Far abler pens than mine have dealt with the character of the Father of our Republic, but a few plain and original expressions on a subject never wearisome to Americans may not be out of place. Washington's chief characteristics were fortitude, the sense of justice of which I have spoken, and the ability to grasp conditions and seize upon opportunities. He was a thoroughly practical man, a strategist by instinct, fearless but not rash, possessing an impetuous temper kept within careful control, and unleashed only when, as at the battle of Monmouth, there was prudence in its vehemence. He was an excellent judge of men. The officers who owed their advancement to Washington seldom disappointed and often exceeded expectations. He was above the petty jealousy, so conspicuous in our late civil war, that would permit another general to be defeated in order to shine by contrast. He was devoted to the cause more than to winning personal reputation, and the effect of his unselfishness was that the cause triumphed with his name fixed in history as that of its leader and champion.
It is difficult to compare the military achievements of Washington with those of Old World commanders. Marlborough, Wellington and Napoleon had troops thoroughly organized, under complete military control, and held to service by iron rules which made the general always sure that his military machine would be ready for use, barring the chances of war. Washington's forces were largely composed of militia, enlisted for short periods, many of them induced to serve by bounties, and anxious to go home and attend to their farms.[3] ] The soldiers, too, were shamefully neglected by Congress and by their States, and it seems wonderful that Washington should have kept them together as he did, or maintained an army at all. In this respect Washington showed genius as a military manager without parallel in history. It should not be forgotten, also, that to Washington is largely due credit for victories at which he was not present. His was the master mind which scanned the entire field, directed all operations and made the triumphs of others possible. His closing campaign, which ended in the surrender of Cornwallis, exhibited military talent of the highest order. In conception and execution it was equal to any of Napoleon's campaigns. It embraced an extent of territory, from New York to North Carolina inclusive, as extensive as the present German empire, and every movement was that of a master hand on the chess-board of war. Success without the French would have been impossible, without Greene's admirable generalship it might have been impossible, but Washington conceived and carried through to accomplishment the whole great scheme which resulted in a final and crashing blow to British hopes of subjugating America.[4] ]
As a statesman Washington merited distinction fully equal to that gained in his military career. To him the United States were always a nation, and only as a nation could they exist. His influence was as potent in forming the Union as his military genius had been in achieving independence, and the veneration with which he was regarded abroad secured for the new nation a degree of respect in foreign cabinets, which was almost vital to its existence, and which no other American could have commanded. At home, too, he rose superior to the discord of ambitious men and of rival factions, and those who, like Edmund Randolph, attempted to belittle him, only called attention thereby to their own comparative unworthiness and insignificance, and were glad in later years to seek oblivion for their abortive folly.
In his domestic life Washington was one of the best of husbands, as he was blessed with one of the best of wives. He held slaves, and I have never been of those who claim that he regarded slavery with serious disapproval. He was too conscientious a man to have retained a single slave in his possession or under his control if his conscience did not approve the relation. That Washington favored the gradual abolition of slavery his letters leave no doubt, and especially those to John P. Mercer and Lawrence Lewis, quoted by Washington Irving, but in the letterbook of the great Rhode Island merchant, Moses Brown, which I was allowed, some years ago, to examine, I read a letter from General Washington which, as I remember, indicated Washington's anti-slavery opinions to be more abstract than active, and conveyed distinctly the impression that he saw nothing wrong whatever in the holding of human chattels. Washington's views on slavery were those of a Southern planter of the most enlightened class, and the provisions which he made in his will for the emancipation of his slaves on the decease of his wife, and for the care of those who might be unable to support themselves, showed that no color-line narrowed his sense of justice and of humanity.
The fame of Washington has not lost in brilliancy since he passed from the world in which he acted such a providential part. Like the Phidian Zeus his proportions are all the more majestic for the distance which rounds over any venial defect. His example is as valuable to the American Republic of the present as his life-work was to the America of a century ago. As water never rises above its source, so a great nation should have a great founder, and the figure of Washington is sublime enough to be the oriflamme of a people's empire bounded only by the oceans which wash the land that he loved.
