by si Ta in MO A bit Sn " i } Pa t : o me a mi * Pe Ege SES a a, a ae ™ “er DatéDue APR121945 | y ‘niin 7 THE CONSTITOMONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATKS, FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION TO ‘ THE CLOSE OF JACKSON'S ADMINISTRATION. BY WILLIAM ARCHER COCKE. Ou Two Volumes. VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. 1858. “CORNELL es \\ LIBRARY 7 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by WILLIAM ARCHER COCKE, : In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Medication of the First Volume. TO KATE. My Dzarty Betovep Wire :— I dedicate this volume to you as a feeble return for the happiness you have conferred by your constant kindness and affection. Your anxious solicitude has been among the great incentives to the laborious task. The favor with which it may be received by the public will be as highly cherished by you as by myself; and your smile of approba- tion will be regarded far higher than the plaudits of the world. é Wiittiam ARCHER CocKE. RicHMonD, July, 1858. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE INTRODUCTION... cseeeeeee iGesesesesenra See heevedicnd uate wel nedueitens Settsiaemecamentedses 9 Greece and Rome deficient in Free Principles. v.10 Their gradual Development in England....... «11-13 Settlement of the Colomies........... cesses csneesees cectee ceeeer vee . 14 Character of the Colonial Governments and British Oppression... 25 Assembling of a General Congress, and the Development of Revolu- tionary PrinGriples - x. sve ss sds cdeaisiensi en'Vesnaaeasitess eve s6y caseaveees Seesdeguaves 30 Proceedings of the Second Continental Congress... 34 Washington appointed Commander-in-chief......... . 35 Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence.. . 386 Resolutions: adopted a swsssxcvasscsvicdcns case sve caiscve-seviecngse Sua ssuasicenn terse ve 87 Virginia the first State that formed an Independent Government......... 39 Declaration of Independence—Its History—Proceedings of the States Im reference theret0........1.csseeessccesssesssceeseeaes coesesens ceessecceens ceeses Continental Congress—History of the Articles of Confederation CHAPTER II. Formation and adoption of the Constitution.........066.cccecsseeeses ceeeenees 52 History of its progress through the Convention—Its different elements of power—Character of the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary De- partments—Views of the different State Conventions, and Resolutions UPON its ratification. .....sccereeecececsensenveceee seseeenee sesseesee seseeeees ees 94 CHAPTER III. Administration of Washington..............csssesees ceseee ceeeessee eveees eenceeene 95 Difficulties of the Administration.. we OT Formation of Parties......... ee eee pee - 99 Cabinet Officers.........ececeseee es « 100 Washington’s First Message..........ssseecsccceesecescessssneeee cesses ueceensneeee 108 Measures of the Administration—Hamilton’s Bee ee Funding System............6004 sceavneress sateniavsarvaneers « 104 Debates on the Tariff............. . 105 Assumption of the State Debts. . 109 Debate upon Slavery...crrceecerseceees . 111 Financial History of the Country............cc6 eee wee. 114 National Bank... saebdiscdesdessiacs sauce seesdece udvessalseousecsdwapagsensdumepeied 115 First Census—Number of Representatives—Ratio of Representation... 123 Commercial Report of the Secretary of State ........cccssseseeeeeee saaeenins 125 5 6 CONTENTS. PAGE Madison’s Commercial Resolutions.......sccsseeesceeececeesennenaaee encase cenere 127 Origin of the Eleventh Article of the Amendments to the Constitution.. 129 Whisky Insurrection.......ccseeccsssseceesseeses ceeeeeees eeseeeess cneeesceeees sneeee 129 Jay’s Treaty—Its History........sscsssceeceeececes cneensacs teneeseee ceaneeseenenens 132 Foreign Policy of the Administration... 134 Internal Improvements w.-- 140 Close of Washington’s Administration. . Linea Sei Seeiostde ceswies ueenacareicaeueets 144 Its great popularity—Giles and a few others only dissatisfied with it.... 145 Policy of the Administration........1.sseccsesecceeeesee cesses neers seeeee se eenees 146 Washington’s Farewell Address... Washington’s Character. ...cccccc cesses csssesseececceneeesen cesase cesses seneee enegen 149 CHAPTER IV. Administration of John Adams—Sketch of his Life.. 0.0.0... .sseeee sevens 150 Elected President—His Cabinet...........ccssecesveses seeveee 155 Difficulties with France—Special Session of Congress... we 156 ProvisiOtial ALM Yssaeswaiaticsosramrssveawcsswadeaaeeroossss siersasaviaatls see 158 Commissioners appointed to negotiate a Treaty with France.. .... 160 Genet—His Conduct.........ccccseesecesees ceeeeeeecees ceneeeess peeees ces sees 161 Difficulties with France.. see. 168 IK Wes g SUNG Div sic Merial asa en slee ey's tien otha dawnsanbeny cae ine Quceatccenmuavabess seovs 165 Unsuccessful efforts of the Commissioners to make a Treaty with France.. 167 War anticipated with France............ccccssee secceseee ceeeeueee ceceeaneeeee eoeeee 168 Return of the Ministers from France.. 171 Strong war-feeling towards France... 3 Perplexity of the Administration................ 172 Appointment of other Ministers to France — issatisfaction of the Cabinets wscasesnnceveswasesrvsenie oopssevasen ve tis) aewtvineadenasiinisdaceassseddsce tenn The unpopularity of the Administration .. Alien and Sedition Laws...........0.cccccccseeecceseeseeeee seeese seeeee seaeeeeeeee Views of the General Assembly of Virginia and other States... Views of Massachusetts...........ccccccsosenseee sessesees coe cence coceeeers seeeeeeee Comparison of the Powers of the States and General Government under the ConstitM tonics dasa si saxevecvncvcesetelsadeshess sauieasiadeanasesteraassvenseres Removal of the Seat of Government to the District of Columbia... Becond: Census viesseisicstseiis Pennsylvania, signed by Franklin, arose the debate which ensued in reference to the power of Congress over slavery. Hartwell moved the reference of the first memorial to a spe- cial committee. Tucker said he considered the memorial so glaring an in- terference with the Constitution that he had hoped the House would not have given so much countenance to a request 80 improper in itself. Gerry replied to Tucker, and wished to know wherein the memorial had asked anything violative of the Constitution. 1790. OF THE UNITED STATES. 111 Burke reprobated the commitment as subversive of the Constitution, as sounding the alarm, and blowing the trump of sedition in the Southern States. He would oppose the business totally, and if chosen on the committee he would decline serving. Scott, from Pennsylvania, was warmly in favor of the reso- lution and a friend of the memorial. Jackson was opposed to it, and painted in strong colors the alarming consequences to be apprehended from taking up the business,—revolt, insurrection, and devastation,—and con- cluded by an observation similar to Burke. Sherman saw no difficulty in committing the measure; the committee may bring in such a report as may be satisfactory to gentlemen on all sides. Baldwin, an emigrant from Connecticut, then representing a district in the State of Georgia, referred to the principles of accommodation which prevailed at the time of forming the Government. Those mutual concessions which then took place gave us a constitution which was to insure the peace and the equal rights and properties of the various States, and to pre- vent all infraction of the rights in this particular instance, they precluded themselves, by an express stipulation, from all interference in the slave-trade. Cungress is not called upon to declare its sentiments upon this occasion; it cannot con- stitutionally interfere in the business. He deprecated the consequences of such a measure in very forsible terms, and hoped the House would proceed no further in the investigation of the subject. Smith, of South Carolina, recurring to the memorials, ob- served that Congress could not constitutionally interfere in the business upon the prayer of the memorialists, as that went to an entire abolition of slavery; it could not, therefore, with propriety be referred to a committee. In the Southern States difficulties on this account had arisen in respect to the ratification of the Constitution, and unless their apprehensions on this head had been dissipated by their property being secured and guarantied to them by the Constitution itself, they never could have adopted it. He then depicted the miseries that would result from the inter- ference of Congress in the Southern governments. He as- serted, as his opinion, that if there were no slaves in the Southern States, they would be entirely depopulated; from the nature of the country it could not be cultivated without 112 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY them; their proprietors are persons of as much humanity as the inhabitants of any part of the continent; they are as conspicuous for their morals as any of their neighbors. John Page, of Virginia, was an ultra Republican, and had been defeated by Jefferson for the gubernatorial office, next addressed the House. He was in favor of commitment. He hoped that the benevolent designs of the respectable memo- rialists would not be prostrated at the threshold, so far as to exclude a fair discussion of the prayer of their memorial. He did not think it applied for a total abolition of slavery; it was only a requst that such measures may be taken consistent with the Constitution, as may finally issue in the total aboli- tion of the slave-trade. Madison thought the best mode of proceeding would be to commit the memorial without debate. But, after the debate which had ensued, he entered into a critical review of the cir- cumstances respecting the adoption of the Constitution; the ideas upon the limitation of the powers of Congress to inter- fere in the regulation of the commerce in slaves, and showing that they were not precluded from interposing in their impor- tation. He adverted to the Western country and the cession of Georgia, in which he thought Congress have the power to regulate slavery; which showed that gentlemen were mistaken in supposing that Congress could not constitutionally inter- fere in the business in any degree whatever. He was in favor of committing the petitions, and justified the measure by repeated precedents in the proceedings of the House. Gerry, who again occupied the floor, entered into a justifi- cation of the interference of Congress as being fully com- patible with the Constitution. He descanted on the miseries to which these Africans are subjected by this traffic, and said he never contemplated this subject without reflecting what his own feelings would be in case himself, his children, or friends were placed in the same deplorable circumstances. He re- ferred to the Constitution, and pointed out the restrictions laid on the General Government respecting the importation of slaves. It is not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this House to violate that part of the Con- stitution, but that we have the right to regulate this business is as clear as that we have any rights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has spoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeably to the Constitution, lay a duty of ten dollars a head on slaves; they may do this im- OF THE UNITED STATES. 113 mediately. He made a calculation of the value of slaves in the Southern States. He supposed they might be worth ten millions of dollars. Congress have a right, if they see pro- per, to make a proposal to the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their resources in the Southern coun- try may furnish them with means. He did not suggest a measure of this kind, but instanced these particulars to show that Congress certainly have a right to intermeddle in this business. Boudinot, from New Jersey, who had been commissary of prisoners during the war, and President of the Continental Congress, warmly advocated the views of Gerry. Stone, of Maryland, was opposed to the memorial; he said it was a thing of course, for there never existed a society of any considerable extent which did not interfere with the con- cerns of other people, and this interference has at one time or other deluged the world with blood. After four days of angry discussion, the memorial and pe- tition were referred to a select committee of seven, six of whom were from the North and only one from the South, as follows:—one from Virginia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The report of the committee was highly creditable to the members who composed it, and shows the character of the Congress at this day to have been beyond the reach of that fanaticism which have since indicated the temper of our Northern brethren. It was— First. “That the migration or importation of such per- sons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.” Secondly. ‘That Congress have no power to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulation therein which humanity and true policy may require.” Thirdly. “That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African slave-trade for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by proper regulations for the hu- mane treatment, during their passage, of slaves imported by said citizens into the States admitting such importations.” Fourthly. “That Congress have also authority to prohibit 114 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY foreigners from fitting out vessels in any part of the United States for transporting persons from Africa to any foreign ort.”’* It will add much weight and dignity to the proceedings of the First Congress, to remember that among its leading men were found a respectable number who had been members of the Convention that formed the Federal Constitution, who not only understood its meaning, but were deeply imbued with its spirit. Among them were Langdon and Gilman, of New Hampshire; King, of Massachusetts; Sherman, of Connec- ticut; Morris, Clymer, and Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania; Bassett and Reed, of Delaware; McHenry and Carroll, of Maryland; James Madison, of Virginia; Butler, of South Carolina; Few and Baldwin, of Georgia. There was a third session of this Congress, which assembled at Philadelphia on the first Monday in December. The great measure of this session,—which was brief, terminating the 4th of March, 1791,—was the establish- ment of a national bank, which had been recommended by Hamilton. In taking a retrospective view of the financial history of the country, it is not surprising that the bank should have found the favor it did with Congress and the people. Viewing it as a practical measure, which might alleviate for a time the embarrassment of the people, is the only excuse for it. From the very beginning of the North American Settlements there was a constant indebtedness to the Mother Country, which not only abstracted all the specie from the Colonies, but forced a resort to other things as a sort of medium of ex- change. Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina made use of tobacco for the purposes of exchange; in Massachusetts and other parts of the country corn and cattle were used. Massachusetts was the first to issue Government notes, which were made receivable for the payment of taxes in 1690, and afterwards a legal tender. The profuse issue of paper of this sort soon made it worthless. The same fate had awaited the issue of the notes of the Government during the Revolution. The Continental bills were succeeded by Continental certifi- aa which had also failed to supply the place of gold and silver. Robert Morris had introduced a system of banking, bor- 1790. * Elliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 416. OF THE UNITED STATES. 115 rowed from the Mother Country, of issuing notes payable upon presentation in gold and silver. This institution, known as the Bank of North America, had been chartered by the Continental Congress; several others had been char- tered by the States, which served to give satisfaction to the mercantile community of the North. The South scarcely required such facilities; they were only found in New York and Boston. The State of Pennsylvania adopted, by amendment of its charter, the Bank of North America, on account of the doubts existing as to the validity of its charter by the Continental Congress, it being generally conceded that there was no au- thority on the part of Congress to charter a bank. This bank, however, went down on the death of Morris. At the present time the financial affairs of the Government were much perplexed, especially in the absence of a mint; we had to rely entirely upon foreign coin, and chiefly the Spanish dollar, with such others as flowed into our country by foreign trade. If there ever was a time that expediency would justify a national bank, it was this, when we had no national currency, when trade was stagnating for the want of a medium of exchange, and the Government embarrassed by the absence of a national currency. But it should be borne in mind that great danger lurks in the con- nection between the Government and banks, as is illustrated by the two great financial catastrophes in the history of Ame- rican banking,—“‘ the temporary stoppages of specie payments having both resulted from too intimate a connection on the part of the banks with the National Government; in the one case as rash and improvident borrowers, in the other case as borrowers no less rash and improvident.’’* A bill was first introduced into the Senate for the incor- poration of a national bank, through which body it passed without difficulty. In the House it encountered a strong and able opposition. Giles, a new member from the Petersburg district, appeared as the successor of Bland, who died; he was soon an able and distinguished leader of the Republican party, than whom no one was more deeply imbued with its principles. He opposed with great zeal and ability the chartering of 1791. February 2, 1791. * Hild. Hist. U.S., vol. i. p. 262. 116 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the national bank. He considered it unconstitutional, to show which he read the first section of the bill which established the subscribers of the bank into a corporation; to do which, he conceived, the Constitution had given Congress no power. He read the clause in the Constitution which had been ad- duced as sanctioning the exercise of such a power. This clause only respects, he said, all the necessary powers to carry into effect such as were expressly delegated; that of forming cor- porations was not expressly granted. He then adverted to the power of borrowing money, vested in Congress by the Constitution, and controverted the idea that a bank was ne- cessary to carry it into execution; it might, he granted, con- duce to a greater facility in exercising that power, but that it was expedient or necessary either to effect loans or establish the Government, he denied. If Congress in this instance, he observed, exercised the power of creating corporations, it was nowhere limited, and they might, if they thought fit, ex- tend it to every object, and in consequence thereof monopo- lies of East and West India trade be established; and this would place us in the precise situation of a nation without a free constitution. He referred to the clause in the Constitution which pro- hibits Congress from giving preference to one part of the United States over another, which he considered, with his other objections, sufficient to justify a rejection of the plan. If it is problematical only whether the establishment of this national bank is agreeable to the Constitution, this ought to be, he thought, sufficient to prevent an adoption of the sys- tem. He showed the consequences which would result from a doubt of the legality of the measure. He noticed the ob- jections which had been originally made by the people to the Constitution, and the pains which were taken to obviate their fears and apprehensions. The adoption of this plan would realize many of their disagreeable anticipations. He denied the necessity of a bank for the preservation of the Govern- ment. The only object, as the subject struck his mind, was to raise stock; but it was certainly not expedient to kindle the flame of discontent, and rouse the fears and jealousies of the people in many States to raise stock. He took notice of some observations which had fallen from other gentlemen respecting incidental powers, and denied that such were possessed by Congress. The General Government was not a consolidated govern- OF THE UNITED STATES, 117 ment, but a federal government, possessed of such powers as the States or the people had expressly delegated; but to support these incidental powers ceded to Congress was to make it not a federal, not even a republican consolidated go- vernment, but a despotic one. If this idea was contemplated, the people would be alarmed, and they would be justly alarmed, and he hoped they would be alarmed. Vining advocated the policy and constitutionality of the measure. Madison, who did not oppose all banking systems, did not approve of the plan under consideration. Upon the general view of banks he recapitulated the several advantages which may be derived from them. The public credit might be raised for a time, but only partially. Banks, he conceived, tended to diminish the quantity of precious metals in a country, and the articles received in lieu of a portion of them which was banished, conferred no substantial benefit on the country. He dwelt on the casualties that banks are sub- ject to. To be essentially useful in so extensive a country they should be fixed in different parts of the United States, and in this view the local banks of the several States could be employed with more advantage than if any other system was adopted. Circumstances, in Great Britain, required that there should be one bank, as the object there is to concentrate the wealth of the country at a point, as the interest of the public debt is all paid in one place. Here a difference of circum- stances called for another kind of policy; the public debt is paid in all the different States. He denied the power of Congress to establish banks, and he had long entertained the opinion. AJ] power had its limits; that of the General Government was ceded from the mass of general power inherent in the people, and was con- sequently confined within the bounds fixed by their act of cession. The Constitution was this act, and to warrant Con- gress in exercising the power, the grant of it should be pointed out in that instrument; this, he said, had not been done; he presumed it could not be done. If we ventured to construe the Constitution, such construction was only admissible, as it carefully preserved entire the idea on which that Constitution is founded. He adverted to the clauses in the Constitution which had been adduced as conveying this power of incorporation. He 118 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY said he could not find it in that of laying taxes. It was im- possible to deduce it from the power given to Congress to provide for the general welfare. If it is admitted that the right exists there, every guard set to the powers of the Con- stitution is broken down, and the limitations become nugatory. The present Congress, it was said, had all the powers of the old Confederation, and more; under the old Government a bank had been established, and hence it was deduced that the present Legislature had indubitably that power. The exigencies of Government were such, he answered, under the old Confederation as to justify almost an infraction of parch- ment rights; but the old Congress were conscious they had not every power necessary for the complete establishment of a bank, and recommended to the individual States to make sundry regulations for the complete esta- blishment of the institution. To exercise the power included in the bill was an infringe- ment on the rights of the several States; for they could establish banks within their respective jurisdictions and pro- hibit the establishment of any others. A law existed in one of the States prohibiting cash notes of hand, payable on demand. The power of making such a law could not, he pre- sumed, be denied to the States; and, if this was granted, and such laws were in force, it certainly would effectually exclude the establishment of a bank. This power of establishing a bank had been deduced from the right granted in the Constitution of borrowing money; but this, he conceived, was not a bill to borrow money. It was said that Congress had not only this power to borrow money, but to enable the people to lend it. In answer to this, he observed, that if Congress had a right to enable those people to lend who are willing but not able, it might be said that they have a right to compel those to lend who are able but not willing. He adverted to that clause in the Constitution which em- powers Congress to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into execution, and observing on the diffusive and ductile interpretations of their words and the boundless latitude of construction given them by the friends of the bank, said that by their construction every possible power might be exercised. The Government would then be paramount in all public cases; charters, corporations, and monoplies might be given, and every limitation effectually swept away, and 1790. OF THE UNITED STATES. 119 it could effectually supersede the establishment of every bank in the several States. The doctrine of implication, he warned the friends of this system, was a dangerous one, which, multiplied and combined in the manner some gentlemen appeared to contemplate, would form a chain reaching every object of legislation in the United States. This power to incorporate, he contended, was of primary importance, and could by no means be viewed as a subaltern, and therefore ought to be laid down in the Constitution to warrant Congress in the exercise of it and ought not to be considered as resulting from any other power. Incorporation is as important as the power of naturalization; and Congress, he presumed, would not exercise the power of naturalizing a foreigner, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution. He read a sentence in the bill respecting the power of making such regulations as were not contrary to law. Whatlaw? Wasit the law ofthe United States? There were so few, that there was allowed a very considerable lati- tude to the power of making regulations, and more than any member, he conceived, would wish to grant. Were the laws of the individual States contemplated by this provision, then it would be in the power of the separate States to defeat an institution of the Union. He asked by what authority Con- gress empowered a corporation to possess real estate; he re- probated the idea. To establish this bank was establishing a monopoly, guarantied in such a manner that no similar privilege could be granted to any other number of persons whatever. He denied the necessity of instituting a bank at the present time; the Constitution ought not to be violated without urgent necessity indeed. There were banks in the several States from which some advantages could be derived which could not be gained from an institution on the plan ' proposed. In confirmation of his sentiments, he adduced certain pas- sages from speeches made in several of the State conven- tions by those in favor of adopting the Constitution. These passages were fully in favor of this idea, that the General Government could not exceed the expressly delegated powers; in addition to which he alluded to the amendments proposed by Congress to the Constitution. In opposition to Madison, and in behalf of the bill, ap- peared Fisher Ames, from Massachusetts, a very able man, 120 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and among the most prominent of the Federal party then in Congress. Ames said, for his own part, he never doubted the consti- tutionality of the plan, and if the public sense was to be regarded on the occasion, their approbation of the measure taken by the old Confederation respecting the Bank of North America, and their total silence on the constitutionality of the plan before Congress at this day, were to him sufficient proofs on the subject. The first question was, whether the powers of the House were confined to those expressly granted by the letter of the Constitution; or whether the doctrine of implication was safe ground to proceed upon. If the letter of the Constitution was to be adhered to, the question he deemed determined; but if a more rational plan was adopted and the sense of the Constitution, upon strict examination, appeared even doubtful, every member must then appeal to his conscience and understanding. Ifthe powers of the House were circumscribed by the letter of the Constitution, much expense might have been saved to the public, as their hands would have been completely tied. But by the very nature of government, the Legislature had an implied power of using every means not positively prohibited by the Constitu- tion, to execute the ends for which that government was instituted. Every constitutional right should be so liberally construed as to effect the public good. This, it has been said, was taking too great a latitude; but certainly to promote the ends of government, was the end of its existence; and by the ties of conscience each member was bound to exercise every lawful power which could have a tendency to promote the general welfare: it had been said that the doctrine of implication was dangerous, and would alarm the people; he thought it would not unless the alarm was well founded. Suppose the power of raising armies was not expressly granted to the General Government, would it be inferred from hence that the power of declaring war, without the means of carrying it on, had been ceded to them; would it be said that the blood of fellow-citizens was crying for ven- geance, though their lives and property called for protection from the hand of government; would it be said that they had not a constitutional right to be protected; would it be urged that the Constitution, by not expressly granting to the General Government the power of levying armies, had put it OF THE UNITED STATES. 121 out of their power to protect its citizens? This he conceived would be a very dangerous doctrine. Suppose the power of borrowing money had not been ex- pressly given to the Federal Government, would it not, in emergencies, be inferred from the nature of the general powers granted toit? Suppose the power to lend had not been men- tioned, and a surplus revenue in the public coffers, should it be distributed among the people or locked up and suffered to remain unproductive in the Treasury? Suppose the question of redeeming the prisoners in captivity at Algiers was before the House, would it be urged that nothing could be done in their favor by the General Government, because no power was specially granted? very person, he conceived, who felt as aman, would not think his hands tied when they were to be extended to the relief of suffering fellow-citizens. The power of buying certificates was not particularly mentioned in the Constitution, yet it had been exercised by the General Government, and was inferred from that of paying the public debt, and from the reason of the case. The power of esta- blishing banks, could be deduced from the same source, from their utility in the ordinary operations of government and their indispensable necessity in cases of sudden emergencies. It was said that the State banks would serve all these pur- poses; but why deprive the General Government, he asked, of the power of self-defence? He proceeded to prove that the power of incorporating the subscribers to the bank, could be deduced from that clause in the Constitution which had been termed the sweeping clause. Unless a reasonable latitude of construction of this part of the Constitution was allowed, he did not see upon what authority several acts of Congress would rest. Whence did the General Government draw the authority they had exercised over the Western territory? That authority, he answered, must of necessity belong to Congress; it could not rest with the individual States. The power here was derived by implication, and was deduced from the reason and necessity of the case; and the power contended for in the present case might for the same reasons be exercised, and was drawn from the same source. The government of the Western territory was a special corporation, a corporation in its nature the most important ; and would it be said that Congress had acted unconstitu- tionally when they established it; and would the territory Vox. 1.—9 122 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY be left under the control of the individual States? He pre- sumed not. By the Constitution a power of regulating trade was specially given to Congress; under this clause they had established regulations affecting ships, seamen, light-houses, &c. By parity of reasoning, he conceived that as the power of collecting taxes was specified among the rights granted by the Constitution to Congress, they undoubtedly were entitled to make regulations affecting the instruments by means of which those taxes were to be collected. Some opposition to the system arose from the idea that it was an infringement on the rights of individual States. This objection he an- swered. It could not be denied that Congress had the right to exercise complete and exclusive jurisdiction over the dis- trict, ten miles square, ceded for the seat of permanent residence, and over such spots as were ceded for light- houses, &c. In these places, then, it must be granted that Congress had authority to establish a bank. If this was allowed (and he could not see how it could be denied,) then the question became a question of place, and not of principle. He adverted to the preamble of the Constitution, which de- clares that it is established for the general welfare of the Union. This vested Congress with authority over all ob- jects of national concern or of a general nature. A national bank undoubtedly came under this idea, and though not specially mentioned, yet the general design and tendency of the Constitution proved more evidently the constitutionality of the system than its silence in this particular could be construed to express the contrary. He deduced the power also from those clauses in the Constitution which authorize Congress to levy and collect taxes. This could not be done from every corner of so extended a country, without the assistance of paper. The debate was continued for a few days by Sedgwick, Lawrence, Sherman, and others, in behalf of the bill; who were opposed by Jackson, R. B. Lee, and others. The bill passed the House by a vote of 39 to 20.* Washington ex- ercised great caution and deliberation before affixing his sig- nature to a measure of such importance. Written opinions were submitted to him by every member of the Cabinet, upon which they were divided; Jefferson and Randolph being opposed to it upon grounds of expediency and constitu- * Elliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 416. OF THE UNITED STATES. 123 tionality, while Hamilton and Knox were its warm advocates. Washington ultimately signed the bill. The capital of this bank consisted of 25,000 shares of $400 each; its duration was limited to twenty years. Eight millions were to be subscribed by individuals, and two mil- lions by the Government. The affairs of the bank—which was located at Philadelphia—were managed by a board of twenty-five directors, chosen annually by the stockholders ; the directors were to choose a president from their own body. The second Congress assembled at Philadelphia, in obedience to a resolution of the preceding Con- gress. In both branches of the National Legislature, the Federalists were in the majority. The first census of the United States had been taken and presented to this Congress. Its details were very simple, exhibiting the population as follows :— Free white males 16 years and upward, 814,396. Free white males under 16 years, 802,077. Free white females, 1,536,638. All other persons except Indians not taxed, 59,481. Slaves, 697,697. Total, 3,921,326. The number of members in the House was fixed at 105; not, however, without great difficulty and angry debate, which abounded in threats to dissolve the Union from the Northern section. The first bill fixed the number of Repre- sentatives at 113; which was adjusted to the ratio of one ' member for every thirty thousand, leaving large fractions at the North unrepresented, which occasioned the opposition from that section. The Senate amended the bill by raising the ratio to thirty-three thousand, which, decreasing the frac- tions in the Northern States, increased them at the South. The House would not accede to the amendment of the Se- nate, but it was sustained, when sent back, by the casting-vote of the Vice-President; the House ultimately refused to recede from its first position, and this bill was lost. The House sent up a second bill, adopting thirty thousand as the ratio, providing at the same time for a new census and a new dis- tribution of Representatives, previous to the adjournment of the ensuing Congress. The Senate altered the bill by increasing the number to 120, and striking out the clause relating to the census and a new apportionment. The Se- nate’s amendment was disagreed to, 31 to 80; when sent up, the Senate determined to maintain its position. A committee of conference was asked, which, though appointed, resulted in Oct., 1791. 124 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. no good, the Senate standing to its former position. The House finally yielded by a vote of 31 to 29, almost geogra- phical; the North in favor of a concurrence with the Senate, the South opposing it. This bill was sent to Washington, who vetoed it, Jefferson and Randolph being opposed to the bill, while Hamilton and Knox advised the President to sign it. A third bill was then introduced into the House, which apportioned the representation at the ratio of thirty-three thousand, which gave 105 members. It is worthy of observation that, according to the census, slavery existed throughout the Union, except in Massachu- setts and Maine, Maine being at that time a part of Massa- chusetts. The struggle commenced at this time for a predominance of power between the Northern and Southern parts of this Union, which has often been agitated with the utmost vio- lence. In reference to an increased number of Representa- tives, the idea was favored by Northern men with a view to increase the taxation on slaves, the Southern States being much more extensively slave-holding. The first administration of Washington is interesting and instructive, not only on account of the management of our financial and domestic affairs, the high, neutral, and conser- vative policy manifested in reference to the wars that raged in Europe at the time, but the light and wisdom thrown upon questions of deep and vital constitutional interest by those who had imbibed its spirit by watching and assisting at its formation and first operation. In March, Washington was inaugurated for the second term. In December of the same year, the Third Congress assembled. The friends of the Administra- tion endeavored to elect Sedgwick Speaker, but by a com- bination of parties, anti-Federal in tone and character, Muhl- enburg was chosen by a majority of ten votes. The Fifth Annual Message was communicated to Congress the first day of its session; the most important feature of which was the allusion to the proclamation of strict neutrality which had been issued, in April preceding, in reference to the wars then raging in EKurope,—heavy penalties being visitable upon all American citizens who violated this prin- ciple of neutrality, fundamental to the well-being of our Government, and established at this early period as the fixed policy of the nation. The attention of Congress was chiefly 1793, 17938. OF THE UNITED STATES. 