FAUCHET AND RANDOLPH. But on July 28 occurred an incident which had great influence in determining Washington's course, regarding the treaty. Fauchet, the French minister, had prepared an account of the Whiskey Insurrection for his government and dispatched it to the home foreign secretary, but the vessel carrying the dispatches was captured by the British, the dispatches being turned over to Lord Grenville. The latter sent them to the British minister in America, who, on July 28, 1795, gave them to Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury. Perceiving their importance, Wolcott consulted with the Secretary of War Pickering and Attorney-General William Bradford, and all three then waited on Secretary of State Randolph to request him to urge Washington's return to Philadelphia.‡ On receiving this request, Washington at once returned, and on August 11 rode into the city. A few hours later Fauchet's letter was placed before him. Fauchet remarked that Ran 66 269 dolph had made many precious confessions" regarding conditions in this country.* According to Fauchet, Randolph had said that the shameful system of finance had raised up a coterie of financiers who aspired to become the aristocratic class of America, but the people would not stand for it and had organized into a powerful political party seeking not only to throw off oppressive taxes, but also to change the government's attitude toward France and to halt its imbecility and humility be fore Great Britain. Fauchet said he inferred from Randolph's utterances that the government itself had hastened the breaking out of the Whiskey Insurrection in order to obscure other more vital issues. In his dispatch No. 3, Fauchet wrote: "Thus the Secretary of State appeared to open himself without reserve. He imparted to me intestine divisions which were rumbling in the United States. The idea of an approaching com motion affected him deeply. He hoped to prevent it by the ascendency which he daily acquired over the mind of the President who consulted him in all affairs, and to whom he told the truth, which his colleagues disguised from him. The President of the United States says he, is the mortal enemy He of England and the friend of France. has - but it is impossible for me in conscience to make to you this confession. I should betray the duties of my office. Everything which I can say to you is, that it is important for our two nations that you continue to visit him frequently. Let us unite, M. Fauchet, to draw our two nations together." * * Fauchet's dispatch No. 10 was dated October 31, 1794, and was * See the various excerpts from the dispatches in Irving, Life of Washington, vol. v., p. 251. See also F. J. Turner, in Report of American Historical Association, for 1903, pp. 411, 444. 270 FAUCHET AND RANDOLPH. mainly a tirade upon American politics, setting forth his ideas of what he considered to be the designs of Hamilton and his party, to which, he said, Washington, the honest patriot, was blind. In a strain of disgust, he then proceeds: "Two or three days before the proclamation [to the whiskey insurrectionists] was published, and of course before the Cabinet had resolved on its measures, Mr. Randolph came to see me with an air of great eagerness, and made to me the overtures of which I have given an account in my No. 6. Thus with some thousands of dollars, the republic could have decided on civil war or on peace! Thus the consciences of the pretended patriots of America have already their prices [which was due to Hamilton, who had turned the people into stock-jobbers and speculators]. It is very true that the certainty of these conclusions, painful to be drawn, will forever exist in our archives." An extract of dispatch No. 6 above referred to was later furnished by Adet. In this, Fauchet said: "Scarce was the commotion known, when the Secretary of State came to my house, All his countenance was grief. He requested of me a private conversation. It is all over,' he said to me. 'A civil war is about to ravage our unhappy country. Four men, by their talents, their influence, and their energy, may save it. But, debtors of British merchants, they will be deprived of their liberty if they take the smallest step. Could you lend them instantaneously funds sufficient to shelter them from English persecution?"" Fauchet subsequently sent a circumstantial letter, quite out of harmony with the broader insinuations of his official dispatches, in which he explained that the details of Randolph's interview given in dispatch No. 6 merely related to the rescue of the United States from civil war by three or four influential flour contractors who, by procuring information proving that England had interfered in the Western troubles, could Fauchet further avert a civil war. stated that he was shocked to learn that Randolph requested France to advance these flour merchants money due on their contracts, so as to put them in funds against British persecutions to which they would be liable if their revelations should become known. He pretended to be the more suprised at this proposition as he had supposed the American government was able to procure such information at its own expense. He admitted, however, that he may have misunderstood Randolph's propositions.