FOOTNOTES:

“Nothing in this treaty contained, shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public treaties with other sovereigns or states.”

“Nothing in this treaty contained, shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public treaties with other sovereigns or states.”

After speaking of his former intention to communicate to Mr. Monroe some of the most interesting particulars of the treaty, “but in the most perfect confidence,” Mr. Jay continued:—

“As that instrument has not yet been ratified, nor received the ultimate forms necessary to give it validity; as further questions respecting parts of it may yet arise, and give occasion to further discussions and negotiations, so that, if finally concluded at all, it may then be different from what it now is, the impropriety of making it public at present is palpable and obvious; such a proceeding would be inconvenient and unprecedented. It does not belong to ministers who negotiate treaties to publish them, even when perfected, much less treaties not yet completed, and remaining open to alteration or rejection. Such acts belong exclusively to the governments who form them.“I can not but flatter myself, that the French government is too enlightened and reasonable to expect that any consideration ought to induce me to overleap the bounds of my authority, or to be negligent of the respect which is due to the United States. That respect, and my obligations to observe it, will not permit me to give, without the permission of their government, a copy of the instrument in question to any person, or forany purpose; and by no means for the purpose of being submitted to the considerationand judgment of the councils of aforeign nation, however friendly.”[104]

“As that instrument has not yet been ratified, nor received the ultimate forms necessary to give it validity; as further questions respecting parts of it may yet arise, and give occasion to further discussions and negotiations, so that, if finally concluded at all, it may then be different from what it now is, the impropriety of making it public at present is palpable and obvious; such a proceeding would be inconvenient and unprecedented. It does not belong to ministers who negotiate treaties to publish them, even when perfected, much less treaties not yet completed, and remaining open to alteration or rejection. Such acts belong exclusively to the governments who form them.

“I can not but flatter myself, that the French government is too enlightened and reasonable to expect that any consideration ought to induce me to overleap the bounds of my authority, or to be negligent of the respect which is due to the United States. That respect, and my obligations to observe it, will not permit me to give, without the permission of their government, a copy of the instrument in question to any person, or forany purpose; and by no means for the purpose of being submitted to the considerationand judgment of the councils of aforeign nation, however friendly.”[104]

Soon after this, John Trumbull, Mr. Jay's secretary of legation, was about to pass through Paris, and he was authorized to make to Mr. Monroe a confidential communication concerning the provisions of the treaty. But the incensed minister refused to receive this or any communication in a form that he could not instantly lay before the French government. He afterward attempted to obtain a copy of the treaty from Thomas Pinckney, who passed through Paris on his way to Spain, but that gentleman would not betray Jay's confidence, and Monroe and the French government were compelled to wait until the authorized publication of the treaty the following summer.

Mr. Monroe felt himself aggrieved by what he deemed the want of confidence in him by the president and his cabinet, who had appointed him. He felt that the administration had injured him; and that the honor and credit of the United States were compromised by their refusal to redeem his promises of aid to the French republic, their “ally and friend.” His first and natural impulse was to resign his post, but alleged patriotic, as well as personal considerations, induced him to remain. He held the most intimate private relations with the members of the Committee of Public Safety and other officers of the French government, and appears to have enjoyed their confidence while he remained there. But, whether from his undue attachment to the French republic, his opposition to Jay's treaty, or his mistaken notions of American interests, Mr. Monroe appears to have done little, after his correspondence with Mr. Jay, to allay ill feeling toward his country on the part of the French government. He had been specially instructed, when sent envoy to France, to explain the views and conduct of the government of the United States in forming the treaty with England; and for this purpose ample documents were furnished him. But it appears from his own letters (published in his defence after his return,in 1796),[105]that he omitted to use them. Uninstructed in the truths which should have been given them, the French government utterly misinterpreted the actions and misconceived the views of the United States; and when informed that the house of representatives would execute the treaty made by Jay, they became very bitter in their resentment, and exhibited their animosity by allowing a French privateer to capture an American merchant-vessel.

Washington and his cabinet were satisfied that the amity between the two nations would be wholly destroyed, if Mr. Monroe should remain longer in France, as the accredited representative of his government, and his recall was resolved upon.[106]To choose a properperson required great caution, sagacity, and discretion. It was the duty of the president to make the choice, and to take the responsibility of his appointment, the Congress not being in session. With great care, after consultation, he contemplated the character of his contemporaries in public life, and fixed upon two—John Marshall and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney—either of whom he considered well fitted for the responsible and delicate station. Marshall was the first choice, but private considerations compelled him to decline, when the president addressed the following letter to Mr. Pinckney:—

“The situation of affairs, and the interests of this country, as they relate to France, render it indispensably necessary that a faithful organ near that government, able and willing to explain its views, and to ascertain those of France, should immediately fill the place of our present minister plenipotentiary in Paris. Policy requires that this character, to be essentially serviceable, should be well attached to the government of his own country, and not obnoxious to the one to which he is sent. Where, then, can a man be found that would answer this description better than yourself?“It is a fact too notorious to be denied, that the greatest embarrassments under which the administration of this government labors, proceed from the counteraction of people among ourselves, who are more disposed to promote the views of another nation, than to establish a national character of their own; and that, unless the virtuous and independent men of this country will come forward, it is not difficult to predict the consequences. Such is my decided opinion....“Had not the case been important and urgent, I might have hesitated longer; but, in finding a character of the description Ihave mentioned, you will be at no loss to perceive the difficulty which occurs. He must be a man whose abilities and celebrity of character are well known to the people of this country, whose honor and integrity are unimpeached, and who ought, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to be acceptable to all parties. Doubtless many such there are; but those who have been either in the legislative or executive departments of the general government, and are best known to me, have been so decisive in their politics, and, possibly, so frank and public in their declarations, as to render it very difficult to choose from among them one in whom the confidence of this country could be placed, and the prejudices of the others not excited.”

