FOOTNOTES:
[351] When Jefferson resigned, Randolph succeeded him as Secretary of State, and continued in that office until driven out of public life by the famous Fauchet disclosure. William Bradford of Pennsylvania succeeded Randolph as Attorney-General.
[352] Washington to Marshall, Aug. 26, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.
[353] Act of 1789, Annals, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 2238.
[354] For Randolph's pathetic account of his struggles to subsist as Attorney-General, see Conway, chap. xv.
[355] The Fairfax purchase. See infra, chap. v.
[356] Marshall to Washington, Aug. 31, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.
[357] See infra, chap. v.
[358] Executive Journal, U.S. Senate, i, 81, 82. And see Washington's Diary: Lossing, 166. Carrington held both of these offices at the same time.
[359] Referring to Marshall's title as General of Virginia Militia. He was called "General" from that time until he became Chief Justice of the United States.
[360] Washington to Carrington, Oct. 9, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, 116.
[361] Carrington to Washington, Oct. 2, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[362] Ib.
[363] Carrington to Washington, Oct. 8, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[364] Ib., Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[365] Ib. A passage in this letter clearly shows the Federalist opinion of the young Republican Party and suggests the economic line dividing it from the Federalists. "In the present crisis Mr. H.[enry] may reasonably be calculated on as taking the side of Government, even though he may retain his old prejudices against the Constitution. He has indubitably an abhorrence of Anarchy.... We know too that he is improving his fortune fast, which must additionally attach him to the existing Government & order, the only Guarantees of property. Add to all this, that he has no affection for the present leaders of the opposition in Virga." (Carrington to Washington, Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.)
[366] Carrington to Washington, Oct. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong. Carrington's correspondence shows that everything was done on Marshall's judgment and that Marshall himself personally handled most of the negotiations. (See ib., Oct. 28; Oct. 30, 1795.)
[367] American Remembrancer, i, 21 et seq. John Thompson was nineteen years old when he delivered this address. His extravagant rhetoric rather than his solid argument is quoted in the text as better illustrating the public temper and prevailing style of oratory. (See sketch of this remarkable young Virginian, infra, chap. x.)
[368] A favorite Republican charge was that the treaty would separate us from France and tie us to Great Britain: "A treaty which children cannot read without discovering that it tends to disunite us from our present ally, and unite us to a government which we abhor, detest and despise." ("An Old Soldier of '76"; American Remembrancer, ii, 281.)
[369] American Remembrancer, i, 27.
[370] See infra, chap. v.
[371] Ames to Gore, March 11, 1796; Works: Ames, i, 189.
[372] Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033-34.
[373] Ib., 1063. See Anderson, 41-43. As one of the purchasers of the Fairfax estate, Marshall had a personal interest in the Jay Treaty, though it does not appear that this influenced him in his support of it.
[374] The voting was viva voce. See infra, chap. x.
[375] Undoubtedly this gentleman was one of the perturbed Federalist managers.
[376] North American Review, xxvi, 22. While this story seems improbable, no evidence has appeared which throws doubt upon it. At any rate, it serves to illustrate Marshall's astonishing popularity.
[377] Carrington's reports to Washington were often absurd in their optimistic inaccuracy. They are typical of those which faithful office-holding politicians habitually make to the appointing power. For instance, Carrington told Washington in 1791 that, after traveling all over Virginia as United States Marshal and Collector of Internal Revenue, he was sure the people were content with Assumption and the whiskey tax (Washington's Diary: Lossing, footnote to 166), when, as a matter of fact, the State was boiling with opposition to those very measures.
[378] The mingling, in the Republican mind, of the Jay Treaty, Neutrality, unfriendliness to France, and the Federalist Party is illustrated in a toast at a dinner in Lexington, Virginia, to Senator Brown, who had voted against the treaty: "The French Republic—May every power or party who would attempt to throw any obstacle in the way of its independence or happiness receive the reward due to corruption." (Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Oct. 15, 1795.)
[379] Carrington to Washington, Nov. 10, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[380] Ib., Nov. 13, 1795; MS.; Lib. Cong.