125 occupied with the commercial affairs of the country, and our relations with France. Congress on the 23d of February, 1791, passed a resolution calling on the Secretary of State for information in reference to our commerce. ‘The report was sent in on December the 16th, 1793. On the 30th of December he made an additional report, communicating cer- tain documents from foreign governments.* This report, for fullness and accuracy, presenting with logical clearness the interest and duties of the United States, was justly celebrated as one of the ablest efforts of that talented and distinguished statesman, Thomas Jefferson. On the next day he retired from the cabinet. He had lost the influence he once exercised on the political friends and asso- ciates of the President, while Washington had begun to sus- pect him of treachery. It was obviously the duty, as well as the interest of Jefferson, that he should retire. Hamilton and Knox represented the views of the President;-while Jef- ferson and Randolph were the warm advocates and strenuous friends of the Republican party, which they were striving to excite into life and action upon the overthrow of the Admin- istration, and, in some respects, the political principles of Washington. The limited resources of the country and the arduous difficulties through which our commerce struggled, are exhi- bited by the report of Jefferson. But, at the same time, all must be struck with the masterly policy that brightly shone over every effort of the Administration in reference to our foreign relations. The countries with which the United States had their chief commercial intercourse were Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain, the United Nether- lands, Denmark, and Sweden. The articles of export which constituted the basis of our commerce, with their respective amounts, were— . $4,349,887 | Horses and mules.......+. $339,758 «. 1,758,796 | Whale oil.........cce cesseeese 252,591 1,263,534 | Flaxseed 236,072 941,693 | Tar, pitch, and turpen- Pot and pearl as 839,098 EINE. pose :ec verano seater ences 217,177 Salted meats.:. . 699,180 | Live provision - 187,748 TNO G0 sis es didensscssuwseacnas 537,379 | Foreign goods... 620,274 Exports under this report, Were..s.sssssssseesees coveeeeee eves sees 7,649,887 * American State Papers, vol. i. p. 422; Stat. Man., vol. i, p. 85. 126 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY The proportion of our exports which went to the nations before mentioned were in the following ratio:— Spain and its domimions.........essssssceseeesee seeeeeesceeees $2,005,907 Portugal and its dominionS...........:+sss00 seeen sees 1,288,462 France and its CominionS......... cssesecee eoeensceeeee sees 4,698,785 Great Britain and its CominionS............cccsseeceeee eeeees 9,868,416 United Netherlands and their dominions 1,963,880 Denmark and its dominions.............cseee sence wee 224,415 S WEEN vs csswessarseupeesesnaucvavsdamecseaineansasteocsedenateres 47,240 Due imports from the same countries were as follows:— Spain and its Cominions.........:ssseeccceescensseseseeees seeeee $355,110 Portugal and its dominions..........cccsecceseecensecnee eeeeee 595,763 France and its dominions...........ccsccsenseceee ceseee cece 2,068,348 Great Britain and its Gominions..............ceececeee sevens 15,285,428 United Netherlands and their dominions................0 1,172,692 Denmark and its Comimions............csscesseerscee soseeeete 351,364 D WOO SN vas eiire ws visedeins sustis cusses eeeosaveituay es devmesnararcerse 14,325 The casting up of the above table, will exhibit the heavy disadvantages that pressed us down; the disparity between our exports and imports, and that at a time, as is here exhi- bited, when a heavy debt rested like an incubus upon our tender and youthful bosom. This report exhibited to Congress for the first time the many and heavy restrictions that existed upon our commerce, and urged the President and cabinet to the negotiation of treaties with all the countries named above; which gave not only more importance to the diplomatic negotiations at Wash- ington, but invested them with an interest and feeling that have attended no subsequent Administration. Upon all the articles alluded to in the foregoing table, each country men- tioned had some prohibitory or highly-restrictive duty. The report of Jefferson recommends, as the best manner in which our commercial difficulties might be “‘removed, modi- fied, or restricted,’—first, “by friendly arrangements with the several nations with whom these restrictions exist;’’ or, secondly, “by separate acts of our legislatures for counter- vailing their effects.” He expresses the decided opinion that the better mode would be the former, and that countervailing restrictions would embarrass our commerce “under piles of regulating laws, duties, and prohibitions.”’ At times he seemed to indulge in the theory of unlimited and unrestricted com- merce with the world, but afterwards it received from his hands the most unqualified rebuke. Indeed, it appears in the latter part of this very elaborate and uncommonly able OF THE UNITED STATES. 127 document, that he had considerable doubt about its beneficial operation ; wherein he says,—‘But should any nation, con- trary to our wishes, suppose it may better find its advantage by continuing its system of prohibitions, duties, and regula- tions, it behooves us to protect our citizens in their commerce and navigation by counter prohibitions, duties, and regula- tions also.” He exemplified in his latter years the truth of this remark, and found it impossible to practice a theory which bore the condemnation of the world, however cherished it may have been by statesmen of the Jeffersonian school. “Free com- merce and navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and vexations, nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them.” Whatever may have been Jefferson’s theoretic predilections for free-trade, it cannot be doubted that he abandoned them to some extent, and that our tariff policy received an early in- troduction into the practical operations of the Government at this time, and from this report. The very restrictive system adopted by Europe fell with dreadful blight upon our budding commerce. Great Britain had inflicted upon it great injury, with her eight or nine hun- dred vessels of nearly 40,000 tons burden. This was more than our country could bear, and our remedy was alone to be found in the lex talionis. On the 4th of January, Madison introduced into the House a series of resolutions in reference to our commercial affairs; they were somewhat in conformity with Jefferson’s report. They proposed to lay specific duties on different branches of manufactures; to lay additional tonnage duties on vessels of those nations who had no commercial treaty with the United States; to reduce the duties on the vessels of those who had such treaties; to retaliate all the restrictions which were im- posed by other nations, whether on the commerce or the navi- gation of the United States, either by the like restrictions or a tonnage duty; and lastly, to reimburse the citizens of the United States for the losses they had sustained by the illegal procedures of other nations, out of the additional duties laid on the product and shipping of such nation.* These resolutions were indefinitely postponed, yet the prin- 1794. * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. i. p. 475; Marshall's Life of Washing- ton, vol. ii. p. 292. 128 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY ciples they inculcated, immortal as the memory of their au- thor, were ultimately destined to triumph. : They gave rise, however, to a protracted debate, in which the two great parties of the country occupied widely different positions. They were advocated by Madison, Nicholas, Giles, Findley, and others, on the one hand; and opposed by Ames, Boudinot, Hillhouse, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, and others, of the Federal school. The Federalists endeavored to show that the commercial policy of Great Britain was more favorable to the United States than was that of France. The large amount of our imports from England, of which some complained, was also an evidence that we could purchase of her better fabrics, or on cheaper terms, than from other countries; that to dis- courage the trade with Great Britain by high duties, for the sake of bringing her to the level of other nations, was to tax ourselves for their benefit; that as to our navigation, it was admitted to be on a more favorable footing in the French than the English West Indies. The resolutions were supported on the ground that most of the injuries which the United States received from Great Britain proceeded from her unceasing efforts to extend her commerce, and could only be countervailed by an appeal to the same regard to her interest. Its advocates were of opi- nion that the propositions before the committee were the strongest weapons America possessed, and would, more pro- bably than any other, restore her to all her political and commercial rights. They professed themselves the friends of free-trade, and declared the opinion that it would be to the general advantage if all commerce was free. But this rule was not without its exceptions. The Navigation Act of Great Britain was a proof of the effect of one exception on the prosperity of national commerce. The idea was in existence too at this day, that there was another exception to the advantages of a free-trade, where the situation of a country is such with respect to another that by duties on the commodities of that other it will not only invigorate its own means of rivalship, but draw from that other the hands employed in the production of those commodities.* It may be said that the most efficient reasons * Marshall, vol. ii. p. 803; Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. i. p. 477; Hild. Hist. of U. 8., second series, vol i. p. 459; Elliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 442. OF THE UNITED STATES. 129 for postponing these resolutions were that our diplomatic relations with Great Britain were unsettled and uncertain; that she might be irritated to the extent of defeating our treaty stipulations; and that our commerce would greatly suffer by a failure to negotiate with that power. At this time a very interesting question was brought to the consideration of Congress, which resulted in an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and forms the Ele- venth Article to the amendments, in these words,—“That the judicial power of the United States should not be con- strued to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.” This amendment was proposed and carried at the first ses- sion of the Third Congress, and was afterwards ratified by three-fourths of the several States. This amendment was deemed necessary, and originated from the following circumstances. The question came up to the Supreme Court on a suit brought by a citizen of South Carolina against the State of Georgia. When the case was tried a majority of the court thought it constitutional for the suit to be brought, and it was maintained upon that clause in the Constitution which says the Judiciary of the United States shall have authority to decide in “controversies be- tween two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, and be- tween a State and citizens thereof and foreign States, citi- zens, or subjects.”’ One of the judges expressed doubts, whether under this clause the Constitution intended to give such authority to the courts of the United States, being, in his opinion, a denial of the sovereignty of the States. In the summer of this year arose one of those remarkable ebullitions of popular feeling which, though rare, are yet always to be dreaded. It is now known historically as the whisky insurrection. : Among the measures adopted at the first session of the Second Congress was an excise act, imposing a duty on do- mestic distilled spirits. The measure was very unpopular and distasteful to the people. Great excitement was pro- duced, and the discontent increased until the year 1794. In Pennsylvania the popular feeling was irrepressible for a time, 1794, * Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 86. 130 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and great outrages were committed; until, finally, the Presi- dent issued his proclamation to the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, for 15,000 men. It was estimated that the insurgents could muster 16,000 well-trained and efficient fighting men, and it was deemed most judicious by the Executive to send a sufficient force to break down all attempts at a resistance to the law. Peaceful measures, however, were not overlooked; commissioners were appointed by the President,—Bradford, recently made Attor- ney-General, Ross, a United States Senator, and Judge Yates, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,—to visit the insurgent counties, with discretionary powers to arrange, any time prior to the 14th of September, for a submission to the laws. McKean and Gen. Irving were appointed on behalf of the State. At the same time Mifflin, the Governor of the State, issued two proclamations, the one calling together the legisla- ture, the other announcing his determination to obey the Pre- sident’s call for the militia, and requiring the rioters to submit. These commissioners proceeded to the infected district, where they found a convention of upwards of two hundred mem- bers,—the county of Ohio, in Virginia, being represented by three delegates. On an eminence near Parkinson’s Ferry, beneath the shade of spreading trees, surrounded by many spectators, some with arms, sat this rustic assembly. Albert Gallatin was present and acted as secretary, whilst Cook was chairman. A set of resolutions were offered in this meeting against removing citizens out of the vicinage for trial, which passed unanimously. The second proposed a committee of public safety, with authority to call forth the resources of the western part of the State to repel any hostile attempts against the citizens. Gallatin, who was opposed to all hos- tile proceedings, opposed this resolution, and proposed its reference to a committee. The mover, a man named Mar- shall, who began to waver, proposed to withdraw it, provided a committee of sixty were appointed to call another meeting, which was agreed to. Tn order to reduce this resolution into proper shape, it was referred to a sub-committee, consisting of Bradford, Gallatin, Breckenridge, and Husbands. Breckenridge, who was a can- didate for Congress from the Pittsburg district, affected to act with the insurgents. The action of this sub-committee, OF THE UNITED STATES. 1381 which was unimportant, resulted in fixing the day for the meeting of the committee of sixty on the 2d of September. The first primary meeting had also appointed a committee of fifteen, to prepare business for the committee of sixty. This committee of fifteen met the commissioners at Pitts- burg; Gallatin and Breckenridge, whose sentiments had un- dergone a change, Cook, Marshall, and Bradford (not the Attorney-General) all were in favor of settling the dispute amicably, except Bradford. The demands of the commis- sioners were moderate, requiring from the committee of sixty a declaration to the effect, that they would submit to the laws. After many efforts to conciliate the insurgents, which failed, the commissioners reported to the President the result of their mission. On the next day, he issued his pro- clamation, giving notice of the advance of the United States army, which, consisting of 15,000 men, had been held in readiness to support the laws. The invasion of a sovereign State by United States troops is always to be dreaded. It had, however, the effect of re- storing quiet; and at the third meeting of the Parkinson Ferry Convention, resolutions were adopted, submitting to the civil law, and recommending all delinquents who had not already secured an indemnity, to surrender for trial, and agreeing that the excise duty might be collected. The next step in this important proceeding was the arrest and trial of persons supposed to be criminally concerned in the late trans- actions. Many, however, of the leading characters had fled. Many who were arrested were dismissed, and nearly all ac- quitted. Breckenridge was bound over to stand his trial, but was discharged in order to be made a witness. Gallatin, who was afterwards elected to Congress from Pennsylvania, was upon the recent election returned to the Pennsylvania As- sembly. Hamilton made great exertions to bring Gallatin to trial, but failed. In a speech delivered in the Assembly of Pennsylvania, he confessed that he was engaged in the pre- paration of the Pittsburg resolutions of 1792, which, though violent, were not illegal; and during the Parkinson Ferry conventions, he had appeared in a very conciliatory attitude. The charges of this insurrection upon the National Treasury, amounted to one million one hundred thousand dollars.* Sept. 24. * Bradford’s Hist. of Fed. Gov., p. 75; Hild. Hist. U. 8., second series, vol. i. p. 515. 1382 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY On Monday, the 8th of June, the Senate con- vened, in conformity with the summons of the Pre- sident, for the purpose of taking into consideration Jay’s treaty with Great Britain; which, on the 24th of the same month, after a minute and laborious examination, was ratified by a constitutional majority. Randolph was the only member of the cabinet opposed to the treaty. Unbounded excitement spread throughout the country when the action of the Senate was known. Jay was the subject of unmeasured wrath; while party spirit, inflamed by the darkest passions, leveled its poisoned shafts even at Washington, who previously, and in reference to the Penn- sylvania insurrection, had made some enemies, who for a time had been somewhat restrained; but now their bitterest feelings were unloosed. Not only was the political conduct of the President assailed, but his moral character was equally the subject of detraction. It was alleged by the enemies of the Administration that he had not only violated the Con- stitution in negotiating the treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, which was untrue, but that he had drawn more money from the treasury for his private pur- poses than his salary allowed, which no one could believe. “Tf,” said Marshall, the friend and biographer of Washing- ton, “the ratification of the treaty increased the number of its open advocates, by stimulating the friends of the Admin- istration to exert themselves in its defence, it seemed also to give increased acrimony to the opposition. Never was a man or measure more improperly assailed than Washington in reference to the Jay treaty.” Great umbrage was taken at the mysterious secrecy in which the negotiation had been involved. There was a pre- determiged hostility to the treaty, which increased as the period for deciding its fate approached; yet on its merits no particular opinion could be formed, because they were un- known. On the question of reconciliation between the two countries, a decisive judgment extensively prevailed. The sentiments called forth demonstrated that no amicable ar-, rangement of our difficulties with Great Britain would be satisfactory. The statesman will ever look with delight and admiration upon the justness and wisdom that illustrate the administration of Washington in reference to our foreign affairs. Sympathy for France had been the main source of this violent opposition to the Jay treaty. Europe was agi- 1795. OF THE UNITED STATES. 133 tated and convulsed to its very centre by the violent wars that had raged for a long time. France, torn by domestic strife and oppressed by enemies from abroad, had been our strong and efficient ally during the Revolution, and enter- tained feelings of the highest admiration for the beauty, force, and simplicity of our republican Government. Why should not the American who had stood side by side with the French at many a hard-fought battle, under the flag of Ame- rica, not feel the warmest regard for France? Her position in the affairs of Europe was critical and alarming. Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, and the United Nether- lands, stood with'a common cause in deadly array against France, single-handed and unsupported. It was not un- reasonable that a strong party should exist in this country, in whose bosom glowed the most animated feelings in behalf of the French. They had poured out their blood upon Ame- rican soil to fertilize the land of liberty, and expended with a free and generous hand their money to feed the poor sol- diery of the infant Republic. The spirit of republican free- dom which had sprung from our soil had been wafted across the waters, inhaled by the Cabinet of Versailles, and found a quick and welcome reception in the breast of the French people. Sympathy and gratitude, equal in strength to any other passion of the human heart, united to urge our people to their rescue. Superadded to all this was a deep-rooted, and by no means unnatural hatred towards Great Britain. Washington felt a deep interest and anxiety for France. But our Government, young, weak, and undeveloped; our commerce, small and inadequate, and the debts of the Revo- lution heavy and pressing; our own health and vitality had to be nourished and protected with the utmost caution and skill. Our Government lacked the ability to give succor, and it was to our interest to cultivate the most friendly relations with all foreign powers. It was not then, nor can it ever be, to the interest of the United States to take any part in European difficulties. Agriculture presented its alluring charms, with a genial clime, a rich and virgin soil, an athletic and industrious yeo- manry; while Europe looked to us for food for her over- grown population and myriad army. There was true wisdom in the policy of our Government, proclaimed in the last official paper of the first administration of Washington, in which, as has been observed, he enforced by proclamation strict 184 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY neutrality, which, though it gave some offence to the French, had the desired effect of keeping our people in proper re- straint. In reference to the policy which guided the Administration in its connection with Great Britain, it is obvious no other salutary course could have been pursued. A treaty or an- other war was absolutely unavoidable. The great injustice and oppression visited upon us must have been allayed at the cannon’s mouth, or our just and national rights recognized and enforced by the sovereignty of treaty stipulations. The paralyzing effects of a seven years’ war still preyed upon us; with our energies thus impaired, every sentiment of high and patriotic duty impelled our Government to seek an honorable and amicable adjustment of the. difficulties that existed. In April, the President nominated John Jay as Envoy Extraordinary to the Court of St. James. Our commerce was subjected at this period to ruin- ous depredations. By the influence of the British Ministry peace had been concluded between the Dey of Algiers and Portugal. The vessels of the former had availed themselves of every opportunity in pursuing their depredations upon our commerce. The negotiation of the peace had been attributed to Great Britain from unfriendly purposes towards the United States. This the Ministry disavowed. In consequence of our relations with Spain, we were in imminent hazard of war with that nation. The Spaniards meditated an attack upon us on the Mississippi, to which they were instigated by the French Minister, M. Genet. France and England made unfriendly exhibitions towards the United States, each being dubious of the assumed neu- trality of this Government. France had, with much arro- gance, intimated that she expected aid from us, and that national gratitude should prompt us to the effort. Great Britain feared an alliance between this Government aud the French, whilst the latter had despaired of aid from us; each ignorant of the diplomatic secrets of the other, felt great vexation towards the United States Government. Besides these and many other intricacies, all tending strongly to involve us in war with England, the feelings of our people were excited to the highest degree. An embargo had been laid for thirty days, and at its expiration, for thirty days more. A law had passed Congress to empower the President to establish and revoke embargoes at 1794. April. OF THE UNITED STATES. 185 his discretion. An act had also passed increasing the officers and privates of the army; and authority was vested at the same time in the President to call on the Governors of the States for an increase of the militia. He was also empowered to have ten vessels of war built for our defence; and many other acts were passed having a tendency to augment and embitter the national feeling towards Great Britain. It was under these circumstances, surrounded with these many vexed questions, that the ship of State had to be steered; and amidst which John Jay, relinquishing the highest law office in the world, accepted in his patriotic and self- sacrificing devotion to his country, the mission to England. No one was ever charged with higher interests; never was an ambassador perplexed with more difficult and harassing duties, which were discharged with consummate skill and wisdom. I have alluded to the great opposition of many distin- guished members of Congress to this treaty. The excitement even reached many of the State legislatures; whilst the popu- lace of many of the large cities were riotous in their opposi- tion not only to this treaty, of which they knew nothing, but to the idea of a treaty of any description. The best defence of the treaty, of Washington, and of the negotiation, was delivered by Fisher Ames, in answer to Madison and Giles, who had assailed it with their greatest ability and boldest declamation, for which the latter was emi- nently conspicuous. Madison contended that if the propo- sition for carrying the treaty into effect be agreed to, it must be from one of three considerations: either that the Legisla- ture is bound by a constitutional necessity to pass the requi- site laws without examining the merits of the treaty ; or that, on such examination, the treaty is deemed in itself a good one; or that there are good extraneous reasons for putting it in force, although it be in itself a bad treaty. The first con- sideration being excluded by the decision of the House,—that they have a right to judge of the expediency or inexpediency of passing laws relative to treaties,—the question first to be examined must relate to the merits of the treaty. He mentioned the permission of aliens to hold lands in perpetuity as a very extraordinary feature in the treaty. He would not inquire how far this might be authorized by con- stitutional principles, but he said no example of such a stipu- lation was to be found in any treaty that ever was made, 136 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY either where territory was ceded or where it was acknow- ledged by one nation or another; although it was common and right in such regulation in favor of the property of the inhabitants, yet he believed that in every case that ever had happened the owners of landed property were universally required to swear allegiance to the new sovereign, or dispose of their landed property within a reasonable time. With respect to the great points in the law of nations, compre- hended in the stipulations of the treaty, the same want of real reciprocity and the same sacrifice of interest of the United States were conspicuous. It is well known to have been a great and favorite principle with the United States that “free ships make free goods;” they had established the principle in their other treaties. They had witnessed with anxiety the general efforts and the successful advances towards incorporating this principle into the law of nations, a principle friendly towards all neutral nations, and particularly interesting to the United States. He knew that at a former period it had been conceded on the part of the United States, that the law of nations stood as the present treaty regulates it. But it did not follow that more than acquiesence in that doctrine was proper. There was an evident distinction between silently acquiescing in it, and giving it the support of a formal and positive stipulation. The former was all that could have been required, and the latter was more than ought to have been unnecessarily yielded.* Is it possible, said Ames, for a real American to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its con- tinuation—without some respect for the measures which many will say produced, and all will confess have preserved it? Will he not feel some dread that a change of system will reverse the scene ? The well-grounded fears of our citizens in 1794 are not forgotten. Then they deemed war nearly inevitable; and would not this adjustment have been considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity? The great interest and general desire of our people was to enjoy the advantages of the neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our disputes are either cut up by the roots or referred to a new * Elliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 448 OF THE UNITED STATES. 137 negotiation after the end of the European war. This was gaining everything, because it confirms our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining everything. This alone would justify the engagements of our Government. When the fiery vapors of war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentrated in this, that we might escape the desolation of the storm. This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marks to our eyes the space where it is raging, and affords at the same time the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the vivid colors will grow pale; it will become a baneful meteor, portending tempest and war. Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus shall we save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse a spirit and enter- prise that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and some will think too rapid; the field of exertion fruitful and vast; the rewards of enterprise go to augment its power; profit is every hour becoming capital; the vast crop of our neutrality is all seed wheat, and is sown again to swell almost beyond calculation the future harvest of prosperity. In a strain of irresistible logic or impassioned eloquence this truly great man continued for some time to address the House.* John Adams heard the speech. Iredell was sitting with him. “My God, how great he is!” exclaimed the judge. “How great he has been—noble!’’ said Adams. It was de- signed that this speech should close the debate in the House of Representatives. So great was its power, the opposition wished longer time to rally against the vote for an appropria- tion to carry the treaty into effect. It was postponed several days, yet no one attempted to answer the great speech of the occasion. ; This treaty was bitterly opposed by the Southern delegation. Only four south of the Potomac voted for it——Hancock, of Virginia, Grove, of North Carolina, Smith and Harper, of South Carolina. It was among the New England men that it received its support, four of the delegation only voting against it—Smith, of Vermont, Dearborn, Syman, and Varnum, of Massachusetts. * Hild. Hist. of U.S., second series, vol. i. p. 614. Vou. I.—10 188 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY In February the treaty was returned in the form in which it had been sent to the British Ministry, properly ratified. Washington immediately issued his procla- mation requiring its observance; a copy of the proclamation was sent to each House of Congress. The Republican party in the House had denied the authority of the President to ne- gotiate this treaty, and great dissatisfaction was exhibited because the proclamation had been issued before the House expressed its sense on the obligations of the treaty. Livingston, of New York, offered a resolution re- questing the President to transmit a copy of the instructions sent to Jay, along with the correspondence and other documents appertaining to the treaty. A violent debate ensued; after some days the resolution passed by a vote of 57 to 85. The President refused to send the papers. His reason was that the House of Representatives had no consti- tutional agency in making treaties, and consequently were not entitled to the papers. In his communication, he mildly con- cluded by saying,—“A just regard to the Constitution and the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request.” The majority poured forth great indignation upon the reception of this answer. The spirit of opposition manifested by the House was imbibed to some extent by the people. Public meetings were held throughout the country, yet the treaty, though somewhat objectionable, was generally received with approbation, and the course of Washington approved. After the reception of the President’s answer, the debate in the House became exceedingly interesting and animated. The most attractive and distinguished speech on the occasion, was delivered by Fisher Ames, fearlessly sustaining the Pre- sident, and defending the treaty. With him were Griswold, R. G. Harper, Sedgwick, and Wm. Smith. The opposition, equally distinguished for ability, was conducted by Living- ston, Madison, Gallatin, and Giles. The question was taken in committee of the whole, and was determined by the casting-vote of the chairman in favor of passing the necessary laws for the execution of the treaty, and the resolution was finally carried by fifty-one voting m the affirmative, and forty-eight in the negative.* In refer- 1796, March 2. * Marshall, vol. ii. p. 884; Hild. Hist. U.S. second series, vol. i. p. 615; Bradford’s Stat. Man. OF THE UNITED STATES. 1389 ence to this treaty, which was in such imminent danger in the House, there can be no doubt as to the propriety of its being sustained. That serious objections existed to it is not denied; yet it was almost the salvation of the Government, and was better than the alternative of a protracted war. The Senate proceeded with great caution, occupying eighteen days in its consideration, and then it passed by only a constitu- tional majority. Washington’s deliberation and consultation with the cabinet were well matured, he being occupied several weeks upon it before he gave it his sanction. It appears to have been considered as strong objections to the treaty in the first place, that it did not provide with sufficient decision for the prevention of impressments from American merchant- vessels. In the second place, notwithstanding the objection previously made by several of the States, it recognized the obligation to pay the debts due to the refugees. In the third place, the restrictions upon the trade of the United States with the British West Indies were injurious to our navigation and commerce: vessels under one hundred tons only were permitted to enter their ports. And lastly, there was not so full and fair a commercial reciprocity as we were justly entitled to. Upon a full comparison of the advantages of this treaty and our diplomatic situation at the time, there can be but little doubt that the President, the Senate, and the excel- lent and illustrious negotiator, are fully justified in the eyes of posterity, and that the nation should be thankful for so honorable an escape from a conflict that might have proved fatal to the hopes of young freedom in republican America. The position of the House was the most alarming feature attending this diplomatic negotiation. The Constitution very judiciously placed the treaty-making power with the Presi- dent, “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present. The Constitution also forbids the withdrawal of money from the treasury, ‘‘but in consequence of appropriations made by law.’ If an injurious treaty is made, though the House has no agency in its negotiation, it cannot be denied that it has not authority under the Constitution to defeat it, if thought proper to withhold the necessary appro- priation. . A recent historian appears inclined to put it upon the 140 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY ground of an extra constitutional and revolutionary right,* It is evident, however, that his opinion does great violence to the Constitution, whilst it throws an unjust odium upon the honest fearlessness of the representative body, whose duty it is to guard the treasury, and whose sentiments are more apt to be the reflected will of the people. The question of internal improvements by the General Government, has always been of absorbing interest to the people of the United States. The Constitution is limited in expression in reference to the extent of the power conferred on Congress. Parties have always differed more in reference to the extent to which the power reaches than upon its con- stitutional existence: parties have differed more intensely upon this subject than any other; and in a critical examina- tion of their position, it has been found to be very much con- trolled by geographic locality and sectional interest. That a limit must exist to its exercise none have denied; that it will ever be finally settled, none will ever believe. The exercise of this power has been claimed under several provisions of the Constitution: the power to establish post- offices and post-roads; the power to declare war; to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; the power to pay debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof; to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the ter- ritory or other property belonging to the United States; to provide and maintain a navy; to raise and support armies; to exercise exclusive authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. These are some of the powers delegated to Congress. The provisions chiefly re- lied upon are those which give power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes, and to provide for the common defences and general welfare. It is not my purpose, at this time, to enter minutely into ° * Hild. Hist. U.8., second series, vol. i. p. 586. OF THE UNITED STATES. 141 the history of internal improvements by the General Govern- ment. It will, however, throw much hght upon this subject to refer back to the very beginning of our Government under the present Constitution; to the very first Congress, composed of men who had aided in framing that Constitution, and to observe their actions upon this branch of legislative power. In 1789 was passed the first “act for the establishment and support of light-houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers,” which was approved by George Washington.