“The situation of affairs, and the interests of this country, as they relate to France, render it indispensably necessary that a faithful organ near that government, able and willing to explain its views, and to ascertain those of France, should immediately fill the place of our present minister plenipotentiary in Paris. Policy requires that this character, to be essentially serviceable, should be well attached to the government of his own country, and not obnoxious to the one to which he is sent. Where, then, can a man be found that would answer this description better than yourself?

“It is a fact too notorious to be denied, that the greatest embarrassments under which the administration of this government labors, proceed from the counteraction of people among ourselves, who are more disposed to promote the views of another nation, than to establish a national character of their own; and that, unless the virtuous and independent men of this country will come forward, it is not difficult to predict the consequences. Such is my decided opinion....

“Had not the case been important and urgent, I might have hesitated longer; but, in finding a character of the description Ihave mentioned, you will be at no loss to perceive the difficulty which occurs. He must be a man whose abilities and celebrity of character are well known to the people of this country, whose honor and integrity are unimpeached, and who ought, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to be acceptable to all parties. Doubtless many such there are; but those who have been either in the legislative or executive departments of the general government, and are best known to me, have been so decisive in their politics, and, possibly, so frank and public in their declarations, as to render it very difficult to choose from among them one in whom the confidence of this country could be placed, and the prejudices of the others not excited.”

Mr. Pinckney accepted the appointment, and made immediate preparations for his departure for France. “Though my affairs have not, hitherto, been arranged as I could wish them,” he said in his letter of acceptance, “the manner in which you state our political situation, and the interests of this country as they relate to France, oblige me to accept your appointment without hesitation. I am only apprehensive that your friendship has been too partial to the little merit I may possess, and that matters intrusted to me may fail through my want of ability.”

Monroe had the misfortune to lose the confidence of his own government and that of the French republic at about the same time. Hoping that the house of representatives would refuse to execute the British treaty, and thus appease the French Directory, he had been quiet for some time, when, in February, 1796, he received a communication from De La Croix, the French minister for foreign affairs, informing him, that since the ratification of Jay's treaty, the Directory considered the alliance between France and the United States at an end; that Adet was to be recalled, and a special minister was to be sent out to make the announcement, and act as agent for his government. It was intimated, too, that Monroe could not fulfil the promises he had made, and that all the assurances of his inaugural as minister were fallacious. Monroe remonstrated, and in a special interview with the Directory, professed his willingnessto answer all objections that might be made against the treaty. He was soon afterward furnished with a report on the subject of American relations, signed by De La Croix, in which the government was charged with the non-execution of treaty obligations, in several particulars. To these charges Monroe made a reply, which Washington considered very satisfactory: but it did not change the course of the Directory; and in the autumn they issued an “arret,” ordering the seizure of British property found on board American vessels, and of provisions bound for England. This was a direct violation of the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France, and exhibited a disposition decidedly hostile.

This correspondence reached the president soon after his appointment of Pinckney as Monroe's successor; and a little later he received a letter from Mr. Monroe, written in cipher, on the twenty-fourth of March, which had been unaccountably delayed in its transmission. In that communication Monroe took occasion to say, that a long, private letter, written by Washington to Gouverneur Morris toward the close of December, 1795, had got into the hands of the French Directory, and produced an ill effect. Washington replied to this letter on the twenty-fifth of August. He acknowledged the genuineness of the letter; “but,” he said, “I deny that there is anything contained in it that the French government could take exception to, unless the expression of an ardent wish that the United States might remain in peace with all the world, taking no part in the disputes of any part of it, should have produced this effect. I also gave it as my further opinion, that the sentiments of the mass of citizens in this country were in unison with mine.

“Confidential as this letter was expected to be, I have no objection to its being seen by anybody; and there is some mistake in saying I had no copy thereof, when there is a press one now before me, in which I discover no expression that in the eye of liberality and candor would be deemed objectionable.”

After summing up the substance of his letter, Washington said, in conclusion: “My conduct in public and private life, as it relates to the important struggle in which the latter nation is engaged, hasbeen uniform from the commencement of it, and may be summed up in a few words: that I have always wished well to the French Revolution; that I have always given it as my decided opinion, that no nation had a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they like best to live under themselves; and that, if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality, and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration that ought to actuate a people situated as we are, already deeply in debt, and in a convalescent state from the struggle we have been engaged in ourselves.

“On these principles I have steadily and uniformly proceeded, bidding defiance to calumnies calculated to sow seeds of distrust in the French nation, and to excite their belief of an influence possessed by Great Britain in the councils of this country, than which nothing is more unfounded and injurious.”

