Page images
PDF
EPUB

PARTY DIVISIONS IN CONGRESS; MATTHEW LYON.

ering and Wolcott.* The second group consisted of Republicans who asserted that the situation was not perilous, and that it was due entirely to Federalist mismanagement. The third group consisted of moderate men who usually acted with the Federalists. There was a decided Federalist majority in the Senate. Schuyler once again represented New York in place of Burr. Madison and Page, of Virginia, had retired from the House (the former having lately married); but with Giles and Nicholas still in their seats, and with Edward Rutledge and Gallatin rapidly becoming preeminent, the Republicans were ably led in that branch. The Federalists missed the eloquent Ames, who had been succeeded by Harrison Gray Otis. Some of the most capable of the Federalist leaders of the past had been transferred to the Senate.

Smith, of South Carolina,

who led the Federalists in the House, was an eloquent speaker, but not a man of broad views; and the same might be said of Harper and Otis. Smith was inclined to plunge the country into war, but Dayton, who had been re-elected Speaker, and the less implacable and more moderate men held the balance of power between the war party and the Republican opposition led by Gallatin. Hence Congress was in a position to support the measures recommended

* Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., pp. 465, 502-517; Hamilton's ed. of Hamilton's Works, vol. vi., pp. 216, 221–225.

333

by the President.* On May 23 the Senate returned a favorable answer, † but a long wrangle ensued in the House, which did not complete the answer until June 29. When the motion to reply was made and seconded, Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, moved that he be excused from taking part in the ceremony because he did not agree with the President or his policies; and as the resolutions made attendance obligatory, he wished the words" attended by the House" stricken out and the words " attended by such members as may think proper "substituted. He said that as a Republican he could not go through the ceremony of marching after the presiding officer to the President's door, and that it aroused his indignation as well as that of his 80,000 constituents to hear of such distinctions in a Republican land. In the course of the debate, after declaring that the insult to Pinckney was not so great as some believed, Nicholas, of Virginia, said:

"It might, perhaps, be the opinion of some members of the House, more particularly of strangers, that he was improperly influenced by party zeal in favor of the French.

Who is the man who has this proof? When he first came into that House, the French were embroiled with all their neighbors, who were en

Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 364-365; Fuller, Speakers of the House, pp. 26-27.

Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 239-242; Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, pp. 12-14; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii., pp. 117-118.

Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., pp. 234-235; Benton, Abridgment, vol. ii., p. 142; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 327-329.

334

ENVOYS SENT TO FRANCE.

deavoring to tear them to pieces. He knew what had been the situation of this country when engaged in a similar cause, and was anxious for their success. Was there not cause for anxiety,

After hearing the message and returning answers thereto, the House assented to Adams' proposal to renew

when a nation, contending for the right of self- negotiations, and upon his nomination

government, was thus attacked? Especially when it was well known that if the powers engaged against France had proved successful, this coun

try would have been their next object? Had they

not the strongest proofs (even the declarations

of one of [the British colonial] governors) that

it was the intention of England to declare war against America, in case of the successful termination of the war against France? " *

The Federalists declared that France was angry, not over any particular article of the treaty, but because the United States had made any treaty with Great Britain. R. G. Harper, of South Carolina, declared that France was endeavoring "to effect by force and aggression that which she had attempted in vain by four years of intriguing and insidious policy "— to put this country in a position where she would be compelled to choose between war with France and war with Great Britain.† Nevertheless the House overwhelmingly voted to send an answer, the vote standing 62 to 36.‡ The President was assured that the sentiments of the Legislature agreed with his own regarding points of importance to which he had called their attention.||

* Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., pp. 72-73; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii., pp. 125–126.

See Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., pp. 169-193.

For the debates in full, see Annals of Congress, pp. 67-234; Benton, Abridgment, vol. ii., pp. 123-142; for a resumé see Stevens, Albert Gallatin, pp. 137-141.

Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 242-244. See also Benton, Abridgment, vol. ii., pp. 143-144; Annals, pp. 236-238.

three ambassadors were appointed.* The envoys selected were General Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry. They were instructed to procure peace by any means not incompatible with the faith of the United States, but they were to impair no national engagements nor to surrender any American rights.‡

* Adams first nominated Pinckney, John Marshall and Francis Dana, but, Dana declining to serve, Elbridge Gerry was substituted. See Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 245. See also Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., p. 132; John Adams, Works, vol. i., p. 510; vol. viii., p. 456; vol. ix., p. 150; Morse, John Adams, pp. 280-281; American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii., p. 19; A. B. Magruder, Life of Marshall, p. 101.

Mr. Gibbs (vol. i., p. 519) calls attention to the fact that up to this time no personal collisions had taken place between the President and his Cabinet. "None of the causes which afterwards interrupted the harmony between them existed. On the part of the secretaries there was perfect good-will towards the chief magistrate, and a sincere disposition to render his administration successful. It has been intimated that the desire of the secretaries improperly to control the President on this occasion was the origin of their dissensions. The assertion is untrue. In regard to Mr. Gerry's nomination, though it shook the confidence of those officers in Mr. Adams' discretion, it produced no personal ill-feeling; nor did they otherwise attempt to direct him than by withholding an approbation they could not give." See also Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, pp. 203-204.

In a letter dated June 21, 1797, urging Gerry to accept the nomination, Jefferson said: "Peace is undoubtedly at present the first object of our nation. Interest and honor are also national considerations. But interest, duly weighed, is in favor of peace even at the expense of spoliations past and future; and honor cannot now be an object. The insults and injuries committed on

ACTS OF CONGRESS; REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION.

335

The House then went into Commit- all schemes of internal taxation tee of the Whole, and though various by the Federal government that resolutions to comply with the meas- the operation of the stamp act was ures suggested by the President were postponed until January, 1798 (see introduced, but few were adopted. act of July 6, 1797), and again, by the Acts were passed prohibiting Ameri- act of December 15, 1797, until June, can citizens from privateering against 1798. By the act of July 8, 1797, a a nation in amity with the United new loan of $800,000 was authorized, States (act of June 14, 1797); forbid- the rate of interest not to exceed 6 ding the export of arms and ammuniper cent.* tion and encouraging their import (act of June 14, 1797); appropriating $115,000 for the further fortification of American harbors (act of June 23, 1797); apportioning 80,000 militia among the States, SO that the troops would be ready to march at a moments's notice (act notice (act of June 24, 1797); authorizing the completion, equipment and manning of the three new frigates, United States, Constitution and Constellation; providing for the registration of American ships; and imposing a duty on stamped vellum, parchment and paper (act of July 6, 1797) and an additional duty on salt (act of July 8, 1797.) But so unpopular were then

of

us by both the belligerent parties, from the beginning of 1793 to this day, and still continuing, cannot now be wiped off by engaging in war with one of them." He furthermore says: "Be assured of this, my dear Sir, that if we engage in a war during our present passions, & our present weakness in some quarters, that our Union runs the greatest risk of not coming out of that war in the shape in which it enters it. My reliance for our preservation is in your acceptance of this mission."- Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., pp. 149-150; Morse, Thomas Jefferson, p. 182. See also Parton, Life of Thomas Jefferson, pp. 541-542. See also John Adams, Works, vol. viii., p. 549; King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, vol. ii., p. 193.

The Republicans opposed most of these measures, not only because of their warlike nature, but also because they tended to increase the expenditures of the government. They considered every measure, not from the standpoint of expediency, but from its dangerous possibility of being used as a precedent in undermining the liberties of the people. This was clearly shown in the debate during the regular session of Congress on the appropriation of money to support foreign ministers. Instead of considering the question on its merits, discussion centered on the point of cost

whether the usefulness of these ministers would or would not justify the expense. In opposing the appropriation on January 18, 1798, Nicholas "thought it necessary to take a view of this subject, not only from the [consideration of] increase of expense, but from a variety of other considerations," conceiving it to be

[blocks in formation]

336

DEBATE ON FOREIGN MINISTERS.

