an hour. THE PERSEVERANCE, NANCY, AND HERALD. The quarter-deck of the enemy then blew up and she went down stern foremost, taking all her men with her. * On November 2, 1799, the Perseverance, 22, was attacked by a French frigate of 28 guns. The French gunners aimed so as to cut up the rigging of the American vessel, and were so successful that early in the action the Perseverance became unmanageable. At the second and third broadsides most of the carronades in the Perseverance were upset and on that side but seven remained with which to fight. Nevertheless, the Americans maintained so hot a fire that, after an action of one hour and ten minutes, the French ship withdrew. So complete a wreck was the Perseverance that she could not follow. Having repaired her damages, the French vessel renewed the attack; but, after an hour and a quarter of severe fighting, crowded on sail and fled. The Perseverance, with much difficulty, reached Libson.† In March of 1800 the Nancy, 10, of Boston, was attacked by a French schooner of 16 guns. Having disabled a greater part of the sails and rigging of the American vessel, the French ship tried to board, but was beaten. off. Before she left, however, she put 3,000 shot of different kinds through the hull, sails and rigging of the American boat. The topsail, topgallant halyards, gib stay, topping lift * Allen, Our Naval War with France, pp. 233234. Ibid, pp. 235-236. VOL. IV-28 423 and braces were all shot away; the sails were overboard and the ship on fire in three or four different places.* Several American vessels, such as the Industry and the Louisa, were attacked by two or more vessels simultaneously, but they invariably beat off their antagonists. Another action. was that which took place between the American privateer Herald (Captain Nathaniel Silsbee) and the French privateer La Gloire, 22 9-pounders. On November 1, 1800, the Herald, with four merchantment, left Calcutta. Three days later she was attacked by the La Gloire, which had just disabled the East Indian Company's packet ship the Cornwallis, 18. Silsbee waited until the French ship was fairly within gun shot, and then gave her a broadside, the other ships also firing the few guns they carried. La Gloire was headed directly for the Herald, but when the smoke of the broadside had cleared away, she had turned about and was beating a hasty retreat so effective was the fire of the American ship. Thenceforth she gave the Herald a wide berth.t It is estimated that during the war the navy took about 85 prizes from the French, not counting recaptured vessels and small boats. Of these, about a dozen surrendered because they were illegally captured, and two, being national vessels, were after *Allen, pp. 237-238. Ibid, pp. 239-242; E. S. Maclay, A History of American Privateers, pp. 219-220; Maclay, History of the Navy, vol. i., pp. 207-208. Maclay, American Privateers, pp. 220–222. The Directory seeking peace - Mission of George Logan Attitude of Adams toward the peace mission Hamilton and the Miranda enterprise — Talleyrand's willingness to receive new mission — Belligerent character of the President's proposed speech to Congress - Pickering's report on Gerry's negotiations - Submission to Congress of the French decree of October 29, 1798 - Suspension of commercial intercourse — Nomination by Adams of new envoys to France - Federalist indignation Quarrel with the Cabinet Adams' defence - The treaty of Morfontaine signed by the envoys-Exchange of ratifications Results of the dispute - Arbitration with Great Britain Disposition of the claims against France. While these events were taking place, a peaceful solution of the dispute was being effected gradually. Long before a regiment had been raised, word was received that France was not likely to go to war. In the autumn of 1798 Gerry arrived, bringing assurances that the French ministry had no desire for war; but as his actions in France had intended to discredit his opinions, his words carried no weight. He had hoped to be vindicated by the publication of his report to Adams, but, though the Republicans sarcastically called for its publication, Pickering withheld it for several months. Another indication of the mood of the French was the * See Jefferson's letter of January 16, 1799, to Madison, in Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., pp. 316-317; John Adams, Works, vol. viii., pp. 616-617 and vol. ix., p. 7. See also Madison's reply to Jefferson, in Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. ii., p. 151. mission of Dr. George Logan, a Philadelphia Quaker, who, on his own ac Maclay, History of the Navy, vol. i., p. 213. † Allen, p. 222. In addition to the works previously mentioned, see Nathan Sargent, The QuasiWar with France, in The United Service (July, 1883); Horatio D. Smith, The United States Revenue Cutter Service, in The United Service (November, 1889, to April, 1890); Charles O. Paullin, Early Naval Administration Under the Constitution, in Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute (September, 1906); Charles T. Harbeck, A Contribution to the Bibliography of the History of the United States Navy (1906); Charles W. Goldsborough, United States Naval Chronicle (Washington, 1824); A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812 (Boston, 1894); George F. Emmons, Statistical History of the Navy of the United States (Washington, 1853); Ira N. Hollis, The Frigate Constitution (Boston, 1900); George H. Preble, First Cruise of the United States Frigate Essex (Salem, 1870); Autobiography of Commodore Charles Morris (Boston, 1880); Articles by J. F. Cooper on the frigate Constitution in Putnam's Monthly (May and June, 1853); the extracts from the log of the frigate Boston in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (June, 1883); Biographical Sketch and Services of Commodore Charles Stewart (Phila LOGAN'S MISSION; ATTITUDE OF DIRECTORY. count, undertook to secure a definite assurance from the French government that it was inclined to peace. He succeeded in securing the release of some American prisoners taken by privateers, and in an interview with Talleyrand, endeavored to show how disastrous to the French interests in the United States had been the course adopted by the ministry. He returned to the United States, convinced that his journey had not been in vain; but his mission was regarded as a partisan interference in foreign affairs and caused much bitter comment, though undoubtedly the affair was made to appear much worse than it actually was. Logan called upon Washington to relate his experience, but was received very coldly, Washington remarking that it was peculiar that an unaccredited stranger could secure more information regarding the intentions of the French ministry than three accredited ministers of the United States. He said also that, if France really desired peace, she should prevent the seizure of American ships by French privateers. Logan afterward had an interview with delphia, 1838); The Yankee Tar; An Authentic Narrative of the Voyages and Hardships of John Horse (Northampton, 1840); Martin I. J. Griffin, Commodore John Barry (Philadelphia, 1903); Henry T. Tuckerman, Life of Silas Talbot (New York, 1850); E. S. Maclay, Moses Brown, Captain U. S. N. (New York, 1904); Alexander S. Mackenzie, Life of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry (New York, 1843) and Life of Stephen Decatur (Boston, 1846); Thomas Harris, Life and Services of Commodore William Bainbridge, U. S. N. (Philadelphia, 1837); David D. Porter, Memoir of Commodore David Porter (Albany, 1875). 425 Adams, by whom he was received much more graciously.* The Directory had now changed its attitude. It no longer demanded satisfaction for the language contained in Adams' message, concerning which complaints had been made. No desire was expressed that the United States break Jay's treaty; American seamen were released; the further capture of American vessels was prohibited; and in August the government indicated its readiness to receive a new American minister, provided his political opinions were acceptable to the ministry. When Congress met in December of 1798 the Union was in great danger. The Republicans believed that the Federalists were bent on plunging the country into war, either foreign or domestic, as is witnessed by numerous letters written by Republicans. Gallatin wrote to his wife that the Federalists" avow a design of keeping up a standing army for domestic purposes" and that Hamilton had declared that a standing army was necessary." Undoubtedly the Federalists themselves believed that the crisis was at hand," that the question. between the friends of order and government and the sedition-mongers [and] traitors would have to be settled by an appeal to arms." And the * McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 409-410, 415-416. See also Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., pp. 273-275, 326 et seq.; Ford's ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. xiv., p. 130. † Adams, Life of Gallatin, p. 223. 426 THE ATTITUDE OF PRESIDENT ADAMS. temper of the Federalists was such that, if war with France had broken. out, the treatment of the Republican party might have resulted in civil war. Fortunately for the country, Adams was determined that there should be no war either with England or France. He was neither blinded by the anti-French fanaticism nor wholly swayed by the Federalists' enthusiasm for England. The day after his inauguration Adams called on Jefferson to consult regarding a mission to France, even inquiring as to whether Jefferson would accept an appointment as minister to that country.