument, and were quite inexplicit on an essential part of the question. After a brief debate, in which Madison was chief speaker in favor of the resolutions, they were adopted by a vote of fifty-seven to thirty-five.

While this exciting subject was before Congress, the treaties with the Indians, with the dey of Algiers, and with Spain respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, had been ratified by the president and senate, and communicated to the house of representatives. It was moved to refer them to the committee of the whole house; but, for several days in succession, the motion was voted down. It was finally carried; and on the thirteenth of April, the moment the committee of the whole was organized by the chairman taking his seat, Mr. Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, arose and moved “that provision ought to be made by law for carrying into effect, with good faith, the treaties lately concluded with the dey and regency of Algiers, the king of Great Britain, the king of Spain, and certain Indian tribes northwest of the Ohio.” The opposition were completely surprised by this unexpected movement, and an angry altercation ensued. They complained loudly of the manner in which an attempt was made to force action upon the four treaties together, and resented what they deemed the ungenerous sharp practice of their opponents, because it was in contravention of the solemn vote of the house lately recorded upon their journals, declaratory of their right to exercise a free discretion over the subject. It was contended, on the other hand, that, as the four treaties formed part of one system, if one was rejected, it might be expedient to reject the others also. After a warm debate, it was agreed to dispose ofthe other treaties before taking up that with Great Britain. In accordance with this determination, the action of the house on the other treaties was such as not to contradict the claim set up by Blount's resolutions, and they were disposed of without any difficulty.

The treaty with Great Britain was taken up on the fifteenth of April. Its friends, in and out of Congress, supposing that on a subject which had so long agitated the community, the mind of every member was settled, and that an attempt to make converts by either party through debates would be futile, urged an immediate decision of the matter. They felt confident that the majority would not dare to meet the country on such an issue as the withholding of means for the execution of the treaty; but that majority, though knowing they had the power to break the treaty, were unwilling to do so without first embracing an opportunity for giving satisfactory reasons for their action. They therefore called for discussion. “The expectation,” says Marshall, “might not unreasonably be entertained, that the passions belonging to the subject would be so inflamed by debate as to produce the expression of a public sentiment favorable to their wishes; and if in this they should be disappointed, it would be certainly unwise, either as a party or as a branch of the legislature, to plunge the nation into embarrassments in which it was not disposed to entangle itself, and from which the manner of extricating it could not be distinctly perceived.”

The friends of the treaty did not shrink from discussion; and the debate, which lasted a fortnight, was opened by Madison with a speech, elaborate in its details and carefully prepared. He maintained that there was the grossest want of reciprocity exhibited in that part of the treaty that related to the settlement of disputes growing out of the compact of 1783. The British, he asserted, got all they asked—the debts due their merchants with damages in the shape of interest. We got nothing, he said, for the valuable negroes carried away, and we received nothing for damages accruing from the long detention of the western posts. And they, he said, were received with conditions respecting the Indian tradewhich made them almost useless to us, as to influence over the savage tribes, in which alone their greatest value consisted; and he considered the agreement to pay the American claims for spoliations as no offset for the loss of the negroes.

The same want of reciprocity, he said, prevailed in the portion of the treaty respecting neutral rights and the law of nations. By it we yielded the favorite principle, long ago enunciated, that “free ships make free goods,” and had actually added naval stores and even provisions to the list of contraband articles. He severely animadverted upon the provisions which conceded to British subjects the right to hold lands within the territory of the United States; the stipulation concerning the navigation of the Mississippi; and the permission to open all American ports to British shipping, while our own vessels were excluded from the colonial harbors.

The latter measure, allowing Great Britain to retain her colonial monopoly and preserve intact her colonial system, he denounced as “a phenomenon which had filled him with more surprise than he knew how to express.” And more vehement than all, because it interfered with his favorite scheme of commercial coercion, was Madison's denunciations of the provisions which prevented the Americans from retaliating upon the British, in the event of their making commercial restrictions to our disadvantage by further discriminations. He concluded with scouting the idea that war would ensue if the treaty should be rejected, because the hostilities England were then waging with France were quite as much as she was able to manage at that time.

Madison's speech alarmed the country, especially the sensitive mercantile classes, for whose losses, by spoliations, the treaty made provision, and those who were dependant upon trade, because they feared its influence in causing the inexecution of the treaty, and consequent war with Great Britain, by which their interests would be seriously effected. Other classes were also alarmed; indeed, all who loved peace and deprecated quarrels, much less physical contests, with other nations, trembled for the fate of the treaty. The country was violently agitated. Public meetings wereheld in all parts of the United States, and the strength of parties was once more fully tried. Petitions were sent in to Congress from all the great marts of business in the country in favor of ratification; while counter meetings were held and counter petitions were sent in from various places. Insurance against captures on the high seas could no longer be obtained for vessels or goods; and a sudden blow was given to commerce, which threatened financial ruin.