FOOTNOTES:[104]Letter of Jay to Monroe, dated February 5, 1795.—Life and Writings of John Jay, vol. i., page 336.[105]Entitled “A View of the Conduct of the Executive of the United States, connected with the Mission to the French Republic, during the Years 1794, '5, & '6.”[106]Washington asked the opinion of his cabinet on the subject of a change of ministers, and at a meeting on the second of July, the three secretaries, Pickering, Wolcott, and M'Henry, addressed a letter to him, in which they said:—“On the expediency of this change we are agreed. We think the great interests of the United States require, that they have near the French government some faithful organ to explain their real views, and to ascertain those of the French. Our duty obliges us to be explicit. Although the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris has been amply furnished with documents, to explain the views and conduct of the United States, yet his own letters authorize us to say, that he has omitted to use them, and thereby exposed the United States to all the mischiefs which could flow from jealous and erroneous conceptions of their views and conduct. Whether this dangerous omission arose from such an attachment to the cause of France as rendered him too little mindful of the interests of his own country, or from mistaken views of the latter, or from any other cause, the evil is the same. We, therefore, conceive it to be indispensably necessary, that the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris should be recalled, and another American citizen appointed in his stead.... In confirmation of our opinion of the expediency of recalling Mr. Monroe, we think the occasion requires that we communicate a private letter from him, which came to our hands since you left Philadelphia. This letter corresponds with other intelligence of his political opinions and conduct. A minister who has thus made the notorious enemies of the whole system of government his confidential correspondents in matters which affect that government, can not be relied on to do his duty to the latter. This private letter we received in confidence. Among other circumstances that will occur to your recollection, the anonymous letters from France to Thomas Blount and others are very noticeable. We know that Montflorence was the writer, and that he was the chancellor of the consul Skipwith; and, from the connection of Mr. Monroe with those persons, we can entertain no doubt the anonymous letters were written with his privity.“These anonymous communications from officers of the United States in a foreign country, on matters of a public nature, and which deeply concern the interests of the United States in relation to that foreign country, are proofs of sinister designs, and show that the public interests are no longer safe in the hands of such men.”The attorney-general, in his letter to the president, said: “I have formed an opinion that our minister plenipotentiary at Paris ought not to be permitted to continue there any longer, than until the arrival of his successor; and that it is not only expedient, but absolutely necessary, that he should be immediately recalled, and another minister appointed. Upon this subject I concur in sentiment with the heads of departments, as expressed in their letter of the second instant.”The attorney-general then gave, as reasons for his opinion—First, that “from his letters in the office of the department of state, it appears he has neglected or failed to justify, or truly represent, to the republic of France the conduct and motives of his own country, relative to the treaty with Great Britain.” Secondly, that “his correspondence with the executive of the United States has been, and is, infrequent, unsatisfactory, reserved, and without cordiality or confidence on his part.”“I might add other reasons, if they were necessary,” continued the attorney-general; “for instance, that he corresponds less confidentially with the executive of the United States, than with the opposers and libellers of his administration; and that there is too much reason to believe he is furthering the views of a faction in America, more than the peace and happiness of the United States.”

[104]Letter of Jay to Monroe, dated February 5, 1795.—Life and Writings of John Jay, vol. i., page 336.

[104]Letter of Jay to Monroe, dated February 5, 1795.—Life and Writings of John Jay, vol. i., page 336.

[105]Entitled “A View of the Conduct of the Executive of the United States, connected with the Mission to the French Republic, during the Years 1794, '5, & '6.”

[105]Entitled “A View of the Conduct of the Executive of the United States, connected with the Mission to the French Republic, during the Years 1794, '5, & '6.”

[106]Washington asked the opinion of his cabinet on the subject of a change of ministers, and at a meeting on the second of July, the three secretaries, Pickering, Wolcott, and M'Henry, addressed a letter to him, in which they said:—“On the expediency of this change we are agreed. We think the great interests of the United States require, that they have near the French government some faithful organ to explain their real views, and to ascertain those of the French. Our duty obliges us to be explicit. Although the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris has been amply furnished with documents, to explain the views and conduct of the United States, yet his own letters authorize us to say, that he has omitted to use them, and thereby exposed the United States to all the mischiefs which could flow from jealous and erroneous conceptions of their views and conduct. Whether this dangerous omission arose from such an attachment to the cause of France as rendered him too little mindful of the interests of his own country, or from mistaken views of the latter, or from any other cause, the evil is the same. We, therefore, conceive it to be indispensably necessary, that the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris should be recalled, and another American citizen appointed in his stead.... In confirmation of our opinion of the expediency of recalling Mr. Monroe, we think the occasion requires that we communicate a private letter from him, which came to our hands since you left Philadelphia. This letter corresponds with other intelligence of his political opinions and conduct. A minister who has thus made the notorious enemies of the whole system of government his confidential correspondents in matters which affect that government, can not be relied on to do his duty to the latter. This private letter we received in confidence. Among other circumstances that will occur to your recollection, the anonymous letters from France to Thomas Blount and others are very noticeable. We know that Montflorence was the writer, and that he was the chancellor of the consul Skipwith; and, from the connection of Mr. Monroe with those persons, we can entertain no doubt the anonymous letters were written with his privity.“These anonymous communications from officers of the United States in a foreign country, on matters of a public nature, and which deeply concern the interests of the United States in relation to that foreign country, are proofs of sinister designs, and show that the public interests are no longer safe in the hands of such men.”The attorney-general, in his letter to the president, said: “I have formed an opinion that our minister plenipotentiary at Paris ought not to be permitted to continue there any longer, than until the arrival of his successor; and that it is not only expedient, but absolutely necessary, that he should be immediately recalled, and another minister appointed. Upon this subject I concur in sentiment with the heads of departments, as expressed in their letter of the second instant.”The attorney-general then gave, as reasons for his opinion—First, that “from his letters in the office of the department of state, it appears he has neglected or failed to justify, or truly represent, to the republic of France the conduct and motives of his own country, relative to the treaty with Great Britain.” Secondly, that “his correspondence with the executive of the United States has been, and is, infrequent, unsatisfactory, reserved, and without cordiality or confidence on his part.”“I might add other reasons, if they were necessary,” continued the attorney-general; “for instance, that he corresponds less confidentially with the executive of the United States, than with the opposers and libellers of his administration; and that there is too much reason to believe he is furthering the views of a faction in America, more than the peace and happiness of the United States.”

[106]Washington asked the opinion of his cabinet on the subject of a change of ministers, and at a meeting on the second of July, the three secretaries, Pickering, Wolcott, and M'Henry, addressed a letter to him, in which they said:—

“On the expediency of this change we are agreed. We think the great interests of the United States require, that they have near the French government some faithful organ to explain their real views, and to ascertain those of the French. Our duty obliges us to be explicit. Although the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris has been amply furnished with documents, to explain the views and conduct of the United States, yet his own letters authorize us to say, that he has omitted to use them, and thereby exposed the United States to all the mischiefs which could flow from jealous and erroneous conceptions of their views and conduct. Whether this dangerous omission arose from such an attachment to the cause of France as rendered him too little mindful of the interests of his own country, or from mistaken views of the latter, or from any other cause, the evil is the same. We, therefore, conceive it to be indispensably necessary, that the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris should be recalled, and another American citizen appointed in his stead.... In confirmation of our opinion of the expediency of recalling Mr. Monroe, we think the occasion requires that we communicate a private letter from him, which came to our hands since you left Philadelphia. This letter corresponds with other intelligence of his political opinions and conduct. A minister who has thus made the notorious enemies of the whole system of government his confidential correspondents in matters which affect that government, can not be relied on to do his duty to the latter. This private letter we received in confidence. Among other circumstances that will occur to your recollection, the anonymous letters from France to Thomas Blount and others are very noticeable. We know that Montflorence was the writer, and that he was the chancellor of the consul Skipwith; and, from the connection of Mr. Monroe with those persons, we can entertain no doubt the anonymous letters were written with his privity.“These anonymous communications from officers of the United States in a foreign country, on matters of a public nature, and which deeply concern the interests of the United States in relation to that foreign country, are proofs of sinister designs, and show that the public interests are no longer safe in the hands of such men.”

