Without noticing a want of decorum in some of the expressions which Genet had employed, he was informed that the subjects on which his letter treated had, from respect to him, been reconsidered by the executive; but that no cause was perceived for changing the system which had been adopted. He was further informed that, in the opinion of the President, the United States owed it to themselves and to the nations in their friendship, to expect, as a reparation for the offense of infringing their sovereignty, that the vessels thus illegally equipped would depart from their ports.
Genet was not disposed to acquiesce in these decisions. Adhering to his own construction of the existing treaty, he affected to consider the measures of the American government as infractions of it, which no power in the nation had a right to make, unless the United States in Congress assembled should determine that their solemn engagements should no longer be performed. Intoxicated with the sentiments expressed by a great portion of the people, and unacquainted with the firm character of Washington, he seems to have expected that the popularity of his nation would enable him to overthrow the administration, or to render it subservient to his views. It is difficult otherwise to account for his persisting to disregard its decisions, and for passages with which his letters abound, such as the following:
“Every obstruction by the government of the United States to the arming of French vessels must be an attempt on the rights of man, upon which repose the independence and laws of the United States; a violation of the ties which unite the people of France and America; and even a manifest contradiction of the system of neutrality of the President; for, in fact, if our merchant vessels, as others, are not allowed to arm themselves, when the French alone are resisting the league of all the tyrants against the liberty of the people, they will be exposed to inevitable ruin in going out of the ports of the United States, which is certainly not the intention of the people of America. Their fraternal voice has resounded from every quarter around me, and their accents are not equivocal. They are pure as the hearts of those by whom they are expressed, and the more they have touched my sensibility, the more they must interest in the happiness of America the nation I represent;–the more I wish, sir, that the Federal government should observe, as far as in their power, the public engagements contracted by both nations; and that, by this generous and prudent conduct, they will give at least to the world the example of a true neutrality, which does not consist in the cowardly abandonment of their friends in the moment when danger menaces them, but in adhering strictly, if they can do no better, to the obligations they have contracted with them. It is by such proceedings that they will render themselves respectable to all the powers; that they will preserve their friends and deserve to augment their numbers.”
A few days previous to the reception of the letter from which the above is an extract, two citizens of the United States, who had been engaged by Genet in Charleston to cruise in the service of France, were arrested by the civil magistrate, in pursuance of the determination formed by the executive for the prosecution of persons having thus offended against the laws. Genet demanded their release in the following extraordinary terms:
“I have this moment been informed that two officers in the service of the republic of France, citizen Gideon Henfield and John Singletary, have been arrested on board the privateer of the French republic, the Citizen Genet, and conducted to prison. The crime laid to their charge–the crime which my mind cannot conceive, and which my pen almost refuses to state–is the serving of France, and defending with her children the common glorious cause of liberty.
“Being ignorant of any positive law or treaty which deprives Americans of this privilege, and authorizes officers of police arbitrarily to take mariners in the service of France from on board their vessels, I call upon your intervention, sir, and that of the President of the United States, in order to obtain the immediate releasement of the above-mentioned officers, who have acquired, by the sentiments animating them and by the act of their engagement, anterior to every act to the contrary, the right of French citizens, if they have lost that of American citizens.”
Such an insolent style of address as this could not be otherwise than deeply offensive to Washington. He must have regarded this, and most of the other effusions of Genet, as studied insults, net only to himself, but to the country of which he was the chief magistrate. Yet, in no single instance did the administration in its communications with Genet, permit itself to be betrayed into the use of one intemperate expression. The firmness with which his extravagant pretensions were resisted, proceeding entirely from a sense of duty and conviction of right, was unaccompanied with any marks of that resentment which his language and his conduct were alike calculated to inspire.
Genet’s intemperate language and insolent conduct arose from a belief that the people were ready to support his pretensions, in opposition to their own government. This belief was strengthened by the proceedings and publications of the party opposed to the administration. Civic festivals and other public assemblages of people, at which the ensigns of France were displayed in union with those of America–at which the red cap, as a symbol of French liberty and fraternity, triumphantly passed from head to head–at which toasts were given expressive of a desire to identify the people of America with those of France, and, under the imposing guise of adhering to principles not to men, containing allusions to the influence of the President which could not be mistaken–appeared to Genet to indicate a temper extremely favorable to his hopes, and very different from that which would be required for the preservation of an honest neutrality.
Through the medium of the press, these sentiments were communicated to the public, and were represented as flowing from the hearts of the great body of the people.
Soon after the arrival of Genet, a democratic society was formed in Philadelphia on the model of the Jacobin clubs in Paris. An anxious solicitude for the preservation of freedom, the very existence of which was menaced by a “European confederacy transcendent in power and unparalleled in iniquity,” which was endangered also by “the pride of wealth and arrogance of power” displayed within the United States, was the motive assigned for the association. “A constant circulation of useful information, and a liberal communication of republican sentiments, were thought to be the best antidotes to any political poison with which the vital principle of civil liberty might be attacked;” and to give the more extensive operation to their labors, a corresponding committee was appointed, through whom they would communicate with other societies which might be established on similar principles throughout the United States.
Faithful to their founder, and true to the real objects of their association, these societies continued during the term of their existence to be the resolute champions of all the encroachments attempted by the agents of the French republic on the government of the United States, and the steady defamers of the views and measures of the American executive.
Thus strongly supported, Genet persisted in his construction of the treaties between the two nations, and, in defiance of the positive determination of the government, continued to act according to that construction.
At this period Washington was called to Mount Vernon by urgent business, which detained him less than three weeks; and, in his absence, the heads of departments superintended the execution of those rules which had been previously established.
In this short interval a circumstance occurred, strongly marking the rashness of Genet, and his disrespect to the executive of the United States.
The Little Sarah, an English merchantman, had been captured by a French frigate and brought into the port of Philadelphia, where she was completely equipped as a privateer, and was just about to sail on a cruise, under the name of le Petit Democrat, when Hamilton communicated her situation to Jefferson and Knox, the Secretaries of State and of War; in consequence of which, Governor Mifflin was desired to cause an examination of the fact. The warden of the port was directed to institute the proper inquiries, and, late in the evening of the 6th of July, he reported her situation, and that she was to sail the next day.
In pursuance of the instructions which had been given by the President, the governor immediately sent Secretary Dallas for the purpose of prevailing on Genet to relieve him from the employment of force, by detaining the vessel in port until the arrival of Washington, who was then on his way from Mount Vernon. Mr. Dallas communicated this message to the French minister in terms as conciliatory as its nature would permit. On receiving it, he gave aloose to the most extravagant passion. After exclaiming with vehemence against the measure, he complained, in strong terms, and with many angry epithets, of the ill treatment which he had received from some of the officers of the general government, which he contrasted with the cordial attachment that was expressed by the people at large for his nation. He ascribed the conduct of those officers to principles inimical to the cause of France and of liberty. He insinuated that, by their influence, Washington had been misled, and observed, with considerable emphasis, that the President was not the sovereign of this country. The powers of peace and war being vested in Congress, it belonged to that body to decide those questions growing out of treaties which might involve peace or war, and the President, therefore, ought to have assembled the national Legislature before he ventured to issue his proclamation of neutrality, or to prohibit, by his instructions to the State governors, the enjoyment of the particular rights which France claimed under the express stipulations of the treaty of commerce. The executive construction of that treaty was neither just nor obligatory, and he would make no engagement which might be construed into a relinquishment of rights which his constituents deemed indispensable. In the course of this vehement and angry declamation, he spoke of publishing his correspondence with the officers of government, together with a narrative of his proceedings, and said that, although the existing causes would warrant an abrupt departure, his regard for the people of America would induce him to remain here, amidst the insults and disgusts that he daily suffered in his official character from the public officers, until the meeting of Congress, and if that body should agree in the opinions and support the measures of the President, he would certainly withdraw, and leave the dispute to be adjusted between the two nations themselves. His attention being again called by Mr. Dallas to the particular subject, he peremptorily refused to enter into any arrangements for suspending the departure of the privateer, and cautioned him against any attempt to seize her, as she belonged to the republic, and, in defense of the honor of her flag, would unquestionably repel force by force.
On receiving the report of Mr. Dallas, Governor Mifflin ordered out 120 militia, for the purpose of taking possession of the privateer, and communicated the case, with all its circumstances, to the officers of the executive government. On the succeeding day, Jefferson waited on Genet, in the hope of prevailing on him to pledge his word that the privateer should not leave the port until the arrival of the President. The minister was not less intemperate with Jefferson than he had been with Dallas. He indulged himself in a repetition of nearly the same passionate language, and again spoke, with extreme harshness of the conduct of the executive. He persisted in refusing to make any engagements for the detention of the vessel, and, after his rage had in some degree spent itself, he entreated that no attempt might be made to take possession of her, as her crew was on board, and force would be repelled by force.
He then also said that she was not ready to sail immediately. She would change her position and fall down the river a small distance on that day, but was not yet ready to sail.
In communicating this conversation to Governor Mifflin, Jefferson stated his conviction that the privateer would remain in the river until the President should decide on her case, in consequence of which, the governor dismissed the militia, and requested the advice of the heads of departments on the course which it would be proper for him to pursue. Both the governor and Jefferson stated, that in reporting the conversation between Genet and himself, Dallas had said that Genet threatened, in express terms, “to appeal from the President to the people.”
Thus braved and insulted in the very heart of the country, Hamilton and Knox were of opinion that it was expedient to take immediate measures for establishing a battery on Mud Island, under cover of a party of militia, with directions, that if the vessel should attempt to depart before the pleasure of the President should be known concerning her, military coercion should be employed to arrest her progress.
The Secretary of State dissenting from this opinion, the measure was not adopted. The vessel fell down to Chester before the arrival of Washington and sailed on her cruise before the power of the government could be interposed.
On the 11th of July (1793), Washington reached Philadelphia, and requested that the Cabinet ministers would convene at his house the next day at 9 in the morning.
Among the important papers placed in his hands, which required immediate attention were those which related to the Little Democrat. On reading them, a messenger was immediately dispatched for Jefferson, but he had retired, indisposed, to his seat in the country. Upon hearing this, the President instantly addressed a letter to him, of which the following is an extract:
“What is to be done in the case of the Little Sarah, now at Chester? Is the minister of the French republic to set the acts of this government at defiance with impunity and then threaten the executive with an appeal to the people? What must the world think of such conduct, and of the government of the United States in submitting to it?
