1795-1796.
The first session of the Fourth Congress commenced on the 7th of December, 1795. Although the ratification of the treaties with Spain and Algiers had not been officially announced at the meeting of Congress the state of the negotiations with both powers was sufficiently well understood to enable Washington with confidence to assure the Legislature, in his speech at the opening of the session, that those negotiations were in a train which promised a happy issue.
After expressing his gratification at the prosperous state of American affairs the various favorable events which have been already enumerated were detailed in a succinct statement, at the close of which he mentioned the British treaty, which, though publicly known, had not before been communicated officially to the House of Representatives.
"This interesting summary of our affairs," continued the speech, "with regard to the powers between whom and the United States controversies have subsisted, and with regard also to our Indian neighbors with whom we have been in a state of enmity or misunderstanding, opens a wide field for consoling and gratifying reflections. If by prudence and moderation on every side, the extinguishment of all the causes of external discord which have heretofore menaced our tranquility, on terms compatible with our national faith and honor, shall be the happy results, how firm and how precious a foundation will have been laid for accelerating, maturing, and establishing the prosperity of our country!"
After presenting an animated picture of the situation of the United States, and recommending several objects to the attention of the Legislature, Washington concluded with observing: "Temperate discussion of the important subjects that may arise in the course of the session, and mutual forbearance where there is a difference in opinion, are too obvious and necessary for the peace, happiness, and welfare of our country to need any recommendation of mine."
In the Senate an address was reported which echoed back the sentiments of the speech.
In this House of Representatives, as in the last, the party in opposition to the administration had obtained a majority. This party was unanimously hostile to the treaty with Great Britain, and it was expected that their answer to the speech of the President would indicate their sentiments on a subject which continued to agitate the whole American people. The answer reported by the committee contained a declaration that the confidence of his fellow-citizens in the chief magistrate remained undiminished.
On a motion to strike out the words importing this sentiment is was averred that the clause asserted an untruth; that it was not true that the confidence of the people in the President was undiminished; that by a recent transaction it had been considerably impaired, and some gentlemen declared that their own confidence in him was lessened.
By the friends of the administration this motion was opposed with great zeal, and the opinion that the confidence of the people in their chief magistrate remained unshaken, was maintained with ardor. But they were outnumbered.
To avoid a direct vote on the proposition it was moved that the address should be recommitted. This motion succeeded and, two members being added to the committee, an answer was reported, in which the clause objected to was so modified as to be free from exception.
That part of the speech which mentioned the treaty with Great Britain was alluded to in terms which, though not directly expressive of disapprobation, were sufficiently indicative of the prevailing sentiment.
Early in the month of January (1796) Washington transmitted to both houses of Congress a message, accompanying certain communications from the French government which were well calculated to cherish those ardent feelings that prevailed in the Legislature.
It was the fortune of Mr. Monroe to reach Paris soon after the death of Robespierre and the fall of the Jacobins. On his reception as the minister of the United States, which was public, and in the convention, he gave free scope to the genuine feelings of his heart, and, at the same time, delivered to the president of that body, with his credentials, two letters addressed by the Secretary of State to the committee of public safety. These letters were answers to one written by the committee of safety to the Congress of the United States. The executive department being the organ through which all foreign intercourse was to be conducted, each branch of the Legislature had passed a resolution directing this letter to be transmitted to the President with a request that he would cause it to be answered in terms expressive of their friendly dispositions toward the French republic.
So fervent were the sentiments expressed on this occasion that the convention decreed that the flag of the American and French republics should be united together and suspended in its own hall in testimony of eternal union and friendship between the two people. To evince the impression made on his mind by this act, and the grateful sense of his constituents, Mr. Monroe presented to the convention the flag of the United States, which he prayed them to accept as a proof of the sensibility with which his country received every act of friendship from its ally, and of the pleasure with which it cherished every incident which tended to cement and consolidate the union between the two nations.
