History of the United States Volume Ii Part 17

From a painting by S. F. B. Morse in the Yale College Collection.

[1795]

Worst of all, Britain claimed and acted upon the right to press into her naval service British-born seamen found anywhere outside the territory of a foreign State, halting our ships on the high seas for this purpose, often leaving them half-manned, and sometimes recklessly and cruelly impressing native-born Americans--an outrageous policy which ended in the war of 1812. The ignorance and injustice of the English admiralty courts aggravated most of these abuses.

Genet's proceedings, spoken of in the next chapter, which partly public sentiment, partly lack of army and navy, made it impossible for our Government to prevent, enraged Great Britain to the verge of war. After the British orders in council of November 6, 1793, intended to destroy all neutral commerce with the French colonies, and Congress's counter-stroke of an embargo the following March, war was positively imminent. The President resolved to send Jay to England as envoy extraordinary, to make one more effort for an understanding.

The treaty negotiated by this gentleman, and ratified June 24, 1795 (excepting Article XII., on the French West India trade), was doubtless the most favorable that could have been secured under the circ.u.mstances; yet it satisfied no one and was humiliating in the extreme. The western posts were indeed to be vacated by June 1, 1796, though without indemnity for the past, but a British right of search and impressment was implicitly recognized, the French West Indian trade not rendered secure, and arbitrary liberty accorded to Great Britain in defining contraband. Opposition to ratification was bitter and nearly universal.

The friends of France were jubilant. Jay was burned in effigy, Washington himself attacked. The utmost that Hamilton in his powerful "Letters of Camillus" could show was that the treaty seemed preferable to war. Plainly we had then little to hope and much to fear from war with Great Britain, yet even vast numbers of Federalists denounced the pact as a base surrender to the nation's ancient tyrant, and wished an appeal to arms.

Fisher Ames's eloquence decided the House for the treaty. An invalid, with but a span of life before him, he spoke as from the tomb. "There is, I believe," so ran his peroration, "no member who will not think his chance to be a witness of the consequences (should the treaty fail of ratification) greater than mine. If, however, the vote should pa.s.s to reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the public disorders, to make confusion worse confounded, even I, slender and almost broken as my hold on life is, may outlive the Government and Const.i.tution of my country!"

It was the most delicate crisis of Washington's presidency, and no other American then alive, being in his place, could have pa.s.sed through it successfully. After the fury gradually subsided, men for a long time acquiesced rather than believed in the step which had been taken. In the end the treaty proved solidly advantageous, rather through circ.u.mstances, however, than by its intrinsic excellence.

CHAPTER V.

RELATIONS WITH THE FRENCH REPUBLIC

[1793]

At its beginning all Americans hailed the Revolution in France with joy, but its terrible excesses, when they appeared, produced here the same effect as in England, of alienating everyone conservatively inclined. This included the ma.s.s of the Federalist party. On the contrary, most of the Republicans, now more numerous, now less, actuated partly by true insight into the struggle, and partly by the magic of the words "revolution" and "republic," favored the revolutionists with a devotion which even the Reign of Terror in France scarcely shook. It was in consequence of this att.i.tude on its part that the party came to be dubbed "democratic-republican" instead of "republican," the compound t.i.tle itself giving way after about 1810 to simple "democratic."

[Ill.u.s.tration: Portrait.]

John Adams From a copy by Jane Stuart, about 1874, of a painting by her father, Gilbert Stuart, about 1800--in possession of Henry Adams.

Hostility to England, the memory of France's aid to us in our hour of need, the doctrine of "the rights of man," then so much in vogue, the known sympathies of Jefferson and Madison, who were already popular, and, alas, a mean wish to hamper the administration, all helped to swell the ranks of those who swung their hats for France. A far deeper motive with the more thoughtful was the belief that neutrality violated our treaty of 1778 with France, a conclusion at present beyond question.

Politically our policy may have been wise, morally it was wrong.

The administration, at least its honored head, was doubtless innocent of any intentional injustice; and it could certainly urge a great deal in justification of its course. The form and the aims of the French Government had changed since the treaty originated, involving a state of things which that instrument had not contemplated. France herself defied international law and compact, revolutionizing and incorporating Holland and Geneva, and a.s.saulting our commerce. And war with England then threatened our ruin. Yet the pleading of these considerations in that so trying hour, even had they been wholly pertinent, could not but seem to Frenchmen treason to the cause of liberty. As to many Federalists, trucklers to England, such a charge would have been true.