“These are serious questions. Circumstances press for decision, and as you have had time to consider them (upon me they come unexpectedly), I wish to know your opinion upon them even before to-morrow, for the vessel may then be gone.”
In answer to this letter, Jefferson stated the assurances which had on that day been given to him by Genet, that the vessel Would not sail before the President’s decision respecting her should be made. In consequence of this information, immediate coercive measures were suspended, and in the council of the succeeding day it was determined to retain in port all privateers which had been equipped by any of the belligerent powers within the United States. Genet was informed of this determination, but in contempt of it, the Little Democrat proceeded on her cruise. This proceeding furnished a subject of exultation to the opponents of the government, as did also the acquittal by a Charleston jury of Gideon Henfield, who had been arrested for shipping on board a French privateer, he being an American citizen.
While the correspondence between Genet and Jefferson concerning this affair was still going on, the former obtained cause of complaint on his part, and urged that the British were in the habit of taking French property out of American vessels, in contravention of the principles of neutrality avowed by the rest of Europe. His letters to Jefferson on this subject were still more insulting than those which had preceded them. On the 9th of July (1793), he wrote to Jefferson, demanding an instant answer to the question–What measures the President had taken, or would take, to cause the American flag to be respected? Receiving no answer, toward the end of July he again addressed the Secretary of State on the subject. In this extraordinary letter, after complaining of the insults offered to the American flag by seizing the property of Frenchmen confided to its protection, he added: “Your political rights are counted for nothing. In vain do the principles of neutrality establish that friendly vessels make friendly goods; in vain, sir, does the President of the United States endeavor, by his proclamation, to reclaim the observation of this maxim; in vain does the desire of preserving peace lead to sacrifice the interests of France to that of the moment; in vain does the thirst of riches preponderate over honor in the political balance of America–all this management, all this condescension, all this humility, end in nothing; our enemies laugh at it; and the French, too confident, are punished for having believed that the American nation had a flag, that they had some respect for their laws, some conviction of their strength, and entertained some sentiment of their dignity. It is not possible for me, sir, to paint to you all my sensibility at this scandal, which tends to the diminution of your commerce, to the oppression of ours, and to the debasement and vilification of republics. It is for the Americans to make known their generous indignation at this outrage, and I must confine myself to demand of you, a second time, to inform me of the measures which you have taken in order to obtain restitution of the property plundered from my fellow-citizens under the protection of your flag. It is from our government they have learned that the Americans were our allies, that the American nation was sovereign, and that they knew how to make themselves respected. It is then under the very same sanction of the French nation that they have confided their property and persons to the safeguard of the American flag, and on her they submit the care of causing those rights to be respected. But if our fellow-citizens have been deceived, if you are not in a condition to maintain the sovereignty of your people, speak; we have guaranteed it when slaves, we shall be able to render it formidable, having become freemen.”
On the day preceding the date of this offensive letter, Jefferson had answered that of the 9th of July, and, without noticing the unbecoming style in which the decision of the executive was demanded, had avowed and defended the opinion that, “by the general law of nations, the goods of an enemy found in the vessels of a friend, are lawful prize.” This fresh insult might therefore be passed over in silence.
While a hope remained that the temperate forbearance of the President, and the unceasing manifestations of his friendly dispositions toward the French republic might induce the minister of that nation to respect the rights of the United States, and to abstain from violations of their sovereignty, an anxious solicitude not to impair the harmony which he wished to maintain between the two republics had restrained him from adopting those measures respecting Genet which his conduct required. He had seen a foreign minister usurp, within the territories of the United States, some of the most important rights of sovereignty, and persist, after the prohibition of the government in the exercise of those rights. In asserting this extravagant claim, so incompatible with national independence, the spirit in which it originated had been pursued, and the haughty style of a superior had been substituted for the respectful language of diplomacy. He had seen the same minister undertake to direct the civil government, and to pronounce, in opposition to the decisions of the executive, in what departments the constitution of the United States had placed certain great national powers. To render this state of things more peculiarly critical and embarrassing, the person most instrumental in producing it had, from his arrival, thrown himself into the arms of the people, stretched out to receive him, and was emboldened by their favor to indulge the hope of succeeding in his endeavors, either to overthrow their government, or to bend it to his will. But the’ full experiment had now been made, and the result was a conviction not to be resisted, that moderation would only invite additional injuries, and that the present insufferable state of things could be terminated only by procuring the removal of the French minister, or by submitting to become, in his hands, the servile instrument of hostility against the enemies of his nation. Information was continually received from every quarter of fresh aggressions on the principles established by the government, and, while the executive was thus openly disregarded and contemned, the members of the administration were reproached, in all the papers of an active and restless opposition, as the violators of the national faith, the partisans of monarchy, and the enemies of liberty and of France.
The unwearied efforts to preserve that station in which the various treaties in existence had placed the nation were incessantly calumniated as infractions of those treaties, and ungrateful attempts to force the United States into a war against France.
The judgment of Washington was never hastily formed, but, once made up, it was seldom to be shaken. Before the last letter of Genet was communicated to him he had decided to terminate future intercourse with him.
In a Cabinet council the whole matter was carefully reviewed, and it was unanimously agreed that Gouverneur Morris, the American minister at Paris, should present the whole case to the French government and request Genet’s recall. The faction by whom he had been originally sent out having passed out of power, this was easily effected.
At the same time the Cabinet, under Washington’s direction, drew up a system of rules to be observed by the belligerents in the ports of the United States. These rules evidence the settled purpose of the executive faithfully to observe all the national engagements and honestly to perform the duties of that neutrality in which the war found them and in which those engagements left them free to remain.
Neutrality between belligerents is a difficult and delicate part to sustain. It was not France alone that advanced extraordinary pretensions. The British government issued orders for stopping all neutral ships, laden with provisions, bound for the ports of France, thus declaring that country in a state of blockade. The National Convention of France had, indeed, set the example of this by an act of the same tendency, doubly rash, because impotent. But this, however strong a plea for retaliating upon France, was none for making America suffer. Corn, indeed, formed the chief export of the United States, and to prohibit them from shipping it at all–for the new regulation amounted in fact to this–was a grievance which the most pacific neutral could scarcely submit to. Another continually recurring source of complaint on the part of the United States against England was the pressing of their seamen, which the difficulty of distinguishing between natives of the two countries rendered of frequent occurrence and tardy rectification. These causes came to swell the tide of faction in America as the enemies of England and of authoritative institutions took advantage of them to raise their cry, whilst the anti-gallican, on the other hand, were as indignant against the arrogance of the French and of their envoy.
Genet was in New York receiving all sorts of demonstrations of approbation and attachment from his political friends when he received notice of his recall (September, 1793). His rage was indescribable. He wrote to Jefferson a letter full of the most atrocious abuse of Washington and the administration generally, in which Jefferson himself was not spared. But as his powers of mischief were now at an end very slight notice was taken of his splenetic effusions. It appeared in the sequel, however, that he had not confined his attempts to employ the force of America against the enemies of his country to maritime enterprises. On his first arrival he is understood to have planned an expedition against the Floridas, to be carried on from Georgia, and another against Louisiana, to be carried on from the western parts of the United States. Intelligence was received that the principal officers were engaged, and the temper of the people inhabiting the western country was such as to furnish some ground for the apprehension that the restraints which the executive was capable of imposing, would be found too feeble to prevent the execution of this plan. The remonstrances of the Spanish commissioners on this subject, however, were answered with explicit assurances that the government would effectually interpose to defeat any expedition from the territories of the United States against those of Spain, and the governor of Kentucky was requested to cooperate in frustrating this improper application of the military resources of his State.
While Genet was in New York a schooner, brought as a prize into the port of Boston by a French privateer, was claimed by the British owner, who instituted proceedings at law against her for the purpose of obtaining a decision on the validity of her capture. She was rescued from the possession of the marshal by an armed force, acting under the authority of Mr. Duplaine, the French consul, which was detached from a frigate then lying in port. Until the frigate sailed she was guarded by a part of the crew, and, notwithstanding the determination of the American government that the consular courts should not exercise a prize jurisdiction within the territories of the United States, Mr. Duplaine declared his purpose to take cognizance of the case.
To this act of open defiance it was impossible for Washington to submit. The facts being well attested, the exequatur which had been granted to Mr. Duplaine was revoked and he was forbidden further to exercise the consular functions. It will excite surprise that even this necessary measure could not escape censure. The self-proclaimed champions of liberty discovered in it a violation of the constitution and a new indignity to France.
Meantime events were transpiring in Europe which added not a little to the excitement in the public mind against Great Britain. For many years war had existed between Portugal and Algiers. In consequence of this Algerian cruisers had been confined to the Mediterranean by a Portuguese fleet, and the commerce of the United States, as well as that of Portugal herself, had been protected in the Atlantic from piratical depredations. In September, 1793, an unexpected truce for a year was concluded between Portugal and Algiers. The Dey’s cruisers, therefore, immediately, and without previous notice, passed into the Atlantic, and American vessels, while on their way to Portugal and other parts of Europe, and without the smallest suspicion of danger, became a prey to these lawless freebooters, and many American seamen were doomed to slavery. There was no reasonable doubt that England had a great deal to do with this matter and that, besides her determination to carry on war against France, she was not very unwilling that the United States should also suffer the evils incident to their commerce being entirely unprotected by any naval force.
The causes of discontent which were furnished by Spain, as Marshall states, though less the theme of public declamation, continued to be considerable. That which related to the Mississippi was peculiarly embarrassing. The opinion had been industriously circulated that an opposition of interests existed between the eastern and the western people, and that the endeavors of the executive to open this great river were feeble and insincere. At a meeting of the Democratic Society in Lexington, Kentucky, this sentiment was unanimously avowed in terms of extreme disrespect to the government, and a committee was appointed to open a correspondence with the inhabitants of the entire west for the purpose of uniting them on this subject and of preparing a remonstrance to the President and Congress of the United States, to be expressed “in the bold, decent, and determined language proper to be used by injured freemen when they address the servants of the people.” They claimed much merit for having thus long abstained from using the means they possessed, for the assertion of “a natural and unalienable right,” and indicated their opinion that this forbearance could not be long continued. The probability that the public expression of these dangerous dispositions would perpetuate the evil could not moderate them. This restless temper gave additional importance to the expedition of Genet projected against Louisiana.