* In passing on to the period at which I previously digressed in noticing this topic, it appears that James Madision offered in the House, a resolution for an inspection and survey of the great post-road from Maine to Georgia. The suggestion was made that this system might beneficially extend to all parts of the Union, for which pur- pose a committee was appointed to bring in a bill; but sec- tional jealousy prevented any definite action on it, especially by the Northern and Eastern members, who thought it a scheme on the part of the South and the new Settlements to obtain roads for their benefit at the expense of the Union.f Jefferson, who addressed a letter to Madison at this time, was very much opposed to the resolutions. In the House of Representatives, Madison moved that the resolution relative to the survey of post- eae roads between the Provinces of Maine and Georgia, be taken up; which, being read, he observed that two good effects would result from the passage of the resolution ; the shortest route from one place to another would be determined upon, and the stability of the roads would induce persons to keep them in repair. His speech was brief, and he did not appear to think it necessary to argue the constitutional bear- ing of the question. Baldwin was glad to see this business brought forward; the sooner it could be carried into effect the better. In many parts of the country there were no im- proved roads; nothing better than Indian tracks. Bridges and other improvements, are always made with reluctance; whilst roads remain in this state, because it is known as the country increases in population and wealth, better and shorter roads will be made. All expense of this sort indeed is lost. 1796, * Hist. of Internal Improvements, vol. ii. p. 117 of Cong. Biography ; Hist. of Cong. Washington’s first term. _ } Hild. Hist. U. S., second series, vol. i. p. 630, 142 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY It was properly the business of the General Government to undertake the improvement of the roads; for the different States are incompetent to the business, their different designs clashing with each other. It is enough for them to make good roads to the different sea-ports; the cross-roads should be left to the Government of the United States. Bourne thought great good would result from the passage of the resolution. Williams was opposed to it; he did not think it right for the revenues of the post-office to be applied to this bill. He acknowledged the propriety of extending the post-roads to every part of the Union; but he thought the House had better wait for the report of the committee to. whom business rela- tive to the post-office had been referred, and which was being prepared to be laid before the House. After a few remarks from Madison and Thacher, the reso- lution was agreed to, and referred to a committee of five to prepare and bring in a bill.* This bill, owing perhaps to sectional jealousy from the Northern and Eastern members, did not pass. In the future progress of this work the subject of internal improvements will be historically noticed. It should, however, be borne in mind that not only at an early period of our Go- vernment did this subject seem to arrest the attention of our National Legislature, but immediately after its commence- ment. At the very first Congress a law was passed making heavy appropriations for the establishment and support of light-houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, which was ap- proved by Washington, August 7, 1789. At a very early period the minds of political men seemed to have but lit- tle dread from the exercise of this power, for ‘(committees on internal improvements’ were appointed by Congress ¢0 nomine.t Besides many acts which passed the National Legislature during the first administration of the Government in reference to internal improvements, we are enabled to learn the general policy of the Government at this time by reference to two reports made by Oliver Wolcott, the Secre- tary of the Treasury. The first bears date March 16, 1796. 1796. * Elliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 446. } History of Internal Improvements, Biographical and Political History of Congress, vol. ii. p. 109. OF THE UNITED STATES. 143 It is in answer to a memorial referred to him by the House of Representatives from a number of influential merchants in the city of Philadelphia, setting forth the great and increasing danger to the trade of that city in consequence of the insuf- ficiency of the public piers in the river Delaware, and praying that an addition may be made to their number. The report, appreciating the propriety of an appropriation, recommends a sum not exceeding sixteen thousand dollars for the erection of four additional piers. On the 13th of April, 1798, the same officer, to whom the House had referred similar memorials, recommends an addi- tional appropriation of sixty thousand dollars for similar objects. In reference to which Wolcott thus expresses, as far as we can understand, the universal sentiment of the Executive, as well as the voice of Congress. “A question,”’ said he, ‘arises, whether expenses of the nature proposed ought to be general, or whether they ought to be defrayed by a duty imposed on the tonnage of vessels employed in the river Delaware. On this point it is respect- fully suggested that though it may be difficult to form general rules by which to determine in all cases what establishments ought to be supported at the expense of the United States, and that though it is certain that many bays, rivers, and har- bors of this country are susceptible of improvements which it would be inexpedient for the Government to undertake, especially at present; yet it is equally certain that national interests of the first importance are concentred in the prin- cipal commercial cities which cannot, consistently with public convenience, be submitted to the direction of local policy. “The Secretary, whenever this subject has been presented to his view, has considered the river Delaware, below Phila- delphia, as entitled, in respect to establishments for the security of navigation, as any part of the coast adjoining to the high sea. “The proposed piers will be useful to foreign vessels, and to American vessels from all the States. Commercial ports upon the river, within the jurisdiction of these States will, in proportion to the extent of their trade, be nearly as much benefited by the establishments which are desired as the port of Philadelphia.”* ; 3 : During the administration of Washington the diplomatic * State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, vol. i. p. 890. 144 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY relations between the United States and France reached a high degree of excitement and interest, threatening even the peace of the two countries. : Jay’s treaty and the proclamation of neutrality were alike regarded with much disfavor by the French Government, Several decrees were issued, by virtue of which American vessels were confiscated in direct violation of the treaty of commerce. The course pursued by the American Minister at Paris, James Monroe, met the disapprobation of Washing- ton, who thought him not sufficiently energetic in urging the protection of American rights. Monroe was recalled and Charles Coatsworth Pinckney appointed as his successor. Monroe was one of the first diplomatists of his age, and justly popular in France when he left, as he ultimately be- came in the United States. Washington left the French difficulties unsettled; and, in order to present this question connectedly, I shall defer its consideration until the administration of John Adams, at which time it was permanently adjusted. On the 7th of December, 1796, Washington addressed to both Houses of Congress his last Annual Message. It this, an able and dignified State paper, he presented a comprehen- sive view of the interest and condition of the country. From extensive experience and the most mature deliberation, he fully comprehended, in many respects, the true interest and future policy of the growing Republic. With an eye to com- merce, he says,—‘‘To an active external commerce, the pro- tection of a naval force is indispensable. This is manifest with regard to wars in which a State itself is a party. But besides this, it is in our own experience that the most sincere neutrality is not a sufficient guard against the depredations of nations at war. To secure respect to a neutral flag, re- quires a naval force.’ In reference to the permanent esta- blishment of a navy, he says,—‘ Will it not then be advisable to begin without delay to provide and lay up the materials for the building and equipping of ships of war, and to pro- ceed in the work by degrees, in proportion as our resources shall render it practicable without inconvenience, so that a future war of Europe may not find our commerce in the same unprotected state in which it was found by the present?” He urges upon Congress the necessity of protecting our domestic manufactures. He also recommends the establishment of a national university and a military academy. OF THE UNITED STATES. 145 Each House expressed a high admiration of the policy of the Administration, with an equal regard and admiration for the man. Yet, notwithstanding the unparalleled popularity of Washington and his administration, the answer which Con- gress proposed making to the address of the President did not pass the House without opposition and a warm debate. The answer of Congress embraced the following sentence,— “For our country’s sake, for the sake of republicanism, it is our earnest wish that your example may be the guide of your successors, and thus, after being the ornament and safeguard of the present age, become the patrimony of our descendants.”’ A motion was made to strike out this paragraph, which received the support of twenty-four members, which was almost a third of the whole number voting. Among them were Giles, Gallatin, Andrew Jackson, Livingston, Mason, Swanwick, and Varnum. Upon the final passage of the ad- dress, Blount, of North Carolina, called the yeas and nays; twelve members only voted against the address upon its pas- sage, conspicuous among whom were Giles, Andrew Jackson, Livingston, and Mason.* In reference to that clause in the answer quoted above, Giles said,—“If he stood alone in the opinion, he would de- clare that he was not convinced that the administration of the Government for these six years had been wise and firm. He did not regret the President’s retiring from office. He hoped he would retire and enjoy the happiness that awaited his retirement. He believed it would more conduce to that happiness that he should retire than if he should remain in office.t”’ Washington communicated to Congress the con- dition of our relations with France. This paper zone throws much light upon the policy of the Adminis- tration, and fully justifies the position of neutrality which we were compelled, by every consideration of interest, to main- tain. The administration of George Washington was now rapidly drawing to a close; it terminated on the 4th of March. The retiring President witnessed the inauguration of his succes- sor, and soon left the seat of Government, for the quiet re- * Hild. Hist. of U. S., second series, vol. i. p. 697. Pitkin. + Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 938. Pitkin. 146 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY treat of his country home upon the picturesque banks of the Potomac. Covered with military renown, and equally dis- tinguished with civil honors, he sought that repose amidst the shades of retirement he had so long desired. His retiring star, resplendent in fame, was enriched in the evening of his days by a nation’s love and gratitude. His character, pure and spotless as perhaps has ever fallen to man, was at times the subject of violent vituperation; yet it may almost be said that this great man left the Presidential chair with a “ con- science void of offence toward God and toward man.” The policy of this Administration was national, compre- hensive, constitutional, and just; looking to the interest of the entire country, sectional feeling and sectional tendency found no favor in the eyes of Washington, whilst he carefully nurtured every interest of the Government. His was, perhaps, the most arduous task that has yet de- volved upon the incumbent of the Presidential chair, from the great difficulties to be encountered in the adaptation of such measures as would place this great republican ship upon the true and safe track of success and national advancement, from which it could not be shaken either by storms from within or without. His domestic policy was the protection of the great interests of manufactures, agriculture, and com- merce; the support of the latter, he saw, required the esta- blishment of a navy, which he warmly advocated. He was always urgent, in every constitutional way, to pay off the public debt, so justly called the “price of liberty ;’’ and whilst the plan pursued was objected to by some, yet all objections soon passed away in its ample security and ultimate payment. Under this Administration, commerce, though subject to many hinderances and obstructions, reached an unexampled pros- perity; our tonnage was nearly doubled, the products of agriculture found a ready market; exports increased from nineteen millions of dollars to more than fifty-six millions ; the imports in nearly the same proportion; whilst the revenue from imports exceeded the most sanguine expectations. His foreign policy was almost universally approved, which was strict neutrality in reference to all the wars that devas- tated Europe, with an absolute freedom from entangling alliances with any nation. The greatest difficulty that he encountered was in reference to France, and none can deny that he was not right in the course he pursued during the violent and vindictive war that OF THE UNITED STATES. 147 raged between her and England. To maintain the friendship of the one and avoid the enmity of the other, required the greatest caution and diplomacy; whilst at home he was equally successful in resisting the popular clamor in behalf of France, and suppressing the burning indignation often mani- fested against England. The most philosophic, the most eminent and valuable State paper ever issued by this American statesman, was his Fare- well Address to the people of the United States, bearing date Sept. 17th, 1796. Here he reviews the grand and multifarious interest of this country with a comprehensive and practical philosophy, ex- horting his countrymen, as a dying, pious father would his own children, to pursue the paths of virtue; with a feeling and an interest never to be forgotten, he made and pub- lished this, his last political will and testament, for a people he had long and faithfully served and dearly loved. With filial reverence ought the people of the United States to cherish this last great production of their national bene- factor; especially ought all to heed the forcible and practical advice to hold together in brotherly love and kindness. The manner in which he deprecated the formation of parties upon geographical distinctions, spoken as it was with pro- phetic vision, is commended to future statesmen as a cardinal point in the political philosophy of this country. To guard and protect the Union appears to have been among the most cherished objects of his ambition and his pride. ‘The Worth, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional re- sources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels, the seamen of the North find its particular navigation invigorated; and while it con- tributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in like intercourse with the West, in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The 148 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY West derives from the Hast supplies requisite to its growth and comforts, and, what is perhaps of still greater conse- quence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of the indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation.”’* In this picture is presented a beautiful and forcible view of the unity of interest which this country affords, each sec- tion contributing to the welfare of the others, and each mutually dependent and mutually interested in preserving a unity of interest that shall pervade the whole, and bind every section in indissoluble ties. It is this happy combination and intertwining of interest, the same now as when Wash- ington wrote, the same through all time, that ought to render the United States indissoluble, and will, if each section will but remain (as in 1796) content to perform for itself that par- ticular agency which, in securing its own interest, will, in the operation of the grand machinery of the Union, work in harmony with the whole, and for the good of all. If this general harmony of interest is left to its own free untrammeled operation, each to move in its appropriate sphere, each revolving around the Constitution as a source of common life and light, then, like the great planetary sys- tem, may this Union be as permanent; but if left to an un- supported and waning veneration for a written Constitution, then passion, and prejudice, and vice, may sunder it at any moment. Honesty and fairness of purpose, firmness and morality, should enliven the spirit of the Government, and actuate the conduct of the people to give force, vitality, and permanence, to a republican Government. No one was ever more deeply imbued with human virtue than Washington; no public character acted more in accord- ance with this standard, or required it more rigidly from all the officials with whom he was politically associated. In the exercise of the executive powers, Washington ex- hibited his strong tendency to the Federal doctrine—indeed, he was a Federalist; yet the most ultra Democrat can point to no measure of this Administration extending the powers of the Executive or of Congress beyond a fair and legal con- struction: and the Constitution came from the hands of * Washington’s Farewell Address. OF THE UNITED STATES. 149 Washington purer and sounder than it has ever been kept by any of his successors. That Washington was a great man, and eminent in his greatness beyond any character of the age in which he lived, none can deny; yet it is difficult to single out any one fea- ture, or designate the particular character of this greatness. As a warrior many have surpassed him in bold and brilliant achievements upon the battle-field; as a statesman he has been surpassed by others in great and comprehensive efforts, by which empires have been brought down in humble submis- sion at the feet of daring genius. History cannot class him with Czesar, or Alexander, or Bonaparte, as a brilliant war- rior; with Pitt, or Talleyrand, or Alexander Hamilton, as a statesman ; yet there was a harmonious union of the qualities of the head and heart, which made him in the field, in the cabinet, and as a man, greater than them all, and above any other man whose name adorns the historic page. His career was the most successful of any person with whose life we have been made acquainted; and the most brilliant results followed that success. If we view him at the head of the army, we find his great element of success was the re- sult of cool, cautious care, and judgment, which were also the faculties that prevailed in the cabinet. If it be possible to single out the constituents of that character which has been the pride of the civilized world, we would point to that eminence of judgment which made him always successful, and that purity of purpose which won the admiration of man on all and every occasion. 150 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CHAPTER IV. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN ADAMS. JoHN ADAMS was the second President of the United States. A short personal history of one whose life, cha- racter, and passion are so intimately interwoven with the infant struggles of American liberty, cannot fail to interest the reader. He was born in that part of the town of Braintree (Massachusetts) now called Quincy. His ancestor, Henry Adams, to whom he was related in the fourth degree, had settled in Massachusetts about the year 1630, having fled from Devonshire, England, to escape the persecutions of that age. In 1751 John Adams was admitted a member of Har- vard College; four years afterwards he graduated. He studied law with James Putnam, and was admitted to the bar in the county of Suffolk, in 1758. He practiced in his native town for a while under the patronage of Gridley, at that time Attorney-General for the Province, and by his advice removed, in 1766, to Boston; here he won much distinction as a faith- ful lawyer and an ardent and zealous advocate. The period of his early manhood was marked by excitement; the spirit of politics was intense, and this served as food for the genius of young Adams. His attention was early drawn to politics. He had been but a short time from college when he wrote to a friend, October 12, 1755, from which the following is ex- tracted :— “Soon after the Reformation a few people came over into this New World for conscience’ sake. Perhaps this apparently trivial incident may transfer the great seat of empire into America. The only way to keep us from setting up for our- selves is to disunite us. Divide et impera. Keep us in dis- tinct Colonies, and then some great men in each Colony, desiring the monarchy of the whole, will destroy each other’s influence, and keep the country in eguilibrio.” In reference to this it was that the statesman Webster OF THE UNITED STATES. 151 said,— ‘It is remarkable that the author of this prognostica- tion should live to see fulfilled to the letter what could have seemed to others, at the time, but the extravagance of youth- ful fancy. His earliest political feelings were thus strongly American, and from this ardent attachment to his native soil he never departed.”’ In 1770 he was chosen a representative from Boston, in the legislature. An interesting trial took place during this year, at which Adams appeared as counsel for the defence; though not the only one, he was relied upon chiefly by the defendants. It was the trial of Captain Preston and some British soldiers, who fired, under his command, upon the citi- zens of Boston. Whilst a member of the Assembly he was bold in his opposition to the royal governor, who at that time was the famous Hutchinson; nor was his pen inactive against the Government of the Mother Country. In 1774 he was elected a member of the Council, but his election was negatived by Go- vernor Gage. It was at this time that he published his spirited essays called “‘ Nov Anglus,” in reply to Sewal, the Attorney- General, who had written a series of papers signed “ Massa- chusitensis.”’ The same year he was appointed a member to the Continental Congress} in that body he was at once re- cognized as among the most talented, ardent, and efficient advocates of the rights of America. He was again appointed to Congress, which met in May, 1775. At this time he seconded the nomination of Washington as Com- mander-in-chief of the American army. Notice has already been made of the patriotic services he rendered in 1776 as one of the advisers and supporters of the Decla- ration of Independence, being one of the committee of that body which reported the Declaration. He was deputed during this year, along with Franklin and Edward Rutledge, to treat with Lord Howe for the pacification of the existing difficulties between England and the Colonies. At this time he was offered the seat of Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, but declined. He was this year appointed a Commissioner to the Court of France in the place of Silas Dean, who was recalled. Adams did little during his stay in France. He sailed in February, 1778. On his arrival he found that a treaty of amity and commerce, also a treaty of alliance, had been signed. Dr. Franklin received from Congress the ap- 1776. 1777. 152 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY pointment of Minister Plenipotentiary; and Adams returned home in 1779. He accepted a seat in the Massachusetts Convention for framing the new Constitution. Whilst a member of this body he submitted a plan to the committee, of which he was a mem- ber, appointed to report a Constitution; the plan of Adams was adopted in all its important features. He was a member of this Convention when Congress determined to appoint a Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain, for the purpose of negotiating a peace. Adams received the appoint- ment on the 29th of September, 1779, and sailed in the French frigate La Sensible, in November. He landed at Ferrol, in Spain, and arrived in Paris, February, 1780. He remained until August, at which time he repaired to Amster- dam. He was instructed to procure loans in Holland, and afterwards received power to effect a treaty of amity and commerce. He effected a loan in 1782 for eight millions of guilders, and also negotiated a favorable treaty with Holland, m which the United States were recognized by that nation as free, sovereign, and independent. In 1781 he was associated with Franklin, Jay, Lawrence, and Jefferson, to conclude treaties of peace with the several European powers. The definitive treaty of peace was signed by Adams, Franklin, and Jay in September, 1783. In January, 1785, Congress appointed Adams Minister to the Court of Great Britain; his reception was courteous, yet the British Ministry were cold and formal. The old feeling of hostility had not subsided and he was unable to negotiate a commercial treaty. Yet Adams rendered in other respects valuable and permanent services to his country. His assist- ance was of great importance in negotiating other treaties, especially with Morocco and Prussia. Whilst abroad as Minister to the British Court, Adams published an eloquent and able vindication of the American form of government, in answer to several essays and strictures from the pen of Turgot, the Abbé de Malby, Dr. Price, and others. After the publication of this work he asked and obtained permission to return home, having been absent more than eight years.* It is but justice to Adams to say that during the period of 1779. _ * The above history of Adams, previous to his election for the Presidency, is taken chiefly from the Stat. Man. The reader will find it accurately stated and well condensed. 3 OF THE UNITED STATES. 153 his early manhood, and to the time of his election to the Presidency, no one rendered more important services to his country, or labored with more patriotic assiduity in the cause of liberty. At home and abroad his life was one continued service; either State or National Legislature, or some im- portant diplomatic agency consumed his time, and brought into active employment his talent, virtue, and firmness. Upon his return from Europe he was placed on the ticket with Washington, for President, and was elected Vice-Presi- dent each time. In the language of J. E. Sprague, of Massachusetts: ‘Not a hundred men in the country could have been acquainted with the labors of Mr. Adams; they appeared anonymously or under assumed titles; they were concealed in the secret conclaves of Congress, or the more secret cabinets of princes. Such services are never known to the public; or if known, only in history, when the actors of the day have passed from the stage, and the motives for longer concealment cease to exist. As we ascend the mount of history, and rise above the vapors of party prejudice, we shall all acknowledge that we owe our independence more to John Adams than to any other created being, and that he was the great leader of the American Revolution.” Adams wielded an able and fluent pen, which was often used in defence of the American system of government. In 1790 he published, in the “Gazette of the United States,” his. best and most celebrated production,—his ‘“ Discourses on Davilla.”’ They were but a continuation of his “Defence of the American Constitution;’’ they were exceedingly popular and gave him a high literary position; added to the fame he had acquired as a statesman and diplomatist. The administration of Adams will be noticed in another place. Great praise is due, and has been properly accorded to him; yet the truth of history forbids an acquiescence in the unbounded adulation he has received from the pen of his eulogists. He was, among the leaders of the Revolution, a bold, able, and conspicuous champion ; he was of great virtue and good intention as long as he was in a subordinate station. The more, however, the ambition of Adams became gratified, the more intense it grew. Whilst under the check of his constituents at home, or subject to the restraint of the Go- vernment when abroad, his passions were kept within proper bounds; but when elected to that office beyond which even Vor. I.—11 154 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY maddened ambition dare not grasp, save at the peril and shipwreck of the hopes of its unfortunate victim, Adams, as if dazzled by the height of his station, fell a just martyr to his passions, illustrating to the letter, the remark of that keen observer of events and men, Dr. Franklin, who said, speaking of Adams,—“‘I am persuaded that he means well for his coun- try, is always an honest man, often a wise one; but sometimes and in some things absolutely out of his senses.” After Adams retired from the Presidency, he lived a quiet and unexcited life; interesting himself only as a passive ob- server of political events, and dispensing the elegant hospi- talities of his mansion to the frequent visits of distinguished and learned men, occasionally enlivened by visits from his enlightened son, whom he lived to see elevated to the Presi- dency. His last public engagement was in the year 1820, as member of the State convention to revise the constitution of Massachusetts. On the 4th of July, 1826, John Adams expired, full of years and clothed in the honors of a life given to the most difficult and exalted service of his country. The fiftieth anniversary of that independence he had struggled with a masterly spirit to establish, lavished alike upon Adams and Jefferson a portion of that honor as their funeral rite which the freemen of America were then offering up as a nation’s gratitude for the consummation of their labors and their hopes. Mr. Webster relates a characteristic remark of John Adams, upon whom he called the day he delivered his cele- brated speech upon the laying of the corner-stone of the Bunker Hill Monument; when, inquiring after the old man’s health, he remarked,—“I am not well; I inhabit a weak, frail, decayed tenement, battered by the winds and broken in upon by the storms; and, from all I can learn, the landlord does not intend to repair.” A short time before his death, being asked to suggest a toast for the approaching celebration, he replied,—‘I will give you independence forever.” John Adams was of middle stature, inclined to corpulency. He was of an excitable tem- perament, with an uncompromising will, which often carried him to improper lengths, even beyond the reach of pal- liation; yet he was of pure morality, and a firm believer m the Christian religion. In contemplating his patriotism, his untiring zeal and devotion to what he considered his coun- OF THE UNITED STATES. 155 try’s interest, posterity may be inclined to say—‘“his were virtues that excused his faults.”’ After the adjournment of Congress, the third election of President engaged and excited the in- terest and attention of the citizens of the United States. The two great parties of the country were now, for the first time, openly arrayed against each other. The one under the banner of Federalism; the other under the folds of that name which, though then humble, was destined to wave in triumph throughout this Union. By the Federalists John Adams and Thomas Pinckney were supported as President and Vice- President. The strength of the Republican party was exerted in behalf of Thomas Jefferson for President; but the party was divided in reference to a Vice-President. Each elector voted for two persons. The electoral votes amounted to 138, and were divided as follows:—John Adams, 71; Thomas Jef- ferson, 68; Thomas Pinckney, 59; Aaron Burr, 30; Samuel Adams, 15; Oliver Ellsworth, 11; George Clinton, 7; John Jay, 5; James Iredell, 3; George Washington, 2; J. Henry, 2; S. Johnson, 2; Charles C. Pinckney, 1. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were therefore elected; the first President, the latter Vice-President, for four years from the fourth of March, 1797; on which day John Adams and Jefferson took their respective oaths of office in the presence of the heads of departments, many members of Congress, foreign ministers, and a large assemblage of peo- ple; John Adams having, before taking the oath, which was administered by Chief-Justice Ellsworth, delivered his Inau- gural Address. He was attired for the occasion in a full suit of pearl broadcloth, with powdered hair, and being in his sixty- third year, presented a dignified and venerable appearance. The President continued in office the same cabinet which Washington had left, namely :—Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State; Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury; James McHenry, Secretary of War, and Charles Lee, Attorney- General. They were all of the Federal school. There was no Navy Department; this bureau was not established until 1798, which office was first occupied by Benjamin Stoddard, of Maryland—being first offered to George Cabot, of Mas- sachusetts. f After making such appointments as the President thought necessary, Congress having adjourned, the first step of im- portance taken by John Adams was the assembling of Con- 1796, 156 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY gress in special session, May 15th, 1797. The object in calling Congress together, as appeared by the Message of the President of May 16th, 1797, was to take into consideration and advise upon the vexed and yet unsettled questions be- tween the United States and France. France had refused to receive our Minister; and the difficulties which beset the administration of Washington accumu- lated on the hands of John Adams. After a recapitulation in this Message of the manner exhibited towards us by France, the President speaks plainly to Congress in reference to the position this country must occupy. “Such attempts,” says he, ‘ought to be repelled with a decision that shall convince France and the world that we are not a degraded people, humbled under a Colonial spirit of fear and a sense of infe- riority, fitted to be the miserable instruments of foreign in- fluence, and regardless of national honor, character, and interest. I should have been happy to have thrown a veil over these transactions, if it had been possible to conceal them; but they have passed on the great theatre of the world, in the face of all Europe and America, and ‘with such circumstances of publicity and solemnity, that they cannot be disguised, and will not soon be forgotten.” It was the anxious desire of the President, whilst he was determined to uphold and defend the dignity of the United States, to settle amicably the difficulties that existed; he informs Congress of his intention to make another effort at negotiation. In this Message he recommends the navy to the attention of Con- gress, as well as a revision of the laws concerning the arming and equipping of our militia. There was a decided Federal majority in each branch of the National Legislature; Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey, was re-elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Hach House approved the course of the President, though a small minority were anxious to cut short all negotiation and defend at all lengths the honor of the country. A majority in Congress, as well as the Adminis- tration, being desirous of promoting and maintaining a neu- tral position in reference to European affairs, passed a law in June, 1797, to prevent American citizens from fitting out or employing privateers against nations at peace with the United tates. At this special session Congress provided a limited and small naval force, which was not satisfactory to the Presi- dent. In order to provide means for the extra expenses to be 1797. OF THE UNITED STATES. 157 incurred on account of our national defence, duties were im- posed on stamped paper and parchment. An additional duty was laid on salt, with a drawback allowed on salted provi- sions and pickled fish exported. The President, in pursuance of his cherished intention to adjust the difficulty between this country and France, appointed, with the advice and consent of the Senate, Charles Catesworth Pinckney, Elbridge Gerry, and John Marshall, Envoys to that Republic, with plenary powers. These gentlemen met at Paris in October, 1797, with great anxiety to execute their commission. The scenes which followed, and the circumstances which attended this attempt at negotiation, justly excited the indignation of every patriotic American citizen. It being my purpose to treat of the difficulties of the French question continuously, a further discussion of them is now dispensed with. The second session of the Fifth Congress as- yoy 13, sembled in November, 1797, (the first session was a 1797. special one held in ae The country presented to the. consideration of Congress a critical condition, espe- cially in connection with European affairs; our own diplomatic relations with France, as well as the neutral policy which justice and prudence demanded at our hands in reference to the turbulent and agitated affairs of Europe, were questions of great moment. The commerce of the country, though small, was yet a source of profit to our merchants and revenue to the Government; laws were passed for its protection and the maintenance of neutrality. In order to prepare for invasion, our sea-coast was protected by appropriations for fortifying Boston, Newport, New York, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah. The land and naval forces were increased, and a direct tax laid on real estate, for the purpose of meet- ing the increased expenditure of the Government. A law of Congress at this time was also passed, authorizing the nego- tiation of a loan, which was obtained at eight per cent. A majority of Congress rested under the apprehension that the French, overjoyed and bewildered even to madness by the success of their arms in Europe, might attempt to unfurl their victorious banner upon the shores of America. They had committed repeated depredations upon our commerce ; decrees had issued from the Directory, authorizing the seizure of every American vessel having on board British products or goods, or sailing from British ports. Under ° ° 4 June, 1798. these aggravations an indignant Congress, reflect- 158 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY ing the feelings of an outraged people, passed an act suspend- ing all commercial relations between the United States and France and her possessions. Merchant-vessels were author- ized to be armed by their owners, which saved our little commerce from much depredation. In May previous, provi- sion had been made by our National Legislature, creating the office of Secretary of the Navy. The office, which should have been established at an earlier day, was rendered more necessary now on account of the increase of our navy. George Cabot was first appointed Secretary; but he declined, and Benjamin Stoddart, of Maryland, was soon afterwards ap- ointed. : At this session of Congress a regular and permanent army was ordered to be raised, which assumed the name of the Provisional Army. The administration of John Adams was at this time very popular. The army was soon raised, and the President was likewise authorized to raise, arm, and equip twelve regiments of infantry, and to build or purchase or hire twelve vessels with twenty guns each, as an additional support to our young navy.