Page images
PDF
EPUB

438

THE MISSION CREATES INTERNAL DISSENSIONS.

sible, which was done; and they brought back peace abroad and at home. I found Hamilton at Trenton. He came to visit me. I said nothing to him upon politics. He began to give his advice unasked. I heard him with perfect good humor," etc., going on to say, among other things, that 66 never in his life did he hear a man talk more like a fool."*

Thus again foiled in their schemes, the plotters resorted to other measures, which they thought would prove equally effective. Hamilton expressed his disappointment to Washington, to whom he had as yet made no mention of the Miranda project, seeking to inflame the resentment of the commander-in-chief against Adams. In conclusion, he said: "I hope that the President's decision may not, in its consequences, involve the United States in a war on the side of France with her enemies." The Secretaries should have resigned at this juncture, but, restrained by motives of selfinterest, they did not do so. Instead of accepting the President's discipline in a becoming attitude and endeavoring to make amends for the past, Pickering, Wolcott, and McHenry undertook to revenge themselves by defeating every effort to renominate Adams for the Presidency in the approaching campaign. They thought that by continuing in their Cabinet positions they could accomplish this much more easily.

*See John Adams, Works, vol. i., p. 554 et seq., vol. ix., pp. 254-255. See also Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, pp. 220-221.

The President's determination to send the envoys accorded with the expectations of three-fourths of the rank and file of the Federalist party and with the general sentiment of the country. But the internal dissension created by this move proved fatal to the Federalist party, and the gloomy foreboding of defeat seems to have been widespread. The Federalist party had done noble work in bringing into life a stable government, but such had been the conduct of its leaders that the way was now paved for what Jefferson termed the "Republican Revolution of 1801." Fortu

nately, before this happened, the official head of the Federalists was still strong enough to avert war with France. He was as ready to defy the. courts of Continental Europe in 1798 as he had been to defy England in 1775, but he did not allow that dehorrors of war. Yet, by sending the fiance to involve the country in the French mission he split the party into two irreconcilable factions and made his own reëlection impossible. His action had subjected him to fierce and vindictive criticisms from the Federalist leaders, but in this instance. the verdict of Adams himself is undoubtedly the verdict of history. Writing to James Lloyd in 1815, he says:

"I will defend my mission to France as long as I have an eye to direct my hand, or a finger to hold my pen. They were the most disinterested and meritorious actions of my life. I reflect upon them with so much satisfaction that I desire no other inscription over my gravestone than,

NEGOTIATIONS OF THE ENVOYS.

"Here lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility of peace with France in the year 1800." " *

439

pected with impatience and would be received with warmth," and urged them to come to Paris at once. Reach

Writing to another friend, he says: ing that city March 2, the envoys were

"A glorious and triumphant war it was. Instead of hearing of vessels taken in our rivers,

and burnt in our harbors, as we have done for a long time, not a hostile sail dared to spread itself on any part of our vast sea-coast. Instead of our merchant ships being taken by the scores, and our property captured by millions in the West

and

received by Napoleon, who appointed Joseph Bonaparte, Fleurein Roederer commissioners to conduct the negotiations. A difficulty immediately appeared which threatened to prevent an amicable settlement. The Americans were instructed to insist that recent events had nullified the old treaties and also to demand compensation for depredations upon American commerce; but the French commissioners desired the continuance of the former treaties and asserted that only on the guarantee that they continue in force would the French stipulate respecting indemnities. The Americans proposed to discharge the obligations of those treaties while reMeanwhile the American envoys newing them in other respects, and

Indies, we cleared the whole seas, and not a privateer or picaroon, or even a frigate, dared show its head. The proud pavillon of France was, in many glaring instances, humiliated under the eagle and stripes of the United States. But the greatest triumph of all was, that the haughty Directory, who had demanded tribute, refused to receive our ambassadors, and formally and publicly, by an act of government, declared that they would not receive any more ministers from the United States till I had made excuses and apologies for some of my speeches, were obliged to humble themselves, retract all their declarations, and transmit to me the most positive assurances, in several various ways, both official and unofficial, that they would receive my ministers, and make peace on my own terms."

arrived at Lisbon on November 27. There they learned that Napoleon had accomplished the Revolution of the 18th Brumaire (November 9, 1799), had driven the council out of office, dissolved the Directory, overturned the Constitution, and had placed himself in power. Nevertheless, they determined to proceed with their mission, but, being delayed by contrary winds, did not reach Corunna before January 16, 1800. Talleyrand was still in office, and to him the envoys wrote before proceeding further. He answered that they were ex

* John Adams, Works, vol. x., p. 113. See also Morse, John Adams, pp. 309-310.