France was not slow to reciprocate in the matter of grievances. In fact, so early as May, 1793, before the proclamation of neutrality could have been heard of in that country, orders had been issued there, wholly repugnant to the treaty (which had ordained that neutral ships could carry what goods they pleased--free ships, free goods), to capture and condemn English merchandise on American vessels. Provisions owned by Americans and en route to England were also to be forfeited as contraband. Even the most reasonable French officials seemed bent on treating our country as a dependency of France.

We see this in the actions of Genet, the first envoy to America from the French const.i.tutional monarchy, accredited hither by a ministry of high-minded Republicans while Louis XVI. still sat upon his throne.

Genet arrived in Charleston in 1793, before our neutrality had been proclaimed. Immediately, before presenting his credentials to our Government, he set about fitting out privateers, manning them with Americans, and sending them to prey upon British ships, some of which they captured in American waters. All this was in utter derogation of the treaty, which only guaranteed shelter to bona fide French vessels.

Under a law of the French National Convention, Genet a.s.sumed to erect the French consulates in this country into so many admiralty courts for the trial of British prizes. We could not have allowed this without decidedly violating international law at least in spirit. He also devised and partly arranged expeditions of Americans, to start, one from Georgia to invade Florida, another from Kentucky to capture New Orleans, both as means of weakening Spain, which up to this time and for several years later was France's foe.

[1795]

But Genet's worst gall came out in his conduct toward Washington. Him he insulted, challenging his motives and his authority for his acts and threatening to appeal from him to the people. He tried to bully and browbeat the whole cabinet as if they had been so many boys. So ludicrous did he make himself by such useless bl.u.s.ter, that his friends, at first numerous and many of them influential, gave him the cold shoulder, and the ardor for France greatly cooled. At length Washington effected his removal, the more easily, it would seem, as he was not radical enough for the Jacobins, who had now succeeded to the helm in France. The officious Frenchman did not return to his own country, but settled down in New York, marrying a daughter of Governor Clinton. He was succeeded by Adet.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Portrait.]

George Clinton.

From a painting by Ezra Ames.

Upon learning that the United States had ratified Jay's treaty, France went insane with rage. A declaration of war by us could not have angered her more. Adet was called home and the alliance with America declared at an end. Barras dismissed Mr. Monroe, our minister, in a contemptuous speech, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, sent as Monroe's successor, was not only not received but ordered from the land. New and worse decrees went forth against American commerce. Our ships were confiscated for carrying English goods though not contraband. Arbitrary and unheard-of tests of neutrality were trumped up, wholly contrary to the treaty, which indeed was now denounced. American sailors found serving, though compelled, on British armed vessels, were to be condemned as pirates.

[1797]

These brutal measures, coupled with Napoleon's increasing power, begot in America the belief, even among Republicans, that France's struggle was no longer for liberty but for conquest. The insolence of the French Government waxed insufferable. President Adams, to a special session of the Vth Congress, on May 19, 1797, announced the insult to the nation in the person of Pinckney, and urged preparation for war. A goodly loan, a direct tax, and a provisional army, Washington again leader, were readily voted. Our Navy Department was created at this time. The navy was increased, and several captures were made of French vessels guilty of outrage. Adams, however, to make a last overture for peace, despatched John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry to the aid of Pinckney, the three to knock once more at France's doors for a becoming admission. In vain. The only effect was a new chapter of French mendacity and insolence, furthering America's wish and preparations for war.

Napoleon's recent Italian victories, terrifying Europe, had puffed up France with pride. Talleyrand a.s.sumed to arraign us as criminals, and what was worse, pressed us, through his agents, to buy his country's forgiveness with gold. "You must pay money," our envoys were told, and "a good deal of it, too."

[Ill.u.s.tration: Portrait.]

John Marshall.

All this was duly made known at Philadelphia, and the President a.s.sured Congress that no terms were obtainable from France "compatible with the safety, honor, and general interest of the nation." The opposition thought this an exaggeration, and called for the despatches, expecting refusal or abridgment. The President sent every word.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Portrait.]

Elbridge Gerry

Confusion seized the Republicans. Federalists were again in the ascendant, the VIth Congress being much more strongly federalist than the Vth. For once proud, reserved John Adams was popular, and anti-French feeling irresistible. "Millions for defence but not a cent for tribute," echoed through the land. Hosts of Republicans went over to the administration side. Patriotism became a pa.s.sion. Each night at the theatre rose a universal call for the "President's March" [Footnote: The music was that of our "Hail Columbia."] and "Yankee Doodle," the audience rising, cheering, swinging hats and canes, and roaring "encore." The black c.o.c.kade, American, on all hands supplanted the tricolor c.o.c.kade worn by the "Gallomaniacs;" and bands of "a.s.sociated Youth," organizing in every town and city, deluged the President with patriotic addresses.