“On the expediency of this change we are agreed. We think the great interests of the United States require, that they have near the French government some faithful organ to explain their real views, and to ascertain those of the French. Our duty obliges us to be explicit. Although the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris has been amply furnished with documents, to explain the views and conduct of the United States, yet his own letters authorize us to say, that he has omitted to use them, and thereby exposed the United States to all the mischiefs which could flow from jealous and erroneous conceptions of their views and conduct. Whether this dangerous omission arose from such an attachment to the cause of France as rendered him too little mindful of the interests of his own country, or from mistaken views of the latter, or from any other cause, the evil is the same. We, therefore, conceive it to be indispensably necessary, that the present minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris should be recalled, and another American citizen appointed in his stead.... In confirmation of our opinion of the expediency of recalling Mr. Monroe, we think the occasion requires that we communicate a private letter from him, which came to our hands since you left Philadelphia. This letter corresponds with other intelligence of his political opinions and conduct. A minister who has thus made the notorious enemies of the whole system of government his confidential correspondents in matters which affect that government, can not be relied on to do his duty to the latter. This private letter we received in confidence. Among other circumstances that will occur to your recollection, the anonymous letters from France to Thomas Blount and others are very noticeable. We know that Montflorence was the writer, and that he was the chancellor of the consul Skipwith; and, from the connection of Mr. Monroe with those persons, we can entertain no doubt the anonymous letters were written with his privity.

“These anonymous communications from officers of the United States in a foreign country, on matters of a public nature, and which deeply concern the interests of the United States in relation to that foreign country, are proofs of sinister designs, and show that the public interests are no longer safe in the hands of such men.”

The attorney-general, in his letter to the president, said: “I have formed an opinion that our minister plenipotentiary at Paris ought not to be permitted to continue there any longer, than until the arrival of his successor; and that it is not only expedient, but absolutely necessary, that he should be immediately recalled, and another minister appointed. Upon this subject I concur in sentiment with the heads of departments, as expressed in their letter of the second instant.”

The attorney-general then gave, as reasons for his opinion—First, that “from his letters in the office of the department of state, it appears he has neglected or failed to justify, or truly represent, to the republic of France the conduct and motives of his own country, relative to the treaty with Great Britain.” Secondly, that “his correspondence with the executive of the United States has been, and is, infrequent, unsatisfactory, reserved, and without cordiality or confidence on his part.”

“I might add other reasons, if they were necessary,” continued the attorney-general; “for instance, that he corresponds less confidentially with the executive of the United States, than with the opposers and libellers of his administration; and that there is too much reason to believe he is furthering the views of a faction in America, more than the peace and happiness of the United States.”

TOP

presidential election approaching—method of election—measures of political parties—spurious letters republished—washington's farewell address published—reception of the address—affection of the people—candidates for the presidency—cockade proclamation—adet's charges against the government—appeal to the passions—meeting of congress—the president's last annual message—its recommendations—military academy—west point—relations with france—answer of the two houses of congress—praise of washington and his administration opposed—his friends in a large majority—personal abuse—malignant letter from thomas paine, and adet's pamphlet—washington's remarks on their publication.

presidential election approaching—method of election—measures of political parties—spurious letters republished—washington's farewell address published—reception of the address—affection of the people—candidates for the presidency—cockade proclamation—adet's charges against the government—appeal to the passions—meeting of congress—the president's last annual message—its recommendations—military academy—west point—relations with france—answer of the two houses of congress—praise of washington and his administration opposed—his friends in a large majority—personal abuse—malignant letter from thomas paine, and adet's pamphlet—washington's remarks on their publication.

The appointed hour for a new presidential election was now drawing near. At that time no nomination for chief-magistrate was formally made, nor officially announced. The letter of the constitution was adhered to, and the people were called upon to choose electors only, who, when they should meet at the time specified by the constitution, should ballot for whomsoever they pleased for president. Yet the politicians and the leaders of parties in the Congress usually held up to the view of the people candidates who afterward received the consideration of the electoral college. The electors were therefore chosen in reference, first, to their partisan character, and secondly, to their partiality to some particular man prominent in the political field.

It was well known to Washington's more intimate friends, that he would not consent to re-election. His reserve on that subject, and the long delay in making a public announcement of his intention to retire to private life puzzled the politicians. The president's political enemies were more active than ever. We have already noticed the publication of certain queries proposed by Washington to his cabinet, respecting the reception of Genet, by which it washoped to prejudice him in the public mind by proving, by implication, his hostility to France. Another weapon used by his unscrupulous enemies, for the purpose of degrading him in the eyes of the American people, was the republication of a series of spurious letters, purporting to have been written by Washington. They were first published in London, in 1777, and republished in Rivington'sRoyal Gazette, in February, 1778. These letters, it was charged, were written by Washington from the army to members of his family, in which he expressed private views of public affairs quite inconsistent with his acts as commander-in-chief, or his professions as a patriot. It was alleged that Billy, his body-servant, had been captured, and that these letters, or copies of them, were found in a portmanteau in the servant's possession. But the original fabricator of the letters missed his aim. It was well known that Billy had never been in the hands of the enemy;[107]and, in a short time, this attempt to injure Washington was forgotten, and the letters were buried in oblivion. But the hyena of political partisanship dragged them from the grave almost twenty years later, and they were republished with a new title,[108]and put forth as genuine, very soon after the appearance of two volumes of Washington's official letters, which had been copied, by permission, in the office of the secretary of state, carried to London, and there printed.