VOL. IV- 29

then to claim the compensations spoken of; but to this France would

not consent. As the instructions of the American envoys were positive, they were now compelled either to break off negotiations or to make a temporary arrangement which-if approved would enable the American government to resume amicable relations with France. Finally the

* American State Papers, Foreign Relations. vol. ii., pp. 301-306; Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 2d session, App., pp. 1108-1123. See also Brown, Life of Oliver Ellsworth, pp. 289-291. † See Senate Doc. 102, 19th Congress, 1st session.

Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, vol. vii., pp. 475-476.

440

THE TREATY OF MORFONTAINE.

American envoys proposed a convention by which the points in dispute would be left for future negotiation. A compromise was effected, and on September 30, 1800, the Treaty of Morfontaine was signed. The older treaties were suspended for further consideration and the demands for indemnities were left for future negotiation. National vessels captured by either party were to be given up." Other articles provided that all uncondemned captured property, save contraband, be restored by both governments. The payment of debts was stipulated. Both nations were put on an equal footing with the most favored nation. Provision was made to pro

tect the commerce of the United States against such depredations and attacks as had been made upon it by French privateers and which had led to rupture between the two nations.t

[blocks in formation]

I believe it will meet with opposition from both sides of the House. It has been a bungling negoti ation." And on December 26,-"The French treaty will be violently opposed by the Feds; the giving up the vessels is the article they cannot swallow." See Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., pp. 471, 473–474.

McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 527-529. The text of the treaty will be found in Treaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers (first printed as Senate Ex. Doc. no. 36, 41st Congress, 3d session), pp. 266-275; United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. viii., p. 178 et seq.; Snow, Treaties and Topics in American Diplomacy, pp.

According to Gibbs, the United States secured but little advantage from this treaty and might better have persisted in its former policy.* C. F. Adams, however, while admitting that the treaty "touched but lightly on the causes of grievance between the two countries, and seemed to grant little redress to the wrongs of which America had justly complained," claims that it gained what was of more worth to them; and that was a termination of all further danger of war, and a prevention of the causes of future. difficulties. It is sufficient

66

to say, that these measures had the effect of reestablishing the neutral policy of the United States, which had been for years an imminent peril, and of smoothing the way to the period of great prosperity which followed. It is difficult to imagine any other result of the turmoil and conflict of opinions that had so long prevailed, which, on the whole, deserved to insure a better

41-45; American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii., pp. 295-301; Annals of Congress, App., pp. 1098-1107. For the circumstances leading up to it, see Lyman, Diplomacy of the United States, chap. viii.; Emanuel Spencer, Napoleon Bonaparte and Peace with America, in Magazine of American History, vol. xxvi., pp. 298-301; Trescot, Diplomatic History of the Administrations of Washington and Adams, chap. iii.; Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 2d session App., pp. 1124-1207; American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii., pp. 307-345; John Adams, Works, vols. viii.-ix.; Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, vol. ii.; Morse, John Adams, pp. 265-287 and Thomas Jefferson, pp. 173-193; Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, pp. 194-221; Brown, Life of Oliver Ellsworth, pp. 293-299.

* Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. ii., p. 439.

RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY.

return of gratitude to its authors, from the great body of citizens most deeply interested in the country's welfare."*

When Congress convened, the President was unable to announce the result of the French mission, but shortly afterward General Davie returned to America with the Convention, which was submitted to the Senate in December of 1800. There, after debate, the Federalist Senators who had been opposed to the mission struck out the two articles which referred to the treaties of 1778 and put off indemnities to a future negotiation, and thus abridged, Adams ratified the Convention in February of 1801.† He nominated James A. Bayard, ministerplenipotentiary, to convey the ratification to France and to continue the intercourse thus happily begun, but Bayard did not accept the appointment, and the concluding act in the restoration of complete harmony was left to Adams' successor.