Seeing that we could not be bullied and that the friends of France here were Americans first; ashamed, on their publication, of the indignities which he had offered our envoys, and after all not wishing war with what he saw to be potentially another naval power like England, the sly Talleyrand neatly receded from his arrogant demands, and expressed a desire to negotiate.

CHAPTER VI.

THE DECLINE OF THE FEDERALIST PARTY

[1797]

The heat of the nation's wrath evoked by this conflict with France betrayed the Federalists in Congress into some pieces of tyrannical legislation. These were especially directed against refugees from France, lest they should attempt to reenact here the b.l.o.o.d.y drama just played out there. Combinations were alleged, without proof, to exist between American and French democrats, dangerous to the stability of this Government.

A new naturalization act was pa.s.sed, requiring of an immigrant, as prerequisite to citizenship, fourteen years of residence instead of the five heretofore sufficient. Next came three alien acts, empowering the President, at his discretion, without trial or even a statement of his reasons, to banish foreigners from the land; any who should return unbidden being liable to imprisonment for three years, and cut off from the possibility of citizenship forever. A "sedition act" followed, to fine in the sum of $5,000 each and to imprison for five years any persons stirring up sedition, combining to oppose governmental measures, resisting United States law, or putting forth "any false, scandalous, or malicious writings" against Congress, the President, or the Government.

To President Adams's credit, he was no abettor of these hateful decrees, and did little to enforce them. The sedition law, however, did not rest with him for execution, and was applied right and left. Evidently its champions were swayed largely by political motives. Matthew Lyon, a fiery Republican member of Congress from Vermont, had, in an address to his const.i.tuents, charged the President with avarice and with "thirst for ridiculous pomp and foolish adulation," He was convicted of sedition, fined $1,000, and sentenced to four months in prison. This impoverished him, as well as took him from his place in Congress for most of a session. Adams refused pardon, but in 1840 Congress paid back the fine to Lyon's heirs.

It is now admitted that these measures were unconst.i.tutional, as invading freedom of speech and of the press, and a.s.signing to the Federal Judiciary a common-law jurisdiction in criminal matters. But they were also highly unwise, subjecting the Federalist Party to the odium of fearing free speech, of declining a discussion of its policy, and of hating foreigners. The least opposition to the party in power, or criticism of its official chiefs, became criminal, under the head of "opposing" the Government. A joke or a caricature might send its author to jail as "seditious." It was surely a travesty upon liberty when a man could be arrested for expressing the wish, as a salute was fired, that the wadding might hit John Adams behind. Even libels upon government, if it is to be genuinely free, must be ignored--a principle now acted upon by all const.i.tutional States.

But the Federalists were blind to considerations like these. As Schouler well remarks: "A sort of photophobia afflicted statesmen, who, allowing little for the good sense and spirit of Americans, or our geographical disconnection with France, were crazed with the fear that this Union might be, like Venice, made over to some European potentate, or chained in the same galley with Switzerland or Holland, to do the Directory's bidding. That, besides this unfounded fear, operated the desire of ultra-Federalists to take revenge upon those presses which had a.s.sailed the British treaty and other pet measures, and abused Federal leaders; and the determination to entrench themselves in authority by forcibly disbanding an opposition party which attracted a readier support at the polls from the oppressed of other countries, no candid writer can at this day question."

[1798]

It was next the turn of the Republicans to blunder. In November, 1798, the Kentucky Legislature pa.s.sed a series of resolutions, drawn up by John Breckenridge upon a sketch by Jefferson, in effect declaring the alien and sedition acts not law, but altogether void and of no force. In December the Virginia Legislature put forth a similar series by Madison, milder in tone and more cautiously expressed, denouncing those acts as "palpable and alarming infractions of the Const.i.tution." A year after their first utterance, the Kentucky law-makers further "resolved that the several States who formed (the Const.i.tution), being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."

Virginia again declared it a State's right "to interpose" in such cases.

These resolutions were intended to stir reflection and influence opinion, and, if possible, elicit a concurrent request to Congress from the various States to repeal the obnoxious acts. They do not hint at the use of force. Their execration of the hated laws is none too strong, and their argument as a whole is masterly and unanswerable. But at least those of Kentucky suggest, if they do not contain, a doctrine respecting the Const.i.tution which is untenable and baneful, in kernel the same that threatened secession in Jackson's time and brought it in Buchanan's. The State, as such, is not a party to the Const.i.tution. Still less is the Legislature. Nor is either, but the Supreme Court, the judge whether in any case the fundamental law has been infringed.