In order to give more force to the intended effect of these spurious letters, a preface to the new edition was carefully written, which contained the following paragraph:—

“Since the publication of the two volumes of General Washington's 'Original Letters to the Congress,' the editor has been repeatedly applied to for the general's 'Domestic and Confidential Epistles,' first published soon after the beginning of the American war. These epistles are here offered to the public, together with a copious appendix, containing a number of official letters and papers, not to be found in the general's original letters above noticed; but the collection must certainly be looked upon as in a mutilated state, so long as it remains unaccompanied with the epistles, etc., which are now respectfully submitted to the patronage of the public, and which form a supplement absolutely necessary to make the work complete. That this collection of 'Domestic and Confidential Epistles' will be regarded as a valuable acquisition by a very great majority of the citizens of the United States, is presumable from the prevailing taste of all well-informed people. Men not precluded by ignorance from every degree of literary curiosity, will always feel a solicitude to become acquainted with whatever may serve to throw light on illustrious personages. History represents them acting on the stage of the world, courting the applause of mankind. To see them in their real character we must follow them behind the scenes, among their private connections and domestic concerns.”

“Since the publication of the two volumes of General Washington's 'Original Letters to the Congress,' the editor has been repeatedly applied to for the general's 'Domestic and Confidential Epistles,' first published soon after the beginning of the American war. These epistles are here offered to the public, together with a copious appendix, containing a number of official letters and papers, not to be found in the general's original letters above noticed; but the collection must certainly be looked upon as in a mutilated state, so long as it remains unaccompanied with the epistles, etc., which are now respectfully submitted to the patronage of the public, and which form a supplement absolutely necessary to make the work complete. That this collection of 'Domestic and Confidential Epistles' will be regarded as a valuable acquisition by a very great majority of the citizens of the United States, is presumable from the prevailing taste of all well-informed people. Men not precluded by ignorance from every degree of literary curiosity, will always feel a solicitude to become acquainted with whatever may serve to throw light on illustrious personages. History represents them acting on the stage of the world, courting the applause of mankind. To see them in their real character we must follow them behind the scenes, among their private connections and domestic concerns.”

Nothing in our modern political warfare has equalled, in meanness and moral turpitude, this assassin-stab at the character of a public man. Washington, with proper dignity, treated it as he had done other slanders, with that contemptuous silence which it deserved. But that very silence was construed into an acknowledgment of the truth of the words of the calumny. “The malignant commentators on this spurious text,” says Marshall, “would not admit the possibility of its being apocryphal.”

While political and partisan abuse was pouring most copiously upon the head of the president, his Farewell Address appeared. It was published, as we have seen, at about the middle of September, and produced a great sensation throughout the country. The ribald voice of party-spirit was for a moment subdued in tone, if notsilenced, for it was deprived of the theme of Washington's renomination, which had been a convenient excuse for attacks upon his character. In every part of the Union sentiments of veneration for the author were manifested. Some of the state legislatures directed the address to be entered at large upon their journals. It was published in every newspaper in the land, and in many of those in foreign countries; and in legislative bodies and social and diplomatic circles abroad, it was for some time a fruitful topic of remark. From the time of its publication until the expiration of the term of his presidency, Washington received public addresses from all the state legislatures which were convened within that period. Many public bodies, also, addressed him with affectionate words, expressing cordial approbation of his conduct during the eight years that he had filled the office of chief-magistrate of the nation.[109]

Already the strong hold which his person and character had taken of the affections of his countrymen had been fully evinced. Names of men having great political influence had been held up to the people in several states as his successor, but were not satisfactory. “In districts where the opposition to his administration was most powerful,” says Marshall, “where all his measures were most loudly condemned; where those who approved his system possessed least influence; the men who appeared to control public opinion on every other subject found themselves unable to move it on this. Even the most popular among the leaders of the opposition were reduced to the necessity of surrendering their pretensions to a place in the electoral body, or of pledging themselves to bestow their suffrages on the actual president. The determination of his fellow-citizens had been unequivocally manifested, and it was believed to be apparent that the election would again be unanimous, when he announced his resolution to withdraw from the honors and the toils of office.”

“The president declining to be again elected,” wrote Oliver Wolcott, “constitutes a most important epoch in our national affairs. The country meet the event with reluctance, but they do not feelthat they can make any claim for the further services of a man who has conducted their armies through a successful war; has so largely contributed to establish a national government; has so long presided over our councils and directed the public administration, and in the most advantageous manner settled all national differences, and who can leave the administration when nothing but our folly and internal discord can render the country otherwise than happy.”

The federalists and republicans now marshalled their forces for the election. Their respective chiefs were brought forward. John Adams, whose official station placed him in the line of promotion, and whose public services, ability, and sterling integrity were well known to the nation, was the choice of the federalists for the presidency, and Thomas Pinckney, the accomplished diplomat, for the vice-presidency. The republican party chose Mr. Jefferson, to use a modern political phrase, as their standard-bearer. With these names as watchwords, the party leaders went into the contest for presidential electors in November. That contest was warm in every doubtful state. The parties seemed equally balanced, and the final result of the action of the electoral college, unlike the operations of the canvass in our day, could not be determined beforehand.