* These measures were warmly opposed by the Democratic party then in Congress; they constituted the opposition to Mr. Adams, and so great was the opposition that the army bill passed by a small majority. A large majority of the people, who continued firm and de- voted to the Administration, sustained with enthusiastic zeal this patriotic effort of the President. The young men of the country, still fired by the spirit of the Revolution, and with a confident reliance upon the justness of their cause, rallied around the flagstaff of the Republic, and the army was soon organized. Robert Treat Paine wrote, at this time, the Mar- seillaise hymn of America, the celebrated and popular song of ‘Adams and Liberty.”” He and others delivered patriotic addresses over the country, and the President received letters animated by the warmest patriotism and burning with indig- nation towards France. The next step to be taken was to appoint and commission the officers of this army; a chief commander was to be appointed. Mr. Adams had never, in the course of his administration, a higher or more responsible duty to perform; yet he hesitated not. George Washington was yet alive, to whom it was tendered. He was then old; had served his country in youth, in manhood, and in age, and * Acts of Congress, 1797; 8 Bradford; Stat. Man. OF THE UNITED STATES. 159 it was doubtful if he would accept. When the appointment was made, though full of honor and surrounded by those en- dearing domestic pleasures he so anxiously looked to and long had sought, he accepted the office of Lieutenant-General and Commander-in-chief. The same patriotism that warmed his bosom in 1775, the same love of country that urged him to accept the toilsome duties of Chief Magistrate in 1789, animated the veteran hero and statesman in 1798. Wash- ington consented to take command on condition that his ser- vices should not be immediately required, and that no expense should be incurred, except for his table and household, while in service. The event did not arrive which was to require Washington to take the field; in the course of the ensuing year a treaty was negotiated with France, which adjusted the unhappy dif- ference between that country and the United States. The army was regularly officered, however, and in a short time could have been ordered to take active defence of the nation. General Hamilton, of New York, was the immediate com- mander, and next in rank to Washington; whilst the other principal military officers were C. C. Pinckney, of South Caro- lina, H. Knox, of Massachusetts, W. Washington, of South Carolina, John Dayton, of New Jersey, Ebenezer Hunting- ton, of Connecticut, W. R. Davie, of North Carolina, A. W. White, of New Jersey, John Sevier, of Tennessee, and W. North, of New York. The second session of the Fifth Congress was remarkable towards its close for the passage of two acts which have been engraven deeply upon the minds of the people of the United States, and serve to mark as an epoch in history, the setting sunof John Adams. Onthe 25thofJunethe Alien _., Law was passed. On the 14th of July Congress 7 passed an act, entitled “An act in addition to an act entitled ‘An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.’’’ This latter act especially drew forth the indignation of the people, jealous of those rights which had cost so much toil and money and blood; this was the Sedztion Law, the history of which I shall notice at another time. ‘ These were the last important acts of that memorable Con- gress, which adjourned on the 26th of July, 1798. The election for members of the Sixth Congress had re- sulted in favor of the Administration. Upon the assembling of Congress in December, Theodore 160 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, an able and distinguished mem- ber of the Federal party, was elected Speaker. The President delivered his third Annual Address ; it was highly gratulatory to Congress upon the great prosperity that then visited the country; “‘the flattering prospects of abundance from the labors of the people by land and sea; the prosperity of our extended commerce, notwithstanding interruptions occasioned by a belligerent state of the world.” The answers of the two Houses to the President’s speech, expressed their satis- faction in reference to the course he had pursued. On the 18th of December the melancholy intelligence of the death of General Washington was received. It was an- nounced to the House of Representatives by John Marshall, of Virginia. Not only were the Senate chamber and Repre- sentative hall clothed in the sad habiliments of sorrow, but a deeper feeling of grief was manifested by the saddened heart of a sorrow-stricken nation, at whose birth Washington had stood as godfather, and whose progress had constantly felt his sustaining hand and encouraging voice. At this session of Congress, which continued until the 14th of May, 1800, but little passed to deserve the remembrance of history. A bankrupt act was enacted, as well as addi- tional acts for the defence of the country and the protection of commerce. As has been stated, Mr. Adams appointed three Commis- sioners to proceed at once to Paris for the purpose of nego- tiating a treaty with the French. Napoleon was then first Consul, who, upon the arrival of the American Commissioners, immediately appointed three others to negotiate with them, of whom his brother Joseph was one. The United States were represented by William Vans Murray, Oliver Ellsworth, and William R. Davie, Governor of North Carolina. A treaty was agreed upon by the French Government in October, 1800; it was conditionally ratified by the Senate and Presi- dent of the United States. The President was willing to ratify as originally approved by the Commissioners, so anxious was he to secure the treaty, and deeming the two articles which the Senate objected to as not sufficient to delay the treaty, especially when from the fickle character of the French people delay might amount to defeat; yet he yielded, and sent it back with only a conditional ratification. The treaty was approved and ratified, with the exception of two articles, by Mr. Adams in 1800. Mr. Jefferson afterwards OF THE UNITED STATES. 161 ratified these articles,—Mr. Vans Murray and Mr. Dawson, of Virginia, being appointed for that purpose. The treaty related chiefly to the compensation the French Government should make for depredations on the commerce of the United States. Many objected to it as giving insuffi- cient indemnity, especially for recent depredations. Our diplomatic relations with the French Government during the latter part of General Washington’s administra- tion and the administration of Mr. Adams, while they are to a great degree interesting, are enveloped in much mystery and obscurity; yet enough is known to ascertain the exact bearing of French diplomacy during a greater portion of the period alluded to, as well as the wisdom, purity, and firmness of the American Government, and those employed at home and abroad to conduct the negotiations. It was this question, which threw the country upon the very verge of war with France, and occasioned a degree of excitement and party feeling which not only vented its spleen, and in a measure shook the administration of John Adams, but even brought forth the malignity of party spirit upon the administration of George Washington. In the first Administration, marked as it always was by wisdom and purity, George Washington pursued a strict neu- trality, and thus always advised in reference to the difficulties and wars that beset Europe at that period, and in which France was more interested and involved than any other nation. This policy offended France, who, unmindful of the peculiar character of the Government of the United States, as well as the relations then existing between this country and Great Britain, thought it the duty of our Government to _ befriend and sustain them in their perplexed and intricate relations with nearly all Europe. Often was the administra- tion of Washington besought upon this point by the French Government. Harnest appeals were made which enlisted the sympathy of a large party in this country, especially those who had fought side by side with the valiant French soldiers who had assisted us in our late struggle for independence. In 1798 citizen Genet arrived in this country as Minister from the French Republic. The spirit of jealousy which he imbibed from his own Government towards the United States, professing, as did his Government, to think that the United States were befriending the English in their difficulties with the French Republic, induced him to make many extravagant 162 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY speeches, as well as to be guilty of the most improper and violent conduct. He endeavored to involve us in war with Great Britain, which was doubtless the wish of France, for the twofold purpose of gratifying its spleen towards us and increasing the embarassments of the English Government.* Among the many interferences of Genet, the most offensive was his issuing commissions to vessels of war to sail from American ports and cruise against the enemies of France. The President immediately issued his celebrated Proclamation of Neutrality, April 18th, 1793, which has been a guide and example to this nation ever since. The French Minister, exasperated by this last decided pub- lic official act of Washington in reference to France, threat- ened to appeal to the people, and throw his cause upon the sympathy of those who yet remembered with fond gratitude the land of La Fayette and those brave Frenchmen who periled their every hope for America. He is said to have introduced into the United States the Democratic societies which were formed about this period, after the manner of the Jacobin clubs of Paris. He had many disputes with General Washington, which, in connection with his entire conduct in this country, induced our Government to require his recall, which was promptly done. — During the continuation of Washington’s administration, the diplomatic relations between the United States and France were entirely unadjusted. Upon the election of John Adams, they received his earliest and most assiduous attention. Mon- roe was recalled in 1796, on the groundless charge of delaying, or partially presenting certain statements and explanations which he was desired by the President to make to the French Government. It was supposed by many, who yet accorded to Monroe distinguished diplomatic talent and patriotism, that he was influenced by an irrepressible sympathy for the effort of the French nation to adopt the republican standard. The written history of the times fully sets forth the many depredations committed upon our commerce. The French Government had expelled our Minister, C. C. Pinckney, from their terri- tory, with new orders for further depredations upon our com- merce. In consideration of these indignities, John Adams assembled Congress in special session; he communicated the condition of affairs between the 1798. May, 15, 1797. * Stat. Man., vol. i. 84. OF THE UNITED STATES. 163 two countries, and enumerated many causes of complaint; the constant depredations upon American commerce, the re- fusal to treat or negotiate concerning them, or to exhibit even common courtesy to our diplomatic agents.* ~- Our Minister had been ordered to leave the territory of France, and threatened with the civil law, if he did not leave at once: these were great and alarming indignities. Yet the speech of the President of the Republic, in the language of the Message of John Adams, disclosed ‘sentiments more alarm- ing than the refusal of a Minister, because more dangerous to our independence and union, and at the same time studiously marked with indignities towards the Government of the United States. It evinces a disposition to separate the people of the United States from the Government; to pursuade them that they have different affections, principles, and interest, from those of their fellow-citizens, whom they themselves have chosen to manage their common concerns, and thus to pro- duce divisions fatal to our peace. Such attempts ought to be repelled with a decision that shall convince France and the world that we are not a degraded people, humbled under a Colonial spirit of fear and sense of inferiority, fitted to be the miserable instruments of foreign influence, and regardless of national honor, character, and interest.” This paper sus- tains the ground of neutrality pursued by the preceding Administration, with a renewal of the determination of the Government not to involve itself in the vortex of the Euro- pean political system. The sentiments of this paper were promptly sustained by both branches of the National Legisla- ture.t Whilst the President and Congress took the high and decided stand they did, no intemperance marked their pro- ceedings, and the door might still be open for further nego- tiations. In conformity to his declaration of making further effort to sustain amicable relations and remove the difficulties that beset our intercourse with France, the President, with the consent of the Senate, appointed three distinguished citizens, —C. C. Pinckney, who was re-appointed, Elbridge Gerry, and John Marshall,—as Envoys, for the purpose of maintaining amicable relations with France, if “compatible with the rights, duties, interests, and honor of the American people.” They were instructed ‘‘to seek peace and recon- ciliation by all means not incompatible with the honor and * Adams’s Special Message, May 16th, 1797. + Bradford, 94. 164 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY faith of the United States, and without violating any national engagements, or consenting to any innovation on the internal regulations for preserving peace and neutrality, which had been deliberately and justly adopted, or surrendering the rights of the American Government.” These Envoys met in Paris, October, 1797. They were received with no better spirit than had been exhibited towards Mr. Pinckney when he represented the United States at the French Court. The occurrences which followed were in all respects the most novel and singular, as well as exciting, that have ever been brought to light amidst the variety and pecu- liarities of diplomatic history. They were presented to M. Tal- leyrand on the 8th of the same month, and doubtlessly used energy and promptness in the discharge of the duties devolved upon them. For the first time in the history of our foreign relations, was attempted that high-handed system of corrup- tion that has too often stained and darkened the proceedings of European courts; not only evasion and equivocation, but the most direct principle of bribery. This, if practiced by courts of the Old World, could find no favor with the honest citizen Ministers of this Republic; and it was in answer to the propositions, as well as the demand for a dowceur, that Pinck- ney exclaimed, in the fervor of his patriotism and with a blaze of indignation, “millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute !’’ which not only rang like the spirit of honest de- fiance in the ear of European diplomacy, but found a cheerful and welcome response in the breast of every American. When the American Envoys were introduced to M. Talley- rand, they were informed that he was making a report for the Directory, on French and American affairs. They retired on that occasion without saying anything more in refer- ence to their mission. The French Minister took no other official notice of our Envoys: they complained, as they had a right to do, of official disrespect. The French Minister replied, by a complaint that he had not been called upon by them since the first interview. This was not only discour- teous, but unfair; when they were informed upon their first visit that the French Minister was preparing a report, they withdrew, not only with the understanding of an exchange of ae of hospitality, but that the report would be shown to them. Z., who was at that time private secretary to the French Minister, and who turned out to be Mr. Hauteval, informed OF THE UNITED STATES. 165 them that as they had not been received by the Directory, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not act with them officially. This might be true, but why hold out to them the belief that he would act and receive them, to the extent of his powers of official negotiations, before their recognition by the Executive Directory? Z. had previously informed them that Talleyrand was not only favorably disposed towards the American Government, but had expected to see the Envoys in their private capacity. Were they in a private capacity to receive propositions from the Minister? Why the proposition of a douceur? Was this ex-officio, if the proposition had been favorably received ? Pinckney and Marshall excused themselves from visiting the French Minister, on the ground of etiquette. Gerry felt no such scruples; he had a previous acquaintance with Tal- leyrand, consequently he called upon him on an appointed day.* Nothing of consequence or importance resulted from the interview of Talleyrand with Mr. Gerry. October 18th, a gentleman called on General Pinckney, and informed him a Mr. X. was in Paris, that the gentleman had seen him, and that he might place great confidence in him. This was but to indicate to Pinckney that he might expect to see or hear something from Mr. X., who on the same day called upon Pinckney, desiring a private interview, which was immediately afforded him. X. told him he was ready to make a proposition from M. Talleyrand, who was anxious to effectuate amicable relations with the United States. X.{ informed Pinckney that the Directory, especially two members, (not naming them,) were very much irritated by the address of Mr. Adams at the open- ing of Congress, at its special session in May last, that they wished his language modified; and, he added, the Directory would require a large sum of money, at least fifty thousand pounds sterling; the money to be placed at the direction of M. Talleyrand, who was to have the disposal of it. At the same time, he said he did not communicate with M. Talley- rand directly, but through a third person and confidential friend, who turned out to be Y., Mr. Bellamy. Next day X. and Y. called on the Envoys; Y. said the Minister could not * Vide Amer. State Papers, vol. iv. Diplo. Cor. + X. was Hottinguer. Gerry divulged the names of Y. and Z.: Y. was Mr, Bellamy, Z. Mr. Hauteval. Amer. State Papers, vol. iv. p. 177. 166 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY see them himself, because they were not then received by the Directory, but that he was authorized to communicate certain propositions: and repeated nearly the same propositions that had been made by X., assuring the Envoys that the French Minister, who was possessed of enormous influence, would in- tercede with the Directory for the consummation of the treaty, and closed his conversation with the frequent remark,—“ IL FAUT DE L’ARGENT; IL FAUT BEAUCOUP D’ARGENT.” Whilst these very remarkable conversations were going on, Gerry, by appointment, held a conversation with Talleyrand. Talleyrand said the Directory had passed an arrété, which he handed to him; it was almost tantamount to what the Envoys had learned from the conversation with X. and Y., with the alteration of the word loan.* The artful and intriguing Minister of Foreign Relations was so inflated with the idea of a loan, as the price of peace, that he even entered into details to show the Commissioners how it might be done without the knowledge of England; the idea still hanging like an incubus upon his mind that this country favored and designed assisting England. The plan was, that it was to be paid in supplies for France; to be furnished after the war, at St. Domingo, in such things as France might desire. It appears by a letter accompanying the correspondence of the Envoys and Minister communicated to the Department of State, dated April 8, 1798, that the Minister supposed Messrs. Marshall and Pinckney had taken their congé by that time, a desire being intimated to that effect by the Minister’s letters. Gerry answered that his colleagues ex- pected to leave France, and that it was impossible for him to be the medium of communication or take any action which would be disagreeable to his colleagues; and more- over said,—‘‘ You have proposed, citizen Minister, the 5th or 7th of this decade for me to resume (reprendre) our reciprocal communications upon the interest of the French Republic and of the United States. To resume this subject would be unavailing, because the measure, for the reasons I then urged, is utterly impracticable. I can only then confer informally and unaccredited on any subject repre our mission, and communicate to the Government of the United * The reader is referred to Gar. Life of Ran., chapter xix. vol. i., and to Amer. Stat. Papers, Diplo. Cor., vol. iv. + Vide Cor. of the American Envoys. OF THE UNITED STATES. 167 States the result of such conferences, being in my individual capacity unauthorized to give them an official stamp.’’* Marshall and Pinckney left Paris soon after the 4th of April. Gerry remained a short time after their departure. Several unimportant communications were exchanged respect- ing the lengthy letter of the Minister (concerning which some misunderstanding existed) which throw, however, no light upon this subject. Gerry addressed a note to the Minister dated June 25, 1798, asking for such papers as were neces- sary to enable him to depart for the United States. Thus terminated, in the most unsuccessful manner, this effort to bring about reconciliation between the United States and France. The friendly position and sentiments of Mr. Adams were manifest. It was equally clear to every one then, as history makes apparent now, that justice and right were on the side of the United States. There was an apparent desire on the part of Talleyrand to negotiate on terms of fairness, but with his accustomed art and duplicity, to which he directed his quick and powerful mind. In his willingness to negotiate, he yet denied what he knew to be true, and whilst he wielded at desire the action of the Di- rectory in all affairs pertaining to his department under the Government, and appeared desirous that the Government should recognize the Envoys of the United States, yet they were not received. He appeared desirous to negotiate with these very men, and at one and-the same breath made offers for negotiation and denied his power to do so. If the impure purposes of the French Minister had found favorable recep- tion with the honest-hearted Envoys, the Directory would soon have received them, and the perfidious Frenchman would have had no hesitancy in recommending them. It is manifest what were his intentions, though proposed through the me- dium of the most mystic agency and in a manner new to the science of diplomacy. Language, said he on one occasion, was given to us to conceal, not to make known our thoughts. It was this talent for deceit and this policy that made him, perhaps, the most powerful and successful diplomatic agent ever known to the world. It was this talent and this policy that cheated Europe for years, and held her wisest statesmen in doubt and perplexity; and it was this policy that defeated * American State Papers, vol. iv. p. 140. 168 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY every effort at negotiation between the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the French Directory and the wise, strong- minded, honest men, who represented the Government of the United States at the French Court. The correspondence of the times and the page of just his- tory will exhibit the one caught in that element in which he had previously excelled in cunning, avarice, and duplicity, whilst will be held up to the admiration of the world the firm patriotism and honest purpose of the other, that defied all threatening, and despised alike duplicity and avarice, fraud and bribery. ; A popular outburst of indignation poured over the country when the dispatches were published, which increased in in- tensity when it was known that money had been exacted. The sentiment of Pinckney was responded to by every tongue, and every freeman was ready to prove that he would give ‘millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute.” I have previously related the preparation made by Con- gress in anticipation of war with France. The excitement became contagious; the majority of the people belonged to the war party, and few there were to oppose it. The rights and the dignity of the nation had been invaded, our national character insulted, whilst wrong and outrage were added to wounded honor, by a continued depredation upon our com- merce. The peace-like temper of Adams yielded to the na- tional spirit of the times, and whilst looking to the welfare and prosperity of his country, he yet hesitated not to make preparation to avenge her wrongs. France had feared, though unjustly, a favorable inclination on the part of America towards England. Whilst this excite- ment was prevailing, that France might catch the sight, could be seen upon the brow of Americans the Black Cockade of England, an emblem of hostility to the tricolor of France; and persons were encouraged to wear it as the American Cockade. This may seem idle at this remote time. The actors have fallen one by one into the grave, and it has gone into history with the great men of its day; but the excited passion of an offended nation is never an idle feeling; its fervent development is never gasconade, but the evidence and the symbol of abiding and determined patriotism. It was determined by Congress: that the treaty ; made with France in 1778, which had been recog- nized on our part, and faithfully obeyed for ten years, was July, 1778. OF THE UNITED STATES. 169 no longer obligatory upon the Federal Government, in con- sequence of the violation of the treaty on the part of France, and the oft-repeated depredations inflicted upon American commerce by that nation. This was a most important step for France. Among the most cherished stipulations of this treaty was a guaranty of the French possessions in America. The preamble to the act of Congress was in the following language :—‘‘ Whereas, the treaties concluded between the United States and France have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government, and the just claims of the United States for reparation of injuries committed have been refused, and attempts to negotiate an amicable adjust- ment of the complaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity; and there is, by authority of the French Government, still pursued against the United States a system of predatory violence, infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and independent nation, therefore,” &c. This was justly considered a violation of the Constitution and a violent assumption of power on the part of Congress. It presents the melancholy spectacle of the early disposition of the majority to violate that sacred instrument, which each and every member of the General Government had sworn to obey; whilst history has proved that this was but an initiatory .Step to that ruthless disregard of the Constitution which has so often blackened the record of party questions, and stained indelibly the character of many of the most prominent men of the United States. It was contended by the majority that the Constitution did not forbid the Legislature from abrogating a treaty. Nor does it; yet none will say Congress can do those things not pro- hibited by the Constitution. It was contended this treaty had been frequently violated by France; the violation of treaties is a casus belli; and as Congress could declare war, which will always amount to an abrogation of a treaty, that it might directly do that which it might indirectly effect. Yet they seemed to forget that a state of war necessarily destroys all treaties among hostile nations, and that its abrogation was in accordance with the doctrine of the law of nations. This treaty, the majority said, had been made by Congress under the Articles of Confederation, which were then no more; yet it was forgotten that we stood pledged to fulfill with good faith Vou. I.—12 170 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the works of the Articles of Confederation, from whose loins the Federal Constitution had sprung, and whilst the form of our Government had been modified and remodeled, yet the nation and the people were the same. Congress can do nothing but by explicit grant contained in the Constitution, or some power implied as necessary.to carry out some speci- fied grant. It is impossible even for the treaty-making power to destroy a treaty, with any show of reason or right, on the grounds that it can make the treaty, and therefore it can un- make at will what it has made; a treaty may be annulled by consent of contracting parties, it may be abrogated by a status belli; but the attempt to set it aside by either contracting party, without the consent of the other, is bad faith and an unmanly retaliation. On the part of the United States there existed this other insuperable objection; no authority could be found in the Constitution for any or all the departments of Government to abrogate a treaty. This last act of the United States Congress appeared for a while to render negotiation impossible. The French Govern- ment felt highly incensed, and multiplied and aggravated the wrong and injury the United States had received at her hands. The French people were surprised and astonished at the move- ment of the Administration, for they had placed over-confi- dence in the power of the opposition party, and were utterly unable to comprehend the position of Mr. Adams, who, whilst sanctioning the measures of Congress, was at heart ardently devoted-to the peace party, as his subsequent effort fully ex- hibits. Every feature seemed adverse to negotiation ; exasperation acknowledged no limit. The United States frigate Feb. 9, Constitution, of thirty-eight guns, under command of Commodore Truxtun, fell in with, and captured in the West India seas, the French frigate L’Insurgent, of forty guns. The President had met the Fifth Congress at Philadelphia, in December following. Washington was present for the last time in Philadelphia, for the purpose of consulting in refer- ence to the approaching war, and the organization of the army which he was to command. He was an advocate of the war movement. Hamilton and Governeur Morris had be- come lukewarm at the supposed tardiness of Adams; whilst the former, in his patriotic zeal, was ready to gird on the sword and the buckler for a contest he thought righteous, OF THE UNITED STATES. 171 see which the interest and honor of his country de- pended. The triumvirate ministry had returned with the most un- favorable reports of an adjustment; the United States were unrepresented, and their interest unprotected at the French Court. The Secretary of State had made his re- port to the President, which had embodied the exact qa te status of the diplomatic relations between the two countries; ample materials for information had apprised the country of the depredations, the bad faith, the inhumanity, the outrage, under which she impatiently stood. The report above mentioned* further exhibited the duplicity of the Di- rectory, and the prostitution of Talleyrand. 1. To exculpate itself from the charge of corruption, as having demanded the douceur, ($222,000,) which was for the pockets of the ministers and members of the Directory. 2. To draw off Mr. Gerry from his colleagues, and to in- veigle him into a separate negotiation. 3. The design of France to throw, in case of war, the bur- den of inducing it on the United States. This masterly report, conversant as it is with every detail and fact of the late abortive effort,—the history of which I have given,—exposed the unfairness of France and the du- plicity of her Government, in trying to embarrass the diplo- matic relations of the United States and herself, which urged on the war party with us to higher and more determined effort. The administration of Adams, whilst pacific enough, had yet been decided, and its supporters, its leaders, and the most prominent men of the country were attached to the war arty. z The situation of John Adams was perplexing; his own party urged him to measures of extremity, whilst the very extremity of the circumstances successfully excited his sym- pathy and invoked his approbation for war, urged on as he was by the popular clamor of his party. ; John Adams, thus perplexed and embarrassed for a while, soon clearly perceived the right path of duty; and the impar- tial and truthful historian must record his bold and decided stand ultimately taken to support the honor of his country, * See Report of T. Pickering, Secretary of State, Jan. 18, 1799, vol. i, Amer. State Papers, p. 246, giving a historical account of the efforts of Mar- shall, Gerry, and Pinckney at negotiation. 172 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY by every manifestation of high and determined resolution; yet with a mind open to the advantages of peace, and with a heart ready to respond to every effort at negotiation, as a spectacle of high moral sublimity, which does equal credit to his goodness as a man, and his firmness as a patriot. Whilst the reader will observe many blemishes that obscure the lustre of John Adams’s administration, he will likewise turn to this proud stand taken for his country’s prosperity as a bright and ever-memorable instance that will relieve his memory from the odium that would so justly transmit it to the exe- cration of posterity. The dark and dismal cloud of war hung threateningly over the political horizon, yet without loss of character, the voice of reconciliation, starting from its humble whisper across the mighty waters, could be heard and listened to by the Presi- dent of the United States. What ought Adams to have done? The nation was incensed and aroused; the party that placed him in his exalted station, in a great degree, caught the spirit of the Republican party, then rapidly becoming powerful, and with those who opposed him, were open-mouthed for war. Many of the ablest de- fenders of his administration had withdrawn their support and confidence. Hamilton was no longer amidst his councils; Morris had withdrawn from his confidence; Jefferson was plotting his political destruction; whilst Washington stood ready to head the army of his country to the tented field;— all this was to be opposed and overcome. The Presidential election was fast approaching; his popularity was at stake, and popular will was against him. Every inducement that could appeal to man’s weakness was alluring him on one side; but with those lofty feelings which distinguish the patriot statesman, he despised and trampled down every op- posing inducement. He doubtlessly saw that he was inflicting another self-sacrificing blow, as he did; but like a noble mar- tyr he bore it, on this occasion, with heroic fortitude. “During the session of Congress, which had assembled in December, 1798, Adams received intimation from the French Government, through William Vans Murray, the American Minister in Holland, that Envoys would be received at the French Court for the purpose of holding diplomatic inter- course.* After some hesitancy he determined, (though he had * Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 134. OF THE UNITED STATES. 173 previously expressed his purpose to have no other diplomatic connection with France, unless he could receive the most satisfactory manifestations of good will,) to appoint another embassy.* The President, in obedience to the intimation he Feb. 26, had received, appointed Mr. Murray, (then Minister to Holland,) Oliver Ellsworth, (then Chief-Justice,) and Patrick Henry, as Envoys to France, who were confirmed by the Senate. Henry, as has been said before, declined, and Go- vernor William R. Davie, of North Carolina, was appointed in his place. Henry, in declining the appointment, thus ex- pressed himself to the President:—‘I entertain,” said he, “a high sense of the honor done me by the President and Senate. Nothing short of absolute necessity could induce me to withhold my feeble aid from an Administration whose abilities, patriotism, and virtue, deserve the gratitude and reverence of all their fellow-citizens.”’ Adams did not consult or inform his cabinet of his intention to make this appointment. When Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, and Mr. McHenry, Secretary of War, heard of his intention, both urged the President to desist; yet he continued immovable, which served to render permanent the breach that was rapidly forming between him and these two members of his cabinet. The reader has already been informed in an earlier part of this history all about the details of this mission. When our Envoys reached Paris, the Directory no longer held its corrupt sway over the French. Napoleon was first Consul, and immediately appointed three Commissioners,—his brother Joseph being among the number,—to treat with those sent from the United States. An entire change had taken place in the feelings of the French Government. Talley- rand, who still maintained the post of Minister of Exterior Relations, thus expressed himself to Mr. fforea)8, Murray, in his answer to a letter received from him apprising him of the new appointment :— “The Executive Directory being informed of the nomina- tion of Mr. Patrick Henry, Mr. Oliver Ellsworth, and your- self, as Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States to the French Republic, to discuss and terminate all differences which subsist between the two coun- * Bradford’s History, p. 99. 174 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY tries, sees with pleasure that its perseverance in pacific sen- timents has kept open the way to an approaching reconcilia- tion.”’* The result was that upon the arrival of our Envoys negotia- tions commenced immediately, and in October arti- cles were signed, which were immediately transmit- ted to the President and conditionally confirmed, except two articles, which were ratified during Mr. Jefferson’s administra- tion. Thus the United States, as they were emerging from the embarrassment of the late revolutionary struggle, and as the Government was starting upon its rapid march of im- provement and grandeur, were saved from a sanguinary strug- gle which, had it not sealed the fate of liberty, would certainly have retarded the rapid development of this the most splendid Government that has ever enlightened the minds and alleviated the burdens of mankind. Whilst this treaty and the appointment of Envoys had not only led to a rupture in the cabinet and dismissal of the Secretaries of State and War, and produced an angry excite- ment with the minority in Congress, as well as with the oppo- sition party throughout the country, the Administration still maintained its popularity in Congress. The Senate had ratified the treaty with the exceptions mentioned; and in re- ference to the chief cause of excitement, the appointment of the last Envoys, the House of Representatives had sustained the President, “highly approving,” said they, ‘as we do, the pacific and humane policy which has been invariably professed and sincerely pursued by the Executive authority of the United States—a policy which our best interest enjoined, and which honor has permitted the observance, we consider as the most unequivocal proof of your inflexible perseverance in the same well chosen system, your preparations to meet the first indi- cations on the part of the French Republic, of a disposition to accommodate the differences between the two countries by a nomination of Ministers on certain conditions, which the honor of our country unquestionably dictated, and which its moderation had given it a right to prescribe. When the as- surance thus required of the French Government previous to the departure of our Envoys had been given through their Minister of Foreign Relations, the direction for them to pro- 1800. * Amer. State Papers, vol. i. p. 801. Talleyrand’s letter to Murray, then Minister at the Hague. OF THE UNITED STATES. 