* Washington therefore decided that the time had come when the signing of the Jay treaty could be delayed no longer. He consulted with the members of the Cabinet, and, as all with the exception of the Secretary of State, advised the act, he signed the treaty. In speaking of the treaty, Sparks says: "Time disappointed its enemies, and more than fulfilled the expectations of its friends. It saved the country from a war, improved its commerce, and served in no small degree to lay the foundation of its durable prosperity. The great points, which were said to be sacrificed or neglected, the impressment of seamen, neutral rights, and colonial trade, * Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 314. Sparks, Life of Washington, p. 467; Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 194-195. RANDOLPH RESIGNS; OTHER CABINET CHANGES. 66 have never yet been settled, and are never likely to be settled satisfactorily, while England maintains the ascendancy she now holds on the ocean. On the other hand, Jefferson denounced the treaty as an execrable thing." Writing to Governor Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina, on November 30, 1795, he says: "I trust the popular branch of our legislature will disapprove of it, and thus rid us of this infamous act, which is really nothing more than a treaty of alliance between England and the Anglomen of this country against the legislature and people."† On August 19 Washington apprised Randolph of the fact that the Fauchet letters had become known to him and the other members of the Cabinet, and asked him for an explanation. After a few rambling remarks, Randolph said that he would "throw his ideas on paper," upon which he was asked to leave the room. After three-quarters of an hour of waiting, he was requested to put what he had to say in writing, and on the same day he resigned, at the same time utterly denying in writing that any money had been received by him or that he had made any such money overtures as the letters seemed to imply.|| The vacant post was then * Life of Washington, pp. 467-468. Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., p. 40. Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., pp. 241-246; Bassett, Federalist System, p. 132. Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 313-314. 271 offered to Patrick Henry, who, from private considerations, declined it. The position of Secretary of State was next offered to Mr. King, General C. C. Pinckney, William Patterson, of New Jersey, Thomas Johnson, of Maryland, and others but all declined. Finally, in December, Pickering, who was temporarily in charge of the Department, was formally appointed. The War portfolio, after being declined by Edward Carrington, of Virginia, and Colonel Howard, of Maryland, was accepted by James McHenry, of Maryland. In August Mr. Bradford's death created a vacancy in the Attorney-Generalship. After the post had been declined by General Marshall and Colonel Inness, it was filled in December by the appointment of Charles Lee, of Virginia. Thus, for the first time, the Cabinet became wholly Federalist.* Meanwhile, professing indignation at the withdrawal of his chief's personal confidence, Randolph promised to pursue the inquiry and prepare his explanation at length, asking in the meantime that the dispatch be kept secret. Washington's response was courteous and considerate. Randolph then hastened to find Fauchet, who had been superseded by Adet and was preparing to return to France. He hurried to Newport, where he arrived August 31 and requested that Fauchet explain the language of the dis 272 RANDOLPH'S APPEAL; ATTACK ON THE TREATY. patches. Fauchet promised to give this explanation on the next day, but when Randolph called at his house at the appointed time he found that Fauchet had fled to a French vessel in the harbor, which had slipped her cables early in the morning and was then far out at sea. A swift vessel sent in pursuit brought back the reply that Adet would send the papers, which in time did come and from which Randolph subsequently constructed his Vindication." Washington informed Randolph that he was at liberty to publish any confidential letters or conversations that had passed between them from which he could derive any advantage. The Secretary's Appeal to the People, however, failed to vindicate * See Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., pp. 232-280; Sparks, Life of Washington, pp. 468-469; Irving, Life of Washington, vol. v., p. 252 et seq.; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 233–235. Randolph then retired to Virginia where he resumed the practice of law, but his public career was blighted and his memory bore the stain of the accusation until his vindication was presented by Moncure D. Conway in an article A Suppressed Statesman, in Lippincott's Magazine (vol. xi., p. 429, September, 1887) and in a biography by the same author entitled Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph, chaps. xxiii.