While the canvass was in progress, Adet, the French minister, imitating Genet, attempted to influence the political action of the American people. The British treaty, the recall of Monroe, and the appointment of Pinckney as his successor at Paris, offended him, and a few weeks after the departure of Pinckney, he made a formal communication of the decree of his government, already mentioned, which evinced a spirit of hostility. In his accompanying letter he entered into an elaborate defence of the decree, and renewed complaints which he had before urged, that British ships-of-war were allowed to recruit their crews by pressing into their service sailors from American vessels. Further imitating Genet, by appealing to the people, Adet sent his communication to be printed in theAurora, at the same time that it was forwarded to the state department. This was followed, in the course of a few days, by aproclamation, signed by Adet, calling upon all Frenchmen residing in America, in the name of the French Directory, to wear the tri-colored cockade, which he termed “the symbol of a liberty the fruit of eight years' toil and five years' victories;” and assured those he addressed, that any Frenchman who should hesitate to comply, should not be allowed the aid of French consular chanceries, or the national protection. Immediately after this “cockade proclamation” was issued, that token of attachment to the French republic abounded. It was worn by many Americans as well as Frenchmen, and it became the badge of party distinction for several years.

Adet followed up his proclamation by another missile, sent simultaneously to the state department and theAurora, demanding “the execution of that contract [treaty of 1778] which assured to the United States their existence, and which France regarded as the pledge of the most sacred union between two people, the freest upon earth.” He assumed that his government was “terrible to its enemies, but generous to its allies,” and prefaced his summary of alleged violations of the international compact, by a flourish of rhetoric intended to impress the American people.

“When Europe rose up against the republic, at its birth,” he said, “and menaced it with all the horrors of famine; when on every side France could not calculate on any but enemies, their thoughts turned toward America, and a sweet sentiment then mingled itself with those proud feelings which the presence of danger, and the desire of repelling it, produced in their hearts. In Americans they saw friends. Those who went to brave tempests and death upon the ocean, forgot all dangers in order to indulge the hope of visiting that American continent where, for the first time, the French colors had been displayed in favor of liberty. Under the guaranty of the law of nations, under the protecting shade of a solemn treaty, they expected to find in the ports of the United States an asylum as sure as at home; they thought, if I may use the expression, there to find a second country. The French government thought as they did. O hope worthy of a faithful people,how hast thou been deceived! So far from offering the French the succors which friendship might have given without compromising itself, the American government, in this respect, violated the obligations of treaties.”

This exordium was followed by a summary of instances of bad faith on the part of the United States, beginning, as he said, with the president's “insidious proclamation of neutrality,” and aggravated by the late treaty with Great Britain. Adet announced the fact that the French Directory, as an expression of their dissatisfaction with what they considered equivalent to a treaty of alliance between the United States and Great Britain, had given him orders to suspend his ministerial functions, and to return home. “But the cause,” he added, “which had so long restrained the just resentment of the executive directory from bursting forth, now tempered its effects. The name of America, notwithstanding the wrongs of its government, still excited sweet emotions in the hearts of Frenchmen; and the executive directory wished not to break with a people whom they loved to salute with the appellation of a friend.” Therefore, the suspension of his functions was not to be regarded as a rupture between France and the United States, but as a mark of just discontent, which was to last until the government of the United States “returned to sentiments and to measures more conformable to the interests of the alliance, and to the sworn friendship between the two nations.”

This extraordinary letter closed with the following peroration, intended to stimulate the anti-British feeling among the Americans, and to influence the action of the electoral college in their choice of chief-magistrate of the republic:—

“Alas! time has not yet demolished the fortifications with which the English roughened this country, nor those the Americans raised for their defence; their half-rounded summits still appear in every quarter, amid plains, on the tops of mountains. The traveller need not search for the ditch which served to encompass them; it is still open under his feet. Scattered ruins of houses laid waste, which the fire had partly respected, in order to leave monumentsof British fury, are still to be found. Men still exist who can say, 'Here a ferocious Englishman slaughtered my mother; there my wife tore her bleeding daughter from the hands of an unbridled Englishman!' Alas! the soldiers who fell under the sword of the Britons are not yet reduced to dust; the laborer, in turning up his fields, still draws from the bosom of the earth their whitened bones, while the ploughman, with tears of tenderness and gratitude, still recollects that his fields, now covered with rich harvests, have been moistened with French blood; while everything around the inhabitants of this country animates them to speak of the tyranny of Great Britain, and of the generosity of Frenchmen; when England had declared a war of death, to revenge herself on France for having consecrated with her blood the independence of the United States; at such a moment their government makes a treaty of amity with their ancient tyrant, the implacable enemy of their ancient ally! O Americans! covered with noble scars! O you, who have so often flown to death and to victory with French soldiers! you who know those genuine sentiments which distinguish the true warrior! whose hearts have always vibrated with those of your companions in arms! consult them to-day to know what they experience. Recollect, also, that magnanimous souls, if they resent an affront with liveliness, know also how to forget one. Let your government return to itself, and you will still find in Frenchmen faithful friends and generous allies!”

“Alas! time has not yet demolished the fortifications with which the English roughened this country, nor those the Americans raised for their defence; their half-rounded summits still appear in every quarter, amid plains, on the tops of mountains. The traveller need not search for the ditch which served to encompass them; it is still open under his feet. Scattered ruins of houses laid waste, which the fire had partly respected, in order to leave monumentsof British fury, are still to be found. Men still exist who can say, 'Here a ferocious Englishman slaughtered my mother; there my wife tore her bleeding daughter from the hands of an unbridled Englishman!' Alas! the soldiers who fell under the sword of the Britons are not yet reduced to dust; the laborer, in turning up his fields, still draws from the bosom of the earth their whitened bones, while the ploughman, with tears of tenderness and gratitude, still recollects that his fields, now covered with rich harvests, have been moistened with French blood; while everything around the inhabitants of this country animates them to speak of the tyranny of Great Britain, and of the generosity of Frenchmen; when England had declared a war of death, to revenge herself on France for having consecrated with her blood the independence of the United States; at such a moment their government makes a treaty of amity with their ancient tyrant, the implacable enemy of their ancient ally! O Americans! covered with noble scars! O you, who have so often flown to death and to victory with French soldiers! you who know those genuine sentiments which distinguish the true warrior! whose hearts have always vibrated with those of your companions in arms! consult them to-day to know what they experience. Recollect, also, that magnanimous souls, if they resent an affront with liveliness, know also how to forget one. Let your government return to itself, and you will still find in Frenchmen faithful friends and generous allies!”