175 ceed on their mission, was on your part a completion of the measure, and manifested the sincerity with which it was com- menced. The uniform tenor of your conduct through a life useful to your fellow-citizens and honorable to yourself, gives a pledge of the sincerity with which the avowed objects of the negotiation will be pursued on your part; and we ear- nestly pray that similar dispositions may be displayed on the part of France. The character of the gentlemen you have deputed, and still more the character of the Government which deputes them, are safe pledges to their country that nothing incompatible with its honor or interest, nothing inconsistent with our obligations of good faith or friendship to any other nation will be stipulated.’’* Whilst it is not denied that the Administration suffered in the loss of popularity, and the withdrawal of many of its earlier talented friends and supporters in reference to the French negotiation, the above extract, taken as it must be in connection with the action of the Senate, clearly proves that this settlement and the circumstances connected with it, were among the slightest causes of the embarrassment and ultimate downfall of the administration of John Adams. During the session of the Fifth Congress two laws were passed, which, though of brief duration, produced more excite- ment, and with many more alarm than any course ever pur- sued by the American Government. I allude to the Alien and Sedition Laws. They have always been connected as producing equal outrage to the Constitution, and placing alike odium and distrust upon the Administration. Yet they passed at different times, and were entirely discon- nected in their operation. These two laws, the first, “‘An act concerning aliens,”’ was approved June 25th, 1798; the se- cond, “An act in addition to an act entitled ‘An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,’ ” was approved July 14th, 1798. The first was to continue in operation for two years from the passage thereof; the latter was to continue in operation until the third day of March, 1801, which was the last day of Adams’s administration. The Alien Law provided :— Section Ist. That it shall be lawful for the President of * Vide Answer of the House of Rep. to the President’s Address, delivered at the opening of Congress, Dec. 1799, prepared by a Committee of the House, of which John Marshall was Chairman. 176 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the United States, at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge danger- ous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the Government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States within such time as shall be expressed in such order; which order shall be served on such alien by delivering him a copy thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the Marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien so ordered to depart shall be found at large within the United States after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein; or having obtained such li- cense, and shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not ex- ceeding three years, and shall never be admitted to become a citizen of the United States. That if any alien so ordered to depart shall prove, to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such person or persons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby author- ized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States for such time as he may judge proper, and at such place as he may designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the person authorized to take the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the Presi- dent may revoke whenever he shall think proper. Section 2d. Made it lawful for the President, whenever he may deem it necessary for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof any alien who may or shall be in prison in pursuance of this act, and to cause to be “arrested and sent out of the United States, such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom, and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety re- quires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or OF THE UNITED STATES. 177 sent out of the United States by the President, shall volun- tarily return thereto unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as in the opinion of the President the public safety may require. Section 8d. Required every master or commander to report, upon landing, to the Collector of the port at which he landed, or other chief officer of the customs of such port, the names, ages, places of nativity, and country from which they sailed, the nation to which they owe allegiance, occupation and de- scription of all such aliens who shall accompany him. Section 4th. Gave jurisdiction of all crimes and offences against this act to the Circuit and District Courts. Section 5th. Permitted the alien to take with him such property as he could carry, and protected his right to any property he might leave behind. Section 6th. Related to its commencement and duration. The Sedition Law, as it has been properly called, was as follows :— Section Ist. That if any person shall unlawfully combine or conspire together with the intent to oppose any measure or measures of the Government .of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the Government of the United States, from undertaking, per- forming, or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure by insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his good behavior in such sum and for such time as the said court may direct. : : Section 2d. That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly or willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, 178 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY scandalous, and malicious writing or writings, against the Government of the United States, or either House of the Con- gress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said Government or either House of said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combina- tions therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, op- pose or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage, or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people, or Government, then such person being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Section 3d. Related to the pleading on the part of the de- fendant, and allowed him to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. Section 4th. Related to the duration of the act, (stated supra,) and that after its expiration it still was in force against those who violated its provision during its existence. These two acts expired by their own limitation. Their merits and demerits were discussed throughout the land. Now, for the first time under the Federal Constitution, arose that angry dispute about the powers of the General Govern- ment in comparison with the powers of the sovereign States, which had formed and adopted this Constitution. The first voice of disapprobation that was raised and promulgated under the sanction of public authority, was, the resolutions submitted to the legislature of Kentucky, and adopted by it on the 10th of November, 1798. They were submitted by John Breckenridge, though they were written by Thomas Jefferson. Virginia, at that time the most powerful and respected State in the Union, was next in raising her voice of indig- nation against this bold infraction of the Constitution. At OF THE UNITED STATES. 179 the next meeting of her legislature, and during the memorable session of 1798-9, were passed those resolutions, which, taken in connection with the debates that followed, present not only the most eloquent and learned commentaries upon the Consti- tution of the United States, showing the due limit of its powers, but they place in bold position those sovereign rights which belonged to the States then as well as now, composing this Union. Side by side stood Virginia and Kentucky in this important struggle for power; in this great effort of these two States to maintain the Constitution as it should be, and the rights of the States as they existed. New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, New Hampshire, and Vermont, all with one voice and a common effort, stood firmly and warmly in support of the Alien and Sedition Laws. The resolutions of Virginia, passed by her legislature the 21st of December, 1798, were sent to the different States of the Union, to show the position she occupied and allow an opportunity to every member of the Union to make common cause in behalf of the Constitution which she thought out- raged, and to maintain the rights of the States which she thought had been trampled upon and abused. These resolutions, eight in number,* set forth the true position of Virginia in reference to the contest that fell chiefly upon her shoulders. These resolutions, coming from the then leading State in the Confederacy, and forming the system of politics in refer- ence to the doctrine of Federal power on one hand, and State rights on the other, are of sufficient importance to justify an insertion in this volume, especially as the book containing the debates and resolutions upon the Alien and Sedition Laws, has become rare and difficult to procure. The resolutions are in the following words :— . 1st. That the General Assembly of Virginia doth unequi- vocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression, either foreign or domestic ; and that it will support the Government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former. 2d. That the General Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the union of the States, to maintain which * Vide the Debates and Resolutions of 1798-99. 180 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY it pledges all its powers; and that for this end it is its duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that union, because a faith- ful observance of them can alone secure its existence and the public happiness. 3d. That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for main- taining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. 4th. That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret that a spirit has in sundry instances been manifested by the Federal Government to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that indications have appeared of a design to compound certain general phrases (which, having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former Articles of Confe- deration, were less liable to be misconstrued,) so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular examination which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases, and so as to consolidate the States by degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable result of which, would be to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or at best, a mixed monarchy. dth. That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Consti- tution in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress, the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the Federal Govern- ment, and which, by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of a free government, as well as the particular organization and posi- tive provisions of the Federal Constitution; and the other of which acts exercises, in like manner, a power not delegated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, expressly and posi- tively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto,—a power OF THE UNITED STATES. 181 which, more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is leveled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right. 6th. That this State, having by its Convention which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that among other essential rights, “the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,’”’ and from its extreme anx- iety to guard these rights from every possible attack of so- phistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution,* it would mark a reproach- ful inconsistency and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown, to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the others. Tth. That the good people of this Commonwealth having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other States, the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution which is the pledge of mutual friendship and the instrument of mutual happiness, the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dis- positions in other States, in confidence, that they will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby de- clare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each for co-operating with this State in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved in the States respec- tively, or to the people; that the Governor be desired to trans- mit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished each of the Senators and Repre- sentatives representing this State in the Congress of the United States. 8th. That the General Assembly, having carefully and re- * Vide Amendments to the Con., Article 1. el + Areference to the act of ratification of the Constitution, by Virginia, will more fully explain this resolution, which has been quoted at p. 91. 182 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY spectfully attended to the proceedings of a number of the States, in answer to their resolutions of December, 21, 1798, and having accurately and fully re-examined and reconsidered the latter, find it to be their indisputable duty to adhere to the same, as founded in truth, as consonant with the Consti- tution, and as conducive to its preservation; and more espe- cially to be their duty to renew, as they do hereby renew, their protest against the “Alien and Sedition Acts,” as pal- bable and alarming infractions of the Constitution. After the resolutions of the 21st of December, 1798, had been transmitted to the executives of the different States of the Union—every one who returned any answer being directly opposed to the action and the sentiments of the Virginia Legislature—that body determined at a very early period to revise these resolutions, which had been offered by John Tay- lor, of Caroline, since known to have been penned by James Madison. A long and animated debate ensued. Statesmen who had won eternal laurels upon the theatre of the Union, rallied with all their ability, eloquence, and learning to the standard of the Republican party, then beginning to expand throughout the length and breadth of the Union. William B. Giles, unrivaled in close and severe argument, displayed on this occasion his wonted ability. John Taylor, of Caro- line, and W. C. Nicholas, were likewise members of the legis- lature, with the display of all their eloquence, their zeal, and their patriotism. The Federal party was led on by George Keith Taylor, one of the ablest and most acute debaters the State has ever produced. Whilst Lee and other deter- mined and gallant spirits added as able defence as such cause would admit. The result of this debate was that every reso- lution was sanctioned by the House, and supported by a report that will ever live upon the page of political philosophy as one of its brightest ornaments. I would gladly examine every resolution and the doctrines upon which they are based, as well as the theories that were brought in opposition to them, but must content myself, at this time, with a notice of that part more particularly apph- cable to the topic under discussion,—the “Alien and Sedition Laws.” As I stated, the States who noticed the Virginia reso- lutions, all dissented.* The resolutions of these States were generally brief. Massachusetts and New York alone under- * Vide names of the States, supra page 179. OF THE UNITED STATES. 183 took, by argument, to sustain the General Government. The Legislature of Massachusetts did not claim the right or admit the authority of any of the State governments to decide upon the constitutionality of the acts of the Federal Government. These acts were constitutional. The Constitution had erected no other tribunal and no other could decide, according to its provisions, upon the constitutionality of an act but the Su- preme Court. These acts were not only constitutional, but expedient and necessary. That the United States, at the time of passing the Alien Act, were threatened with actual invasion, had been driven by the unjust conduct of France into warlike preparations, expensive and burdensome, and had then in the bosom of the country thousands of aliens, who were ready to join the army and plunge the poignard to the heart of our citizens. Should Congress wait until hos- tilities had commenced and the flame of war raging over the land? The removal of aliens was a usual preliminary of hostility and invariably justified by the law of nations. The Sedition Act was equally defensible in the opinion of the Massachusetts Legislature. True, ‘“‘ Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” The act complained of is no abridgment of either. The genuine liberty of the press is the liberty to utter and publish the truth; the constitutional right of a citizen to utter and publish the truth was not to be confounded with the licen- tiousness in speaking and writing that which is employed in propagating falsehood and slander. Itisa truth, most mani- fest, that the important trust delegated to the General Go- vernment cannot be discharged without the power to restrain or punish seditious practices and unlawful combinations against itself, and to protect the officers thereof from abusive misrepresentations. Had this power been withheld, the Go- vernment would have been responsible for the effects without control over the causes which naturally produce them, and would have failed to meet the great purpose for which it was designed,—viz. “To form a more perfect union, establish jus- tice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common de- fence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.” Seditious practices and unlawful combinations against the Government, or any officer thereof in the performance of his duty, as well as licen- tiousness of speech and of the press, were punishable by com- mon law in any of the courts of the United States before the 184 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY act in question was passed. This act is an amelioration of the law in favor of the party accused, mitigating the punish- ment and allowing any investigation of public men and mea- sures which is guided by truth. This was said in behalf of those principles which Virginia, with the aid of Kentucky, succeeded,—for the welfare of the country, the safety of the Constitution and the States,—in utterly suppressing; not the laws in question, for they expired by their own limitation, but the spirit that gave them birth and might have revived them again, fell beneath the blows of Virginia’s statesmen to rise no more, as thus they answered the speculative arguments upon which the “Alien and Sedition Laws’ were based. Of the “Alien Law’ it was contended that it exercises a power nowhere delegated to the Federal Government, and that it united the legislative and judicial powers to those of the executive.* It was further contended that this act was unconstitutional, as it was a direct breach of the 9th Section of the First Article of the Constitution, which says,—“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro- hibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.” It exercised a power not delegated by the Constitution. The Federal Government is composed of powers specifically granted, with a reservation of all others to the States or peo- ple. (Art. 10, Amendments to Con.) This is equally applicable to the Sedition Act, besides its direct violation of the First Article of Amendments. I shall not pursue the train of argument presented by the able cham- pions of the Republican party at that day; no event in the constitutional history of the United States is more important than this first decided controversy between the powers of the Federal and State Governments. Virginia, single-handed, save the coadjutancy of Kentucky, took and maintained a stand which deserves the everlasting approbation of posterity; the General Government had overleaped all constitutional boundaries, and at that early day, if unrestrained, it would have in a few years enveloped in its gigantic folds every power and right properly belonging to the States. * The act declared ‘That it shall be lawful for the President to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable ground to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the Government, to depart,” &e. OF THE UNITED STATES. 185 The proper boundary of these two powers has, from the earlier stages of the history of the American Constitution to the present day, been a subject of frequent and excited dis- cussion upon our national theatre, as well as in the State legislatures. It has been made the topic in many a political struggle, and our ablest jurists have exhausted the arguments on both sides.* Much interesting history in reference to the sovereignty of the Colonies, and their distinctness as separate Governments up to the formation of the Federal Constitution, has been produced on the one hand; whilst with equal learning the advocates of the Federal party have contended, in the lan- guage of America’s most distinguished jurist, for the oneness of the Colonies. For the full understanding of this interest- ing part of our constitutional history, the reader is referred to its details in another chapter. Whatever may be the ultimate tendency of the final esta- blishment of either doctrine, is not the subject of present inquiry. The State-rights party of the present day have carried the principles of their party to an extent equally as alarming as did the Federal party of the days of the elder Adams. The true definition of the limits of the General Government, as well as the retained powers of the States, must be ascertained by the Constitution of the United States. The State-rights party of 1798 and 1799 undertook to esta- blish a platform, which they did, and which remained until the memorable days of the Proclamation the true and liberal exponent of’ a correct learning upon this question. The Government of the United States was recognized by the State-rights party of that day as neither a ‘“confede- rated’”’ nor “ consolidated’? Government, but, in the words of Mr. Madison, “a mixture of both.” The Constitution presents ‘“‘the diversion of the supreme powers of the Government between the States in their united capacity, and the States in their individual capacities.” It was formed not by the Governments of the component States, as the Federal Government for which it was substi- tuted was formed; nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States as a single community, in the * Among the ablest writers have been Judge Story, of the U. S. Supreme Court, on one side, and H. St.George Tucker, Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, on the other. Vou. L—13 186 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY manner of a consolidated Government: it was formed by the States—that is, by the people in each of the States act- ing in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed conse- quently by the same authority which formed the State con- stitutions. This is the language of Mr. Madison.* The true history of the formation of this Constitution proves it to be derived from that source from which the State constitutions sprung. It was adopted by the conventions of the respective States, which were convened by the people for that purpose. The United States Constitution revolves in its own orbit; the State constitutions revolve in their re- spective orbits, each separate and distinct, each with power supreme and uncontrollable by the other. Their powers are stamped upon their face; and whilst they maintain their equipoise, they are not only supreme, but they can never conflict. The Constitution of the United States defines the powers of the General Government, but not the powers of the States. It must necessarily be of “as high and sovereign a character as any of the powers reserved to the States.”” Is it reasonable to suppose that the people of the States would make a Government and deprive it of self- sustaining power? The Constitution of the United States is “the supreme law of the land,” and, after defining the powers of Congress, gives to that body the power to make all laws “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the fore- going powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.’’ The only question then to be asked is, has the Government gone beyond the limits of its charter? If it has not, then the States cannot control its action; it may advise but it must submit. If, however, the General Government shall exercise a power not granted, that moment it falls within the orbit of the States and its powers are nu- gatory. The General Government, like the State Govern- ments, has at its command a Judiciary to expound its laws, and ‘a physical force for executing the powers committed to it.” In controversies between the General and a State Govern- ment, the Constitution has established a tribunal,t the Su- preme Court of the United States, which is empowered to * Vide Madison’s Letter to Everett, dated August, 1880. { Vide Madison’s Letter to Everett, and Fed., No. 39. OF THE UNITED STATES. 187 decide between them; for “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in Jaw and equity arismg under the Constitution.” (Sec. 2, Art. 3d.) Another branch of this question is much ‘debated, which will be discussed under a different head—the right of secession on the part of a State. At this time I will simply say, in the language of the letters just referred to, in reference to the abuses of the General Government,—‘ In the event of a failure of every constitutional resort and an accumulation of usurpations and abuses, rendering passive obedience and non-resistance a greater evil than resistance and revolution, there can remain but one resort, the last of all, an appeal from the canceled obligations of the constitu- tional compact to original rights and the law of self-preser- vation.” This is the doctrine of the State-rights school of 1798-99, as explained by its fathers, and those who watched and nurtured the Federal Government at its very birth, and looked with equal regard to the rights of States on the one hand, and those of the General Government on the other. None can deny the right of a State to resort to this, the ultima ratio under any and every form of government. The people threw every constitutional restraint around the Ge- neral Government consistent with its powers of operation; they also designed and have legitimately lodged in its hands the means of a powerful action. With its limits defined, there is yet a power, the Judiciary; to say when its boundaries have been overleaped, and whenever it is so far lost to all sense of right, justice, and propriety, as to overstep its jurisdiction, the extent of the evil is the only criterion of State action, and that cannot be, under the Constitution, but the reserved and unalienable right of throwing off the Government that is oppressive. Not a word was said, during the discussion in the Virginia Legislature on the resolutions of 1798-99, concerning the constitutional right of a State to arrest by force the operation of a law of the United States Government; no one thought of any such idea.* The modern State-rights party have gone beyond the doctrine of the fathers of the school, and in ascertaining the right of a State as a constitutional right to secede, they attempt to establish a principle not recognized by the Constitution, but reserved to the States as a revolu- * Madison’s Letter to Everett. 188 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY tionary right which could not have been surrendered if it had been designed. During the session of Congress, which continued until the 14th of May, but little was done which excited the attention of the country or deserved a place on the historic page. The defence of the country and the protection of commerce received the notice and attention of Congress, An act for maintaining peace with the Indians was passed, and for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt on judg- ments obtained in the courts of the United States. At several preceding sessions a bankrupt law had been proposed and warmly advocated; it was not passed until this session. A law in addition to the act of 1794 was passed, more extensive in its prohibition of the slave-trade. At this session a person, then obscure and unknown, ap- peared and took his seat as the first Delegate from the North- western Territory. This was Wm. H. Harrison, who after- wards became alike distinguished as.a statesman and soldier. An act was passed for the organization of a Territorial go- vernment for Indiana, then represented, along with Ohio, by Harrison. An act was passed for taking the second census. Public attention began at this time to arouse and exert itself in reference to the ensuing Presidential election. The Republican and Federal parties in Congress selected and recommended for the support of the people their respec- tive candidates. The Federalists presented for re-election President Adams, and placed on the same ticket General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, brother of Thomas Pinckney, who had been on the ticket with Adams in 1796. The Republican party nominated Thomas Jefferson and Colonel Aaron Burr. At this period nearly all the electors were chosen by the State legislatures. The contest commenced in the election of members of the legislature. Among the most important of these elections was that of the State of New York, which occurred on the two last days of April and the first of May. ‘The re- sult of the election was known before the adjournment of Congress and was favorable to the Republican party. The expectations of the Republican party were greatly raised by this unexpected result; the Federalists had relied with con- fidence on New York, as the vote of that State had been cast 1800. 1800. OF THE UNITED STATES. 189 for Adams and Pinckney in 1796. Adams was much excited by the result of this election. He abruptly dismissed from his cabinet two Ministers,—McHenry from the War Depart- ment and Pickering from the Department of State. On the 22d of November President Adams met the Sixth Congress at Washington City, the then seat of Government, where the various departments had been established since the adjournment of Congress in May last. Here the first Presidential speech delivered in the new capitol of the nation, was the last Annual Address of John Adams. Tt was a reflectful and imposing occasion. A seat, designed to be as permanent as the Government itself, had been adopted; here stood the first capitol of the nation; here the first solemn temple dedicated to American liberty reared its massive walls and glittering domes; here, for the first time in the house of the nation, the guardians of the country gathered around its altar, with their fervent prayers to Heaven that this might ever be the unpolluted fane of freedom. The Address of the President was a brief and neat paper, reciting the condition of the country and its evident progress to unsurpassed wealth and power. He called the attention of Congress specially t6 the condition of our navy, and urged its claims for advancement and protection, in which connec- tion he pointed out the necessity of the fortification of our seaports and harbors. The manufacture of arms likewise, in his opinion, invited the attention of our National Legislature. This branch of manufacture had already attained that state of perfection which, with little more care, would supersede the necessity of future importations. This Congress continued in session until the 3d of March, at which time it closed its doors by operation of law. Its labors were of a limited character. The most important acts related to the naval peace establishment, an institution which has done the most efficient service towards building up our commerce with the world, notwithstanding this act em- powered the President, when he should think it safe or pru- dent, to sell the ships of the United States, except thirteen of the largest frigates, and that six of these be dismantled and the remainder continued in service. An act passed for continuing the mint establishment, and for estimating foreign coin. The subject of erecting a mausoleum to Washington was frequently discussed at this session. The House of Re- presentatives proposed a mausoleum and voted one hundred 1800. 190 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY thousand dollars for the purpose; this was rejected by the Senate, which proposed, from motives of economy, the erec- tion of a monument, towards the completion of which that body voted fifty thousand dollars.* At this session an addi- tional law was passed in reference to the Federal Judiciary, providing for the division of the United States into six cir- cuits, and for the appointment of three judges in each, leaving the judges of the Supreme Court the exercise of only appel- late jurisdiction. Between the 13th of February and the 4th of March, the President appointed, with the consent of the Senate, the eighteen judges required by the Judiciary Act for the new court. The members of this court were men of high character and distiuguished ability; but this institu- tion was violently condemned by the Republican party. In allusion to the lateness of the appointments, the incumbents were called “the midnight judges of John Adams.’’f On the 11th of February, in the Senate chamber, in ,the presence of both Houses of Congress, the votes for President and Vice-President were counted; a deep and awful silence pervaded the hall; anxiety stood upon every face; hopes and aspirations on one hand, dread and fear on the other, alter- nate rose and fell; some impelled by a noble patriotism, others actuated by a sordid love of self-promotion. The foreseeing eye of the statesman looked with anxious doubt; the admin- istration of affairs were to remain in the dangerous hands of those whose policy was sufficiently manifest to be dreaded, or the Government was to be placed in the hands of those whose course, yet undeveloped, was known would be entirely the reverse of that which had marked the track of the present incumbents. Had the experiment failed? Could man cease to trust and confide in one, more than four years? Could our policy have no stability, but be subject to a constant check, to a watchful and a sleepless vigilance that rendered its familiar acquaintance obnoxious? If so, each four years must produce a storm whose violence, if at first but testing the strength of our political fabric, might ultimately destroy its every feature. It was well believed what would be the 1801. * Bradford, 116. { Journal of Cong., 1800, 1 Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 187. { The law was soon repealed, and each one of them lost his office. Stat. Man., 137. OF THE UNITED STATES. 191 result; yet none had ever tested the effect a sudden subver- sion of the policy of one Administration and the equally sudden development of another and totally different one, would produce; time alone could answer. It is true, the ad- ‘ ministration of Adams was a continuation of the party which had elected Washington, and sustained him with an appro- bation bordering on unanimity; but it will be seen that the Federal party had transcended the bounds of constitutional propriety, and departed far from the bold but magnanimous policy of the first administration of our Government. It has already been noticed that an act had passed Con- gress authorizing the second census under the Constitution. Some new divisions of the white population had been added since the taking of the first census. A discrimination was made between the sexes, and distributed each under the fol- lowing heads :— Those who were under ten years of age. “ 6 ten, and under sixteen. cs fe sixteen, and under twenty-six. st ee twenty-six, and under forty-five. s& & forty-five, and upwards. We were made further acquaintad with the rate of our increase. The whole population was thus distributed :— White Males...............66 SivdaaWked even died en aeeeee 2,204,421 C6. CHOMA C8 csvissie ogee veces seenogierancmeraenas 2,100,068 ——— 4,304,489 Free Colored.. see 108,895 BIBVOS vege esiescera genase ccna e venarg danse save . 898,041 Total sicsasisvnscae salecaviaade vnc ibnassedesacteetethevarier-ueree reais 5,305,925 The increase in ten years. ....cecccecrsssereee secre enters 35-02 per cent. White 85-68 * Free Colored, 82:28 « Slaves 27°96“ Whole Colored Population 82:23“ This was estimated to the lst of August, 1800. The males of the entire white population exceeded the females in the proportion of 100 to 95-03, but there is great diversity in the proportion between the sexes at different ages. It is im- possible to arrive at absolute accuracy, owing to the different habits of the sexes, and the emigration of the males. Mr. Tucker makes the following calculation, which is as accurate as can be :— 192 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Of those under ten years of age, the proportion of males to females WAS A8........cceseeeces coecenseeeee seeees 100 to 94-9 Between ten and SixteeD.........ccsesecssececess senses ences 100 to 94:8 Between sixteen and twenty-Six........scceveseeeseceesee 100 to 102-1 Between twenty-six and forty-five .......2.sessecee essere 95-4 Over forty-five*........ccsessccee scenes cesses ceesceees seneeneee 94-5 The increase of the colored population, which was but little affected by migration at this period, gives a more accurate ratio of increase by natural multiplication; and supposing it to be the same with the two races, (the colored population is greater by natural multiplication,) it can be approximated in this way. The accession to our population by emigrants would in ten years be 3:45 per cent., equal to the difference between 35°68 and 82°23 per cent. It must be remembered, however, that in the slave-holding States the white population had gained a little on the colored, but more on the slaves, who, from being by the first census more than a third of the whole population, was by the second somewhat less. It will be seen by a reference to accounts of the adminis- tration of John Adams that the expenses of the Government increased rapidly under his system of financiering. During the eight years of Washington’s administration the expenditures were $15,892,708 55; the public debt, $36,090,946 92. During Adams’s administration, which continued for four years, the expenditures amounted to $21,348,351 19; the public debt, $18,957,962 69.