The committee of safety again addressed Congress in terms adapted to that department of government which superintends its foreign intercourse and expressive, among other sentiments, of the sensibility with which the French nation had perceived those sympathetic emotions with which the American people had viewed the vicissitudes of her fortune. Mr. Adet, who was to succeed Mr. Fauchet at Philadelphia, and who was the bearer of this letter, also brought with him the colors of France, which he was directed to present to the United States. He arrived in the summer, but, probably in the idea that these communications were to be made by him directly to Congress, did not announce them to the executive until late in December (1795).
The first day of the new year (1796) was named for their reception, when the colors were delivered to Washington, and the letter to Congress also was placed in his hands.
In executing this duty Mr. Adet addressed a speech to the President, which, in the glowing language of his country, represented France 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, she saw in them," he said, "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."
To answer this speech was a task of some delicacy. It was necessary to express feelings adapted to the occasion without implying sentiments with respect to the belligerent powers which might be improper to be used by the chief magistrate of a neutral country. With a view to both these objects Washington made the following reply:
"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 secure its permanent establishment in my own country, my anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best wishes are irresistibly attracted, when-so-ever, 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 of your immense sacrifices is approaching. I rejoice that the interesting revolutionary movements of so many years have issued in the formation of a constitution designed to give permanency to the great object for 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 enfranchisement 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!"
The address of Mr. Adet, the answer of the President, and the colors of France, were transmitted to Congress with the letter from the committee of safety.
In the House of Representatives a resolution was moved, requesting the President to make known to the representatives of the French republic the sincere and lively sensations which were excited by this honorable testimony of the existing sympathy and affections of the two republics; that the House rejoiced in an opportunity of congratulating the French republic on the brilliant and glorious achievements accomplished during the present afflictive war, and hoped that those achievements would be attended with a perfect attainment of their object—the permanent establishment of the liberty and happiness of that great and magnanimous people.
In February (1796) the treaty with Great Britain was returned, in the form advised by the Senate, ratified by his Britannic majesty. The constitution declaring a treaty, when made, the supreme law of the land, the President announced it officially to the people in a proclamation, requiring from all persons its observance and execution, a copy of which was transmitted to each House on the 1st of March.
The opposition having openly denied the right of the President to negotiate a treaty of commerce was not a little dissatisfied at his venturing to issue this proclamation before the sense of the House of Representatives had been declared on the obligation of the instrument.
This dissatisfaction was not concealed. On the 2d of March Mr. Livingston laid upon the table a resolution requesting the President "to lay before the House a copy of the instructions to the minister of the United States, who negotiated the treaty with the King of Great Britain, communicated by his message of the 1st of March, together with the correspondence and other documents relative to the said treaty."
On the 7th of March he amended this resolution by adding the words, "excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed."
The friends of the administration maintained 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, if applicable to every object, conflicted with powers which were vested exclusively in Congress; that either the treaty-making power must be limited in its operation, so as not to touch objects committed by the constitution to Congress, or the assent and cooperation 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 force 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 of breaking the faith of the nation.
The debate on this question was animated, vehement, and argumentative, all the party passions were enlisted in it, and it was protracted until the 24th of March (1796), when the resolution was carried in the affirmative by sixty-two to thirty-seven votes. The next day, the committee appointed to present it to the chief magistrate reported his answer which was, "that he would take the resolution into consideration."
The situation in which this vote placed the President was peculiarly delicate. In an elective government, the difficulty of resisting the popular branch of the Legislature is at all times great, but is particularly so when the passions of the public have been strongly and generally excited. The popularity of a demand for information, the large majority by which that demand was supported, the additional force which a refusal to comply with it would give to suspicions already insinuated, that circumstances had occurred in the negotiation which the administration dared not expose, and that the President was separating himself from the representatives of the people, furnished motives of no ordinary force for complying with the request of the House of Representatives.
But Washington viewed every question which came before him with a single eye to the performance of his duty to the country. Hitherto, on more than one occasion, he had proved himself the defender of the constitution, but he had never been called upon to defend it against so formidable an attack as that which was now made.