The second session of the fourth Congress convened on the fifth of December, and Washington met both houses, for the last time, on the seventh. His message was short, but comprehensive, dignified, and temperate. He took a general view of the condition of the country, in which he adverted to the existing relations with the Indians; the delay in delivering up the western posts, according to the provisions of Jay's treaty; the proceedings of the commissioners to determine the northeastern boundary of the United States; the action of other commissioners under the treaty; the appointment of agents to reside in Great Britain and the West Indies, “for the protection and relief of American seamen;” andthe relations with Algiers. He urged an increase of the naval force of the United States as indispensable. “It is in our own experience,” he said, “that the most sincere neutrality is not a sufficient guard against the depredations of nations at war. To secure respect to a neutral flag requires a naval force, organized and ready to vindicate it from insult or aggression. This may even prevent the necessity of going to war, by discouraging belligerent powers from committing such violations of the rights of the neutral party, as may, first or last, leave no other option.” He advised them to “begin, without delay, to provide and lay up the materials for the building and equipping of ships-of-war,” and to be prepared for all future contingencies.

He urged upon them the importance of measures for fostering and encouraging domestic manufactures, especially those articles which might be needed in the event of war. “Ought our country,” he said, “to remain in such cases dependent on foreign supply, precarious, because liable to be interrupted? If the necessary articles should, in this mode, cost more in time of peace, will not the security and independence thence arising form an ample compensation?”

He also recommended the fostering care of the government in promoting agriculture, the predominant interest of the country. “In proportion as nations advance in population and other circumstances of maturity,” he said, “this truth becomes more apparent, and renders the cultivation of the soil more an object of public patronage. Institutions grow up supported by the public purse; and to what object can it be dedicated with greater propriety?”

He again urged the expediency of establishing a national university and a military academy. “However pacific the general policy of the nation may be,” he said, in reference to the military school, “it ought never to be without an adequate stock of military knowledge for emergencies. The first would impair the energies of its character, and both would hazard its safety, or expose it to greater evils when war could not be avoided. Besides, that war might not depend upon its own choice. In proportion as the observance ofpacific maxims might exempt a nation from the necessity of practising the rules of the military art, ought to be its care in preserving and transmitting, by proper establishments, the knowledge of that art. Whatever argument may be drawn from particular examples, superficially viewed, a thorough examination of the subject will evince, that the art of war is at once comprehensive and complicated; that it demands much previous study; and that the possession of it in its most improved and perfect state, is always of great moment to the security of a nation. This, therefore, ought to be a serious care of every government.” These and former suggestions on this subject made by Washington, were finally acted upon by the Congress, and in March, 1802, an act was passed for the establishment of such an institution at West Point, in the Hudson Highlands.[110]But little was done, however, until the breaking out of war, in 1812, when a corps of professors was appointed, and the institution was organized.

Washington made the following temperate remarks, in his message, concerning the disputes with France: “While, in our external relations, some serious inconveniences and embarrassments have been overcome, and others lessened, it is with much pain and deep regret I mention, that circumstances of a very unwelcome nature have lately occurred. Our trade has suffered, and is suffering, extensive injuries in the West Indies, from the cruisers and agents of the French republic; and communications have been received from its minister here, which indicate the danger of a further disturbance of our commerce by its authority; and which are, in other respects, far from agreeable. It has been my constant, sincere, and earnest wish, in conformity with that of our nation, to maintain cordial harmony, and a perfect friendly understanding with that republic. The wish remains unabated; and I shall persevere in the endeavor to fulfil it, to the utmost extent of what shall be consistent with a just and indispensable regard to the rights and honor of our country; nor will I easily cease to cherish theexpectation, that a spirit of justice, candor, and friendship, on the part of the republic, will eventually insure success. In pursuing this course, however, I can not forget what is due to the character of our government and nation; or to a full and entire confidence in the good sense, patriotism, self-respect, and fortitude of my countrymen.”

In conclusion Washington observed: “The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the representatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the administration of the present form of government commenced; and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you, and my country, on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplication to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations, that his providential care may still be extended to the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved; and that the government which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties may be perpetual.”

The answer of the senate to this speech embraced all of its topics, and approved every sentiment it contained. After alluding to the prosperous condition of the United States, especially in their domestic relations, the senate said: “While contemplating the causes that produce this auspicious result, we must acknowledge the excellence of the constitutional system, and the wisdom of the legislative provisions; but we should be deficient in gratitude and justice, did we not attribute a great portion of these advantages to the virtue, firmness, and talents of your administration, which have been conspicuously displayed in the most trying times, and on the most critical occasions: it is, therefore, with the sincerest regrets that we now receive an official notification of your intentions to retire from the public employments of your country.

“When we review the various scenes of your public life, so long and so successfully devoted to the most arduous services, civil and military, as well during the struggles of the American Revolution as the convulsive periods of a recent date, we can not look forward to your retirement without our warmest affections and most anxiousregards accompanying you; and without mingling, with our fellow-citizens at large, in the sincerest wishes for your personal happiness that sensibility and attachment can express. The most effectual consolation that can offer for the loss we are about to sustain, arises from the animating reflection that the influence of your example will extend to your successors, and the United States will thus continue to enjoy an able, upright, and energetic administration.”

The reply of the house was equally warm in personal compliments. “We have ever concurred with you,” they said, “in the most sincere and uniform disposition to preserve our neutral relations inviolate, and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with the French republic has occurred; for we feel, with you and with our constituents, the cordial and unabated wish to maintain a perfect friendly understanding with that nation. Your endeavors to fulfil that wish, and by all honorable means to preserve peace, and to restore that harmony and affection which have heretofore so happily subsisted between the French republic and the United States, can not fail, therefore, to interest our attention. And while we participate in the full reliance you have expressed in the patriotism, self-respect, and fortitude of our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope that a mutual spirit of justice and moderation will insure the success of your perseverance.