+ Parties in the United States took an early rise and soon acquired an intense bitterness towards each other. In reference to the Articles of Confederation, it had been clearly seen they were greatly defective in withholding from the Confederated Government self-sustaining power; designed as “‘a perpetual union” among the States, its functions were yet to be made “more perfect’’ by the Federal Constitution. Whilst the Constitution was under discussion before the Convention that framed it, a few were for giving to the Federal Government much stronger features than it contains. After its formation it was submitted to the people of the dif- * Tucker, p. 21. ‘Dr. Seybert, p. 44, in his statistics, states that of per- sons under ten, the females exceed the males. It is due, however, to him to remark that while his computations appear to be accurate according to the data he possessed, he has often been misled by the errors in the first publications of the first and second censuses, which a more careful revision of their returns has subsequently shown.”—Note by Tucker. ft Stat. Man., vol. iii. p. 1547. OF THE UNITED STATES. 193 ferent States, who ratified it in conventions called for the purpose. A respectable and talented party in many of the States opposed its ratification, on the ground of its giving too much power to the government of its creation. A dis- tinctive party line began to develop itself; those by whom it was advocated were denominated Federalists, whilst its op- ponents were known as Republicans, who were scrupulously watchful of the rights of the States.* Upon its adoption by the different States, which occurred at intervals, the two parties and the extremes of each came together upon a common platform towards its faithful and ardent support. George Washington, who had presided over the very birth of the Constitution, whose name was enrolled at its end, who had been urgent for its adoption, was selected unanimously as the first President; and the people were to gather as one grand united party when the Government began its early career. As soon as the policy of the first Administration began to develop itself party lines were formed. It was not only necessarily incident to the very first efficient action of the Government that those principles should be adopted which called forth the exercise of its powers, but Washington, ————— Hamilton, and nearly all connected with the Government were disposed to give it the full exercise of a free and liberal construction. Others there were, too, that had opposed the adoption of the Federal Constitution, who afterwards supported it in its fullest latitude; conspicuously among this latter class stood Patrick Henry, who, in his last days, was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates as the advocate of the Alien and Sedition Laws. Whilst the administration of Washington was strictly con- stitutional, many were of opinion that the only safe policy was that limited and strict construction which, in their jeal- ousy of the Federal Government, gave an early rise to the State-rights party, which assumed to themselves the name of Republican, and gathered strength and popularity as the administrations of Washington and Adams progressed, until they finally triumphed in the election of Mr. Jefferson. The advocates of the administration of Washington, as well as his immediate successor, were called Federalists. The first occasion of difference which marks the origin of * Debates in Virginia Convention upon the adoption of the Federal Con- stitution. 194 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY parties after the commencement of Washington’s administra- tion, is presented distinctly in the charter of the first national bank. The Secretary of the Treasury had been the constant advocate of a bank. A bill conform. ing to the plan of the Secretary of the Treasury, communi- cated in a special report, passed the Senate and was permitted to reach its third reading in the House of Representatives ; on the third reading a powerful opposition sprung up, which had been little expected by its friends. Among the most dis- tinguished opponents of the bill were Madison, Giles, Jack- son, and Stone. The most imposing arguments brought to bear against the bill were directed against the constitutional authority of the General Government to charter a national bank.* This measure contributed not inconsiderably, says Marshall, ‘to the complete organization of those distinct and visible parties which, in their long and dubious conflict for power, have since shaken the United States to their centre.” The distinct and visible parties were the Federal and Repub- lican. Whilst the latter thought the great danger to be ap- prehended was the undue ascendency of the Federal Govern- ment, the former, equally respectable in talent, and more so in numbers at this time, had watched the progress of American politics, and as sincerely believed the real danger to the Re- public was in the undue ascendency of the States; they were strongly confirmed in this sentiment by an accurate observa- tion of the proceedings of several State legislatures respecting the action of Congress. Without reviewing the history of Washington’s administration, with which the reader is now fully acquainted, and with those measures which, though reprobated by the Republican party, were justly applauded by the Federalists as the basis of the prosperity of the Union, I will contrast the condition of the country in 1788 and 1797 :— At home, a sound credit had been created; an immense floating debt had been funded ina manner perfectly satisfactory to the creditors; an ample revenue had been provided; those difficulties which a system of internal taxation, on its first m- troduction is doomed to encounter, were completely removed; and the authority of the Government was firmly established. Funds for the gradual payment of the debt had been pro- vided; a considerable part of it had been actually discharged; 1791, * Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. ii. pp. 203, 206. OF THE UNITED STATES. 195 and that system which is now operating its entire extinction had been matured and adopted. The agricultural and com- mercial wealth of the nation had increased beyond all former example. The numerous tribes of warlike Indians, inhabitin those immense tracts which lay between the then cultivated country and the Mississippi, had been taught by arms and by justice to respect the United States, and to continue in peace.* Abroad, our differences with the world were nearly all healed; the free navigation of the Mississippi was ours, with the use of New Orleans asa place of deposit for three years, and afterwards until some other place should be allowed us. This was an advantage of incalculable magnitude, as it re- moved the cause of mutual ill-will between the United States and one of the first maritime powers of the earth. Trea- ties had been formed with every nation of importance, and the waters of the world were opened to our commerce. And, more important than all, the principles of the Constitution were engraved upon the hearts of the American people. This is the picture the Federal administration of Wash- ington presents to the reader; this the picture the opposition party would blacken and deface. The great measures of this Administration show the necessity of that construction and application of the principles then practiced, whilst they prove with absolute certainty that the dangers apprehended by the State-rights school were without foundation. No shade hangs over the brightness of this picture but the unsettled difficul- ties with France, which were not adjusted until the succeeding Administration. When Mr. Adams took charge of the reins of Government, elected as he had been by the same party who had rendered such undivided support to the preceding Administration, he designed, as he did to some extent, to carry out the principles of that Administration. It is true, the expenses of the Go- vernment were increased, as have been necessarily so during every succeeding Administration; yet the resources of the Government were enlarged, and Mr. Adams reduced consi- derably the public debt. The principles of neutrality, as the essential policy of the United States established by Wash- ington, were adopted by Adams and rigidly pursued. The French difficulties, which devolved upon Adams’s administra- * Marshall, vol. ii. p. 423. 196 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY tion, were adjusted with eminent skill, avoiding an expensive and sanguinary war, with equal protection to the honor of the nation and the interest of the citizens. Clamorous though unnecessary objections were urged against the increase of the army. The reader will have seen from the preceding pages its necessity, from the perilous nature of the French difficulties. It must be viewed as a preparation for an expected war, and not as an effort to en- hance the strength of the Government, merely for pomp and show; as soon as all appearance of war vanished the increased army was disbanded. The law establishing the Circuit Courts of the United States, to be holden by justices not of the Su- preme and District Courts, which was soon repealed, showed the foresight of the Administration; they were dispensed with early in the succeeding Administration, because the business of the Federal Courts was comparatively small; yet future experience soon developed the narrowness of that policy which abolished them. Whilst Mr. Adams continued his administration upon the plain and simple provisions of the Constitution, it was exceedingly popular. In 1798 it was nearly the universal sentiment of the people that the admin- istration and the measures of Congress were wise and proper. Before the close of the year 1800 an entire revolution in public opinion had pervaded the country. High and honor- able gentlemen in every section, equally distinguished for virtue as for talent, had turned against the Administration, and it was soon discovered that Mr. Adams could not be re- elected. This sudden change of public opinion is attributable to several causes. In Virginia and Kentucky, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Laws had turned the voice of the people loudly against the Administration, which, added to the influence of Thomas Jefferson, and the promulgation of the ultra Democratic doctrines which he entertained, linked with a sympathy for France, which existed extensively at that time throughout the country, left scarcely a party for Adams in these two States. The Alien and Sedition Laws scarcely diminished his popularity in the Northern States; they had been sustained with great unanimity by the legislature of every State at the North. The Administration had become quite unpopular among these States, however, and a union of the two extremes of the parties had taken place to put down the Administration. Many of the ultra Federalists, led by OF THE UNITED STATES. 197 the distinguished talent and influence of Hamilton, who, along with others, had left the Administration, and, though without sympathy for the Republican party, equally opposed the Administration. The Federalists were opposed to war with France; many of the anti-Federalists were advocates of a. war. A large number of the Federal party deserted the Ad- ministration on account of the manner in which Adams had acted, and were much excited about his vascillating course in reference to France. It was known after the treatment our Envoys,—Messrs. Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry,—received from the French Court, that Mr. Adams had declared “that if France should send a Minister to-morrow, he would order him back the day after.”* Very soon thereafter a corre- spondence sprung up between Mr. Adams and Mr. Murray, our Minister at the Hague, which resulted in the appointment of Mr. Murray as Minister to France. The unpopularity of this step induced, as the reader is aware, the appointment of two other gentlemen as associates of Mr. Murray; this was all done without the concurrence or advice of his cabinet. This entire appointment produced great dissatisfaction with the friends of the Administration. It was contended that it waived the point of honor, which, after two rejections of our Ministers, required that the next mission should proceed from France. After the many indignities and outrages that this country had received, it was thought that it exhibited a dis- position to compromit the honor of the nation by yielding too much.t Immediately after the New York election, which was known to be unfavorable to Mr. Adams, he abruptly dismissed two of his cabinet ministers,—Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, and Mr. McHenry, Secretary of War,—which caused much sensation throughout the country, and had a considerable tendency in weakening the Federal party. Mr. Adams offered no excuse for this freak of temper, and it can only be attri- buted to his irascibility. It was notorious, besides Mr. Adams’s great jealousy of men, that he was often liable to paroxysms of anger which deprived him of self-command.{ A forcible illustration of his temper is discovered in his actions towards his own friends by whom he was elected Vice-President ; when he ascertained that it was, as he knew, the intention of the entire country that Washington should be President * Hamilton’s Letter upon the Administration of Adams. f Ibid. ft Ibid. 198 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and he Vice-President. After Washington and Adams had been selected, the first for President, the latter for Vice-Pre- sident, owing to the then existing mode of voting, it was foreseen that the wishes of the people might be defeated, unless Washington was elected, and it was determined, to obviate this difficulty, that a number of Mr. Adams’s friends should vote for other persons, and by thus diverting their votes insure to General Washington a plurality. Mr. Adams complained of great unfairness in not being allowed to take an equal chance with General Washington.* Abundant evidence exists of the coldness, selfishness, and badness of temper, often rising to rage, which, notwithstanding Mr. Adams’s great talent and undoubted patriotism, rendered him entirely unfit to fill the office of Chief Magistrate. Mr. Adams possessed great talent, highly polished and cultivated, united with the highest patriotism and the most unflinching honor ; his administration in all foreign relations was unexceptionable. The nation, at the expiration of his term, stood in a commanding attitude of defence; and liberty, peace, and improvement, shed their halcyon rays throughout the land. Public credit had been fully established, and the faith of the nation was pure and unsullied, commanding the respect and admiration of the civilized world. Yet in surveying the domestic policy of this Administra- tion, all must feel the strongest conviction of the necessity of a change of our internal policy. In concluding this chapter, I will remark, that an enlightened public opinion from the heads of the Federal party, though not united with the Re- publicans in the election of Mr. Jefferson, lent their aid to the defeat of Adams. The former were no longer satisfied that Mr. Adams could successfully carry out the first esta- blished principles of our Government, owing to the great dissensions he had created in his own party and even in his own political household. The latter, urging the objections of the party to which Mr. Adams was attached, added to the other features of their principles which I have already noticed, likewise attacked, with some show of plausibility, and most assuredly with some success, the purity of the right arm of the civil power of every Government—the Judiciary. Whilst the administration of justice under our Federal Judiciary was so adroitly conducted as to obviate punishment on the part * Hamilton’s Letter upon the Administration of Adams. OF THE UNITED STATES. 199 of the incumbents of the bench, there exists abundant evi- dence to show the leaning and tendency of the Federal courts, in many instances in atmost unfair way, towards those who were indicted under the Sedition Law, as well as the violation of the direct tax. Matthew Lyon, who, though a Representative in Congress from Vermont, was a very low and vulgar blackguard, never- theless was entitled, upon a trial under the Sedition Law, to a full and fair one, was not only treated by Judge Patterson with marked indifference, but with absolute injustice and cruelty. The trial came up on Saturday, the prisoner pleaded and was admitted to bail, and the case adjourned over to Mon- day. Lyon was called at eleven o’clock; he requested time, as his counsel had not arrived; the Court reluctantly granted until twelve the same day, at which time, though the prisoner’s counsel had-not arrived, he consented to go into the trial, fearing to ask longer indulgence from a prejudiced Court. Lyon plead his own cause; and though he was a trifling fel- low, yet no doubt exists of the impropriety of the Judge in forcing the prisoner into trial, as well as the harshness and violence of the charge from the bench. For ridiculing the President, Lyon was thrown into a dungeon six feet square, during a rigorous winter, with a fine of one thousand dollars, and to stand committed until judgment be complied with.* In May, 1799, John Fries was indicted in the Circuit Court, held at Philadelphia, for high treason. It will appear to the satisfaction of the reader that Judge Iredell, who sat on the trial, was unjustly and improperly inflamed against the pri- soner, and greatly transcended the dignity of the bench. In the famous trial of Thomas Cooper before the Circuit Court of the United States sitting at Philadelphia, April, 1800, before Judges Chase and Peters, the Court exhibited an equal deviation from moral rectitude, by showing not only its political bias, but the most unwarrantable temper against the prisoner, who, upon the indulgence of a little satire upon John Adams, was sentenced to pay four hundred dollars and imprisonment for four months, and at the end of that time to find security for his good behavior, himself in a thousand dol- lars, and two sureties in five hundred dollars each.+ * Graham’s Sketches of Vermont; Wood’s Hist. of Adams’s Ad. t Cooper’s Trial; Wood’s Hist. of Adams’s Administration. 200 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY On the 28th of May, 1800, commenced the trial of Cal- lender, for a libel on the President. He was tried before Judge Chase, who presided at the Circuit Court held in the city of Richmond. In the trial of this cause, Judge Chase exhibited throughout the most unwarrantable irascibility, which extended even to the counsel for the defence; and from the various interruptions, as well as the decision of the Court upon many points arising during the trial, it was ap- parent even to those who were drawn by curiosity to the court-room, that the Judge, under the influence of his Federal sentiments, was biased and prejudiced beyond example in our courts against the prisoner.* There were many other in- stances, equally convincing, which not only threw a large share of odium upon the Federal Judiciary, but served as a powerful weapon in the hands of the Republican party to attack the Administration. I have not made allusion to this from any unfriendly spirit to the Federal Court, but simply as a part of the history of the opposition to Mr. Adams. No one has a more exalted admiration for the purity and talent of the Federal Judiciary than the author; and whilst it is manifest that the courts were inflamed and biased in many instances, yet their general his- tory will shine in equal lustre with any Judiciary on earth. The only trial of a Federal Judge that ever occurred was the trial before the United States Senate of Samuel Chase, which grew out of his administration of the laws under Adams and the trials just related. I have presented to the reader a full history of the admin- istration of Mr. Adams, in which he will find much to praise and much to blame, yet without advancing at this time any opinion upon the succeeding Administration. It is equally clear that John Adams was no longer the fit and proper man to preside over the administration of the Government of the United States. But in summing up the objections which so justly consigned him to the shades of private life, we should ever be mindful that his voice was among the boldest and most eloquent in facing the wrath of England, and advocat- ing the rights of the oppressed Colonies, and often incurred perils by Iand and sea, at home and abroad, in behalf of his * Trial of Judge Chase before the Senate of the U. S., and the testimony on the part of the United States. OF THE UNITED STATES. 201 country. When called to the Chief Magistracy of the nation, he often displayed a boldness of policy, an accuracy of judg- ment, and fullness of patriotism, equaled by few, excelled by none. Whilst his brilliant career is shaded with some gross errors, yet he lived to a green old age, covered with many honors, and died as he lived, an honest man. Vor L—14 202 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CHAPTER V. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON. TuE life of Thomas Jefferson is among the most interesting and instructive of those distinguished persons who have from time to time stood conspicuously before the world as Presi- dents of the United States. The ancestors of Jefferson on the paternal side, came early to this country from Wales. His grandfather lived at a place called Osborns, in the county of Chesterfield, Virginia. Peter, the father of Thomas, married Jane, the daughter of Isham Randolph. Thomas Jefferson was born at Shadwell, his father’s seat in Albemarle County, Virginia, on the 2d of April, 1748. In the spring of 1760, Jefferson became a student at the Collegé of William and Mary, where he continued for two years. Dr. Small, a Scotchman, was then Professor of Mathe- matics, between whom and Jefferson a warm personal at- tachment was engendered. He procured for his young student, after the accomplishment of his collegiate course, a place as student at law in the office of the venerable Wythe. In 1767, Jefferson came to the bar of the General Court, and continued at the practice until the Revolution closed the doors of the courts. It has been said that Jefferson made no figure at the bar, which is erroneous; whilst his voice would not allow him to figure as a popular speaker, yet it was all-sufficient for the bar, and there are extant many written arguments of his whilst in the laborious pursuit of his profession, which show his right to its first honors.* Jefferson’s ardent temper had in early youth bestowed upon him an anxious feeling for an active participancy in the civil contest which was now approaching. In 1769 he was elected * Wirt’s Eulogy on Adams and Jefferson. OF THE UNITED STATES. 203 a member of the House of Burgesses from the county of Albemarle. His attention was early drawn to the subject of negro emancipation ; at this session he offered a resolution to remove the restrictions which the law imposed on voluntary emancipation; this was rejected. The general right to manu- mit was not allowed in Virginia until the year 1782.* Energetic and eloquent with the pen, he published in 1774 his ‘Summary Views of the Rights of British America,” which was an able, calm, and accurate survey of the true relations between the Mother Country and her Colonies. This paper received much popularity in England, and was republished under the auspices of Edmund Burke. He was elected in the year 1775 to the Continental Con- gress, of which body he was for a few years a distinguished member. It was whilst a member of this body that he prepared the Declaration of Independence. During the same year the Virginia State Government was organized; Jefferson was elected to the legislature and resigned “his seat in Congress. During the time this distinguished individual served his native State in her own halls, he reared enduring monuments of his fame, and left a lasting record of his wisdom. He was the author of the law prohibiting the future importation of slaves; the abolition of the law of primogeniture, establishing in its place the equal partition of inheritances, was likewise the work of his benevolent heart; his enlightened attention was also attracted to a plan for a general system of education, which, however, never went into operation. To this day, Christians of every creed, as they gather to the public altar and offer their unrestrained and fearless worship in obedience to their own conscience, will remember in their devotion the author of the law establishing religious freedom throughout the limits of Virginia. These daring innovations but brilliant improvements, sprang from the prolific mind of him whose pen traced the lines of our Declaration of Independence. The kindness of his temper is exhibited by the attention he bestowed upon the British troops captured at Saratoga, who were removed to Charlottesville, in his immediate neighbor- hood, and in their distress were fed in part by the liberality of this gentleman, upon representation of a scarcity of pro- visions in the vicinity of their location. The Governor and Council, by authority of Congress, determined to remove * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. i. p. 46. 204 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY them. Jefferson addressed an urgent appeal to Henry, then Governor of Virginia, in behalf of the prisoners and the in- humanity of the policy. He was successful and the troops were allowed to remain.* Jefferson was elected the second Governor of Virginia, on the first of June, which office he occupied two years. In reply to a series of questions addressed by M. de Marbois, Secretary of the French Legation to the United States, Jefferson published in 1781 his “Notes on Virginia,” which was somewhat a philosophic and quite a popular little work, as was attested by being soon afterwards republished in France and England. Congress appointed him Minister to join those in Europe to assist in the negotiation for peace. He did not go; intelligence reaching Congress that prelimi- naries had been signed. He was again elected to Congress and acted as chairman of the committee to whom was referred the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and by whom it was unanimously ratified. He was the author of our present system of coins and decimals. He wrote his notes on the coinage for the United States, proposing a different money unit from that advocated by Robert Morris, the continental financier.t From the scarcity of the precious metals, un- avoidably so in new Colonies, the currency, nominally the same with the Mother Country, had greatly depreciated. Thus, £100 money of Great Britain was equal in New Eng- land and Virginia to £1331; in Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware, to £1662; in New York and North Carolina, to £1773; in South Carolina and Georgia, to £1083. The attention of Congress had been called to the subject as early as January, 1782. Morris had made a report, pro- posing a money unit of 1-1440 of a dollar, which would be the common measure of the penny of every State. Jefferson was a member of the committee on which final action was had on this vexed and intricate question. He objected to Morris’s plan, and proposed the dollar as the unit, and the other coins so related to this as to 1779. 1782. 1783. 1784, 1778. * Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. c. 5; Stat. Man. vol. i. p. 142. + Stat. Man., vol. i. p.144. ¢ Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. i. p. 160. OF THE UNITED STATES. 205 be conformable to the decimal arithmetic. Morris objected to this plan. Jefferson’s was in the following year adopted by Congress. Morris objected to Jeffer- son’s estimate of gold to silver at 15 to 1 as too high, but subsequent experience shows that Jefferson did not estimate it quite high enough, gold being nearly driven from the country until it was raised 16 to 1. What has been the re- sult of recent heavy importations I am unable to say, though Congress endeavors to maintain a uniform adjustment by regulating the quantity of coinage. Jefferson rarely spoke whilst a member of the Virginia Legislature or of Congress; it is to be inferred he was not inclined to much speaking. He served, he says,—‘‘ with General Washington in the legislature of Virginia before the Revolution, and during it with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main point which was to decide the question.” On the 7th of May, Jefferson received the appoint- ment of Minister Plenipotentiary to France, to act in conjunction with John Adams and Dr. Franklin. A few days previous to the appointment a proposition was made to reduce the salaries of foreign Ministers from eleven thousand one hundred and eleven dollars, to eight thousand dollars. During the pendency of the proposition, Jefferson, perhaps with an intimation that the appointment would be tendered to him, refrained from voting. The question was definitely settled by fixing the salaries of Ministers at nine thousand dollars. The copious life of Jefferson from the pen of Professor George Tucker, renders an account of him whilst in Paris needless in this place. His eminent literary acquirements and devotion to science, rendered Paris a delightful place to him; he became as great a favorite at Court and among the savans and literateurs of the French metropolis as had been his distinguished predecessor Dr. Franklin, who left regretted by the Court, as is seen from the remark of Vergennes (the French Minister) to Jefferson, when it was known Franklin had to leave,—‘‘ Vous remplacer Mons. Franklin, je crais?” to which Jefferson replied, —“ he sweceeded Dr. Franklin, but no one could replace him.”* Whilst Jefferson continued at the French Court, he maintained an agreeable literary inti- 1784, 1784, * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. i. p. 176. 206 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY macy with Condorcet, D’ Alembert, Morrellet, and other scien- tific men of France, with whom he engaged his leisure moments in a manner highly congenial to his disposition. With leave of absence, Jefferson reached his native shore on the 23d of October. His purpose had been, on leay- ing France, to return, which was altered upon the reception of a letter from General Washington, tendering him the appointment of Secretary of State, which he appears to have accepted with reluctance and diffidence.* Whilst Secretary of State, he rendered unquestionable aid to Washington and good service to his country. The reader is acquainted with the position he occupied in the cabinet; with his reports on the currency, on weights and measures, on the fisheries, and on commercial restrictions, which have been treated of in the chapter on Washington’s Administra- tion. Whilst holding office under Washington, he disapproved of many measures adopted by the Administration. In 1791 the President called on him for his opinion concerning a national bank, to which he was violently opposed, deeming it unconstitutional. Jefferson’s opinion was overruled; Wash- ington approved the bank bill. He saw and dreaded the influence which the wisdom, talent, and virtue of Hamilton had upon the deliberations of the cabinet. Many difficulties originated between the Secretary of State and the head of the Treasury Department, which not only resulted in perma- nent ill-feeling between them, but doubtless was partly the cause of the resignation of the former. Jefferson retired for a season to the shades of private life, seeking happiness in the indulgence of his literary taste, when not absorbed by his passion for political warfare. Under his auspices, through the influence of an enormous correspondence, tempered with great bitterness, the opposi- tion to Washington’s administration assumed an organized form. The opposition party, recognized and known as anti- federalists, were advised by him to take the name of Re- publicans; their opponents bestowed upon them the name of Democrats, which had been borrowed from the French. The term was disliked and seldom used by the great leader of the Republican party. He knew too well from actual observation 1789. * Jefferson’s Works, embracing his Correspondence, published by T. J. Randolph. OF THE UNITED STATES. 207 the force and odium of such an appellation, as applicable to the party to which it was applied in France. In 1796 the Republicans brought Jefferson before the peo- ple as candidate for the Presidency, as has been previously stated; John Adams receiving a higher number of votes was elected to the Presidency, and Jefferson to the Vice-Presi- dency. After being called by virtue of his office to preside over the Senate, he compiled a manual which has continued a guide to all parliamentary bodies in the United States to the present time. Party feeling was again excited; the administration of John Adams not only strengthened by its unpopularity the success of the Republicans, but, as we have seen, precipitated its own ruin by destroying its political household, and driving to enmity and open opposition many of the most distinguished and influential members of the Federal party. Jefferson was again in nomination. His party, confident of suc- cess, had placed another distinguished man likewise in the field; the office of Vice-President was also to be filled by a Republican. Aaron Burr was voted for along with Jef- ferson. It was the undoubted wish of the party that Jeffer- son should be President. The difficulty soon to present itself had never occurred to the minds of the statesmen or the people of that day. Jefferson and Burr received an equal number of votes. The votes for President and Vice-President were counted in the Senate chamber on the 11th of February, in the presence of both Houses of Congress. Upon the announcement of the result, Jefferson, then Vice-Presi- dent, declared Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr to have received an equal number of votes. The responsibility of deciding this unfortunate occurrence devolved upon the House of Representatives. Here, subject to every opportunity and inducement to corruption, was to be effected an election the people had failed to make. Suspicion of corruption has been raised, yet doubtless each member of that memorable Congress obeyed the incitement of an honest heart. The members of the House retired to their own hall, where it was ascertained one hundred and four members were, present, one being dead and another detained from his seat by sickness. The balloting by the House was by States. On the first ballot it was ascertained there were eight States for Jefferson, 1800. 1801. 208 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY six for Burr, two divided. The result continued the same for thirty-five ballots; many members despaired of an elec- tion. Jefferson’s mind seemed warped and excited by jeal- ousy and suspicion.* Bayard was the chief object of his spleen on this occasion, whose reputation, however, has been fully defended by his two sons. Jefferson asserted that he obtained from Livingston and W. C. Nicholas the information that Bayard proposed to Smith to come over to the Burrites, and that he was authorized to make him an offer of any place he desired, mentioning especially the secretaryship of the navy. For a defence of Mr. Bayard the reader is referred to the “National Gazette’ of the 25th of January, 1831. The Federalists, it is true, united upon Burr, but the suspi- cion of corruption has never found countenance beyond the bosom of Jefferson. No evidence exists of offers from Burr to the Federalists, or from the Federal to the Republican party. The fact of their uniting upon Burr, who then stood as high as Jefferson for integrity, and higher for talent, can readily be attributed to local and personal predilection. Burr, from location, was better known than Jefferson; a larger part of the Federal party were geographically identified with him in interest, and they supposed him, as he was, more allied to them in policy. On the thirty-sixth ballot, which occurred on the 17th of February, several of the friends of Burr withdrew their votes by putting in blanks, the result of which was Jefferson ob- tained ten States, Burr four,—viz. New Hampshire, Massa- chusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. There were two blanks,—Delaware and South Carolina. Jefferson was there- upon elected President, and Burr Vice-President, from the 4th of March, 1801. During the protraction of this election by the House, much anxious excitement pervaded the country. Members of Congress were writing to their friends and con- stituents that the Federalists were determined to defeat.the election of the Republican candidates, that a President was to be elected for the Senate, that the Government was to be given up to Jay, and many other assertions, designed no doubt to excite party feeling. The result happily relieved the coun- try, and removed all suspicion which had rested on the Federal party. * Vide his Letter to Madison, February 18, 1801; ditto to Monroe, Feb- ruary 15, 1801. } Stat. Man., vol. i.; Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. ¢. 8. OF THE UNITED STATES. 209 The great contest was over; the principles of Washington, the doctrines of the fathers of the Constitution, had been fully canvassed before the public; they had been submitted to that tribunal which allows no appeal. The people had abandoned the Federal party; they had been induced to magnify their faults, and there were faults. Though they had been seduced by the cry of too much power in the Federal Government, they had embraced the Republican doctrine of Jefferson, and they were alarmed by the monarchical features he could de- tect in the Constitution he would have to swear to support if elected, and he did swear that he would support it when mo- destly inducted to office. The measures of the existing Federal party must have been the particular cause of objection with the Republicans, not their principles; for the reader will de- tect, after giving his attention to the administration of Jeffer- son, that whilst its principles were more extensive than the Republican doctrine will fairly admit, yet some of its mea- sures were more highly Federal than any of the preceding Administrations. It will appear that Jefferson clearly thought the acquisition of Louisiana beyond the scope of the Consti- tution; whilst, with a Constitution that gave too much power to the President, he steps beyond the authority with which he is invested, commits an act which in his opinion he has no authority to do, and throws him upon the country to ratify a measure he acknowledges unconstitutional. It is apparent, let the parties of the country raise ever so much excitement about the abstract Federal doctrines of the first two Adminis- trations, that history attests the truth that no man can reach the head of our National Government without becoming a con- vert, whatever be his previous opinions, to the doctrine of the Federal school; his position, his interest, his duty, his oath, make it so. Jefferson saw the character of his position when he said,—‘‘ We are all Republicans, all Federalists.’’