Private communications strengthened the apprehensions entertained by the President that hostilities with Spain were not far distant. The government had received intelligence from their ministers in Europe that propositions had been made by the Cabinet of Madrid to that of London, the object of which was the United States. The precise nature of these propositions was not ascertained, but it was understood generally that their tendency was hostile, and Washington, writing to the Secretary of War, in June, urged the importance of ascertaining the Spanish force in the Floridas and such other matters as might be necessary in view of the possible outbreak of a contest with Spain.
We must now return to Washington, who, the reader will have perceived, surrounded by the urgent nature of his official duties and the disturbed state of public affairs, had been detained at Philadelphia during a great portion of the recess of Congress. He left that place for Mount Vernon toward the end of September, after the ravages of the terrible yellow fever of 1793 had already commenced in the city. He remained at Mount Vernon till near the end of October. [4]
During this time he was in constant correspondence with the members of the Cabinet, of whom Jefferson appears to have retired to Virginia and the other heads of departments to other places to avoid the contagion of the fever.
The principal topic discussed in this correspondence was the constitutional power of the President to change the place in which Congress were to reassemble in December–Philadelphia being considered unsafe. Germantown, Wilmington, Trenton, Annapolis, Reading, and Lancaster were suggested each in turn as suitable places, but the power of the President to change the place was doubted on all hands. As the fever subsided, however, the meeting actually took place in Philadelphia on the day appointed by adjournment.
Among those whom Washington consulted on the subject of the constitutional power to change the place for the meeting of Congress was Mr. Madison. Washington’s letter to him, dated Mount Vernon, October 14, 1793, evinces his anxiety to avoid a violation of the constitution, while it presents a lively picture of the state of disorder in the departments, occasioned by the pestilence at the seat of government. “The calamitous situation of Philadelphia,” he writes, “and the little prospect, from the present appearance, of its eligibility to receive Congress by the first Monday in December, involve a serious difficulty. It has been intimated by some that the President ought, by proclamation, to convene Congress a few days before the above-mentioned period, at some other place, and by others that, although in extraordinary cases he has the power to convene, he has none to change the place. Mr. Jefferson, when here on his way home, was of the latter opinion, but the laws were not fully examined, nor was the case at that time so serious as it now is. From the Attorney- General (Randolph), to whom I have since written on this subject, requesting an official opinion, I have received no answer, nor is it likely I shall soon, as I believe he has no communication with Philadelphia. Time presses and the malady at the usual place of meeting is becoming more and more alarming. What then do you think is the most advisable course for me to pursue in the present exigency–summon Congress to meet at a certain time and place in their legislative capacity? Simply state facts and say that I will meet the members at the time and place just mentioned for ulterior arrangements? Or leave matters as they are if there is no power in the executive to alter the place legally? In the first and second cases, especially the first, the delicacy of my naming a place will readily occur to you. My wish would be that Congress could be assembled at Germantown to show that I meant no partiality, leaving it to themselves, if there should be no prospect of getting into Philadelphia soon, to decide what should be done thereafter. But accounts say that some people have died in Germantown also of the malignant fever. Every death, now, however, is ascribed to that cause, be the disorder what it may. Wilmington and Trenton are almost equidistant from Philadelphia in opposite directions, but both are on the great thoroughfare and equally exposed to danger from the multitude of travelers, and neither may have a chamber sufficient for the House of Representatives. Annapolis and Lancaster are more secure and both have good accommodations. But to name either of them, especially the first, would be thought to favor the southern convenience, and, perhaps, might be attributed to local views, especially as New York is talked of for this purpose. Reading, if there are proper conveniences there, would favor neither the southern nor northern interest most, but would be alike to both.
“I have written to Mr. Jefferson on this subject. Notwithstanding which, I would thank you for your opinion and that fully, as you see my embarrassment. I even ask more. I would thank you, not being acquainted with forms, to sketch some instrument for publication, adapted to the course you may think it would be most expedient for me to pursue in the present state of things, if the members are called together as before mentioned.
“The difficulty of keeping clerks in the public offices had in a manner put a stop to business before I left Philadelphia, and the heads of departments having matters of their own, which called them away, has prevented my return thither longer than I had intended. I have now desired the different secretaries to meet me there, or in the vicinity, the 1st of next month, for which I shall set out the 27th or the 28th of the present.
“The accounts from the city are really affecting. Two gentlemen now here from New York, Colonels Platt and Sergeant, say that they were told at the Swede’s ford of Schuylkill, by a person who had it from Governor Mifflin, that, by an official report from the mayor of the city, upward of 3,500 had died, and that the disorder was raging more violently than ever. If cool weather, accompanied by rain, does not put a stop to the malady, distressing indeed must be the case of that city, now almost depopulated by removals and deaths.” [5]
1. Footnote: The precise return was: For President George Washington, 132. For Vice-President–John Adams, 77; George Clinton, 50; Thomas Jefferson, 4; Aaron Burr, 1.
2. Footnote: Published in Arthur’s “Home Gazette.”
3. Footnote: John Quincy Adams on Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality.
4. Footnote: On the 8th of October John Hancock died at Boston.
5. Footnote: The whole number that died during the prevalence of the yellow fever in Philadelphia was over 4,000.
CHAPTER VII.
WASHINGTON SENDS JAY TO ENGLAND. 1793-1794.
The time appointed for the reassembling of Congress was the first Monday in December. Washington had arrived at Philadelphia, and the heads of departments were at their posts before the end of November.
Although the fear of contagion was not entirely dispelled when the time for the meeting of Congress arrived, yet, such was the active zeal of parties, and such the universal expectation that important executive communications would be made, and that legislative measures not less important would be founded on them, that both Houses were full on the first day, and a joint committee waited on the President with the usual information that they were ready to receive his communications.
On the 4th of December (1793), at 12, the President met both Houses in the Senate chamber. His speech was moderate, firm, dignified, and interesting. It commenced with his own re-election, his feelings at which were thus expressed:
“Since the commencement of the term for which I have been again called into office, no fit occasion has arisen for expressing to my fellow- citizens at large, the deep and respectful sense which I feel of the renewed testimony of public approbation. While, on the one hand, it awakened my gratitude for all those instances of affectionate partiality with which I have been honored by my country, on the other, it could not prevent an earnest wish for that retirement, from which no private consideration could ever have torn me. But, influenced by the belief that my conduct would be estimated according to its real motives, and that the people, and the authorities derived from them, would support exertions having nothing personal for their object, I have obeyed the suffrage which commanded me to resume the executive power, and I humbly implore that Being on whose will the fate of nations depends, to crown with success our mutual endeavors for the general happiness.” Passing to those measures which had been adopted by the executive for the regulation of its conduct toward the belligerent nations, he observed: “As soon as the war in Europe had embraced those powers with whom the United States have the most extensive relations, there was reason to apprehend that our intercourse with them might be interrupted, and our disposition for peace drawn into question by suspicions too often entertained by belligerent nations. It seemed therefore to be my duty to admonish our citizens of the consequence of a contraband trade, and of hostile acts to any of the parties, and to obtain, by a declaration of the existing state of things, an easier admission of our rights to the immunities belonging to our situation. Under these impressions the proclamation which will be laid before you was issued.
“In this posture of affairs, both new and delicate, I resolved to adopt general rules which should conform to the treaties, and assert the privileges of the United States. These were reduced into a system which shall be communicated to you.”
After suggesting those legislative provisions on this subject, the necessity of which had been pointed out by experience, he proceeded to say:
“I cannot recommend to your notice measures for the fulfillment of our duties to the rest of the world, without again pressing upon you the necessity of placing ourselves in a condition of complete defense, and of exacting from them the fulfillment of their duties toward us. The United States ought not to indulge a persuasion that, contrary to the order of human events, they will forever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it: if we desire to secure peace–one of the most powerful instruments of our prosperity– it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”
These observations were followed by a recommendation to augment the supply of arms and ammunition in the magazines, and to improve the militia establishment.
After referring to a communication to be subsequently made for occurrences relative to the connection of the United States with Europe, which had, he said, become extremely interesting, and, after reviewing Indian affairs, he particularly addressed the House of Representatives. Having presented to them in detail some subjects of which it was proper they should be informed, he added:
“No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.
“The productiveness of the public revenues hitherto has continued to be equal to the anticipations which were formed of it; but it is not expected to prove commensurate with all the objects which have been suggested. Some auxiliary provisions will therefore, it is presumed, be requisite; and it is hoped that these may be made consistently with a due regard to the convenience of our citizens who cannot but be sensible of the true wisdom of encountering a small present addition to their contributions, to obviate a future accumulation of burdens.”
The speech was concluded with the following impressive exhortation:
“The several subjects to which I have now referred, open a wide range to your deliberations and involve some of the choicest interests of our common country. Permit me to bring to your remembrance the magnitude of your task. Without an unprejudiced coolness, the welfare of the government may be hazarded; without harmony, as far as consists with freedom of sentiment, its dignity may be lost. But as the legislative proceedings of the United States will never, I trust, be reproached for the want of temper or of candor, so shall not the public happiness languish from the want of my strenuous and warmest cooperation.”
The day succeeding that on which this speech was delivered, a special message was sent to both houses containing some of the promised communications relative to the connection of the United States with foreign powers.
After suggesting, as a motive for this communication, that it not only disclosed “matter of interesting inquiry to the Legislature,” but “might indeed give rise to deliberations to which they alone were competent,” the President added:
“The representative and executive bodies of France have manifested generally a friendly attachment to this country; have given advantages to our commerce and navigation; and have made overtures for placing these advantages on permanent ground. A decree, however, of the National Assembly, subjecting vessels laden with provisions to be carried into their ports, and making enemy goods lawful prize in the vessel of a friend, contrary to our treaty, though revoked at one time as to the United States, has been since extended to their vessels also, as has been recently stated to us. Representations on the subject will be immediately given in charge to our minister there, and the result shall be communicated to the Legislature.