“When we advert to the internal situation of the United States,” they continued, “we deem it equally natural and becoming to compare the present period with that immediately antecedent to the operation of the government, and to contrast it with the calamities in which the state of war still involves several of the European nations, as the reflections deduced from both tend to justify as well as to excite a warmer admiration of our free constitution, and to exalt our minds to a more fervent and grateful sense of piety toward Almighty God for the beneficence of his providence, by which its administration has been hitherto so remarkably distinguished.

“And while we entertain a grateful conviction that your wise,firm, and patriotic administration has been signally conducive to the success of the present form of government, we can not forbear to express the deep sensations of regret with which we contemplate your intended retirement from office.

“As no other suitable occasion may occur, we can not suffer the present to pass without attempting to disclose some of the emotions which it can not fail to awaken. The gratitude and admiration of your countrymen are still drawn to the recollection of those resplendent virtues and talents which were so eminently instrumental to the achievements of the Revolution, and of which that glorious event will ever be the memorial. Your obedience to the voice of duty and your country, when you quitted, reluctantly, a second time, the retreat you had chosen, and accepted the presidency, afforded a new proof of the devotedness of your zeal in its service, and an earnest of the patriotism and success which have characterized your administration. As the grateful confidence of the citizens in the virtues of their chief-magistrate has essentially contributed to that success, we persuade ourselves that the millions whom we represent participate with us in the anxious solicitude of the present occasion.

“Yet we can not be unmindful that your moderation and magnanimity, twice displayed, by retiring from your exalted stations, afford examples no less rare and instructive to mankind, than valuable to a republic. Although we are sensible that this event, of itself, completes the lustre of a character already conspicuously unrivalled by the coincidence of virtue, talents, success, and public estimation; yet we conceive we owe it to you, sir, and still more emphatically to ourselves, and to our nation (of the language of whose hearts we presume to think ourselves, at this moment, the faithful interpreters), to express the sentiments with which it is contemplated.

“The spectacle of a free and enlightened nation offering, by its representatives, the tribute of unfeigned approbation to its First Citizen, however novel and interesting it may be, derives all its lustre (a lustre which accident or enthusiasm could not bestow, andwhich adulation would tarnish) from the transcendent merit of which it is the voluntary testimony.

“May you long enjoy that liberty which is so dear to you, and to which your name will ever be so dear; may your own virtues and a nation's prayers obtain the happiest sunshine for the decline of your days, and the choicest of future blessings. For our country's sake, for the sake of republican liberty, it is our earnest wish that your example may be the guide of your successors; and thus, after being the ornament and safeguard of the present age, become the patrimony of our descendants.”

When the committee presented this address to the house, some of the more zealous of the opposition, among whom was Mr. Giles, of Virginia, warmly opposed it. He moved that the whole of it in which the character and influence of the president were eulogized should be expunged. He expressed his belief that thewantof “wisdom and firmness” in the administration had conducted the affairs of the nation to a crisis which threatened greater calamities than any that had before occurred. He did not regret the president's retiring from office. He hoped he would do so, and enjoy the happiness that awaited him in retirement. He believed that it would more conduce to that happiness that he should retire, than if he should remain in office. He believed that the government of the United States, founded on the broad basis of the people, required no single man to administer it. The people were competent to manage governmental affairs; and they would be in a calamitous situation indeed, if one man were essential to the existence of the government. He believed that there were a thousand men in the United States capable of filling the presidential chair, and he was willing to trust to the discernment of the people in making a proper choice. Though the voice of all America should declare the president's retiring a calamity, he could not join in the declaration, because he did not conceive it to be a misfortune. He had always, he said, disapproved of the measures of the administration in regard to foreign relations, and so had many members of the house, and he should not now disavow former opinions, withoutbeing first convinced of having been in error. He perceived more cause than ever for adhering to his old opinions. The course of events had pointed out their propriety; and, if he was not much mistaken, a crisis was at hand which would confirm them. He desired gentlemen who were willing to compliment the president to have some respect for the feelings of others.

The administration party in the house strenuously opposed the motion to expunge. They admitted that there might be many who were able to fill the presidential chair with equal ability with Washington, but there was not one who possessed, in a similar degree, the confidence of the people. The regrets of his constituents, because of his proposed retirement, had been expressed in every part of the Union, and the voice of the people coincided with the sentiments of the address. The motion to expunge was lost by a large majority. Only twelve members recorded themselves in the affirmative, among whom was Andrew Jackson, who had just taken his seat in the house, as a representative of Tennessee.

While Adet was fulminating his thunders against the administration, and the opposition in the house were doing all in their power to injure the president, theAuroranewspaper was pouring out its venom with increased malignity. “If ever a nation was debauched by a man,” said a correspondent of that paper, on the twenty-third of December, “the American nation has been debauched by Washington. If ever a nation was deceived by a man, the American nation has been deceived by Washington. Let his conduct, then, be an example to future ages. Let it serve to be a warning that no man may be an idol. Let the history of the federal government instruct mankind, that the mask of patriotism may be worn to conceal the foulest designs against the liberties of the people.”

At about the same time, a malignant pamphlet, in the form of a letter from Thomas Paine to Washington, was issued from the office of theAurora. Paine had been a member of the National Assembly of France, and thrown into prison. Application had been made to the United States government for his release, but,as in the case of Lafayette, it could do nothing. This seeming neglect kindled the ire of Paine, who had, at this time, become an habitual drunkard. He had, in consequence, also become morose in disposition, and dogmatical in his opinions to an insufferable degree. Monroe sympathized with him; and under his roof, in Paris, Paine wrote the virulent letter alluded to, and sent it to Bache, of theAurora, to print and disseminate. The following extract will be sufficient to exhibit its tone and temper:—


Back to IndexNext