[381] The resolution "was warmly agitated three whole days." (Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.)
[382] Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[383] See debates; Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 423-1291; also see Petersburg Resolutions; American Remembrancer, i, 102-07.
[384] Thompson's address, Aug. 1, 1795, at Petersburg; ib., 21 et seq.
[385] Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[386] Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.
[387] Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.
[388] Ib.
[389] Ib. See Hamilton's dissertation on the treaty-making power in numbers 36, 37, 38, of his "Camillus"; Works: Lodge, vi, 160-97.
[390] Marshall to Hamilton, April 25, 1796; Works: Hamilton, vi, 109.
[391] Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, 198.
[392] Journal, H.D. (Nov. 20, 1795), 27-28.
[393] Journal, H.D. (Nov. 20, 1795), 28.
[394] Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[395] The italics are mine. "The word 'wisdom' in expressing the confidence of the House in the P.[resident] was so artfully introduced that if the fraudulent design had not been detected in time the vote of the House, as to its effect upon the P. would have been entirely done away.... A resolution so worded as to acquit the P. of all evil intention, but at the same time silently censuring his error, was passed by a majority of 33." (Letter of Jefferson's son-in-law, enclosed by Jefferson to Madison; Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 198.)
[396] Journal, H.D. (Nov. 21, 1795), 29.
[397] Ib.
[398] Journal, H.D. (Nov. 21, 1795), 29.
[399] Jefferson to Madison, Nov. 26, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, 197-98.
[400] Randall, ii, 36.
[401] Journal, H.D. (1795), 72.
[402] Journal, H.D. (1795), 50.
[403] Ib., 53.
[404] Ib., 79.
[405] Ib., 90.
[406] Ib., 91-92.
[407] Carrington to Washington, Dec. 6, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[408] Journal, H.D. (Dec. 12, 1795), 91-92.
[409] Carrington to Washington, Feb. 24, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.
[410] Dodd, 39.
[411] Lee to Washington, July 7, 1796; Writings: Sparks, xi, 487.
[412] Washington to Marshall, July 8, 1796; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.
[413] Marshall to Washington, July 11, 1796; ib.
[414] Washington to Marshall, July 15, 1796; Washington's Private Letter Book; MS., Lib. Cong.
[415] Washington to Marshall, Oct. 10, 1796; ib.
[416] Marshall to Washington, Oct. 12, 1796; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.
[417] Genêt's successor as French Minister to the United States.
[418] Interesting State Papers, 48 et seq.
[419] Interesting State Papers, 55.
[420] For able defense of Randolph see Conway, chap. xxiii; but contra, see Gibbs, i, chap. ix.
[421] Patterson of New Jersey, Johnson of Maryland, C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina, Patrick Henry of Virginia, and Rufus King of New York. (Washington to Hamilton, Oct. 29, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, 129-30.) King declined because of the abuse heaped upon public officers. (Hamilton to Washington, Nov. 5, 1795; ib., footnote to 130.)
[422] Washington to Hamilton, Oct. 29, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, 131.
[423] For debate see Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 423-1291.
[424] Carrington to Washington, May 9, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.
[425] Oliver Wolcott to his father, Feb. 12, 1791; Gibbs, i, 62.
[426] Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795; Works: Lodge, x, 103.
[427] Washington to Knox, Sept. 20, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, 105-06.
[428] Carrington to the President, April 22, 1796; Writings: Ford, xiii, footnote to 185.
[429] Washington to Carrington, May 1, 1796; ib., 185.
[430] Ib., 186.
[431] Story, in Dillon, iii, 352.
[432] Senator Stephen Thompson Mason wrote privately to Tazewell that the Fairfax purchasers and British merchants were the only friends of the treaty in Virginia. (Anderson, 42.)
[433] Alexander Campbell. (See infra, chap. v.)
[434] Randolph to Madison, Richmond, April 25, 1796; Conway, 362. Only freeholders could vote.
[435] Marshall to Hamilton, April 25, 1796; Works: Hamilton, vi, 109.