“It is with extreme concern I have to inform you that the person whom they have unfortunately appointed their minister plenipotentiary here, has breathed nothing of the friendly spirit of the nation which sent him. Their tendency, on the contrary, has been to involve us in a war abroad and discord and anarchy at home. So far as his acts, or those of his agents, have threatened an immediate commitment in the war, or flagrant insult to the authority of the laws, their effect has been counteracted by the ordinary cognizance of the laws and by an exertion of the powers confided to me. Where their danger was not imminent, they have been borne with, from sentiments of regard of his nation, from a sense of their friendship toward us, from a conviction that they would not suffer us to remain long exposed to the actions of a person who has so little respected our mutual dispositions, and, I will add, from a reliance on the firmness of my fellow-citizens in their principles of peace and order. In the meantime I have respected and pursued the stipulations of our treaties, according to what I judged their true sense, and have withheld no act of friendship which their affairs have called for from us, and which justice to others left us free to perform. I have gone further. Rather than employ force for the restitution of certain vessels which I deemed the United States bound to restore, I thought it more advisable to satisfy the parties by avowing it to be my opinion that, if restitution were not made, it would be incumbent on the United States to make compensation.”
The message next proceeded to state that inquiries had been instituted respecting the vexations and spoliations committed on the commerce of the United States, the result of which, when received, would be communicated.
The order issued by the British government on the 8th of June (1793), and the measures taken by the executive of the United States in consequence thereof, were briefly noticed, and the discussions which had taken place in relation to the nonexecution of the treaty of peace, were also mentioned. The message was then concluded with a reference to the negotiations with Spain. “The public good,” it was said, “requiring that the present state of these should be made known to the Legislature in confidence only, they would be the subject of a separate and subsequent communication.”
This message was accompanied with copies of the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the French minister, on the points of difference which subsisted between the two governments, together with several documents necessary for the establishment of particular facts, and with the letter written by Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris, which justified the conduct of the United States by arguments too clear to be misunderstood, and too strong ever to be controverted.
The extensive discussions which had taken place relative to the nonexecution of the treaty of peace, and the correspondence produced by the objectionable measures which had been adopted by the British government during the existing war, were also laid before the Legislature.
In a popular government the representatives of the people may generally be considered as a mirror, reflecting truly the passions and feelings which govern their constituents. In the late elections, the strength of parties had been tried, and the opposition had derived so much aid from associating the cause of France with its own principles, as to furnish much reason to suspect that, in one branch of the Legislature at least, it had become the majority. The first act of the House of Representatives served to strengthen this suspicion. By each party a candidate for the chair was brought forward, and Mr. Muhlenberg, who was supported by the opposition, was elected by a majority of ten votes, against Mr. Sedgewick, whom the Federalists supported.
The answer, however, to Washington’s speech, bore no tinge of that malignant and furious spirit which had infused itself into the publications of the day. Breathing the same affectionate attachment to his person and character which had been professed in other times, and being approved by every part of the House, it indicated that the leaders, at least, still venerated their chief magistrate, and that no general intention as yet existed to involve him in the obloquy directed against his measures.
Noticing that unanimous suffrage by which he had been again called to his present station, “it was,” they said, “with equal sincerity and promptitude they embraced the occasion for expressing to him their congratulations on so distinguished a testimony of public approbation, and their entire confidence in the purity and patriotism of the motives which had produced this obedience to the voice of his country. It is,” proceeded the address, “to virtues which have commanded long and universal reverence, and services from which have flowed great and lasting benefits, that the tribute of praise may be paid without the reproach of flattery; and it is from the same sources that the fairest anticipations may be derived in favor of the public happiness.”
The proclamation of neutrality was approved in guarded terms, and the topics of the speech were noticed in a manner which indicated dispositions cordially to cooperate with the executive.
On the part of the Senate, also, the answer to the speech was unfeignedly affectionate. In warm terms they expressed the pleasure which the re-election of Washington gave them. “In the unanimity,” they added, “which a second time marks this important national act, we trace with particular satisfaction, besides the distinguished tribute paid to the virtues and abilities which it recognizes, another proof of that discernment, and constancy of sentiments and views, which have hitherto characterized the citizens of the United States.” Speaking of the proclamation, they declared it to be “a measure well timed and wise, manifesting a watchful solicitude for the welfare of the nation, and calculated to promote it.”
In a few days a confidential message from Washington was delivered, communicating the critical situation of affairs with Spain. The negotiations attempted with that power in regard to the interesting objects of boundary, navigation, and commerce, had been exposed to much delay and embarrassment, in consequence of the changes which the French revolution had effected in the political state of Europe. Meanwhile, the neighborhood of the Spanish colonies to the United States had given rise to various other subjects of discussion, one of which had assumed a very serious aspect.
Having the best reason to suppose that the hostility of the southern Indians was excited by the agents of Spain, Washington had directed the American commissioners at Madrid to make the proper representations on the subject and to propose that each nation should, with good faith, promote the peace of the other with their savage neighbors.
About the same time the Spanish government entertained, or affected to entertain, corresponding suspicions of like hostile excitements by the agents of the United States, to disturb their peace with the same nations. The representations which were induced by these real or affected suspicions were accompanied with pretensions and made in a style to which the American executive could not be inattentive. The King of Spain asserted these claims as a patron and protector of those Indians. He assumed a right to mediate between them and the United States, and to interfere in the establishment of their boundaries. At length, in the very moment when those savages were committing daily inroads on the American frontier, at the instigation of Spain, as was believed, the representatives of that power, complaining of the aggressions of American citizens on the Indians, declared “that the continuation of the peace, good harmony, and perfect friendship of the two nations was very problematical for the future, unless the United States should take more convenient measures, and of greater energy than those adopted for a long time past.”
Notwithstanding the zeal and enthusiasm with which the pretensions of the French republic, as asserted by their minister Genet, continued to be supported out of doors, they found no open advocate in either branch of the Legislature. This circumstance is, in a great measure, to be ascribed to the temperate conduct of the executive, and to the convincing arguments with which its decisions were supported.
But when it is recollected that the odium which these decisions excited sustained no diminution; that the accusation of hostility to France and to liberty, which originated in them, was not retracted; that, when afterwards many of the controverted claims were renewed by France, her former advocates still adhered to her; it is not unreasonable to suppose that other considerations mingled themselves with the conviction which the correspondence laid before the Legislature was calculated to produce.
An attack on the administration could be placed on no ground more disadvantageous than on its controversy with Mr. Genet. The conduct and language of that minister were offensive to reflecting men of all parties. The President had himself taken so decisive a part in favor of the measures which had been adopted that they must be ascribed to him, not to his Cabinet, and, of consequence, the whole weight of his personal character must be directly encountered in an attempt to censure those measures. From this censure it would have been difficult to extricate the person who was contemplated by the party in opposition as its chief; for the Secretary of State had urged the arguments of the administration with a degree of ability and earnestness, which ought to have silenced the suspicion that he might not feel their force. [1]
The expression of a legislative opinion, in favor of the points insisted on by the French minister, would probably have involved the nation in a calamitous war, the whole responsibility for which would rest on them. To these considerations was added another, which could not be disregarded. The party in France, to which Mr. Genet owed his appointment, had lost its power, and his fall was the inevitable consequence of the fall of his patrons. That he would probably be recalled was known in America, and that his conduct had been disapproved by his government, was generally believed. The future system of the French republic, with regard to the United States, could not be foreseen, and it would be committing something to hazard not to wait its development.
These objections did not exist to an indulgence of the partialities and prejudices of the nation towards the belligerent powers in measures suggested by its resentment against Great Britain. But, independent of these considerations, it is scarcely possible to doubt that Congress really approved the conduct of the executive with regard to France, and was also convinced that a course of hostility had been pursued by Great Britain which the national interest and national honor required them to repel. In the irritable state of the public mind, it was not difficult to produce this opinion.
Early in the session a report was made by Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Representatives, passed on the 23d of February, 1791, requiring him “to report to Congress the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and the measures which he should think proper to be adopted for the improvement of the commerce and navigation of the same.”
This report stated the exports of the United States in articles of their own produce and manufacture, at $19,587,055, and the imports at $19,823,060.
Of the exports, nearly one-half was carried to the kingdom of Great Britain and its dominions; of the imports, about four-fifths were brought from the same countries. The American shipping amounted to 277,519 tons, of which not quite one-sixth was employed in the trade with Great Britain and its dominions.
In all the nations of Europe, most of the articles produced in the United States were subject to heavy duties, and some of them were prohibited. In England, the trade of the United States was in general on as good a footing as the trade of other countries, and several articles were more favored than the same articles, the growth of other countries.
The statements and arguments of this report tended to enforce the policy of making discriminations which might favor the commerce of the United States with France and discourage that with England, and which might promote the increase of American navigation as a branch of industry and a resource of defense.
This was the last official act of the Secretary of State. Early in the preceding summer he had signified to the President his intention to retire in September from the public service, and had, with some reluctance, consented to postpone the execution of this intention to the close of the year. Retaining his purpose, he resigned his office on the last day of December. He was succeeded by Edmund Randolph, whose place as Attorney-General was supplied by William Bradford, of Pennsylvania.
On the 4th of January (1794), the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the report of the Secretary of State, relative to the restrictions of the commerce of the United States, when Mr. Madison, after some prefatory observations, laid on the table a series of resolutions for the consideration of the members.
These memorable resolutions embraced almost completely the idea of the report. They imposed an additional duty on the manufactures, and on the tonnage of vessels of nations having no commercial treaty with the United States; while they reduced the duties already imposed by law on the tonnage of vessels belonging to nations having such commercial treaty, and they reciprocated the restrictions which were imposed on American navigation.
The resolutions were taken up on the 13th of January (1794), and the consideration of them led to protracted and very animated debates. The friends of the administration regarded Mr. Madison’s scheme as directly hostile to England and subservient to the views of France, in a degree utterly inconsistent with the policy of neutrality. On the other hand, the opposition insisted that the proposed measures were absolutely necessary to protect the commerce of the country from aggression and plunder.
Mr. Madison, in advocating the views which he held, looked especially to measures correspondent to the British navigation act, which had given England the command of the sea. He contended that America would thrive more from exclusion and contest, than from conciliating and stooping to a power that slighted her; and that now was the moment, if ever, when England was engaged in mortal strife with France, to bring her to reason. [2] Mr. Madison’s plan was debated at different periods of the session, and underwent considerable modification in its progress through the House, where a resolution was finally adopted retaining the principle of commercial restrictions. It was rejected in the Senate by the casting vote of Mr. Adams, the Vice-President.