* On the 4th of March Jefferson took the oath of office, and delivered his Inaugural in the Senate chamber; it was received with much delight and satisfaction, 1801. * This remark occurs in his Inaugural Address. It was supposed by the Federalists that it was intended as an overture to them, which was objected to on that account by some of his own party. I do not suppose Mr. Jeffer- son had any such idea. He says in the words immediately preceding,— “We have called by different names brethren of the same principle;” and he clearly foresaw he must in many respects administer the Government upon the same principle, whilst he would in no manner identify himself with many of the measures of the Federal party. 210 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY making an impression on all who heard it of the liberality of its sentiments. In beauty of conception, richness of thought, purity of diction, and eloquence, it is surpassed by no paper in our language. Such papers are never designed to show the doctrines of a party, but simply to exhibit congratulatory feelings. Jefferson advances no doctrines of his own or of the Republican party; he recapitulates principles engraven upon the minds of all, and elegantly compasses them in the following language :— ‘«Hqual and exact justice to all men, of whatever State or persuasion, religious or political ; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republic tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole consti- tutional vigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are un- provided ; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the ma- jority, the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority, economy in the public expenses, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts ard sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected,—these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of Revolution and Reforma- tion.” These were the bright and gilded theories held out by Jef- ferson as a star of guidance for himself and party; true and beautiful in morals as in politics; the subsequent history of this man is to show how far he acted up to them, how far he yielded an honest homage, how far he overleaped them, how far their spirit pervaded his political action. OF THE UNITED STATES. 211 President Adams called the Senate together on the 5th of March, to allow the new incumbent to organize his cabinet. James Madison was made Secretary of State; Henry Dearborn, of Massachusetts, Secretary of War; Levi Lincoln, of Massachusetts, Attorney-General; Samuel Dexter, who had filled the office of Secretary of the Treasury under Adams, and Benjamin Stoddard, who was Secretary of the Navy, were continued in office for a short time. Before the meeting of the next Congress, Albert Gallatin, of Penn- sylvania, was appointed to the office of Secretary of the Treasury, and Robert Smith, of Maryland, to the head of the Navy Department. Coincident with the appointment of Smith, Gideon Granger of Connecticut, was appointed Post- master-General, in the place of Joseph Habersham, of Georgia; the incumbent of this office was not until many years after- wards made a member of the cabinet. From the tendency of Jefferson’s Inaugural Speech, the fears that had existed that he would expel the Federalists from office had been partly allayed; yet they were soon taught from the policy of the Administration, that they had but lit- tle hopes of political toleration. Goodrich, a Federal office- holder, was removed from the collectorship of the port of New Haven, and a Republican was appointed in his place. It became a subject of remonstrance from the citizens of New Haven. Jefferson in reply, told them he had been misunder- stood in their expectancy that the Federalists should retain the offices in the gift of the Government. In his reply, he said,—‘“ When it is considered that during the late Ad- ministration those who were not of a particular sect of politics were excluded from all office; when by a steady pursuit of this measure, nearly the whole offices of the United States were monopolized by that sect; when the public sentiment at length declared itself and burst open the doors of honor and confidence to those whose opinions they approved,—was it to be imagined that this monopoly of office was to be con- tinued in the hands of the minority? Does it violate their equal rights to assert the same rights in the majority also? Is it political intolerance to claim a proportionate share in the direction of the public affairs? If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few; by resignation, none. Can any other mode than that of removal be proposed? This is a painful office, but it is made my duty, and I meet it as such. 1801. 212 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY I proceed in the operation with deliberation and inquiry, that it may injure the best men least and effect the purposes of justice and public utility with the least private distress; that it may be thrown as much as possible on delinquency, on oppression, on intolerance, on anti-revolutionary adherence to our enemies.”’ Jefferson exhibited no proscriptive principle in making his appointments. He was not, at all times, tempered with party bitterness, but looked upon a reappointment to many of the offices as a matter of justice. He could not be blamed, nor could the occupancy of offices by members of the dominant party be attributable to him. Washington had made the first appointments; they were exclusively of the Federal party. John Adams, in filling the new offices as well as vacancies that had occurred, confined himself rigidly to the Federal party. When Jefferson was brought into office by the opponents of the Federal party, he found an entire monopoly in the hands of the enemies of his administration. No blame then can rest upon him in effecting an equilibrium in the benefits of the Government, in rewarding the supporters of his principles. The example of exclusive party appointments, had been esta- blished in the administration of Washington; it had been sustained by John Adams. ‘The practice of removal from office with the success of parties in the Presidential elections has been carried to unjustifiable extremes; yet to a certain extent it must be tolerated, as it was necessarily interwoven with party success, and was demanded as a principle of repub- lican purity and equality when the first revolution took place in the political history of the Government. Jefferson did not pursue it with partisan feeling, but, lamenting the duty im- posed upon him, he acted with mildness and consideration, leaving many worthy incumbents of the Federal party in the enjoyment of their offices, and removing those who were mostly corrupt, or inefficient from age or otherwise. Compared with latter years, the removals by Jefferson were few, and it is historically incorrect, as it is unjust, to attribute to him the origin of that abhorrent doctrine which has been attempted by prejudiced writers, that ‘to the victors belong the spoils.” Jefferson exhibited his moderate feelings by bestowing office upon many worthy men who had opposed his election, but afterwards became members of his party. John Adams, with a view of filling every office with mem- bers of the Federal party, had continued making appointments OF THE UNITED STATES. 213 up to the last hour of his administration. Jefferson enter- tained an erroneous opinion in reference to many of these appointments, and refused to allow the delivery of many com- missions which had been signed by the late President. Since the 14th of February, on which day the balloting commenced in the House of Representatives for President, he withheld the commissions of certain magistrates appointed for the Dis- trict of Columbia. Marbury, one of the magistrates, applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, to Madison, the new Secretary of State, to deliver his commission. After an elaborate investigation of constitutional law, the court refused the motion;* which opinion, though strictly correct in law, sustained an arbitrary exercise of temper in the Pre- sident, which rarely marked his official conduct. In reference to these appointments, Jefferson thus expresses himself,— “Mr. Adams’s last appointments, when he knew he was naming counselors and aids for me and not for himself, I set aside, as far as depends on me. Officers who have been guilty of gross abuses of office, such as marshals packing Juries, &., I shall now remove, as my predecessor ought in Justice to have done. The instances will be few, and governed by strict rule and not party passion. The right of opinion shall suffer no invasion from me. Those who have acted well, have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion.’ + It will be seen by reference to the letter last quoted, and those referred to in the note, that Jefferson exercised a mild and judicious course in making his appointments. So far from being obnoxious to proscriptive doctrines which many have endeavored to trace directly to his policy, the Federal party of that day were in many instances inclined to feel that the President was using his influence to win them over to his support. The Seventh Congress assembled. The influence of the Presidential election and the odium of the late Ad- ministration, had been the means of placing the "7 existing Administration in a handsome and imposing : majority. The Senate stood, eighteen for the Administration ; Federalists, fourteen. The House, sixty-nine for the Admin- * Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 222; Hild., vol. ii. p. 249; Sullivan. + Jefferson’s Cor. Letters to George Gerry, March 29, 1801. See Letters to W. B. Giles, March 23, 1801; Monroe, March 7, 1801. 214 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY istration; Federalists, thirty-six. As supporters of the Ad- ministration, there were in the Senate men of talent and influence as of the former Congress,—W. OC. Nicholas and Baldwin; of the new members, Armstrong, of New York, the author of the Newbury Letters; (he resigned his seat before the end of the session and was succeeded by De Witt Clin- ton;) Dr. Logan, of Pennsylvania; Sumter, of South Carolina; Jackson, of Georgia, who had been a distinguished member of the First and Third Congress and late Governor of his State; and Breckenridge, of Kentucky. As supporters of the Fe- deral party, were Chipman, of Vermont; Foster and Mason, of Massachusetts; Tracy and Hillhouse, of Connecticut; Foster, of Rhode Island; Morris, of New York; Dayton, of New Jersey; Ross, of Pennsylvania; and Willes, of Dela- ware. Of the new members, only three were Federalists,— White, of Delaware, Sheape and Olcott, of New Hampshire. On the side of the Administration there were in the House, as distinguished and able men of the old members,—Varnum, of Massachusetts; Gregg, Smilie, and Lieb, of Pennsylvania; Smith and Nicholson, of Maryland; Macon, of North Caro- lina; Giles (after an absence of two years,) and John Ran- dolph, of Virginia. Among the new members of the same party, were Dr. Eustace, of Boston, and Dr. 8. L. Mitchell, of New York; the latter was an eminent chemist, well suited for the laboratory, but had no qualifications for statesmanship. On the side of the Federalists, of the old and distinguished members, were Griswold, Dana, Davenport, and John Cotton Smith, of Connecticut; Bayard, of Delaware; John Stanley, of North Carolina; Rutledge and Thomas Lowndes, of South Carolina. There were few new members of the Federal party, and not one distinguished. Some of the ablest supporters of the late Administration had either retired to private pur- suits or received, office from another source. Thacker, of Massachusetts, who had been in Congress during the adminis- trations of Washington and John Adams, had been promoted to the bench of the Supreme Court of his State; Hartley, of Pennsylvania, was dead; Muhlenburg had received the office of Supervisor for Pennsylvania; Nicholas had removed from Virginia to New York; Harper, the leader of the Federal party, had moved from South Carolina to Maryland.* The Federal party had become weak in numbers as in talent; * Hild. vol. ii. p. 486. OF THE UNITED STATES. 215 the Republicans were in a decided majority, and far superior in talent and influence. Nathaniel Macon, a distinguished friend of Jefferson, and among the wisest of his supporters, was elected Speaker over Bayard, by fifty-three to forty-six votes; Benley, an old Republican, who had formerly been clerk, but ousted by the Federalists, was re-elected by a like vote. Jefferson, immediately upon the organization of the House, sent in his first Annual Message. It had been the custom of former Administrations established at — Dec.& Washington for the President to deliver in person his Address to Congress. Jefferson first adopted the plan of transmitting a written communication. This communication was expected with much anxiety. It was the first from the new party, and all felt the utmost interest in its develop- ments, and as the official standard of the Republicans in which the policy of the Administration would be made known and published to the world. Economy in the administration of public affairs was the prevailing spirit of this Message, by curtailing the diplomatic establishment, and the army and navy. It does not dispute the soundness of the doctrine of appropriations for the fortifications of harbors, but inculcates a retrenchment of expenditures. ‘In our case, too, of the public contributions intrusted to our direction,” the President says, ‘it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their dissipation by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing all applica- tions of money varying from the appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount; by reducing the undefined field of contingencies and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money; and by bringing back to a single. depart- ment all accountabilities for money where the examination may be prompt, efficacious, and uniform.” A repeal of all internal taxes the President thought advis- able. ‘Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and naviga- tion,” says this paper, “the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may some- times be earnestly interposed.” But that it must be within the constitutional power to receive aid from the Executive, is clearly indicated. cn The attention of Congress is called to the Judiciary system 216 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY of the United States, especially that portion of it recently created. The law establishing the Circuit Courts of the United States, to be holden by justices not of the Supreme and District Courts, which had passed in the evening of the last Administration, Jefferson thought ought to be repealed, The opinion prevailed at the time and afterwards, that the President was not in favor of the independence of the Judi- ciary Department.* Whilst the Federalists attributed this sentiment to Jefferson, yet nothing appeared in his conduct to substantiate the belief. It was said that he contended they should be of the same political views with the majority; true, and no one has ever been appointed to the Federal bench that did not belong to the party then in power. A heavy and responsible duty rested on this Congress; work was to be done. With the aid of the President, who was pledged to place the “Ship of State on its Republican track,” and produce economy and purity in the Government, the majority of the Seventh Congress ardently and faithfully addressed themselves to the task. John Randolph, the per- sonal and warm political friend of the President, was placed at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means, who, at this time, and during the first administration of Jefferson, performed perhaps more labor than any other American par- liamentarian ever did. Gifted with great fluency, ready re- tort, and withering wit, with no method, and without logical order, he was formidable in debate, though destitute of the highest qualifications of a first-rate debater. No one excelled him in ardent love of country, or had a higher and more liberal sense of honor and duty. The boldness and readiness he evinced, with a practical disposition and talent, blended with the most brilliant genius and sparkling oratory, made him a leader for the Administration, and threw him often in conflict with Griswold and Bayard, leaders on the part of the Federalists. The labor belonging to the committee of which Randolph was chairman may be appreciated from a reference to the following resolution that called it into being :— “ Resolved, That a Standing Committee of Ways and Means be appointed, whose duty it shall be to take into consideration all such reports of the Treasury Department, and all such propositions relative to the revenue as may be referred to them by the House; to inquire into the state of the public * Bradford, p. 122 OF THE UNITED STATES. 217 debt, of the revenue, and of the expenditures; and to report from time to time their opinion thereon.’”’* Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury, reported that the accounts of his predecessor were correct in that department; also of the State, War, and Navy departments, no delinquen- cies having occurred. The mind of the Administration was immediately and ardently directed to the adjustment of the finances, and arrangements for the redemption of the debts of the Govern- ment. The Secretary of the Treasury submitted to Congress an able and full report of the history and condition of the finances. The permanent revenues of the United States, according to the laws then in force, consisted of duties on merchandise and tonnage, internal duties on stills and do- mestic distilled spirits, refined sugar, licenses to retailers, sales at auction and pleasure carriages, proceeds of the sales of public lands, duties on postage, dividends on shares in the Bank of the United States, and incidental items arising from fines, fees, penalties, repayments in the treasury, and sales of public property other than lands. The report estimated— Duties on merchandise and tonnage $9,500,000 Internal duties, (stamps excepted)............:0006 650,000 Proceeds of sales of public lands................ceseseeeeee 400,000 Duties on postage... ..ccesccssscceecseceecresee soreenseseseceeees 50,000 With the other estimates made by the Secretary, embracing the temporary resources of the Government,— The revenue amounted t0......... eececece ceeeeeuee venveeees $10,600,000 The amount of expenditure necessary to defray the authorized expenses of the Government was esti- WOE Wh dsaes scxeusaerqesmeeneienneserennson omuenee yeteenient 8,500,000 Leaving the sum Of.......scc0cecceeeee ceeeee cenneeaneeenaeeeee $7,100,000 This amount was applicable to the payment of interest and redemption of the principal of the debt of the United States. By printed statements of receipts and expenditures trans- mitted to Congress for the year 1800, it appeared that the unredeemed principal of the public debt (exclusively of the sums passed to the credit of the Commissioners of the Sink- ing Fund, which are only a nominal debt due by the United States to themselves)+ amounted, on the Ist of January, 1801, to $80,161,207 60. By the statement P., appended to Gal- latin’s report of 1801, it appeared that the unredeemed prin- * Journal of Seventh Congress. + Report of Secretary of Treasury, 1801. Vou. L—15 218 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY cipal of the debt would be $77,881,890 29.* The Secretary enters into a full and lucid calculation, exhibiting the manner of the reduction of the public debt, which will be understood in detail by reference to statement 8., which he appended to the same paper alluded to. It exhibits the effect produced at the end of the year 1807, by the annual application of $7,300,000 to the payment of both principal and interest. At the end of those eight years, says the Secretary,—* It shall have paid the whole of the Dutch debt, of the tempo- rary loans due to the bank, of the navy six per cent., and of the five and a half per cent. stock, $5,525,300 38 of the eight per cent. stock, $150,387 26 of the four and a half per cent. stock, and $11,399,263 06 of the principal of the six per cent. and deferred stocks,—amounting altogether to thirty-two millions two hundred and eighty-nine thousand one hundred and fifty dollars and seventy cents. The public debt would, therefore, on the Ist of January, 1810, be reduced to $45,592,739 59.’+ The reader will readily see my purpose in drawing his at- tention to this report of Gallatin, and going into statements beyond the period now before us. From it he will learn the financial character of the plans embraced by Jefferson, and on which his party in Congress at the very threshold of his Administration proposed acting in reference to the finances of the Government. At an early period of the session of this Congress, in con- formity with the views of the President, as expressed in his Message, Randolph introduced a resolution,—‘“ That a com- mittee be appointed to inquire whether any, and what altera- tions can be made in the Judiciary Department of the United States, and to provide for securing the impartial selection of juries in the courts of the United States.” This resolution was referred to a select committee, of which Randolph was chairman. On the 4th of February, he reported a bill to repeal the laws of the last session in respect to the Judiciary, which, as the reader is informed, alluded to the law establish- ing Circuit Courts, the judges of which had been appointed in the expiring moments of the previous Administration. This question elicited considerable discussion. On the 3d of March the law passed, by a large majority, 1802. * Report of Secretary of Treasury, 1801. + Reports on the Finances, vol. i. p. 226. OF THE UNITED STATES. 219 repealing the late act, and depriving the incumbents appointed by Adams of the office.* In the House of Representatives, the great champions in debate on this bill were William B. Giles, of Virginia, who boldly and ably advocated the repeal; and James A. Bayard, the leader, and most accomplished de- bater of the Federal party. In the Senate, G. Morris sus- tained with great zeal the law of the last session creating the courts; yet he was successfully and ably met by S. T. Mason, who warmly advocated the destruction of those supernumerary courts. John Randolph, that bright yet erratic star, lent the full lustre of his genius to break up this last refuge of the broken-down party hacks of the late Administration. It was contended by the advocates of the law creating these courts, that the increasing trade and commerce and population of the country would likewise increase the judicial business, and that public necessity required them. It was also contended that it would be unconstitutional to deprive the incumbents of their office, which was to be held during good behavior; and that it was equally, if not a greater vio- lation of the Constitution, for the legislative branch of the Government to encroach upon the independence of the Judi- ciary. In reference to the first argument, experience has shown that the extensive addition to the Judiciary was not needed. The second and strongest defence was unsound. It did not violate the Constitution by making the Judiciary sub- missive to the legislative branch of the Government. The offices were abolished because they were useless. The Fede- ralists charged that the object in repealing the law was to get rid of the incumbents. The Republicans exhibited no such purpose. In the language of Randolph, the chairman of the committee, by whom the law for the abolition of the courts was reported, it was admitted that such purpose would be against the spirit of the Constitution. ‘‘I am free to declare,” said Randolph, “that if the extent of this bill is to get rid of the judges, it is a perversion of your power to a bad pur- pose; it is an unconstitutional act. If, on the contrary, it aims not at displacing one set of men from whom you differ in political opinion, with a view to introduce others, but for the general good, by abolishing useless offices, it is a constitu- tional act. But we are told that this is to declare the Judi- ciary, which the Constitution has attempted to fortify against * Sixteen judges were deprived of office by the repeal. 220 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the other branches of Government, dependent on the will of the Legislature, whose discretion alone is to limit their en- croachments. Whilst I contend that the Legislature possesses this discretion, I am sensible of the delicacy with which it is to be used. It is like the power of impeachment or the de- claring of war, to be used under a high responsibility.” It is obvious that the Republican party was actuated by the purest motives; nor can it be doubted that Congress possessed the constitutional power to abate a useless office. During this session of Congress the representation was apportioned according to the census of 1800, the ratio being continued at one representative for every 33,000 inhabitants. The Military Academy at West Point was likewise established; objections were raised to its establishment, but universal approbation now sustains it as among the first scientific, literary, and military schools in the world; whilst the high renown and brilliant service of the officers it has afforded our army, show its practical utility, and it is now considered by general con- sent indispensable to the safety of our country. The attention of Congress during the remainder of this session was chiefly occupied with the passage of certain laws for the protection of American commerce, and our seamen against Tripolitan cruisers, by whom some of our vessels had been captured. The acts discontinuing the several acts for internal taxes on stills, distilled spirits, refined sugars, carriages, stamped paper, licenses to retailers, and sales at auction, were passed at this time. A law was passed for the redemption of the public debt, appropriating annually seven millions three hundred thousand dollars to the sinking fund. At this time, and a few days before the close of the session, the President communicated to Con- gress the treaty between the United States and the State of Georgia, embracing that portion of territory lying between the Mississippi and Chattahoochee, which had been made be- tween the commissioners of that State and the United States, the latter consisting of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney-General. Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to the territory west of her present boundary, which extended to the Mississippi River, em- bracing nearly four degrees of latitude, and now constitutes the States of Alabama and Mississippi, placing in the hands of 1802. April 26. OF THE UNITED STATES. 221 the General Government about one hundred thousand square miles.* This act of the General Government cannot be con- sidered in the light of the acquisition of territory, or even an extension of the territory of the United States; yet it was the first effort the United States Government had made to- wards the acquisition of territory for its sole governance, since the cession of Kentucky and the Northwest Territory. The transfer of this territory, as in all other instances, has operated to the great advantage of the territory transferred, as well as to the grandeur of the Union. This territory was received on the terms and conditions of the ordinance of 1787, except the prohibition of slavery.+ A new and important step was taken at this session _Aprit 30, of Congress, which, as the result of a political prin- oe ciple established in the Constitution, was for the first time to be brought into practical operation. The first fruits of the expansive principle of the Government of the Union was now to be realized, and every succeeding effort to enlarge the area over which our Republican Constitution spreads its benign influence has demonstrated the true philosophy and philan- thropy of this principle in the Government of the United States. The territory northwest of the Ohio River, by the late census, contained a population sufficient to entitle it to admission into the Union as one of the United States. An act was accordingly passed in obedience to the Constitution, authorizing the people of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the Ohio River to form a constitution and or- ganize a State government, which was done in convention, begun and held at Chillicothe on the 1st of November, 1802. The eastern division of the Northwestern Territory, which constituted the State of Ohio, contained about 40,000 square miles, lying in a compact form nearly in the shape of a square, with a geographical position: and fertility of soil, that accounts for the rapid development of its resources and unparalleled increase of population. Its commercial intercourse with the States is eminently favored by its access to the Ohio River, which forms its south and southeast boundary, and Lake Erie, which forms more than one half of its northern boun- dary. The remainder of the territory was to be annexed to Indiana. * Hild. Hist. of the U. S., vol. ii. p. 447. + Journal of Congress, sessions 1801-2. 222 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY In consideration of an act passed by the State, exempting from taxation for four years all lands newly purchased of the General Government, Congress proposed im return to grant one township in each section of land for the support of schools, which amounted to one thirty-sixth part of the lands in the State, besides five per cent. of the proceeds of all lands sold to be laid out for the construction of roads; three per cent. of it, by a subsequent act, to be expended within the State, and two per cent. upon roads leading to the State from the eastward. The progressive population of the State of Ohio is an un- matched phenomenon in the history of colonization. In 17838, the area it now embraces was a wild waste, and untrod wilder- ness; its immeasurable forest echoed only to howling beasts, whilst Ohio’s giant tide rolled onward to the oceaa, its rest- less surface scarce ploughed by the light canoe of the savage Indian. In 1790, only 3000 civilized inhabitants were found within its boundaries; in 1800, the population had increased to 42,156; in 1810, it was 227,843; in 1820, it contained 275,965; in 1830, it had swollen to 479,718; in 1840, it numbered upon its generous soil 775,360 inhabitants. The banks of its majestic river, but a few years back lonely and desolate, save the noble forest that waved in melancholy gran- deur over its swelling tide, is now studded with thriving towns and cities, and its mighty waters are daily bearing its com- merce and its wealth to the remotest inhabitants of the earth. In 1850, according to the report of the last census, it pre- sented a population of 1,980,408. The progress of the State of Ohio presents a beautiful picture of the enterprise, intelligence, and success of the American citizen, (as would be the case with mankind,) left free to shape his destiny and struggle for fortune and fame, even against the pinchings of poverty, under the administra- tion of laws spurning a systematic favoritism like that of the Old World,—instead of extending, as does our own Govern- ment, the power and influence that belongs to it, to nurture, cherish, and protect every interest, and uphold the rights of every being, leaving the industrious, the virtuous, and the talented, to win for themselves such distinction and privilege as they alone can achieve and maintain. At this session an effort was made to discontinue the coinage of metals and abolish the mint, because its maintenance was considered too expensive. A bill for that purpose passed the House of Representatives, but was defeated in the Senate. OF THE UNITED STATES. 223 A proposition was made before the close of this session, which had nearly expired, to abolish the Navy Department and place its concerns under the Secretary of War, but it signally failed. This effort was probably suggested with a view to meet the approbation of the President, whose opinions were several times variant upon the subject of the navy, though during the first administration of the Government, Jefferson had been a warm advocate of the navy. Jefferson, in answer to a letter from John Adams making certain inquiries in reference to the navy, and in which Adams gives his own name as authority, that Washington was adverse to a navy, the proof of which he had from his own lips in many different conversations, wrote,—‘“ Your recollections on that subject are certainly corroborated by his known anxieties for a close connection with Great Britain, to which he might apprehend danger from collisions between their vessels and ours. Randolph was then Attorney-General, but his opinion on the question I also entirely forget.” Jefferson had advo- cated the building of vessels to be sent to the Mediterranean, which had been done. “I thought,” he says afterwards, “that the public safety might require some additional vessels of strength, to be prepared and in readiness for the first mo- ment of war, provided they could be preserved against the decay which is unavoidable if kept in the water, and clear of the expense of officers and men. With this view I proposed they should be built in dry docks, above the level of the tide- waters, and covered with roofs. I further advised that places for these docks should be selected where there was a command of water on a high level, as that of the Tiber at Washington, by which the vessels might be floated out on the principle of a lock. But the majority of the Legislature was against any addition to the navy, and the minority, although for it in judgment, voted against it on a principle of opposition. * * * Yet a navy is a very expensive engine. It is admitted that in ten or twelve years a vessel goes to entire decay, or if kept in repair, costs as much as would build a new one; and thata nation who could count on twelve or fifteen years of peace, would gain by burning its navy and building a new one in time. Its extent, therefore, must be governed by circum- stances.””* This, it appears, is the last written evidence of Jefferson’s * Jefferson’s Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 356. 224 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY opinion on this subject. His mind certainly changed more than once on this question, sometimes clearly seeing its value and being its ardent advocate, at others alarmed at the bur- densome expense and its exposing the country to collisions with other naval powers. It appears that Jefferson’s mind became more convinced of the absolute necessity of the navy after the brilliant results of the last war with England.* The second session of the same Congress assem- bled on the 6th of December; much existed and was communicated to Congress, not only to attract its atten- tion, but to excite the minds of the people. The navigation of the Mississippi and the cession of Louisiana to. France, were the chief questions that pressed upon the present na- tional councils with the deepest interest and anxiety. In October, during the recess of Congress, Don Morales, Intendant of Louisiana, had issued a pro- clamation excluding that port as a depot for our commerce, in palpable violation of the treaty of 1795 between this country and Spain; especially as the Intendant had failed to desig- nate any other place, as was required.t Griswold offered a resolution, calling on the Pre- jan. sident for information and such official documents as had been received in reference to the cession of Louisiana to France, with a report stipulating the cir- cumstances under which that Province was to be delivered up. On the motion of John Randolph, it was referred toa committee, and was taken into consideration with closed doors. Afterwards, upon the motion of Randolph, it was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, which was not done however, until after considerable discussion. Randolph was urgent to have the doors closed. Griswold and his friends contended that it was a resolution for informa- tion, and ought to be discussed with open doors; Randolph still insisted that he had remarks to make which must be done with closed doors. ‘The gentleman from Connecticut is willing the resolution should be fully discussed, and therefore concludes it should not be referred to a select committee, as he is pleased to term it, where alone, as we contend, and have informed him, the discussion can take place. Sir, this may be logic, but it is new tome. A Message from the Pre- 1802. 1802. * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 448. } Hild. Hist., vol. ii. p. 470. OF THE UNITED STATES. 225 sident, relative to New Orleans, has been referred to a certain committee, and we propose to refer the resolution to the same committee. Gentlemen exclaim this is denying them infor- mation ; does it follow of necessity that we deny the informa- tion, because we choose to consider the subject with closed doors?” Randolph’s motion was carried; when the doors were closed he offered the following resolution,—“ That this House receive with great sensibility the information of a disposition in certain officers of the Spanish Government at New Orleans to obstruct the navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the United States by the most solemn stipulations. That, adhering to the humane and wise policy which ought ever to characterize a free people and by which the United States have always professed to be governed; willing, at the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals rather than to a want of good faith on the part of his Catholic Majesty; and relying with perfect confidence on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such measures as that department of the Government shall have pursued for assert- ing the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties.” The excitement and interest manifested at the — 1803. interruption of commerce on the Mississippi had spread among the Western people, and led to a most em- phatic remonstrance from the Governor and legislature of Kentucky. At a later period in the session, the excitement had reached to such violence in the Western country, that its influence again attracted the notice of Congress. Ross introduced into the Senate resolutions authorizing the President to occupy New Orleans by an armed force; pro- posing the appropriation of five millions of dollars and the calling out of fifty thousand militia. Instead of these reso- lutions a substitute was adopted, from which sprung an act of Congress intrusting the whole matter to the President, with authority to direct the Governors of the States, if he saw occasion, to hold in readiness eighty thousand volun- 226 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY teers.