That the future diplomatic transactions of the government might be seriously and permanently affected by establishing the principle that the House of Representatives could demand, as a right, the instructions given to a foreign minister, and all the papers connected with a negotiation, was too apparent to be unobserved. Nor was it less obvious that a compliance with the request now made would go far in establishing this principle. The form of the request, and the motives which induced it, equally led to this conclusion. It left nothing to the discretion of the President with regard to the public interests, and the information was asked for the avowed purpose of determining whether the House of Representatives would give effect to a public treaty.
It was also a subject for serious reflection that, in a debate unusually elaborate, the House of Representatives had claimed a right of interference in the formation of treaties, which, in the judgment of the President, the constitution had denied them. Duties the most sacred requiring that he should resist this encroachment on the department which was particularly confided to him, he could not hesitate respecting the course it became him to take, and on the 30th of March he returned to the House the following answer to their resolution:
"With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution of the 24th instant, requesting me to lay before your House a copy of the instructions to the minister of the United States, who negotiated the treaty with the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and other documents relative to that treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed.
"In deliberating upon this subject it was impossible for me to lose sight of the principle which some have avowed in its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the consequences which must flow from the admission of that principle.
"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information which the constitution has enjoined it upon the President as a duty to give or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a right, and with truth I affirm, that it has been, as it will continue to be, while I have the honor to preside in the government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof, so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the United States, and my sense of the obligation it imposes to preserve, protect and defend the constitution will permit.
"The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy, and even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be extremely impolitic, for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief to other persons. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members.
"To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand and to have as a matter of course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent.
"It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the House of Representatives, except that of an impeachment, which the resolution has not expressed. I repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any information which the duty of my station will permit or the public good shall require to be disclosed, and, in fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great Britain were laid before the Senate, when the treaty itself was communicated for their consideration and advice.
"The course which the debate has taken on the resolution of the House, leads to some observations on the mode of making treaties under the constitution of the United States.
"Having been a member of the general convention and knowing the principles on which the constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion upon this subject, and from the first establishment of the government to this moment my conduct has exemplified that opinion—that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur, and that every treaty so made and promulgated, thenceforward becomes the law of the land. It is thus that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations, and in all the treaties made with them, we have declared, and they have believed, that when ratified by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, they became obligatory. In this construction of the constitution every House of Representatives has heretofore acquiesced, and, until the present time, not a doubt or suspicion has appeared, to my knowledge, that this construction was not a true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced, for until now, without controverting the obligation of such treaties, they have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect.
"There is also reason to believe that this construction agrees with the opinions entertained by the State conventions when they were deliberating on the constitution, especially by those who objected to it because there was not required, in commercial treaties, the consent of two-thirds of the whole number of the members of the Senate, instead of two-thirds of the senators present, and because, in treaties respecting territorial and certain other rights and claims, the concurrence of three-fourths of the whole number of the members of both Houses respectively was not made necessary.
"It is a fact declared by the general convention and universally understood, that the constitution of the United States was the result of a spirit of amity and mutual concession. And it is well known that under this influence the smaller States were admitted to an equal representation in the Senate with the larger States, and that this branch of the government was invested with great powers, for on the equal participation of those powers the sovereignty and political safety of the smaller States were deemed essentially to depend.
"If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the constitution itself, be necessary to ascertain the points under consideration, they may be found in the journals of the general convention, which I have deposited in the office of the Department of State. In these journals it will appear that a proposition was made 'that no treaty should be binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law,' and that the proposition was explicitly rejected.
"As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the assent of the House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty, as the treaty with Great Britain exhibits in itself all the objects requiring legislative provision—and on these the papers called for can throw no light, and as it is essential to the due administration of the government that the boundaries fixed by the constitution between the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with your request."
The terms in which this decided, and, it would seem, unexpected negative to the call for papers was conveyed, appeared to break the last cord of that attachment which had theretofore bound some of the active leaders of the opposition to Washington. Amidst all the agitations and irritations of party a sincere respect and real affection for him, the remnant of former friendship, had still lingered in the bosoms of some who had engaged with ardor in the political contests of the day. But, if the last spark of this affection was not now extinguished, it was at least concealed under the more active passions of the moment.