Early in January, a resolution was agreed to in the House, declaring “that a naval force, adequate to the protection of the commerce of the United States against the Algerine corsairs, ought to be provided.” The force proposed was to consist of six frigates.
This measure was founded on the communications of the President respecting the improbability of being able to negotiate a peace with the Dey of Algiers; and on undoubted information that these pirates had, during their first short cruise in the Atlantic, captured eleven American merchantmen, and made upwards of 100 prisoners, and were preparing to renew their attack on the unprotected vessels of the United States. This bill was strongly opposed, but finally passed both houses, and was approved by the President.
While these debates were going on, the news of the British order in council of the 6th of November (which had not become known to the American minister in England until the close of December, 1793), relative to the French West India trade, arrived in the United States, and roused afresh the hostility against England. Such was the threatening aspect of affairs, that early in the session a committee of the House was instructed to prepare and report an estimate of the expense requisite to place the principal seaports of the country in a state of defense.
That some steps should be taken to resist aggressions on the part of England, was very evident; but the members of Congress differed as to what measures ought to be adopted. The opponents of the administration urged the adoption of commercial restrictions, while its supporters, with the President himself, were in favor of a different course. Various plans were submitted to the House by members, in accordance with their different views of the subject.
On the 12th of March (1794) Mr. Sedgwick moved several resolutions, the objects of which were to raise a military force, and to authorize the President to lay an embargo. The armament was to consist of 15,000 men, who should be brought into actual service in case of war with any European power, but not until war should break out. In the meantime they were to receive pay while assembled for the purpose of discipline, which was not to exceed twenty-four days in each year.
After stating the motives which led to the introduction of these resolutions they were laid on the table for the consideration of the members.
On the 21st of March Mr. Sedgwick’s motion, authorizing the President to lay an embargo, was negatived by a majority of two votes, but in a few days the consideration of that subject was resumed, and a resolution passed prohibiting all trade from the United States to any foreign port or place for thirty days, and empowering the President to carry the resolution into effect.
On the 27th of March Mr. Dayton moved a resolution for sequestering all debts due to British subjects, and for taking means to secure their payment into the treasury, as a fund out of which to indemnify the citizens of the United States for depredations committed on their commerce by British cruisers, in violation of the laws of nations.
The debate on this resolution was such as was to be expected from the irritable state of the public mind. The invectives against the British nation were uttered with peculiar vehemence, and were mingled with allusions to the exertions of the government for the preservation of neutrality, censuring strongly the system which had been pursued.
Before any question was taken on the proposition for sequestering British debts, and without a decision on those proposed by Mr. Madison, Mr. Clarke moved a resolution which in some degree suspended the commercial regulations that had been so earnestly debated. This was to prohibit all intercourse with Great Britain until her government should make full compensation for all injuries done to the citizens of the United States by armed vessels, or by any person or persons acting under the authority of the British King, and until the western posts should be delivered up.
On the 4th of April (1794) before any decision was made on the several propositions which have been stated, the President laid before Congress a letter just received from Thomas Pinckney, the minister of the United States at London, communicating additional instructions to the commanders of British armed ships, which were dated the 8th of January. These instructions revoked those of the 6th of November (1793), and, instead of bringing in for adjudication all neutral vessels trading with the French islands, British cruisers were directed to bring in those only which were laden with cargoes the produce of the French islands, and were on a direct voyage from those islands to Europe.
The letter detailed a conversation with Lord Grenville on this subject, in which his lordship explained the motives which had originally occasioned the order of the 6th of November, and gave to it a less extensive signification than it had received in the courts of vice- admiralty.
It was intended, he said, to be temporary and was calculated to answer two purposes. One was to prevent the abuses which might take place in consequence of the whole of the St. Domingo fleet having gone to the United States; the other was on account of the attack designed upon the French West India islands by the armament under Sir John Jervis and Sir Charles Grey; but it was now no longer necessary to continue the regulations for those purposes. His lordship added that the order of the 6th of November did not direct the confiscation of all vessels trading with the French islands, but only that they should be brought in for legal adjudication, and he conceived that no vessel would be condemned under it which would not have been previously liable to the same sentence.
The influence of this communication on the party in the Legislature which was denominated Federal was very considerable. Believing that the existing differences between the two nations still admitted of explanation and adjustment, they strenuously opposed all measures which were irritating in their tendency or which might be construed into a dereliction of the neutral character they were desirous of maintaining, but they gave all their weight to those which, by putting the nation in a posture of defense, prepared it for war should negotiation fail.
On the opposite party no change of sentiment or of views appears to have been produced. Their system seems to have been matured, and not to have originated in the feelings of the moment. They adhered to it, therefore, with inflexible perseverance, but seemed not anxious to press an immediate determination of the propositions which had been made. These propositions were discussed with great animation, but, notwithstanding an ascertained majority in their favor, were permitted to remain undecided, as if their fate depended on some extrinsic circumstance.
Meanwhile, great exertions were made to increase the public agitation and to stimulate the resentments which were felt against Great Britain. The artillery of the press was played with unceasing fury on the minority of the House of Representatives and the democratic societies brought their whole force into operation. Language will scarcely afford terms of greater outrage than were employed against those who sought to stem the torrent of public opinion and to moderate the rage of the moment. They were denounced as a British faction, seeking to impose chains on their countrymen. Even the majority was declared to be but half roused and to show little of that energy and decision which the crisis required.
The proceedings of Congress continued to manifest a fixed purpose to pursue the system which had been commenced, and the public sentiment seemed to accord with that system. That the nation was advancing rapidly to a state of war was firmly believed by many intelligent men, who doubted the necessity and denied the policy of abandoning the neutral position which had been thus long maintained. In addition to the extensive calamities which must, in any state of things, result to the United States from a rupture with a nation which was the mistress of the ocean, and which furnished the best market for the sale of their produce and the purchase of manufactures of indispensable necessity, there were considerations belonging exclusively to the moment, which, though operating only in a narrow circle, were certainly entitled to great respect. [3]
That war with Britain, during the continuance of the passionate and almost idolatrous devotion of a great majority of the people to the French republic, would throw America so completely into the arms of France as to leave her no longer mistress of her own conduct, was not the only fear which the temper of the day suggested. That the spirit which triumphed in that nation and deluged it with the blood of its revolutionary champions might cross the Atlantic, and desolate the hitherto safe and peaceful dwellings of the American people, was an apprehension not so entirely unsupported by appearances as to be pronounced chimerical. With a blind infatuation, which treated reason as a criminal, immense numbers applauded a furious despotism, trampling on every right, and sporting with life as the essence of liberty; and the few who conceived freedom to be a plant which did not flourish the better for being nourished with human blood, and who ventured to disapprove the ravages of the guillotine, were execrated as the tools of the coalesced despots, and as persons who, to weaken the affection of America for France, became the calumniators of that republic. Already had an imitative spirit, captivated with the splendor, but copying the errors, of a great nation, reared up in every part of the continent self-created corresponding societies, who, claiming to be the people, assumed a control over the government and were loosening its bands. Already were the Mountain, [4] and a revolutionary tribunal, favorite toasts, and already were principles familiarly proclaimed, which, in France, had been the precursors of that tremendous and savage despotism, which, in the name of the people and by the instrumentality of affiliated societies, had spread its terrific sway over that fine country and had threatened to extirpate all that was wise and virtuous. That a great majority of those statesmen who conducted the opposition would deprecate such a result furnished no security against it. When the physical force of a nation usurps the place of its wisdom, those who have produced such a state of things no longer control it.
These apprehensions, whether well or ill founded, produced in those who felt them an increased solicitude for the preservation of peace. Their aid was not requisite to confirm the judgment of Washington on this interesting subject. Fixed in his purpose of maintaining the neutrality of the United States until the aggressions of a foreign power should clearly render neutrality incompatible with honor, and conceiving from the last advices received from England that the differences between the two nations had not yet attained that point, he determined to make one decisive effort, which should either remove the ostensible causes of quarrel or demonstrate the indisposition of Great Britain to remove them. This determination was executed by the nomination of an envoy extraordinary to his Britannic majesty, which was announced to the Senate on the 16th of April (1794), in the following terms:
“The communications which I have made to you during your present session, from the dispatches of our minister in London, contain a serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain. But as peace ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal, before the last resource–which has so often been the scourge of nations and cannot fail to check the advanced prosperity of the United States–is contemplated, I have thought proper to nominate and do hereby nominate John Jay as envoy extraordinary of the United States to his Britannic majesty. [5]
“My confidence in our minister plenipotentiary in London continues undiminished. But a mission like this, while it corresponds with the solemnity of the occasion, will announce to the world a solicitude for the friendly adjustment of our complaints and a reluctance to hostility. Going immediately from the United States, such an envoy will carry with him a full knowledge of the existing temper and sensibility of our country, and will thus be taught to vindicate our rights with firmness and to cultivate peace with sincerity.”
To those who believed the interests of the nation to require a rupture with England and a still closer connection with France nothing could be more unlooked for or more unwelcome than this decisive measure. That it would influence the proceedings of Congress could not be doubted, and that it would materially affect the public mind was probable. Evincing the opinion of the executive that negotiation, not legislative hostility, was still the proper medium for accommodating differences with Great Britain, it threw on the Legislature a great responsibility, if they should persist in a system calculated to defeat that negotiation. By showing to the people that their President did not yet believe war to be necessary, it turned the attention of many to peace, and, by suggesting the probability, rekindled the almost extinguished desire of preserving that blessing.
Scarcely has any public act of the President drawn upon his administration a greater degree of censure than this. That such would be its effect could not be doubted by a person who had observed the ardor with which opinions that it thwarted were embraced, or the extremity to which the passions and contests of the moment had carried all orders of men. But it is the province of real patriotism to consult the utility more than the popularity of a measure, and to pursue the path of duty, although it may be rugged.
In the Senate the nomination was approved by a majority of ten votes, and, in the House of Representatives, it was urged as an argument against persevering in the system which had been commenced. On the 18th of April a motion for taking up the report of the committee of the whole house on the resolution for cutting off all commercial intercourse with Great Britain was opposed chiefly on the ground that, as an envoy had been nominated to the court of that country, no obstacle ought to be thrown in his way. The adoption of the resolution would be a bar to negotiation, because it used the language of menace and manifested a partiality to one of the belligerents which was incompatible with neutrality. It was also an objection to the resolution that it prescribed the terms on which alone a treaty should be made, and was, consequently, an infringement of the right of the executive to negotiate, and an indelicacy to that department.