[436] Author unknown.
[437] Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, April 27, 1796.
[438] Carrington to the President, April 27, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.
[439] Marshall to King, April 25, 1796; King, ii, 45-46.
[440] Washington to Thomas Pinckney, May 22, 1796; Writings: Ford, xiii, 208.
[441] Robert Morris to James M. Marshall, May 1, 1796; Morris's Private Letter Book; MS., Lib. Cong.
[442] Story, in Dillon, iii, 350.
[443] Marshall to King, April 19, 1796; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong. Hamilton, it seems, had also asked Marshall to make overtures to Patrick Henry for the Presidency. (King, ii, footnote to 46.) But no correspondence between Hamilton and Marshall upon this subject has been discovered. Marshall's correspondence about Henry was with King.
[444] Marshall to King, May 24, 1796; King, ii, 48.
[445] For an accurate description of the unparalleled abuse of Washington, see McMaster, ii, 249-50, 289-91, 302-06.
[446] Marshall, ii, 391-92. Also see Washington to Pickering, March 3, 1797; Writings: Ford, xiii, 378-80; and to Gordon, Oct. 15; ib., 427.
[447] Journal, H.D. (1796), 46-47; MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.
[448] Journal, H.D. (1796), 153; MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.
[449] Ib.
[450] Ib. This amendment is historically important for another reason. It is the first time that the Virginia Legislature refers to that Commonwealth as a "State" in contra-distinction to the country. Although the Journal shows that this important motion was passed, the manuscript draft of the resolution signed by the presiding officer of both Houses does not show the change. (MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.)
[451] Story, in Dillon, iii, 355. Marshall's account was inaccurate, as we have seen. His memory was confused as to the vote in the two contests (supra), a very natural thing after the lapse of twenty years. In the first contest the House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly against including the word "wisdom" in the resolutions; and on the Senate amendment restored it by a dangerously small majority. On the second contest in 1796, when Marshall declares that Washington's friends won "by a very small majority," they were actually defeated.
[452] Journal, H. D., 153-90.
[453] Aurora, Monday, March 5, 1797. This paper, expressing Republican hatred of Washington, had long been assailing him. For instance, on October 24, 1795, a correspondent, in the course of a scandalous attack upon the President, said: "The consecrated ermine of Presidential chastity seems too foul for time itself to bleach." (See Cobbett, i, 411; and ib., 444, where the Aurora is represented as having said that "Washington has the ostentation of an eastern bashaw.") From August to September the Aurora had accused Washington of peculation. (See "Calm Observer" in Aurora, Oct. 23 to Nov. 5, 1795.)
[454] Henry to his daughter, Aug. 20, 1796; Henry, ii, 569-70. Henry was now an enemy of Jefferson and his dislike was heartily reciprocated.
[455] Washington to Jefferson, July 6, 1796; Writings: Ford, xiii, 230-31. This letter is in answer to a letter from Jefferson denying responsibility for the publication of a Cabinet paper in the Aurora. (Jefferson to Washington, June 19, 1796; Works: Ford, viii, 245; and see Marshall, ii, 390-91.) Even in Congress Washington did not escape. In the debate over the last address of the National Legislature to the President, Giles of Virginia declared that Washington had been "neither wise nor firm." He did not think "so much of the President." He "wished him to retire ... the government of the United States could go on very well without him." (Annals, 4th Cong., 2d Sess. (Dec. 14, 1796), 1614-18.) On the three roll-calls and passage of the address Giles voted against Washington. (Ib., 1666-68.) So did Andrew Jackson, a new member from Tennessee. (Ib.)
The unpopularity of Washington's Administration led to the hostile policy of Bache's paper, largely as a matter of business. This provident editor became fiercely "Republican" because, as he explained to his relative, Temple Franklin, in England, he "could not [otherwise] maintain his family," and "he had determined to adopt a bold experiment and to come out openly against the Administration. He thought the public temper would bear it." (Marshall to Pickering, Feb. 28, 1811, relating the statement of Temple Franklin to James M. Marshall while in England in 1793.)