-xxiv. See, however, Lodge's opinion of this vindication in his George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 193-198. Randolph's vindication did not satisfy the Federalists. Trescot (Diplomatic History, pp. 159–161) says that the misconstruction of Randolph's conduct has not received historical sanction, and charges Gibbs with malicious ingenuity in what he says of the matter. Randolph's pamphlet gave rise to Cobbett's Observations on Randolph's Vindication (Philadelphia, 1796) and Political Truth: An Inquiry into the Charges against Mr. Randolph (Philadelphia, 1796). him in their eyes; it was an effort to evade the main charge by shifting the issue while the Jay excitement ran high, so as to convict the President of either weakness or duplicity in signing the treaty, and to draw sympathy to himself as the victim of a British plot to accomplish the destruction of the Republican party and to endanger the liberties of the country. Madison said: "His greatest enemies will not easily persuade themselves that he was not under a corrupt influence of France, and his best friends cannot save him from the self-condemnation of his political career.' The papers, however, still teemed with savage attacks upon the work of Mr. Jay, and letters and pamphlets were issued in defence of the treaty. Some of these were signed by Roman names, such at Cato, Atticus, Cinna, Decius, Cassius, Valerius, Camillus, etc., while other pseudonyms were Americanus, The Constitutionalist, The Federalist, The Sentinel, etc., most of the writers preferring anonymity. It was known, however, that Camillus was Alexander Hamilton; Cato, Robert R. Livingston; and Decius, Brockholst Livingston.† When it became known that Washington had at last signed the treaty, 316. See Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 314 † McMaster, vol. ii., p. 245; Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, pp. 191-192. For Hamilton's first objections, see Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., pp. 223-224; for his later views, see his Works, vol. vii., pp. 169-528 (ed. 1851). WASHINGTON ATTACKED; HAMILTON'S DEFENCE. the Republican journals broke out "A * Gordy, Political History, vol. i., p. 251. The most extensive collection of divergent criticism on the treaty was published in 1795 by Matthew Carey, as The American Remembrancer; or, An Impartial Collection of Essays, Resolves, Speeches, etc., relative, or having affinity, to the Treaty with Great Britain (3 vols., Philadelphia). See also the Features of Jay's Treaty, in Life and Writings of A. J. Dallas, p. 51. For a view of its effect, see F. A. Ogg, Jay's Treaty and the Slavery Interests of the United States, in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901, vol. i., pp. 273-298. 273 quarterly, and during the first quarter after this had become the custom, Washington had drawn $11,000, an excess of $4,750 over his allowance. "Calm Observer" therefore claimed that the President was drawing $44,000 a year, instead of $25,000 according to law.* So vile and common did the attacks on Washington become that it came to be regarded as a passport to popular favor to oppose the President.† But the press was teeming also with all kinds of replies- coarse, spiteful, and serious,- the best and most influential of which was The Defence, by Camillus (Hamilton).‡ He laid stress on the facts that the treaty had been denounced before it was known and that, as first published, the text was inaccurate. He explained its merits and defended what were considered its defects, declaring that the United States had sacrificed nothing while obtaining privileges which no other nation had been able to secure from Great Britain; that no existing treaties were violated; and that dishonorable restrictions were laid. Peter Porcupine also entered the lists in behalf of the treaty, issu *For the details of this attack, see Marshall, Life of Washington, vol. ii., pp. 370-371. McMaster, vol. ii., p. 250. See Hamilton's Works, vol. vii., p. 172 et seq. John Adams said that the defence of Camillus was the work of Jay, King, and Hamilton, but was to pass for Hamilton's. Letter of January 31, 1796, Works, vol. i., pp. 485-486. See note in McMaster, vol. ii., p. 245. See also J. C. Hamilton, History of the Republic, vol. vi., p. 273; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. i., p. 127. |