To add to the confusion, Bond, the Britishchargé des affaires, had intimated, that if the house of representatives, refused the necessary appropriation to carry the treaty into effect, the western posts would not be given up at the stipulated time, now near at hand. He also took that occasion to insist upon an explanatory article concerning a clause in Wayne's treaty with the Indians, by which they had agreed to allow no trader to reside among them, unless licensed by the authorities of the United States; for it seemed to be in contradiction with the provisions of the treaty under consideration, a mutual free-trade with the Indian tribes being guarantied thereby. This menace and this demand created much irritation; yet it did not in the least affect the tide of popular sentiment in favor of the treaty which was continually rising. This fact was clearly discerned by both parties, and the friends of the treaty protracted the debate, in order that, before the vote should be taken, public opinion might be so expressed, as to have an omnipotent effect in its favor.

At this moment, when the debate had been going on for several days and the spirit of the opposition began to flag, Albert Gallatin came to the support of his party, in a speech which at once gave him the position of republican leader in the house, the honor of which had been divided between Madison and Giles, of Virginia. Gallatin was a native of Geneva, in Switzerland, and then only thirty years of age. He had been only eleven years in the country, two of which he had served the people of his adoption in a military capacity. After the Revolution he established himself on the Monongahela, in western Pennsylvania, where his talents soon caused him to be called into public life. He was engaged, as wehave seen, in the Whiskey Insurrection, but with patriotic intentions, as he alleged; and by a large popular vote he was elected to a seat in the house of representatives. Although a foreign accent was plainly visible when he spoke, he was so fluent in language, so earnest in manner, and so logical in argument, that his youth and foreign birth were forgotten for the moment, and he was listened to with the greatest pleasure.

Gallatin had heard the speeches on both sides with marked attention, and was prepared to take new ground in his own. Quoting from Vattel on the law of nations, he went on to show that slaves, being real estate, were not a subject of booty, but, on the restoration of peace, fell back to their former owners, like the soil to which they were attached. He attempted to excite, evidently for party purposes, sectional hatred by declaring that while the rights of the South and West had been sacrificed by the treaty, in respect to negroes, the Indian trade, and the navigation of the Mississippi, means had been found to protect the commercial interests of the North. With the same breath, however, he denounced the commercial articles of the treaty as utterly worthless, and adroitly charged the senate, by insinuation, with ignorance respecting the East Indian trade, falsely assuming that because the treaty did not, by express provisions, secure the East Indian coasting trade, and the direct voyage from India to Europe by American vessels, that these privileges had been relinquished.

Like Madison, he regarded the provision respecting neutrals as yielding everything to the semi-piratical policy of Great Britain. He contended strenuously for the dishonest measure of sequestration of private debts due to British subjects, as a means of coercion, and condemned that most just provision of the treaty, bearing upon that subject, without stint. While we have promised full indemnity to England, he said, for every possible claim against us, we had abandoned every claim of a doubtful nature, and agreed to receive the western posts under the most degrading restrictions concerning the trade with the Indians. We had gained nothing, he said, by the arrangements respecting trade and navigation, while we hadparted with “every pledge in our hands, every power of restriction, every weapon of self-defence.”

He admitted that if this treaty should be rejected, another as favorable might not be obtained; but he argued, that while the United States would lose the western posts and the indemnity for spoliations, they would be pecuniary gainers by escaping the payment of the British debts. He did not wish, nor did his party, an utter rejection of the treaty, but a suspension or postponement of it, until the British should cease their encroachments, and reparations for such wrongs might be obtained. He scouted as utterly chimerical, the idea that war would necessarily follow such postponement, or even a positive rejection; and he treated the menaces of the dissolution of the Union with scorn. He significantly asked, Who will dissolve the government? The opposition majority had no motive for doing it, and he did not believe that the federalists would, at the first failure of their power, revenge themselves by overthrowing the government. He expressed his belief that the people, from one end of the Union to the other, were strongly attached to the constitution, and that they would punish any party or set of men who should attempt to subvert it. He rested in full security on the people, against any endeavor to destroy the Union or the government. He regarded the cry of disunion and of war as designed only to work upon the fears of Congress, and force an acquiescence in the treaty. “It was the fear of being involved in a war,” he said, “that the negotiations with Great Britain had originated; under the impression of fear the treaty had been negotiated and signed; fear had promoted its ratification; and now, every imaginary mischief was conjured up to frighten the house, to deprive it of that discretion which it had the right to exercise, to force it to carry this treaty into effect.” He also charged the merchants of Philadelphia and other seaports[94]with having formed a combination to produce alarm, and to make their efforts more effectual, had also combined to cease insuring vessels, purchasing produce, or transacting any business, to induce the people to join in the attempt to force the house to pass laws for carrying the treaty into effect.”