One of Jefferson's first acts was to send John Dawson, of Maryland, to France in the frigate Baltimore.|| Baltimore.|| Dawson carried with him the Convention as it had been revised in the Senate in February of 1801. The Senate had expunged the second the second

*Life and Works of Adams, vol. i., p. 575.

The proceedings in secret session of the Senate are in Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 2d session, pp. 767-778; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii., pp. 492-496.

See Adams' message to the Senate, March 2, 1801, Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 315.

|| McMaster, vol. ii., p. 594.

441

article of the Convention, to which Napoleon agreed, "provided that by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article." This was agreed to by the Senate December 19, 1801, and thus a source of constant litigation was opened. The United States made an even exchange of the claims of her citizens against France, as opposed to the claims of French citizens against the United States, but no provision was made by the latter to recompense her citizens thus despoiled; the government "dishonestly declined to recognize those very claims by which she obtained release."*

One of the results of the dispute with France and England was the arbitration between the latter and the United States of American claims against Great Britain growing out of captures made, under the orders in council, and of British claims against the United States growing out of our failure completely to enforce its neu-. trality. The American commissioners were Christopher Gore and William Pinkney, of Maryland; the British commissioners were Sir John Nicholl (afterward succeeded by Maurice Swabey) and John Anstey. These commissioners were to choose by lot (in case they could not agree otherwise) a fifth commissioner, and

* McMaster, vol. ii., p. 606; Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 489-491; Allen, Our Naval War With France, chap. ix.

[blocks in formation]

the choice fell upon Colonel John Trumbull, of Connecticut. Shortly after the commissioners began their meetings, controversy arose as to their power to determine their jurisdiction regarding several of the claims presented for a decision, the division of opinion at times becoming so pronounced that the British commissioners refused to attend the meetings. The controversy was finally settled, and the commissioners (after an interruption in their session from July 30, 1799, to February 15, 1802, pending the diplomatic adjustment of their difficulties) finished their business February 24, 1804. Through the operation of the stipulation under which the commissioners sat, it is estimated that Americans recovered from Great Britain the sum of $11,650,000, while the awards against the United States aggregated only $143,248.14.*

The depredations committed by European powers upon American commerce gave rise to many claims for indemnity. The final account with England was settled by the War of 1812. The claims against Spain were adjusted in 1819, when Florida was purchased. In 1830 a treaty was conIcluded with Denmark to settle the claims against that country, but these were offset in part by the claims of that kingdom against the United States. The claims against Naples were not adjusted before 1832, when a

* Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 204-207. See Treaties and Conventions of the United States, p. 1286.

squadron was sent to enforce payment.* The claims against Holland were presented for payment by France, under the treaty of 1832, and were paid.† By the Conventions of 1800 and 1803, depredations committed under the decrees of the French Republic were disposed of. In 1812 Joel Barlow made an effectual attempt to adjust the indemnity claims against France; but, before anything could be accomplished, Napoleon had been compelled to retreat from Moscow, which dissipated all thoughts of an agreement.

In 1816 Gallatin went to France and entered upon a long tedious negotiation which lasted nearly fifteen years, being terminated by William C. Rives in 1831. On July 4, 1831, a treaty was concluded and ratified by which France agreed to pay the United States 15,000,000 francs, which was only about a fifth of the actual spoliations. Part of this was offset by claims of France against the United States amounting to 1,500,000 francs. But for several years the French Chamber of Deputies refused to appropriate the money necessary to put the treaty into effect, and it was not until 1836, when Great Britain offered mediation, that the French government took steps to discharge the obligation. The commission appointed

* Griffis, Life of M. C. Perry, chap. xi. House Ex. Doc. 117, 24th Congress, 1st session; American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. v., pp. 598-629.

Todd, Life of Barlow, chap. ix.

« PreviousContinue »