Washington's message was referred to a committee of the whole house. It was severely criticized and resolutions were adopted, by a vote of fifty-seven to thirty-five, declaring the sense of the House on this matter, and claiming the right to deliberate on the expediency of carrying into effect stipulations made by treaty on subjects committed by the constitution to Congress.
In March the subject came up incidentally. The treaties with the King of Spain and with the Dey of Algiers were ratified by the President and laid before Congress. On the 13th of April (1796), Mr. Sedgwick 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." After much altercation on the subject of thus joining all these treaties together, a division was made, and the question taken on each. The resolution was amended by a majority of eighteen so as to read, "that it is expedient to pass the laws necessary for carrying into effect," &c.
The subject of the British treaty was again taken up on the 15th of April. Its friends urged an immediate decision of the question, alleging that every member had made up his mind already, and that dispatch was necessary, in case the treaty was to be carried into effect. The posts were to be delivered up on the 1st of June, and this required previous arrangements on the part of the American government. They appear to have entertained the opinion that the majority would not dare to encounter the immense responsibility of breaking the treaty without previously ascertaining that the great body of the people were willing to meet the consequences of the measure. But its opponents, though confident of their power to reject the resolution, called for its discussion.
The minority soon desisted from urging an immediate decision of the question, and the spacious field which was opened by the propositions before the House was entered into with equal avidity and zeal by both parties. Gallatin, Madison, Giles, Nicholas, Preston, and other eminent members of the republican party, in animated terms opposed the execution of the treaty and entered fully into the discussion of its merits and demerits. Fisher Ames, Dwight, Foster, Harper, Lyman, Dayton, and other men of note among the Federalists, urged every possible argument in its favor.
The debate on this occasion is one of the most celebrated which has ever taken place in Congress. Fisher Ames' speech is acknowledged to have been the most remarkable and effective which he ever made. So completely was the House carried away by his eloquence that an adjournment was carried for the avowed reason that it was not possible to decide calmly on the question until the members should have taken time for reflection. Reflection convinced not only the members of Congress, but the people, that the opposition to the execution of the treaty was ill advised and unreasonable. The length of time consumed in the debates was favorable to a just view of the subject, and finally a majority of the members who had been opposed to the treaty yielded to the exigency of the case and united in passing the laws which were necessary for its fulfillment.
On the 29th of April (1796) the question was taken in committee of the whole and was determined by the casting vote of the chairman in its favor. The resolution was finally carried in the House by a vote of fifty-one to forty-eight.
Besides the acts which arose out of the treaties, Congress passed others, regulating the dealings of the inhabitants of the western frontier with the Indians; authorizing the survey of certain public lands, with a view to the sale of them; ordaining measures for the protection and relief of American seamen, and equalizing the pay of members of both Houses of Congress. There were some $6,000,000, which was not quite the full amount of the income, appropriated to the public service and the interest of the debt. But there were so many other demands upon the treasury that, after vainly endeavoring to obtain another loan, part of the bank stock was sold, a procedure which was reprobated by Hamilton as a violation of system. The opposition party would not agree to raise further revenue by indirect internal taxation, and only that augmenting the duty on pleasure carriages was passed into a law. Equally strenuous was their opposition to a naval force. Even under the pressure of the Algerine piracies, the bill providing a decent naval force in the Mediterranean could not be carried through the House without inserting a section which should suspend all proceedings under the act in case the contest with Algiers was brought to an end. That event having occurred, not a single frigate could be completed without further authority from the Legislature. Although no peace had been concluded with Tunis or Tripoli it was with the utmost difficulty that a bill for the completion of three, instead of six, frigates could be carried. On the 1st of June (1796) this long and important session of Congress was brought to its close.
Before Congress rose Washington had written (May 22, 1796) to Thomas Pinckney, the American minister in England, who had desired his recall. In this letter he refers to the recent debate in Congress on passing the laws necessary to give effect to the treaty: "A long and animated discussion," he writes, "in the House of Representatives respecting the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with Great Britain took place and continued in one shape or another till the last of April, suspending in a manner all other business, and agitating the public mind in a higher degree than it has been at any period since the Revolution. And nothing, I believe, but the torrent of petitions and remonstrances, which were pouring in from all the eastern and middle States and were beginning to come pretty strongly from that of Virginia, requiring the necessary provisions for carrying the treaty into effect, would have produced a division (fifty-one to forty-eight) in favor of the appropriation.