The resolution having undergone some modifications, a bill in conformity with it was brought in and carried by a considerable majority. In the Senate it was lost by the casting vote of Mr. Adams, the Vice-President. The system which had been taken up in the House of Representatives was pressed no further.
A bill for punishing infringements of the neutrality laws and prohibiting the condemnation and sale of prizes in the ports of the United States, brought in by the belligerent powers, was suggested by Washington and reported in the Senate, where it met a violent opposition and was finally passed by the casting vote of the Vice-President. In the House of Representatives it was passed after striking out the provision relative to the sale of prizes. In maintaining his system of strict neutrality Washington had to fight every inch of the ground. The opposition omitted no means of bringing the administration into discredit. Attacks in Congress on the executive officers of the government was resorted to.
In both houses inquiries were set on foot respecting the treasury department, which obviously originated in the hope of finding some foundation for censuring Mr. Hamilton, the secretary, but which failed entirely. In a similar hope, as respected Gouverneur Morris, the minister of the United States at Paris, the Senate passed a vote requesting the President to lay before that body his correspondence with the French republic, and also with the Department of State.
As a war with Great Britain seemed inevitable should the mission of Mr. Jay prove unsuccessful, Congress did not adjourn without passing the absolutely necessary laws for putting the country in a state of defense. Provision was made for fortifying the principal harbors, and 80,000 militia were ordered to be in readiness for active service. Arms and munitions of war were allowed to be imported free of duty, and the President was authorized to purchase galleys and lay an embargo if he should deem that the public interest required it. To meet the expenses thus incurred duties were levied on a number of additional articles of importation.
On the 9th of June (1794) this active and stormy session was closed by an adjournment to the first Monday in the succeeding November.
“The public,” says Marshall, “was not less agitated than the Legislature had been by those interesting questions which had occasioned some of the most animated and eloquent discussions that had ever taken place on the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Madison’s resolutions especially continued to be the theme of general conversation, and, for a long time, divided parties throughout the United States. The struggle for public opinion was ardent, and each party supported its pretensions, not only with those arguments which each deemed conclusive, but also by those reciprocal criminations which, perhaps, each in part believed.
“The opposition declared that the friends of the administration were an aristocratic and corrupt faction, who, from a desire to introduce monarchy, were hostile to France, and under the influence of Britain; that they sought every occasion to increase expense, to augment debt, to multiply the public burdens, to create armies and navies, and, by the instrumentality of all this machinery, to govern and enslave the people; that they were a paper nobility, whose extreme sensibility at every measure which threatened the funds, induced a tame submission to injuries and insults, which the interest and the honor of the nation required them to resist.
“The friends of the administration retorted that the opposition was prepared to sacrifice the best interests of their country on the altar of the French revolution; that they were willing to go to war for French, not for American objects; that while they urged war they withheld the means of supporting it in order the more effectually to humble and disgrace the government; that they were so blinded by their passion for France as to confound crimes with meritorious deeds, and to abolish the natural distinction between virtue and vice; that the principles which they propagated and with which they sought to intoxicate the people were, in practice, incompatible with the existence of government; that they were the apostles of anarchy, not of freedom, and were, consequently, not the friends of real and rational liberty.”
Immediately after the adjournment of Congress, Washington paid a short visit to Mount Vernon. On the 19th of June he writes from Baltimore to Randolph, Secretary of State, respecting the commission and letters of credence of John Quincy Adams, whom he had recently appointed minister resident to the United Netherlands. From the same place, on the same day, he writes to Gouverneur Morris, who had recently been recalled from France at the request of the revolutionary authorities, he having pretty openly expressed his disapprobation of the excesses of the party in power. Washington had appointed as his successor James Monroe, who, as senator, had uniformly opposed the measures of the administration. Such an act of magnanimity in these times would excite considerable surprise.
On the 25th of June (1794), after his arrival at Mount Vernon, Washington again writes to Gouverneur Morris, who still retained his warm friendship and confidence. Speaking of his political course, he says: “My primary objects, to which I have steadily adhered, have been to preserve the country in peace if I can, and to be prepared for war if I cannot; to effect the first upon terms consistent with the respect which is due to ourselves and with honor, justice, and good faith to all the world.”
On the same day he writes to Edmund Randolph, Secretary of State: “I shall endeavor to be back by the time I allotted before I left Philadelphia, if I am able, but an exertion to save myself and horse from falling among the rocks at the lower falls of the Potomac, whither I went on Sunday morning to see the canal and locks, has wrenched my back in such a manner as to prevent my riding, and hitherto has defeated the purposes for which I came home. My stay here will only be until I can ride with ease and safety, whether I accomplish my own business or not.”
In July (1794) Washington returned to Philadelphia, where very weighty matters were demanding his attention.
1. Footnote: Marshall.
2. Footnote: Madison, on this and other occasions, appears to have been earnestly desirous to build up an extensive mercantile marine, with a view to the formation of an efficient navy. It is pleasant to recollect that, under his administration as President, the proudest triumphs of our navy were achieved.
3. Footnote: Marshall.
4. Footnote: A well-known term designating the most violent party in France.
5. Footnote: Mr. Jay’s secretary on this mission was Col. John Trumbull. Colonel Trumbull may be considered one of the most interesting among the many remarkable characters called into action and developed by our Revolutionary War. All that we know of him tends to raise him in our estimation as a soldier, a gentleman, and an artist. When accidentally, as he thought, but providentially, as the event proved, he was excluded from the army, he deemed it a great misfortune, but it forced upon him the cultivation of his art, and made him the painter of the Revolution. His noble historical paintings are the most precious relics of that heroic age which the nation possesses. They are justly prized above all price; and the latest posterity will rejoice that Trumbull laid down the sword to take up the pallet and pencil.
CHAPTER VIII.
WASHINGTON QUELLS THE WESTERN INSURRECTION. 1794.
While Congress was in session several important matters had claimed the consideration of Washington, to which we will now call the reader’s attention. It will be recollected that a request of the executive for the recall of Mr. Genet had been transmitted to the French government. During the time which elapsed before an answer could be returned Genet’s proceedings had been such as to call for all the prudence, foresight, and moderation of Washington.
In that spirit of conciliation which adopts the least irritating means for effecting its objects, Washington had resolved to bear with the insults, the resistance, and the open defiance of Genet until his appeal to the friendship and the policy of the French republic should be fairly tried. Early in January (1794) this resolution was shaken by fresh proofs of the perseverance of that minister in a line of conduct not to be tolerated by a nation which has not surrendered all pretensions to self-government. Genet had meditated and deliberately planned two expeditions, to be carried on from the territories of the United States against the dominions of Spain, and had, as minister of the French republic, granted commissions to citizens of the United States, who were privately recruiting troops for the proposed service. The first was destined against Florida and the second against Louisiana. The detail of the plans had been settled. The pay, rations, clothing, plunder, and division of the conquered lands to be allotted to the military and the proportion of the acquisitions to be reserved to the republic of France were arranged. The troops destined to act against Florida were to be raised in the three southern States, were to rendezvous in Georgia, were to be aided by a body of Indians, and were to cooperate with the French fleet, should one arrive on the coast. This scheme had been the subject of a correspondence between the executive and Genet, but was in full progress in the preceding December, when, by the vigilance of the Legislature of South Carolina, it was more particularly developed, and some of the principal agents were arrested.
About the same time, intelligence less authentic, but wearing every circumstance of probability, was received, stating that the expedition against Louisiana, which was to be carried on down the Ohio from Kentucky, was in equal maturity.
This intelligence seemed to render a further forbearance incompatible with the dignity of the United States. The question of superseding the diplomatic functions of Genet and depriving him of the privileges attached to that character was brought before the Cabinet, and a message to Congress was prepared, communicating these transactions and avowing a determination to adopt that measure, unless one or the other House should signify the opinion that it was not advisable so to do, when the business was arrested by receiving a letter from Mr. Morris announcing officially the recall of this rash minister. Mr. Fauchet, the successor of Genet, arrived in February (1794), and brought with him strong assurances that his government totally disapproved the conduct of his predecessor. He avowed a determination to avoid whatever might be offensive to those to whom he was deputed, and a wish to carry into full effect the friendly dispositions of his nation toward the United States. For some time his actions were in the spirit of these professions.
Not long after the arrival of Mr. Fauchet, the executive government of France requested the recall of Gouverneur Morris. With this request Washington, as we have already seen, immediately complied, and James Monroe was appointed to succeed him.
The discontents which had been long fomented in the western country had assumed a serious and alarming appearance. A remonstrance to the President and Congress of the United States from the inhabitants of Kentucky, respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, was laid before the executive and each branch of the Legislature. The style of this paper accorded well with the instructions under which it had been prepared. It demanded the free navigation of the Mississippi as a right, and arraigned the government for not having secured its enjoyment. The paper was submitted to both Houses of Congress.
In the Senate the subject was referred to a committee who reported “that in the negotiation now carrying on at Madrid between the United States and Spain, the right of the former to the free navigation of the Mississippi is well asserted and demonstrated, and their claim to its enjoyment is pursued with all the assiduity and firmness which the magnitude of the subject demands, and will doubtless continue to be so pursued until the object shall be obtained or adverse circumstances shall render the further progress of the negotiation impracticable. That in the present state of the business it would improper for Congress to interfere, but, in order to satisfy the citizens of the United States more immediately interested in the event of this negotiation, that the United States, have uniformly asserted their right to the free use of the navigation of the river Mississippi, and have employed and will continue to pursue such measures as are best adapted to obtain the enjoyment of this important territorial right, the committee recommend that it be resolved by the Senate:
“That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is requested to cause to be communicated to the executive of the State of Kentucky, such part of the existing negotiation between the United States and Spain relative to this subject, as he may deem advisable and consistent with the course of the negotiation.”
In the House of Representatives also a resolution was passed, expressing the conviction of the House, that the executive was urging the claim of the United States to the navigation of the Mississippi in the manner most likely to prove successful.
This answer was not satisfactory to the Kentuckians. Later developments showed that they had a different object from that of obtaining the free navigation of the Mississippi by negotiation.