John Adams President—Jefferson and the French Revolution—The French Directory—Money Demanded from America—"Millions for Defence; Not One Penny for Tribute"—Naval Warfare with France—Capture of the Insurgent —Defeat of the Vengeance—Peace with France—Death of Washington—Alien and Sedition Laws—Jefferson President—The Louisiana Purchase—Burr's Alleged Treason—War with the Barbary States—England Behind the Pirates —Heroic Naval Exploits—Carrying War Into Africa—Peace with Honor.
The Jay treaty secured peace with England, but it was accepted as almost a declaration of war by France. The attitude of the French government did not become intolerable until after the retirement of Washington from the presidency. John Adams, who succeeded Washington, belonged to the Federalist party, which supported a strong central government with aristocratic tendencies, and was opposed to the Republican party, which sympathized with the French Revolution, and whose members were, therefore, known also as "Democrats." Alexander Hamilton was the chief spirit of the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson of the Republicans. The intense Jacobinism of Jefferson's views may be judged from some of his utterances, in which he even defended the terrible September massacres of the French Revolution. Speaking of the innocent who perished he said: "I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands the fate of enemies. * * * My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated; were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than it is now."
The spread of these ideas shocked and alarmed conservative men, including Washington himself, Hamilton and Adams, and led to measures of restriction that were injudicious in their severity. The nation, however, united as one man, irrespective of party, to resent the intolerable insolence of the French, who assumed that they could crush America with the same ease that they subdued the petty states of Italy and Germany. The French Directory, which had succeeded to the Terrorists in the exercise of power virtually supreme, was composed of men whose depravity we have seen shockingly illustrated in the recently published memoirs of Barras. Its foreign policy was managed by the vulpine Talleyrand, who is accused by Barras of having extorted large sums of money from the lesser States of Europe as the price of being let alone—although it is extremely probable that Barras and others of the Directory shared in these ill-gotten funds. Talleyrand tried to extort similar tribute from America, demanding that a douceur of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars be put at his disposal for the use of the Directory, and a large loan made by America to France. "Millions for defence—not one penny for tribute!" was the cry that went up from the American people when this infamous proposition was made known.
Washington was summoned from his retirement to take command of the American army, a Secretary of the Navy was added to the President's Cabinet—Benjamin Stoddart, of Georgetown, D. C., being the first—and the new American navy was authorized to retaliate upon France for outrages committed upon American shipping. A vigorous naval warfare followed, in which the new American frigates proved more than a match for the French. The American Constellation, forty-eight guns, after a sharp engagement, captured the French frigate Insurgent, forty guns. It is really amusing to note the tone of injured innocence in which Captain Barreaut, of the Insurgent, who had himself captured the American cruiser Retaliation but a short time before, reports to his government his "surprise on finding himself fought by an American frigate after all the friendship and protection accorded to the United States!" "My indignation," he adds, "was at its height." It soon cooled off, however, under the pressure of broadsides from the Constellation, and Captain Barreaut was glad to surrender. The second frigate action of the war was between the Constellation and the Vengeance, the former fifty guns, the latter fifty-two. The Frenchman, badly beaten, succeeded in making his escape. The battle between the American frigate Boston and the French corvette Berceau was one of the most gallant of the struggle, the Berceau fighting until resistance was hopeless. American merchantmen also showed the French that they could defend themselves, and one of Moses Brown's ships, the Anne and Hope, sailed into Providence from a voyage to the West Indies, bearing in her rigging the marks of conflict with a French privateer, whom the merchantman had bravely repulsed. During the two years and a half of naval war with France eighty-four armed French vessels, nearly all of them privateers, were captured, and no vessel of our navy was taken by the enemy, except the Retaliation. This was not the kind of tribute the French government had expected, and a treaty of peace, which entirely sustained the position of the United States, was ratified in February, 1801.