"But as the debates, which I presume will be sent to you from the Department of State, will give you a view of this business more in detail than I am able to do, I shall refer you to them. The enclosed speech, however, made by Mr. Ames at the close of the discussion, I send to you, because, in the opinion of most who heard it delivered or have read it since, his reasoning is unanswerable.
"The doubtful issue of the dispute and the real difficulty in finding a character to supply your place at the court of London, has occasioned a longer delay than may have been convenient or agreeable to you. But as Mr. King of the Senate, who, it seems, had resolved to quit his seat at that board, has accepted the appointment, and will embark as soon as matters can be arranged, you will soon be relieved.
"In my letter of the 20th of February I expressed in pretty strong terms my sensibility on account of the situation of the Marquis de Lafayette. This is increased by the visible distress of his son, who is now with me, and grieving for the unhappy fate of his parents. This circumstance, giving a poignancy to my own feelings, has induced me to go a step further than I did in the letter above mentioned, as you will perceive by the enclosed address (a copy of which is also transmitted for your information) to the Emperor of Germany, to be forwarded by you in such a manner, and under such auspices, as in your judgment shall be deemed best, or to be withheld, if from the evidence before you, derived from former attempts, it shall appear clear that it would be of no avail to send it. {1}
"Before I close this letter permit me to request the favor of you to embrace some favorable occasion to thank Lord Grenville, in my behalf, for his politeness in causing a special permit to be sent to Liverpool for the shipment of two sacks of field peas and the like quantity of winter vetches, which I had requested our consul at that place to send me for seed, but which it seems could not be done without an order from government, a circumstance which did not occur to me or I certainly should not have given the trouble of issuing one for such a trifle."
Rufus King, senator from New York, above referred to, had been nominated to the Senate as minister to London on the 19th of May, three days before the date of Washington's letter to Mr. Pinckney. Hamilton, writing to Washington respecting him, thus describes his character: "Mr. King is a remarkably well-informed man, a very judicious one, a man of address, a man of fortune and economy, whose situation affords just ground of confidence; a man of unimpeached probity where he is known, a firm friend to the government, a supporter of the measures of the President; a man who cannot but feel that he has strong pretensions to confidence and trust."
In June (1796) the President went to Mount Vernon where he continued for more than two months. He kept up a constant correspondence with his secretaries, and held himself ever in readiness to return to the seat of government, if his presence should be needed.
During this visit to Mount Vernon the following letter was written to Thomas Jefferson. It brought the correspondence, which, from time to time, had taken place between them, to a final close.
"MOUNT VERNON, July 6, 1796.
"DEAR SIR:—When I inform you that your letter of the 19th ultimo went to Philadelphia and returned to this place before it was received by me, it will be admitted, I am persuaded, as an apology for my not having acknowledged the receipt of it sooner.
"If I had entertained any suspicions before that the queries which have been published in Bache's paper proceeded from you the assurances you have given of the contrary would have removed them, but the truth is, I harbored none. I am at no loss to conjecture from what source they flowed, through what channel they were conveyed, and for what purpose they and similar publications appear. They were known to be in the hands of Mr. Parker in the early part of the last session of Congress. They were shown about by Mr. Giles during the session and they made their public exhibition about the close of it.
"Perceiving, and probably hearing, that no abuse in the gazettes would induce me to take notice of anonymous publications against me, those who were disposed to do me such friendly offices have embraced, without restraint, every opportunity to weaken the confidence of the people, and, by having the whole game in their hands, they have scrupled not to publish things that do not, as well as those which do exist, and to mutilate the latter, so as to make them subserve the purposes which they have in view.
"As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank, candid, or friendly to conceal that your conduct has been represented as derogating from that opinion I had conceived you entertained of me, that to your particular friends and connections you have described, and they have denounced, me as a person under a dangerous influence, and that if I would listen more to some other opinions all would be well. My answer invariably has been that I had never discovered anything in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions in my mind of his insincerity; that, if he would retrace my public conduct while he was in the administration, abundant proofs would occur to him that truth and right decisions were the sole objects of my pursuit; that there were as many instances within his own knowledge of my having decided against as in favor of the opinions of the person evidently alluded to, and, moreover, that I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures of any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.