In October, 1793, it was alleged by the Spanish commissioners that four Frenchmen had left Philadelphia, empowered by the minister of the French republic to prepare an expedition, in Kentucky, against New Orleans. This fact was immediately communicated by Mr. Jefferson to the governor of that State, with a request that he would use those means of prevention which the law enabled him to employ. This letter was accompanied by one from the Secretary of War, conveying the request of the President, that, if preventive means should fail, effectual military force should then be employed to arrest the expedition, and General Wayne was ordered to hold a body of troops at the disposal of the governor should he find the militia insufficient for his purpose.
The governor had already received information that a citizen of Kentucky was in possession of a commission appointing him Commander-in-Chief of the proposed expedition; and that the Frenchmen alluded to in the letter of Mr. Jefferson had arrived, and, far from affecting concealment, declared that they only waited for money, which they expected soon to receive, in order to commence their operations.
The governor, however, in a letter, containing very singular views of his duty in the affair, declined to interfere with the proposed expedition.
Upon the receipt of this extraordinary letter, Washington directed General Wayne to establish a military post at Fort Massac, on the Ohio, for the purpose of stopping by force, if peaceful means should fail, any body of armed men who should be proceeding down that river.
This precaution appears to have been necessary. The preparations for the expedition were, for some time, carried on with considerable activity; and there is reason to believe that it was not absolutely relinquished until the war ceased between France and Spain.
It will be recollected that, in the preceding year, the attempt to treat with the hostile Indians had suspended the operations of General Wayne until the season for action had nearly passed away. After the total failure of negotiation, the campaign was opened with as much vigor as a prudent attention to circumstances would permit.
The Indians had expected an attempt upon their villages, and had collected in full force, with the apparent determination of risking a battle in their defense. A battle was desired by the American general, but the consequences of another defeat were too serious to warrant him in putting more to hazard by precipitate movements than the circumstances of the war required. The negotiations with the Indians were not terminated till September, and it was then too late to complete the preparations which would enable General Wayne to accomplish his object. He, therefore, contented himself with collecting his army and penetrating about six miles in advance of Fort Jefferson, where he established himself for the winter in a camp called Greensville. After fortifying his camp, he took possession of the ground on which the Americans had been defeated in 1791, where he erected Fort Recovery. These positions afforded considerable protection to the frontiers, and facilitated the opening of the ensuing campaign.
Seeing only the dark side of every measure adopted by the government, and not disinclined to militia expeditions made at the expense of the United States, the people of Kentucky loudly charged the President with a total disregard of their safety, pronounced the Continental troops entirely useless, declared that the Indians should be kept in awe alone by the militia, and insisted that the power should be deposited with some person in their State to call them out at his discretion, at the charge of the United States.
Meanwhile, some steps were taken by the Governor of Upper Canada, which were well calculated to increase suspicions respecting the dispositions of Great Britain.
It was believed by Washington, not without cause, that the cabinet of London was disposed to avail itself of the nonexecution of that article of the treaty of peace which stipulates for the payment of debts, to justify a permanent detention of the posts on the southern side of the lakes, and to establish a new boundary line, whereby those lakes should be entirely comprehended in Upper Canada. Early in the spring a detachment from the garrison of Detroit repossessed and fortified a position nearly fifty miles south of that station, on the Miami, a river which empties into Lake Erie at its westernmost point.
This movement, and other facts which strengthened the belief that the hostile Indians were at least countenanced by the English, were the subjects of a correspondence between the Secretary of State and Mr. Hammond, in which crimination was answered by recrimination, in which a considerable degree of mutual irritation was displayed, and in which each supported his charges against the nation of the other, much better than he defended his own. It did not, however, in any manner, affect the operations of the army.
The delays inseparable from the transportation of necessary supplies through an uninhabited country, infested by an active enemy peculiarly skilled in partisan war, unavoidably protracted the opening of the campaign until near midsummer. Meanwhile several sharp skirmishes took place, in one of which a few white men were stated to be mingled with the Indians.
On the 8th of August (1794) General Wayne reached the confluence of the Au Glaize, where he threw up some works of defense and protection for magazines. The richest and most extensive settlements of the western Indians lay about this place.
The mouth of the Au Glaize is distant about thirty miles from the post occupied by the British, in the vicinity of which the whole strength of the enemy, amounting, according to intelligence on which General Wayne relied, to rather less than 2,000 men, was collected. The Continental legion was not much inferior in number to the Indians, and a reinforcement of about 1,100 mounted militia from Kentucky, commanded by General Scott, gave a decided superiority of strength to the army of Wayne. That the Indians had determined to give him battle was well understood, and the discipline of his legion, the ardor of all his troops, and the superiority of his numbers, authorized him confidently to expect a favorable issue. Yet, in pursuance of that policy by which the United States had been uniformly actuated, he determined to make one more effort for the attainment of peace without bloodshed. Messengers were dispatched to the several hostile tribes who were assembled in his front, inviting them to appoint deputies to meet him on his march, in order to negotiate a lasting peace.
On the 15th of August (1794) the American army advanced down the Miami, with its right covered by that river, and on the 18th arrived at the rapids. Here they halted on the 19th, in order to erect a temporary work for the protection of the baggage and to reconnoiter the situation of the enemy.
The Indians were advantageously posted behind a thick wood, and behind the British fort.
At 8 in the morning of the 20th the American army advanced in columns, the legion with its right flank covered by the Miami. One brigade of mounted volunteers, commanded by General Todd, was on the left; and the other, under General Barbee, was in the rear. A select battalion, commanded by Major Price, moved in front of the legion, sufficiently in advance to give timely notice for the troops to form in case of action.
After marching about five miles Major Price received a heavy fire from a concealed enemy, and was compelled to retreat.
The Indians had chosen their ground with judgment. They had advanced into the thick wood in front of the British works, which extends several miles west from the Miami, and had taken a position rendered almost inaccessible to horse by a quantity of fallen timber which appeared to have been blown up in a tornado. They were formed in three lines, within supporting distance of each other; and, as is their custom, with a very extended front. Their line stretched to the west, at right angles with the river, about two miles, and their immediate effort was to turn the left flank of the American army.
On the discharge of the first rifle, the legion was formed in two lines, and the front was ordered to advance with trailed arms and rouse the enemy from his covert at the point of the bayonet; then, and not until then, to deliver a fire, and to press the fugitives too closely to allow them time to load after discharging their pieces. Soon perceiving the strength of the enemy in front, and that he was endeavoring to turn the American left, the general ordered the second line to support the first. The legion cavalry, led by Captain Campbell, was directed to penetrate between the Indians and the river, where the wood was less thick and entangled, in order to charge their left flank; and General Scott, at the head of the mounted volunteers, was directed to make a considerable circuit, and to turn their right flank.
These orders were executed with spirit and promptitude, but such was the impetuosity of the charge made by the first line of infantry, so entirely was the enemy broken by it, and so rapid was the pursuit that only a small part of the second line and of the mounted volunteers could get into action. In the course of one hour the Indians were driven more than two miles through thick woods, when the pursuit terminated within gunshot of the British fort.
General Wayne remained three days on the banks of the Miami, in front of the field of battle, during which time the houses and cornfields above and below the fort, some of them within pistol-shot of it, were reduced to ashes. In the course of these operations a correspondence took place between General Wayne and Major Campbell, the commandant of the fort, which is stated by the former in such a manner as to show that hostilities between them were avoided only by the prudent acquiescence of the latter in this devastation of property within the range of his guns.
On the 28th (August, 1794), the army returned to Au Glaize by easy marches, destroying on its route all the villages and corn within fifty miles of the river.
In this decisive battle the loss of the Americans in killed and wounded, amounted to 107, including officers. Among the dead were Captain Campbell, who commanded the cavalry, and Lieutenant Towles of the infantry, both of whom fell in the first charge. General Wayne bestowed great and well-merited praise on the courage and alacrity displayed by every part of the army.
The hostility of the Indians still continuing, their whole country was laid waste, and forts were erected in the heart of their settlements to prevent their return.
This seasonable victory rescued the United States from a general war with all the Indians northwest of the Ohio. The Six Nations had discovered a restless, uneasy temper, and the interposition of the President to prevent a settlement which Pennsylvania was about to make at Presque Isle seemed rather to suspend the commencement of hostilities than to establish permanent pacific dispositions among those tribes. The battle of the 20th of August, however, had an immediate effect, and the clouds which had been long gathering in that quarter were instantly dissipated.
In the South, too, its influence was felt. In that quarter the inhabitants of Georgia and the Indians seemed equally disposed to war. Scarcely was the feeble authority of the government competent to restrain the aggressions of the former, or the dread of its force sufficient to repress those of the latter. In this doubtful state of things, the effect of a victory could not be inconsiderable.
About this time the seditions and violent resistance to the execution of the law imposing duties on spirits distilled within the United States had advanced to a point in the counties of Pennsylvania lying west of the Allegheny mountains, which required the decisive interposition of government.
The laws being openly set at defiance, Washington determined to test their efficiency. Bills of indictment were found against the perpetrators of certain outrages, and process was issued against them and placed in the hands of the United States marshal for execution.
The marshal repaired in person to the country which was the scene of disorder for the purpose of serving the processes. On the 15th of July (1794), while in the execution of his duty, he was beset on the road by a body of armed men, who fired on him, but fortunately did him no personal injury. At daybreak the ensuing morning a party attacked the house of General Nevil, the inspector, but he defended himself resolutely and obliged the assailants to retreat.
Knowing well that this attack had been preconcerted, and apprehending that it would be repeated, he applied to the militia officers and magistrates of the county for protection. The answer was that, “owing to the too general combination of the people to oppose the revenue system, the laws could not be executed so as to afford him protection; that should the _posse comitatus_ be ordered out to support the civil authority they would favor the party of the rioters.”
On the succeeding day the insurgents reassembled to the number of about 500 to renew their attack on the house of the inspector. That officer, finding that no protection could be afforded by the civil authority, had applied to the commanding officer at Fort Pitt, and had obtained a detachment of eleven men from that garrison, who were joined by Major Kirkpatrick. Successful resistance to so great a force being obviously impracticable, a parley took place, at which the assailants, after requiring that the inspector and all his papers should be delivered up, demanded that the party in the house should march out and ground their arms. This being refused, the parley terminated and the assault commenced. The action lasted until the assailants set fire to several adjacent buildings, the heat from which was so intense that the house could no longer be occupied. From this cause, and from the apprehension that the fire would soon be communicated to the main building, Major Kirkpatrick and his party surrendered themselves.