“To listen calmly to this denunciation of Washington and Jay,” says Hildreth, “as having pusillanimously surrendered the honor of their country—Washington in setting on foot and in ratifying, and Jay in having negotiated, the treaty—coming as it did from the mouth of one whose evident youth and foreign accent might alone serve to betray him as an adventurer, whose arrival in the country could hardly have been long anterior to the termination of the Revolutionary struggle, was somewhat too much for human nature to bear. There was also something a little provoking in the denunciation of the merchants as having conspired to terrify the house, coming from a man who had first obtained general notoriety, it was now hardly four years since, by the publication of his name at the bottom of a series of resolutions, of which the avowed object was to frighten public officers from the discharge of their duty by threats of a social interdict and non-intercourse—a method of proceeding which had ended in violent resistance to the laws and armed insurrection. Nor is it very surprising, all things considered, that many of the federalists were inclined to look on Gallatin as a foreign emissary, a tool of France, and employed and paid to make mischief.”[95]

Tracy, of Connecticut, replied to the most prominent points of Gallatin's speech. He denied that Vattel gave any such opinion as to slaves, as set forth by Gallatin; and called attention to the fact that the British did not refuse to restore them as booty, but because they were men set free by having joined the British standard, that freedom being the chief inducement held out to them. Other points he commented upon with equal force. He warmed with his theme, and at length became severely personal. The opposition, he said, ask, with an air of triumphant complacency, How is there to be war, if we are not disposed to fight, and Great Britain has no motive for hostilities? “But look at the probable state of things,” hecontinued: “Great Britain is to retain the western posts, and with them, the confidence of the Indians; she makes no compensation for the millions spoliated from our commerce, but adds new millions to our already heavy losses. Would Americans quietly see their government strut, look big, call hard names, repudiate treaties, and then tamely put up with new and aggravated injuries? Whatever might be the case in other parts of the Union, his constituents were not of a temper to dance round a whiskey-pole one day, cursing the government, and to sneak, the next day, into a swamp, on hearing that a military force was marching against them. They knew their rights, and, if the government were unable, or unwilling, to give them protection, they would find other means to secure it. He could not feel thankful to any gentleman for coming all the way from Geneva to accuse Americans of pusillanimity.”

This allusion to Gallatin elicited cries of order from many of the opposition, and for awhile the excitement in the house was intense. The chairman decided that Mr. Tracy was in order, and desired him to go on. He disclaimed any intention to be personal, asked pardon for any improprieties of which he might have been guilty in the heat of debate, and excused himself with the plea, that such charges against the American government and people, from such a source, were naturally very offensive.

Fourteen days had now been occupied with this debate, when Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts, whose feebleness of health had kept him away from the house a part of the session, and made him a quiet spectator until now, arose in his place, and addressed the assemblage on the great subject. It was known that he was to speak on that day (twenty-eighth of April), and the house was crowded with an audience eager to hear the orator. He was pale, tottering, hardly able to stand on his feet, when he first arose, but as he became warmed with the subject, his whole being seemed to gather strength every moment, and he delivered a speech which was never forgotten by those who heard it. It was the great speech of the session, exhibiting a wonderful comprehension of human nature and the springs of political action; logic the mostprofound; the most biting ridicule, and pathetic eloquence. His speech exhibits such a summary, in its allusions, to the scope of the arguments of the opposition, and throws such light upon the growth and state of parties, that we make long extracts from it.

“The suggestion a few days ago,” he said, “that the house manifested symptoms of heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge ought to create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to ourselves and the occasion. Let us not effect to deny the existence and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feeling into the debate, when, from the very structure of our own nature, we ought to anticipate the circumstance as a probability; and when we are admonished by the evidence of our senses that it is a fact, how can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhortations to the house, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and no guide respected but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally every passion of man is continually ringing in our ears? Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been unexplored? It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments; and, when that attempt failed, to awaken the sensibility that would require none. Every prejudice and feeling has been summoned to listen to some peculiar style of address; and yet we seem to believe and to consider a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that of unbiassed reason.... It is very unfairly pretended, that the constitutional right of this house is at stake, and to be asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. We hear it said, that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the design to nullify the existence of this assembly, and to make it a cypher in the government; that the president and senate, the numerous meetings in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, and in spite of the clearest convictions of duty and conscience.

“It is necessary to pause here, and inquire whether suggestionsof this kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, and pernicious in all their influences. They oppose an obstacle in the path of inquiry, not simply discouraging, but absolutely insurmountable. They will not yield to argument; for, as they were not reasoned up, they can not be reasoned down. They are higher than a Chinese wall in truth's way, and built of materials that are indestructible. While this remains, it is vain to say to this mountain, be thou cast into the sea. For I ask of the men of knowledge of the world, whether they would not hold him for a blockhead, that should hope to prevail in an argument, whose scope and object is to mortify the self-love of the expected proselyte? I ask further, when such attempts have been made, whether they have not failed of success? The indignant heart repels the conviction that is believed to debase it.... Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of supposition, and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have yielded too suddenly to their own alarms for the powers of this house; that the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and passion in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness and simplicity....

Back to Index Next