"To this I may add, and very truly, that, until within the last year or two I had no conception that parties would, or even could, go the length I have been witness to, nor did I believe until lately that it was within the bounds of probability, hardly within those of possibility, that, while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, independent, as far as our obligations and justice would permit, of every nation of the earth, and wished, by steering a steady course, to preserve this country from the horrors of a desolating war, I should be accused of being the enemy of one nation and subject to the influence of another, and, to prove it, that every act of my administration would be tortured and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of them be made, by giving one side only of a subject, and that too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter, or even to a common pickpocket. But enough of this. I have already gone further in the expression of my feelings than I intended."
The queries referred to in the above letter were those which had been addressed to the Cabinet by Washington previous to the arrival of Mr. Genet. As they were strictly confidential and could not have been obtained for publication without treachery somewhere, Jefferson had written to Washington to exculpate himself. It will be seen that Washington, with his usual magnanimity, accepts the explanation of Jefferson; but, as the party of which the latter was the acknowledged leader were constantly carrying on the war of politics by abusing and misrepresenting the former's motives and purposes, it is not surprising that their correspondence should have terminated at this time.
Of the numerous misrepresentations and fabrications which, with unwearied industry, were passed upon the public in order to withdraw the confidence of the nation from its chief, no one marked more strongly the depravity of that principle which justifies the means by the end, than the republication of certain forged letters, purporting to have been written by General Washington in the year 1776.
These letters had been originally published in the year 1777, and in them were interspersed, with domestic occurrences which might give them the semblance of verity, certain political sentiments favorable to Britain in the then existing contest.
But the original fabricator of these papers missed his aim. It was necessary to assign the manner in which the possession of them was acquired, and, in executing this part of his task, circumstances were stated so notoriously untrue, that, at the time, the meditated imposition deceived no person.
In the indefatigable research for testimony which might countenance the charge that the executive was unfriendly to France and under the influence of Britain, these letters were drawn from the oblivion into which they had sunk, it had been supposed forever, and were republished as genuine. The silence with which Washington treated this as well as every other calumny, was construed into an acknowledgment of its truth, and the malignant commentators on this spurious text would not admit the possibility of its being apocryphal.
Those who labored incessantly to establish the favorite position that the executive was under other than French influence, reviewed every act of the administration connected with its foreign relations, and continued to censure every part of the system with extreme bitterness. Not only the treaty with Great Britain, but all those measures which had been enjoined by the duties of neutrality, were reprobated as justly offensive to France, and no opinion which had been advanced by Mr. Genet, in his construction of the treaties between the two nations, was too extravagant to be approved. The most ardent patriot could not maintain the choicest rights of his country with more zeal than was manifested in supporting all the claims of the French republic upon the United States. This conduct of the opposition increased the disposition of the French government to urge charges against that of this country, and the French minister regulated his proceedings accordingly.
In the anxiety which was felt by Washington to come to a full and immediate explanation with the French Directory on the treaty with Great Britain, Colonel Monroe, the American minister at Paris, had been furnished, even before its ratification, and still more fully afterwards, with ample materials for the justification of his government. But, misconceiving the views of the administration, he reserved these representations until complaints should be made, and omitted to urge them while the Directory was deliberating on the course it should pursue. Meanwhile, his letters kept up the alarm with regard to the dispositions of France, and intelligence from the West Indies served to confirm it. Washington received information that the special agents of the Directory in the islands were about to issue orders for the capture of all American vessels laden in whole or in part with provisions and bound for any port within the dominions of the British Crown.