"a duty they owed to themselves and their constituents, as well to secure liberty as to perpetuate the Constitution itself, that the President, who had the power of making appointments, should be kept from extending this power beyond what the nature and wants of the government absolutely required.* On March 1 Gallatin declared that the House might lawfully refuse to make appropriations for what it deemed unworthy objects. James A. Bayard had said that the executive was the weakest part of the government and therefore was most likely to be encroached upon. In reply, Gallatin said:

"To such doctrines avowed on this floor, to such systems as the plan of government which the late Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Hamilton) had proposed in the convention, may perhaps be ascribed the belief in a part of the community, the belief which was yesterday represented as highly criminal, that there exists in America a monarchio-aristocratic faction who would wish to impose upon us the substance of the British government." +

In this speech he summed up the charges brought by the Federalists against the Republicans and stated the attitude of his own party, as follows:

"If we complain of the prodigality of a branch of the administration, or wish to control it by refusing to appropriate all the money which is

asked, we are stigmatized as disorganizers; if we oppose the growth of systems of taxation, we are charged with a design of subverting the constitution and of making a revolution; if we attempt to check the extension of our political connections with European nations, we are branded with

* Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., p. 849.

Ibid, p. 1138.

the epithet of Jacobins. Revolutions and Jacobinism do not flow from that line of policy we wish to see adopted. They belong exclusively to the system we resist; they are its last stage, the last page in the book of the history of governments under its influence." *

In the same debate Harper declared:

"It is my firm and most deliberate opinion that the amendment now under consideration to refuse appropriations for the ministers to Portugal and Prussia, and the principle to which it belongs, lead directly to the introduction of anarchy and revolution in the country, and if not steadily opposed must sooner or later produce that effect."

It was only natural, therefore, that the Republicans should underestimate the need of increased taxes and that the Federalists should overestimate it. The one party was willing to embarrass the government in the interests. of liberty, while the other was willing to place unnecessary burdens on the people for the sake of order and good government.

Furthermore, the depredations of the French upon American merchant vessels and the efforts of France to induce the United States to make common cause with her against Great Britain, were gradually driving into a compact party those citizens who utterly distrusted France and her policy and who regarded only the injuries we had suffered from her, as contrasted with those citizens who held that the Jay treaty had wronged France and that she should therefore be conciliated. Even Jefferson, who was quick to discern the signs of the

[blocks in formation]

PARTY BITTERNESS; THE MAZZEI LETTER.

times and who had no especial love for Napoleon, was constrained to express a desire that the United States be divorced from both France and England in all but commercial arrangements. He said: "I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of Silas Deane, that there were an ocean of fire between us and the Old World." As a result of the extra session there was much bitter feeling among the party leaders. Men who had been intimate friends all their lives would now cross the streets to avoid meeting, or would turn their heads away when passing one another. Adams had failed to inspire confidence, for he was neither amenable to the schemes of the Hamiltonian Federalists nor favorable to the measures of the Republicans. Hence the opposition papers, which at first had courted him, now began to twit him with being a President of three votes. The chief Cabinet officers, no longer restraining their conduct by due decorum, criticised the President and his appointments with licentious freedom. Jefferson was then in a position where he could watch every move of the Federalists without himself joining in the play, and he had already begun to mould the opposing elements into a well-defined party, with himself as its accepted leader. The friendship existing between him and the President at the outset of the new term had caused the Federalists con

Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 370–371.

337

siderable uneasiness, but a circumstance was now brought to light which not only cooled the friendly intercourse between the two, but gave the Federalists an opportunity to check Jefferson's rising popularity.

On April 24, 1796, Jefferson had written a letter to Philip Mazzei, a Florentine, who then lived near Monticello and with whom he had become intimate. In this letter, which was concerned chiefly with private affairs, Jefferson expressed himself rather unguardedly on matters of state. Mazzei translated into Italian the portions of the letter relating to politics, sending a copy of his translation to a Florentine newspaper. In time this paper reached the Moniteur, the official organ of the French Directory at Paris, which, in turn, translated and published the letter in French. The Moniteur soon found its way to the United States, where the letter was retranslated into English, published first in the New York Minerva and then by all the Federalist newspapers. The objectionable passage in the letter read as follows:

"The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly thro' the war, an Anglican monarchical, and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents. Against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of

« PreviousContinue »