* He did not accept the creed of most of the Federalists that Hamilton was the oracle to be consulted on all occasions, and that his opinions should always be given special consideration. This was probably due to the fact that during the first Presidential election Hamilton had endeavored by all means in his power to diminish the vote given to Adams. Again, in the election which resulted in raising Adams to the Presidency, Hamilton had put forth his utmost endeavors to swing the vote to Pinckney, urging all the New England electors to vote for the latter, in the hope that, with the Southerners known to favor Pinck ney, the latter would receive enough votes to defeat Adams. Such conduct naturally made Adams highly in * Morse, John Adams, p. 277. dignant, for he was far from being a modest man. Writing to Henry Knox, March 30, 1797, he said: "To see such a character as Jefferson, and much more such an unknown being as Pinckney, brought over my head, and trampling on the bellies of hundreds of other men, infinitely his superiors in talents, services and reputation, filled me with apprehensions for the safety of us all. It demonstrated to me that if the project succeeded, our constitution could not have lasted four years. We should have been set afloat and landed, the Lord knows where. That must be a sordid people indeed, a people destitute of a sense of honor, equity and character, that could submit to be governed, and see hundreds of its most meritorious public men governed, by a Pinckney under an elective government." * Adams, as has been related, became involved also in a dispute with Washington and Hamilton as to the latter's position in the army. Finally, when Washington threatened to resign if Adams did not appoint Hamilton to the second highest position, Adams yielded. The effect of this was to make him distrust his cabinet, to disincline him to a policy which might enhance Hamilton's reputation, and to weaken his belief in the probability of war. Writing to McHenry, October 22, he says: "One thing I know, that regiments are costly everywhere, and more so in this country than in any other under the sun; and if this nation sees a great army to maintain without an enemy to fight, there may arise an enthusiasm that seems little to be foreseen. At present there is no *John Adams, Works, vol. viii., p. 535; Morse, John Adams, p. 263. HAMILTON AND THE MIRANDA ENTERPRISE. more prospect of seeing a French army here than in Heaven.” * But if Adams could not perceive a prospective enemy, it was not so with Hamilton, who was even then intriguing to embroil the United States. in a war in a different part of the globe. By a treaty concluded in 1796, France and Spain had lately guaranteed each other's dominions in the Old and the New World. A plot was now discovered (similar to the plan of invading Louisiana for which Blount had been impeached) in which a knot of Federalists, with the Secretary of State at the head and with King in London as go-between, hoped to bring the United States into an alliance with Great Britain in an attempt to sever the Spanish colonies from their parent government. With this object in view and as part of the general scheme, a joint expedition was to be undertaken against the Spanish American colonies under the double protection of the United States and Great Britain, the former furnishing the army and the latter the navy. Don Francisco Antonio Gabriel Miranda, a South American revolutionist, who to this end had secretly worked upon the British ministry, hoped to utilize the disaffection in the Spanish colonies to promote the objects of a joint expedition and, incidently, those of his private ambitions. In case of success, Great Britain would secure the West Indies as a market for her manufactures, to * John Adams, Works, vol. vii., p. 613. 427 gether with rights across the Isthmus, and the United States would become possessed of the Floridas and all of Spanish Louisiana east of the Mississippi. How many of the Federalists were in the confidence of this vast international national project is not certainly known. Certain it is that Harper had broached the idea of conquering Mexico as early as 1797 and that Rufus King sympathized with Miranda's schemes. The correspondence between Pickering and King shows that the two were well acquainted with the details of the plan.* Almost immediately after the publication of the X. Y. Z. dispatches, Pickering sounded Hamilton upon the feasibility of capturing Louisiana; and King's letters, written after the dismissal of the two American envoys (Pinckney and Marshall), threw additional light on the subject. Harrison Gray Otis, one of the leading Federalists in the House, had evidently been initiated into the confidential scheme, for on January 26, 1799, Hamilton wrote to him as follows: "As it is every moment possible that the project of taking possession of the Floridas and Louisiana, long since attributed to France, may be attempted to be put in execution, it is very important that the executive should be clothed with power to meet and defeat so dangerous an enterprise. Indeed, if it is the policy of France to leave us in a state of semi-hostility, it is preferable to terminate it, and by taking possession of these countries for ourselves, to obviate the mischief of their falling into the hands of an active foreign power, and, at the same time, |