The marshal and Col. Pressly Nevil were seized on their way to General Nevil’s house and detained until 2 the next morning. The marshal especially was treated with extreme severity. His life was frequently threatened, and was probably saved by the interposition of some leading individuals, who possessed more humanity or more prudence than those with whom they were associated. He could obtain his liberty only by entering into a solemn engagement, which was guaranteed by Colonel Nevil, to serve no more processes on the western side of the Allegheny mountains.
The marshal and inspector having both retired to Pittsburgh, the insurgents deputed two of their body, one of whom was a justice of the peace, to demand that the former should surrender all his authority, and that the latter should resign his office, threatening, in case of refusal, to attack the place and seize their persons. These demands were not acceded to, but Pittsburghh affording no security, these officers escaped from the danger which threatened them by descending the Ohio; after which they found their way, by a circuitous route, to the seat of government.
The rioters next proceeded to intercept the mail and take out letters from certain parties in Pittsburghh, containing expressions of disapproval of their proceedings. The writers of these letters they caused to be banished. They next held meetings on Braddock’s Field and at Parkinson’s Ferry, at which the determination to resist the laws by force of arms was openly avowed.
Affidavits attesting this serious state of things were laid before Washington. Affairs had now reached a point which seemed to forbid the continuance of a temporizing system. The efforts at conciliation, which, for more than three years, the government had persisted to make, and the alterations repeatedly introduced into the act for the purpose of rendering it less exceptionable, instead of diminishing the arrogance of those who opposed their will to the sense of the nation, had drawn forth sentiments indicative of designs much deeper than the evasion of a single act. The execution of the laws had at length been resisted by open force, and a determination to persevere in these measures was unequivocally avowed. The alternative of subduing this resistance or of submitting to it was presented to the government.
The act of Congress which provided for calling forth the militia “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions” required, as a prerequisite to the exercise of this power, “that an associate justice, or the judge of the district, should certify that the laws of the United States were opposed, or their execution obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals.” In the same act it was provided, “that if the militia of the State where such combinations may happen shall refuse, or be insufficient, to suppress the same, the President may employ the militia of other States.”
The evidence which had been transmitted to Washington was laid before one of the associate justices, who gave the certificate, which enabled the chief magistrate to employ the militia in aid of the civil power.
Washington now called a cabinet to consider the subject, and the Governor of Pennsylvania was also consulted respecting it. Randolph, the Secretary of State, and the Governor of Pennsylvania urged reasons against coercion by force of arms; Hamilton, Knox, and Bradford were in favor of employing military force. These members of the Cabinet were also of opinion that policy and humanity equally dictated the employment of a force which would render resistance desperate. The insurgent country contained 16,000 men able to bear arms, and the computation was that they could bring 7,000 into the field. If the army of the government should amount to 12,000 men, it would present an imposing force which the insurgents would not venture to meet.
It was impossible that Washington could hesitate to embrace the latter of these opinions. That a government entrusted to him should be trampled under foot by a lawless section of the Union, which set at defiance the will of the nation, as expressed by its representatives, was an abasement to which neither his judgment nor his feelings could submit. He resolved, therefore, to issue the proclamation which, by law, was to precede the employment of force.
On the same day a requisition was made on the Governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia for their several quotas of militia to compose an army of 12,000 men, who were to be immediately organized and prepared to march at a minute’s warning. The force was ultimately increased to 15,000. While steps were taking to bring this force into the field, a last essay was made to render its employment unnecessary. Three distinguished and popular citizens of Pennsylvania were deputed by the government to be the bearers of a general amnesty for past offenses, on the sole condition of future obedience to the laws.
It having been deemed advisable that the executive of the State should act in concert with that of the United States, Governor Mifflin also issued a proclamation and appointed commissioners to act with those of the general government.
These commissioners were met by a committee from the convention at Parkinson’s Ferry, and the conference resulted in a reference of the offer of amnesty to the people. This reference only served to demonstrate that, while a few persons were disposed to submit to the laws, the masses in the disturbed districts were determined to obstruct the re-establishment of civil authority.
On the 25th of September (1794), Washington issued a proclamation describing in terms of great energy the obstinate and perverse spirit with which the lenient propositions of the government had been received, and declaring his fixed determination, in obedience to the high and irresistible duty consigned to him by the constitution, “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” to reduce the refractory to obedience.
The troops of New Jersey and Pennsylvania were directed to rendezvous at Bedford, and those of Maryland and Virginia at Cumberland, on the Potomac. The command of the expedition had been conferred on Governor Lee, of Virginia, and the Governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania commanded the militia of their respective States under him.
Washington in person visited each division of the army, but, being confident that the force employed must look down all resistance, he left Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, to accompany it, and returned himself to Philadelphia, where the approaching session of Congress required his presence. [1]
From Cumberland and Bedford the army marched in two divisions into the country of the insurgents. The greatness of the force prevented the effusion of blood. The disaffected did not venture to assemble in arms. Several of the leaders, who had refused to give assurances of future submission to the laws, were seized, and some of them detained for legal prosecution.
But although no direct and open opposition was made, the spirit of insurrection was not subdued. A sour and malignant temper displayed itself, which indicated but too plainly that the disposition to resist had only sunk under the pressure of the great military force brought into the country, but would rise again should that force be withdrawn. It was, therefore, thought advisable to station for the winter a detachment, to be commanded by Major-General Morgan, in the center of the disaffected country.
“Thus,” says Marshall, “without shedding blood, did the prudent vigor of the executive terminate an insurrection which, at one time, threatened to shake the government of the United States to its foundation. That so perverse a spirit should have been excited in the bosom of prosperity, without the pressure of a single grievance, is among those political phenomena which occur not infrequently in the course of human affairs, and which the statesman can never safely disregard. When real ills are felt there is something positive and perceptible to which the judgment may be directed, the actual extent of which may be ascertained and the cause of which may be discerned. But when the mind, inflamed by suppositious dangers, gives full play to the imagination, and fastens upon some object with which to disturb itself, the belief that the danger exists seems to become a matter of faith, with which reason combats in vain.”
Washington’s own view of the insurrection and its causes is contained in a letter to John Jay, then on his mission to England. “As you have been,” he writes, “and will continue to be fully informed by the Secretary of State of all transactions of a public nature which relate to, or may have an influence on, the points of your mission, it would be unnecessary for me to touch upon any of them in this letter were it not for the presumption that the insurrection in the western counties of this State has excited much speculation and a variety of opinions abroad, and will be represented differently, according to the wishes of some and the prejudices of others, who may exhibit, as an evidence of what has been predicted, ‘that we are unable to govern ourselves.’ Under this view of the subject, I am happy in giving it to you as the general opinion that this event having happened at the time it did was fortunate, although it will be attended with considerable expense.
“That the self-created societies which have spread themselves over this country have been laboring incessantly to sow the seeds of distrust, jealousy, and, of course, discontent, thereby hoping to effect some revolution in the government, is not unknown to you. That they have been the fomenters of the western disturbances admits of no doubt in the mind of anyone who will examine their conduct, but, fortunately, they precipitated a crisis for which they were not prepared, and thereby have unfolded views which will, I trust, effectuate their annihilation sooner than it might otherwise have happened, at the same time that it has afforded an occasion for the people of this country to show their abhorrence of the result and their attachment to the constitution and the laws; for I believe that five times the number of militia that was required would have come forward, if it had been necessary, to support them.
“The spirit which blazed out on this occasion, as soon as the object was fully understood, and the lenient measures of the government were made known to the people, deserves to be communicated. There are instances of general officers going at the head of a single troop and of light companies; of field officers, when they came to the place of rendezvous and found no command for them in that grade, turning into the ranks and proceeding as private soldiers, under their own captains; and of numbers, possessing the first fortunes in the country, standing in the ranks as private men, and marching day by day with their knapsacks and haversacks at their backs, sleeping on straw, with a single blanket, in a soldier’s tent, during the frosty nights which we have had, by way of example to others. Nay, more; many young Quakers of the first families, character, and property, not discouraged by the elders, have turned into the ranks and are marching with the troops.
“These things have terrified the insurgents, who had no conception that such a spirit prevailed, but, while the thunder only rumbled at a distance, were boasting of their strength and wishing for and threatening the militia by turns, intimating that the arms they should take from them would soon become a magazine in their hands. Their language is much changed, indeed, but their principles want correction.
“I shall be more prolix in my speech to Congress on the commencement and progress of this insurrection than is usual in such an instrument, or than I should have been on any other occasion, but as numbers at home and abroad will hear of the insurrection, and will read the speech, that may know nothing of the documents to which it might refer, I conceived it would be better to encounter the charge of prolixity by giving a cursory detail of facts, that would show the prominent features of the thing, than to let it go naked into the world, to be dressed up according to the fancy or inclination of the readers or the policy of our enemies.”
Sentiments similar to these were expressed in a letter to Washington’s old and intimate friend, Edmund Pendleton. “The successes of our army to the westward,” he writes, “have already been productive of good consequences. They have dispelled a cloud which lowered very heavily in the northern hemisphere (the Six Nations), and, though we have received no direct advices from General Wayne since November, there is reason to believe that the Indians with whom we are or were at war in that quarter, together with their abettors, [2] begin to see things in a different point of view.”
One of the most important effects of the suppression of the western rebellion was the fatal blow it gave to the democratic societies founded by Genet.
Washington’s opinion of these societies is thus expressed in a letter to one of his friends: “The real people, occasionally assembled in order to express their sentiments on political subjects, ought never to be confounded with permanent self-appointed societies, usurping the right to control the constituted authorities and to dictate to public opinion. While the former is entitled to respect, the latter is incompatible with all government and must either sink into general disesteem or finally overturn the established order of things.”
1. Footnote: General Knox, the Secretary of War, accompanied the army to the expected scene of action. The command in chief was confided to Gen. Henry Lee, Washington’s old friend and companion in the Revolutionary War. He was at this time Governor of Virginia.
2. Footnote: The British on the border.
CHAPTER IX.
WASHINGTON SIGNS JAY’S TREATY. 1794-1795.