Knowing well that the intentions of the executive had been at all times friendly to the French republic, Washington had relied with confidence on early and candid communications for the removal of any prejudices or misconceptions. That the Directory would be disappointed at the adjustment of those differences which threatened to embroil the United States with Great Britain, could not be doubted, but, as neither this adjustment, nor the arrangements connected with it had furnished any real cause of complaint, he had cherished the hope that it would produce no serious consequences if the proper means of prevention should be applied in time. He was therefore dissatisfied with delays which he had not expected, and seems to have believed that they originated in a want of zeal to justify a measure which neither the minister himself, nor his political friends, had ever approved. To insure an earnest and active representation of the true sentiments of the executive, Washington was inclined to depute an envoy extraordinary for the particular purpose, who should be united with the actual minister, but an objection, drawn from the constitution, was suggested to the measure. It was doubted whether the President could, in the recess of the Senate, appoint a minister when no vacancy existed. From respect to this construction of the constitution, the resolution was taken to appoint a successor to Colonel Monroe. The choice of a person calculated for this mission was not without its difficulty. While a disposition friendly to the administration was indispensable, it was desirable that the person employed should have given no umbrage to the French government.
After some deliberation, Washington selected Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, for this critical and important service. In the early part of the French revolution, he had felt and expressed all the enthusiasm of his countrymen for the establishment of the republic, but, after the commencement of its contests with the United States, he stood aloof from both those political parties which divided America.
He was recommended to the President by an intimate knowledge of his worth, by a confidence in the sincerity of his personal attachment to the chief magistrate, by a conviction that his exertions to effect the objects of his mission would be ardent and sincere, and that, whatever might be his partialities for France, he possessed a high and delicate sense of national as well as individual honor, was jealous for the reputation of his country, and tenacious of its rights. {2}
In July, immediately after the appointment of General Pinckney, letters were received from Colonel Monroe communicating the official complaints which had been made against the American government in March, by M. de la Croix, the minister of exterior relations, with his answer to those complaints. He had effectually refuted the criminations of M. de la Croix, and the executive was satisfied with his answer. But the Directory had decided on their system, and it was not by reasoning that their decision was to be changed.
Washington's correspondence with the members of the Cabinet during his summer residence at Mount Vernon was incessant. In his letters to James McHenry, Secretary of War, we find evidence of his attention to minute details of business, and his care of the public funds. In his letters of the 8th of August, we find, besides a reference to the fact of the delivery of the posts on the frontier by Great Britain, under the treaty, some curious details respecting the army:
"Your letter of the 3d instant," he writes, "with the information of our possession of Fort Ontario, lately occupied by the troops of Great Britain, and the correspondence between Captain Bruff of the United States troops, and Captain Clarke of the British, was brought to me by the last post. Several matters are submitted by the former for consideration—among them, the mode of supplying the garrison with firewood, and furnishing it with a seine. With respect to the first of these, providing it with a horse or pair of horses and a batteau, as the fuel is to be transported so far, seems to be a matter of necessity, but the practice of the American army should be consulted for precedents, before the British allowance is made to the soldiers for cutting and transporting it to the fort, when the means by which it is done are furnished by the public. If no allowance of this sort has been made heretofore in towns, where wood was to be bought, which, if I remember rightly, was the case invariably while I commanded the army, it would be a dangerous innovation to begin it now, for it would instantly pervade all the garrisons and the whole army, be their situation what it may. In time of peace, where no danger is to be apprehended, and where the duty is light, I see no hardship in the soldiers providing fuel for their own use and comfort. With regard to a seine, as the expense would be small if it is taken care of, and the convenience great, I think the garrison should be indulged with one." He had always an eye to the comfort of the soldier as well as to economy in the expenditure of the public money. The garrison might have horses for draught, a batteau, and a seine to catch fish in the lake, but in time of peace they were not to have extra pay for cutting wood to keep themselves warm.
1. Footnote: This letter, dated May 15, 1796, contained an affecting statement of Lafayette's case, and a request that he might be permitted to come to the United States. The letter was transmitted to Mr. Pinckney, to be conveyed to the Emperor through his minister at London. How far it operated in mitigating immediately the rigor of Lafayette's confinement, or in obtaining his liberation, remains unascertained.
2. Footnote: Before offering the appointment of minister to France to General Pinckney, Washington had offered it to Gen. John Marshall, afterward chief justice; but the situation of his private affairs would not permit its acceptance.