* The Spanish difficulties were not settled until 1818. The most important and interesting feature in the political consideration of these times,—important for the interest of America, important in the politics of Europe, as well as the results which have followed,—was the treaty by which this Government acquired Louisiana. The President seemed to think that it was the object of the Federal party to force the country into war with Spain, thinking it would result in derangement of the finances, which might make their measures for a time popular, as are the nauseating articles of the drug-shop popular in cases of bodily derangement; or, if that could not be done, “to attach the Western country to them as their best friends, and thus get again into power.” Jefferson’s policy was pacific, and later times prove the wisdom that guided him; to effect which purpose he appointed James Monroe Minister Plenipotentiary to France, Jan-10, to act with Livingston, resident Minister at Paris, in the purchase of New Orleans and the Floridas.t The nomination was confirmed, and, at the request of the Pre- sident, two millions of dollars were appropriated to the mission. The instructions to our Ministers did not embrace Louisiana, but only asked for the cession of New Orleans and the Flo- ridas; and that the course of the Mississippi should be divided by a line that would place New Orleans in the territory of the United States, securing to this country the free navigation of the Mississippi. Jefferson, who had received information of the cession of Louisiana to France, wrote to Livingston, giving his views in reference to the feelings of the people. It worked sorely upon the United States. He said to him, if France considered Louisiana indispensable for her views, she might, perhaps, be willing to look about for arrangements which might reconcile it to our interest. If anything could do this it would be ceding to us the island of New Orleans and the Floridas.} Livingston entertained the opinion, in common with others at the time, especially Ross, of Pennsylvania, and Morris, of New York, that we would never be able to acquire New Orleans by treaty, and that it ought to be taken by force. The his- tory of the question shows that Livingston was in great con- “ Hild. Hist., vol. ii. p. 470. + Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 238. { Jefferson’s Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 493. OF THE UNITED STATES. 227 fusion and ignorance, and indifferently qualified to carry on a negotiation with the artful and subtle French. Napoleon was at the time first Consul; peace had rested momentarily over the troubled spirit of Europe, but only for a moment; another flame of war was just about bursting forth, in which France and England were to constitute the chief elements. Napoleon was willing to treat for Louisiana at the very time that Livingston thought New Orleans was to be taken by force. M. Baché Marbois enjoyed to a high degree the confi- dence of Napoleon, and was intrusted with the negotiation on the part of the first Consul. The Marquis de Marbois had ample opportunities to understand the question in all its bearings, having resided near Philadelphia during the pro- gress of our Revolution. The following extract, taken from his history of Louisiana, will throw considerable light upon the views of Napoleon. Speaking of this treaty,—“ Ivresolu- tion and deliberation,” said Napoleon, ‘are no longer in season. I renounce Louisiana; it is not only New Orleans that I will cede, it is the whole Colony, without any reser- vation. I know the price of what I abandon, and I have sufficiently proved the importance that I attach to this Pro- vince, since my first diplomatic act with Spain had for its object the recovery of it. I renounce it with the greatest regret. To attempt to retain it would be folly. I direct you to negotiate this affair with the Envoys of the United States. Do not even wait for the arrival of Mr. Monroe; have an in- terview this very day with Mr. Livingston. But I require a great deal of money for this war, and I would not hke to commence with new contributions. If I should regulate my terms according to the value of these vast regions to the United States, the indemnity would have no limits. I will be moderate in consideration of the necessity in which I am making a sale; but keep this to yourself. I want fifty mil- lions [franes,] and for less than that sum I will not treat; I would rather make a desperate attempt to keep those fine countries ; to-morrow you shall have full powers; Mr. Mon- roe is on the point of arriving. To this Minister the Presi- dent must have given secret instructions more extensive than the ostensible authorization of Congress for the stipulation of the payments to be made. Neither this Minister nor his colleague is prepared for a decision, which goes infinitely beyond anything that they are about toask of us. Begin by 228 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY making them the overture without any subterfuge. You will acquaint me day by day, and hour by hour, of your progress. The cabinet of London is informed of the measures adopted at Washington, but it can have no suspicion of those that. I am now taking. Observe the greatest secresy, and recommend it to the American Ministers; they have not a less interest than yourself in conforming to this counsel. You will cor- respond with M. de Talleyrand, who alone knows my inten- tions. If I attended to his advice, France would confine her ambition to the left bank of the Rhine, and would make war to protect any dismemberment of her possessions. But he also admits that the cession of Louisiana is not a dismember- ment of France; keep him informed of the progress of this affair.’’* The interview between Marbois and Livingston in reference to the negotiation commenced on the same day. It presents a singular feature that Jefferson should express such anxiety and fear, and Napoleon the utmost desire to part with it; whilst our Minister, Livingston, thought it could only be taken by force. Livingston, who had resided about two years at Paris, had failed in a great measure to secure the friend- ship and strict confidence of the Government. His powers were not extensive enough to enable him to treat for Lou- isiana, his mission being intended originally to obtain indem- nities claimed by citizens of the United States for prizes made by the French. The responses made to the American Minister had been vague and uncertain, which, indeed, made him distrustful that any negotiation was intended. When the proposition for the cession of the entire territory was made by Marbois, it was received with very little confidence. The negotiation was conducted under the immediate eye of the first Consul, and though Marbois was instructed to demand and not receive less than fifty millions of francs, yet the sum demanded was so vague that it appeared impossible to learn the determina- tion of the negotiation. Livingston refused to go beyond thirty millions of francs. . Whilst these preliminary questions were pending April 12, Monroe arrived at Paris. Livingston remarked to him that he wished ‘the resolution offered by Mr. Ross in the Senate had been adopted; only force can give us * Marbois’s History of Louisiana. OF THE UNITED STATES. 229 New Orleans.” Monroe, more of a diplomatist than Living- ston—indeed, surpassed by none—sought a conference the next day with Marbois. The powers of Monroe and Living- ston were blended and common to each. The American and French Ministers were equally interested and anxious to bring the negotiation to a successful termination. Marbois, who had for upwards of thirty-five years been engaged in various highly important political business, was personally acquainted with Monroe, and conversant with American affairs. Diplomacy seemed forgotten in the breast of Mar- bois, who frankly opened to the American Ministers his pro- position, which, instead of being confined to New Orleans and a small territory, embraced a large and valuable country; they only wanted the right to navigate the Mississippi; they were offered the sovereignty of the largest river on the con- tinent. Deliberation was rapid, though mixed with some astonishment. Monroe’s presence seemed to throw a charm over the negotiation. The Ministers from America had au- thority only to treat for an arrangement respecting the use of the left bank of the Mississippi, embracing New Orleans. The mission had three objects,—first the cession, secondly the price, and finally the indemnity due on account of cap- tures by the French of American vessels and goods. The American Ministers determined to treat as was proposed by the French Ministers; yet the question was not free from embarrassment, as they were about to go beyond the con- templated range of the mission. They saw the exigency that rested on France, and that quickness was essential. It was impossible to communicate with the home Government ; France was on the very brink of war with England, and be- fore the American Ministers could have had their powers amplified, it might have been too late. The responsibility was assumed of treating for the purchase of the entire Colony, and the terms were easily adjusted.* It was desirable to obtain the assent of Spain, a right of pre- ference being reserved by that power by the treaty of 1800; delay might defeat the negotiation, consequently the Spanish Court knew nothing of what was going on until the treaty was concluded and sent over. Spain complained and obsti- nately refused to give approbation to the treaty, until on the 10th of February, 1804, Don Pedro Cavallos addressed a * Marbois’s History of Louisiana. 230 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY letter to Mr. Pinckney, United States Minister, that “hig Catholic Majesty had thought fit to renounce his opposition to the alienation of Louisiana, made by France, notwith- standing the solid reasons on which it is founded; thereb giving a new proof of his benevolence and friendship to the United States.’’* M. de Marbois insisted on eighty millions of francs, which were given, on condition that twenty millions of this sum should be assigned to the payment of what was due by France to the citizens of the United States, which, being agreed April 80 to, ‘the treaty was immediately ready for ratification on the part of the American Congress. The terms of the treaty were short and simple. For the payment of sixty millions of francs, it was agreed that the Government of the United States was to create a stock of eleven millions two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, bear- ing six per cent. interest per annum, payable half yearly in London, Amsterdam, or Paris; the principal of said stock to be reimbursed at the Treasury of the United States, in annual payments of not less than three millions of dollars each, of which the first payment was to commence fifteen years after the date of the exchange of ratifications. The stock to be transferred to the Government of France or their agents, in three months after the exchange of the ratification of the treaty, and after Louisiana should be taken possession of by the United States. The treaty was received in the United States with a great degree of satisfaction on the part of a large portion of the people; yet it met with a bold and decided op- position from the Federal party. Jefferson convened Congress at an earlier day than the commencement of the regular session, to take those ulterior measures which were necessary for the imme- diate occupation and temporary government of the newly- acquired territory. The treaty was immediately laid before the Senate, and after two days’ debate its ratifica- tion was advised by that body by a vote of 24 to 7.t Dayton was the only Federal Senator who voted for it. The question was not yet divested of difficulty and vexation. It was to come before the other branch of the Legislature, not July, 1803. October 17. October 20. * Marbois’s History of Louisiana. + Hild. Hist., vol. ii. p. 487; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 238. OF THE UNITED STATES. 231 for ratification, but to make the necessary provisions to carry the treaty into effect. The ratified conventions were com- municated to the House, with a message from the President urging the necessity of its co-operation, there being important conditions that could not be carried into execution without legislative aid. Griswold immediately moved a call upon the President for a copy of the treaty between Spain and France, upon which depended the right of the latter, and such evidence as he might have that Spain was ready to deliver up the ceded territory. He contended that the treaty before the House recited only a provisional agreement on the part of Spain to cede Louisiana to France. There had as yet been no evi- dence that the treaty had been made, it having been from the beginning suppressed, though the fact was known to the Ex- ecutive; nor had Spain given her assent to the treaty then before the House, but madly refused so to do. Griswold’s motion failed by a majority of two votes. A resolution was immediately offered by John Randolph, making provision for carrying the treaty into effect. This resolution induced an excited debate. It was opposed by the Federal party on two grounds,—its being unconstitutional to receive into the Union, whether by treaty or otherwise, for- eign territory and people; and that the territory of the United States was sufficiently large for a republican Government. An extensive territory, it was thought, would endanger the Republic and require a strong arm, perhaps a military force, to preserve order. The special provision to France and Spain in reference to the trade with Louisiana was another point of decided objection, as introducing an unconstitutional discrimination between different parts of the Union. Ran- dolph, who boldly and eloquently led in this debate, sus- tained the constitutionality of the treaty; whilst others, though less gifted, brought the force of their talent to sustain this important and vital question. No one touched the question of the constitutional right to vote money for a purchase of territory. The Federalists could not have denied it without the grossest inconsistency, whilst the Republican party felt no doubts on a question which would evidently have involved the fate of the treaty. Randolph was at the time chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. He used the utmost exertion to procure the ne- cessary steps for completing this great effort. His resolution * 932 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY was finally adopted by a vote of 90 to 25, and the bills requi- site for a final completion of the treaty speedily passed.* The first Consul in a-short time saw the imprudence of an act he at one time was so anxious to consummate. It was a blunder to part with so large and rich a tract of country, rich in every commercial view, as well as of the highest political importance. The acquisition of Louisiana to the United States was the most important and valuable effort our Government had ever made, standing next in importance to the very instrument that called this Government into life, and now sustains it as a free, prosperous, and happy Republic. Jefferson saw at a glance its importance when he said he would not give ‘“‘an inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any nation.” By the acquisition of this territory we have forever prohibited any other nation from inhabiting and ap- propriating the most valuable portion of our continent, and avoided the interminable evil of having a neighboring nation almost in our midst. We acquired upwards of a million of square miles, with upwards of ninety thousand inhabitants, including about forty thousand slaves. We acquired, which was the most brilliant feature of the event, the navigation of the Father of Waters,—the sovereignty of the waters of the Mississippi giving an outlet for the produce of what is now the mightiest agricultural portion of the world, a large portion of the west- ern and southern part of the United States; an uncontrolled and unlimited navigation through the entire waters of this noble river, free from collision with other powers, offering no danger to our peace; placing under our control the fertility of a soil and the bountifulness of a climate unsurpassed by any on the globe. Remotest posterity will rejoice in con- templating the wisdom and policy of the act, whilst this wide-spread field for the blessings of civil liberty and equal laws will ever bloom and flourish as a living evidence of this master-stroke of legislative wisdom. As I have stated, difficulties clustered around the acquisi- tion of Louisiana. Was it to be measured by the boundaries prior to 1763, or its limits to be defined in accordance with the * Bradford, 128; Hild. Hist., vol. ii. 488; Stat. Man., vol. i. 238; Life of Randolph, vol. i. 194, + Jetterson’s Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 511. OF THE UNITED STATES. 233 Spanish possession? The treaty was not sufficiently precise, embracing ‘“‘the Colony or Province of Louisiana, with the same extent as it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States.”’ Under the original boundaries of the French title, it embraced both banks of the Mississippi, extending east to the River Perdido, which formed the boundary between it and the Spanish Province of Florida. When Spain received it, it was bounded on the east by the Lakes Pontchartrain and Borgne, and the Mississippi River. The more eastern portion had been previously yielded up to Great Britain, under whose authority it had been erected, along with the country about Pensacola, ceded at the same time by Spain, into the English Province of West Florida. By the treaty of 1788 the Floridas had been restored to Spain; but the division into the Eastern and Western Pro- vince, first made by the English, had been kept up; and West Florida at the date of the late treaty embraced territory south of the thirtieth degree of north latitude and east of the Mis- sissippi and the two lakes, which in former times had belonged to Louisiana.* Strong reasons existed why this section of the original Louisiana should not remain under the control of Spain; it would subject our commerce and trade to many embarrass- ments; for the original purpose of our Government had been to obtain this tract with the island of New Orleans, to secure the entire command of the Lower Mississippi, and the land communicating between New Orleans and Natchez. Livingston contended that the treaty embraced all of Louisiana originally possessed by France, except such as Spain might by subsequent treaties have alienated to other nations. He urged the President to act under that interpre- tation and take possession of the disputed territory, as he should have done, though it might have involved us in dif- ficulty with Spain; not that this Government by any forced construction or unjust avarice should assert a groundless claim, but Louisiana, under its original boundaries, was the subject and the object of the treaty, and it belonged to the Go- vernment, with the exception of such portions as above stated, which Spain had, previous to her late treaty with France, * Hild. Hist., vol. ii. second series, p. 491. Vou I.—16 234 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY alienated otherwise.* Jefferson was, however, content to accept, as he did, the formal delivery of the Island and City of New Orleans, which was made by Laurat on the 20th of December, leaving the left bank of the lakes and of the river above, in possession of the Spaniards.+ This peaceful annexation and its happy results show the wisdom and policy of the Republican party of that day, as compared to the wild schemes of the Federalists, then linger- ing in corruption in their very last days, who had been anxious that it should be taken by force; whilst at the same time they opposed the treaty and opposed the appropriation of the necessary sums to make the payment for it. It is a matter of surprise that Jefferson should have thought the purchase of Louisiana unconstitutional. In his letter to Breckenridge, he remarks,—‘“‘ The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incor- porating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Con- stitution.” Rather than make it appear right from extreme necessity or future advantage, it is more statesman-like to place it upon a just and constitutional basis; whilst the doctrine of expe- diency, when opposed to moral right, always inflicts a danger- ous wound, and can only be justified by the most extreme necessity, and ultimately opens the way to the moral and national degradation of the human race. In my opinion, it is a clear constitutional right to acquire territory under the treaty-making power; the very manner in which Louisiana was acquired, and the only constitutional way in which it could be done. The President has power by and with the advice and con- 1803. * The boundaries of Louisiana were always a subject of great confusion. It appears to have been considered as extending to the Perdido, which formed the eastern boundary. The Colorado originially formed its western boundary; on the north it extended to Winnipee River and Lake, which made it originally a very extensive country. Vide Am. ed. of the Edin- burgh Ene, title La., and Humboldt’s Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain. } The territory as received from France comprehended all the lands on the east side of the Mississippi River not then belonging to the United States as far as the great chain of mountains which divides the waters run- ning into the Pacific and those falling into the Atlantic; and from said chain of mountains to the Pacific between the territory of Great Britain on the one side, and that claimed by Spain on the other. OF THE UNITED STATES. 2385 sent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. This is the voice of the Con- stitution. What limit does it place upon the treaty-making power? None whatever. There is no limit to the exercise of this power, when reduced to any particular case; but it is to the form of executing the power, which is the simple con- currence of two-thirds of the Senate. I do not say there is no check or restraint upon the functions of the Government; for there is this limit, that it cannot be exercised in the destruc- tion of, or opposition to, any known constitutional right or power, and must be subservient to every other right recog- nized. But if the exercise of the treaty-making power does not conflict with some right or come in opposition to some class of powers specified in the Constitution, there is no restraint upon its employment whenever used according to the form of the Constitution. “The power,” says a distinguished writer, “to make treaties is by the Constitution general; and of course it em- braces all sorts of treaties,—for peace or war, for commerce or territory, for alliance or succors for indemnity, for inju- ries or payment of debts, for the recognition or enforcement of principles of public law, and for any other purposes which ~ the policy or interest of independent sovereigns may dictate in their intercourse with each other.”* Yet, says the same author, ‘‘a power general and unrestricted cannot be con- strued to destroy the fundamental laws of the State.”’ No given power can destroy any other power. To what power given in the Constitution does the exercise of the treaty-making power (as far as the acquisition of territory is concerned) present itself in opposition? None. It is a correct view, as well as a safe one, in reference to the exercise of the treaty-making power to sustain it unless it infringes some other power. In reference to the question under consideration, it may be asked what power, (if any) in its lawful exercise, does this mode of acquiring territory oppose? None. We must con- clude then that it is clearly constitutional. As long as the power of making treaties is considered inseparable from national sovereignty,—and it must be so considered, or else its influence is nothing,—it must be ad- mitted that no reasonable restraint can be placed upon it, * Story’s Com. on the Constitution, p. 552. 236 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY except that of those powers necessary for the exercise of the Government’ which are in opposition to it, and which our Goverment clearly specified in the Constitution. It is a power that can never be definitely defined. How circumscribe it, when it must be applicable to all times and circumstances? It must be as the Constitution intended it,— general and unqualified. It was often said that if this construction be admitted, no limit or restriction can be placed upon its range. This, how- ever, ig an error which a moderate capacity can perceive. There are certain great purposes for which the Constitution was formed and which it recognizes. The treaty-making power must be subservient to the leading features of our Government and of any other class of powers. Its sphere is exterior concerns; interior ones are provided for otherwise; the class of powers to which it must yield its homage and obedience are such as relates to the domestic operations of the Government. Jefferson entertained another opinion equally erroneous, that it could not be constitutionally acquired by purchase. This was a most contradictory position and can never be re- conciled with the faculty to possess foreign territory even under the class of powers incident to war or conquest; refus- ing the right of giving or retaking more or less by means of a money-payment, which would be a purchase in principle and reality. Suppose war had ensued,—for this territory we could not have refused to make all necessary appropriations; yet it would be but an indirect form for the exercise of that prerogative which would be denied in its direct and obvious meaning. I hope it will no longer bear the stain of uncon- stitutionality. Louisiana was acquired in a constitutional manner, and it is to be regretted that the author of this mag- nificent achievement was the principal person to affix the stigma of an illegitimate acquirement on a trophy he had con- secrated to his country, and is preserved to this day as the richest jewel in the casket of his fame. In the early part of this session of Congress a proposition was made to change the Constitution in reference to the election of President and Vice-President, so as to designate which person was to be voted for as Pre- sident, and which for Vice-President, instead of the original provision which required the electors to vote for two persons, and the one having the largest number of votes to be Presi- 1804. OF THE UNITED STATES. 237 dent. The want of wisdom in the existing plan had been manifested in the recent effort in the House of Representa- tives between Jefferson and Burr, as well as the disappoint- ment and injustice likely to arise in after years by the promotion of a person to the Presidential chair, when a, large portion, perhaps a majority of the people, would have desired him to fill the chair of Vice-President. The proposition was opposed by the Federalists as an un- necessary Innovation upon the Constitution, which should not be disturbed for slight causes; that the effort to change the Constitution was the result of party feeling and the desire to please an individual and his party friends. The opponents of the measure contended that it made but little difference which was chosen of the two; that either would be qualified for the post of President. When Wash- ington and Adams were voted for in 1788, either were qua- lified for the Presidency; also in 1800 when Adams and Pinckney were the candidates of one party, and Jefferson and Burr of the other. It should be remembered though, that the popular voice of the country never designed Burr for President, and it would indeed have been an outrage upon the popular sentiment of that day had Burr been made President, even had he been deserving the office and had maintained his integrity. It was likewise apparent that the mode proposed was plainer and more simple than the existing one. The proposed alteration was agreed to by two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature; being a strict party vote, the Federalists opposing it and mingling in their opposition great personal hatred to Jefferson. The amendment was ex- ceedingly popular with the States, being ratified by a vote of thirteen to three. The States that opposed it were still strongly Federal in their political bearing,—which were Mas- sachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware.* This amendment now forms the Twelfth Article of the Amendments to the Con- stitution. In a public notice of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of September, 1804, it was announced as having been duly ratified. At the present session of Congress, the Repub- lican party succeeded in raising the salaries of the principal officers of the Government. 1804. * Bradford, p. 181; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 241. 238 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY The expenses of the naval establishment necessary to be sustained in the Mediterranean required additional duties to be laid on imports. The force stationed in that sea, though not a large one, was efficiently kept up and proved sufficient to check the depredations upon our commerce, which had been exceedingly annoyed by the excursion of pirates that hovered in swarms upon the waters of the Mediterranean. During this session of Congress an alteration was made in the law upon naturalization of foreigners; the time required previous to their becoming citizens being reduced from four- teen to five years, which was the original provision of the law allowing foreigners to be naturalized. The Federal party opposed the introduction of a law that shortened the time from fourteen years. It was deemed unreasonable; unjust to the home-born citizen and dangerous to the Republic to allow free and equal advantages to the foreigner in partici- pating in the exercise of our Government before he had lost the habits of a kingly Government, or overcome the preju- dices of both, or learned to understand, to appreciate, and to love the spirit and the form of freedom as seen and felt under our national Constitution.* An additional law was passed at this session of Congress for the government of the Territory of Louisiana, creating two Territorial governments, and dividing them into the dis- tricts of Orleans and Louisiana. Over the Territory of Orleans was thrown a government, with the executive power vested in a Governor appointed by the President, who was commander of the militia, with power to grant pardons for offences against the Territory, and reprieves for those against the United States, until a decision could be made by the Pre- sident. The legislative power was vested in the Governor, and thirteen members formed the Legislative Council, and were annually appointed by the President. The Judiciary consisted of a Superior Court of three Judges, and such in- ferior courts as the legislature might see fit to appoint. The Governor, Secretary, Judges, District-Attorney, Marshal, and all general officers of the militia were appointed by the President. The remainder of the territory acquired from the French was formed into the Territory of Louisiana, but was subjected * Bradford, p. 132. OF THE UNITED STATES. 2389 to the Territorial government which was then applied to Indiana.* The form and character of the governments for the Ter ritories were exceedingly simple and plain. By virtue of the Constitution, Congress has “‘ power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States;” which provision places the territory of the United States under the control of Con- gress as the property thereof; and the appointing power, which is exercised by the President, takes from the people of the Territory all voice in the government. The pro- vision of the Constitution giving Congress such power, is in strict consistency with the recognition of the fact that it is the property of the United States and should be above the influence of sectional legislation, and managed for the benefit of the whole Union in such manner as Congress should think proper. At this session of Congress much excitement was created by the impeachment before the Senate of Judge Pickering, of the District Court of the United States for New Hamp- shire. The proceedings were instituted by the House of Representatives, charging him with a sacrifice of the rights of the United States in certain revenue cases that had been tried before him, and also with drunkenness and profanity on the bench. The judge would not appear in person or defend himself; though his son presented a petition, alieging that Judge Pickering was insane, and praying that counsel might be heard in his defence. This was allowed, though not with- out opposition, and several depositions were read for the purpose of proving that the judge was insane; yet it was asserted that his insanity was produced by intemperance. Pickering was impeached by a party vote, every Federal Senator voting against the impeachment. It was manifested that corruption had found its way upon the bench, and crime had stained the ermine of justice. A higher functionary than Pickering, one of the ablest props of the late Federal Administration of John Adams, had likewise fallen from the high position of a pure and upright judge. In looking to the highest and first judicial station on the globe,—the Su- preme Court of the United States,—the man of purity is grieved to find that even there vice and corruption had dared * Laws of the United States, March 26, 1804. 240 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY intrude, and plant its destructive principles where hitherto purity and firmness had stood; the one unsullied and the other immovable. Samuel Chase had imbibed the ungovern- able prejudices with which the lingering remains of Federalism had become tainted,—for it was a pure party in the days of its early manhood. He consequently was to be tried before the Senate of the United States upon articles of impeachment preferred against him by the House of Representatives. The chief credit of this impeachment is due to John Ran- dolph, whose bold and undaunted spirit, sustained by his own matchless eloquence and sarcasm, first brought to the eye of the House the corruption with which Chase was to be charged. Randolph,—his form thin and shadowy from disease and labor, his face pale and haggard from intense thought and reflection, but with an eye bright and unquailing,—rose from his seat determined to meet the fire he knew his remarks and resolution would kindle, and said,—‘‘ That no people were: more fully impressed with the importance of pre- serving unpolluted the fountain of justice than the citizens of these States. With this view the Constitution of the United States, and of many of the States also, had ren- dered the magistrates who decided judicially between the State and its offending citizens, and between man and man, more independent than those of any other country in the world, in the hope that every inducement, whether of intimi- dation or seduction, which could cause them to swerve from the duty assigned to them, might be removed. But such was the frailty of human nature, that there was no precaution by which our integrity and honor could be preserved in case we were deficient in that duty which we owed to ourselves. In consequence of this unfortunate condition of man, we have been obliged but yesterday, to prefer an accusation against a judge of ‘the United States who has been found wanting in his duty to himself and his country. At the last session of Congress, a gentleman from Pennsylvania did, in his place (on a bill to amend the judicial system of the United States,) state certain facts in relation to the official conduct of an eminent judicial character, which I then thought and still think, the House bound to notice. But the lateness of the session (for we had, if I mistake not, scarce a fortnight re- maining,) precluding all possibility of bringing the subject to any efficient result, I did not then think proper to take any steps in the business. Finding my attention, however, thus 1804. OF THE UNITED STATES. 241 drawn to a consideration of the character of the officer in question, I made it my business, considering it my duty as well to myself as those I represent, to investigate the charges then made, and the official character of the judge in general. The result having convinced me that there exist grounds of impeachment against this officer, I demand an inquiry into his conduct, and therefore submit to the House the following resolution :— “ Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to report their opinion whether the said Samuel Chase hath so acted in his judicial capacity as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House.” With an amendment offered by Mr. Leib, so as to embrace an examination of the official conduct of Judge Peters, Dis- trict Judge of the Court for the District of Pennsylvania, the resolution of Randolph passed by a vote of 81 to 40. In obedience to this resolution, Randolph, Nicholson, J. Clay, Early, R. Griswold, Huger, and Boyle, were appointed a committee. On the 6th of March Randolph, chairman of the committee, made a report that the committee thought Samuel Chase ought to be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors, but that no evidence existed why Judge Peters should be impeached. On the same day the House took up the report, and, after a short debate, concurred in the first part of it, which referred to Judge Chase, by a vote of 73 to 32. That part of the report which related to Judge Peters was concurred in unani- mously. On the 80th of November the committee, through their chairman, John Randolph, reported eight articles of impeach- ment. The first article,—relating to the trial of John Fries, who was tried for treason,—charged that the judge conducted himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust. The second article charged a similar spirit in the trial of James T. Callender, who was arraigned for a libel on John Adams, and specified the manner. The third article, likewise in reference to the trial of Cal- lender, referred to the arbitrary and oppressive rejection of the testimony of John Taylor, a witness for the defence. The fourth article referred to the manifest injustice, par- 242 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY tiality, and intemperance that marked the course of the judge during the trial of this same man Callender, and specified the manner in five distinct charges. 1st. “In compelling the prisoner’s counsel to reduce to writing and submit to the inspection of the court, for their admission or rejection, all questions which the said counsel meant to propound to the above-named John Taylor, the witness.” 2d. ‘‘In refusing to postpone the trial, although an affidavit was regularly filed stating the absence of material witnesses on behalf of the accused; and although it was manifest that, with the utmost diligence, the attendance of such witnesses could not have been procured at that time.” 3d. “In the use of unusual, rude, and contemptuous ex- pressions towards the prisoner’s counsel, and in falsely insinu- ating that they wished to excite the public fears and indigna- tion, and to produce that insubordination to law to which the conduct of the judge did at the same time manifestly tend.” 4th. “In repeated and vexatious interceptions of the said counsel, on the part of the said judge, which at length induced them to abandon their cause and their client, who was there- upon convicted and condemned to a fine and imprisonment.” 5th. “In an indecent solicitude manifested by the said Samuel Chase for the conviction of the accused, unbecoming even a public prosecutor, but highly disgraceful to the cha- racter of a judge as it was subversive of justice.” The fifth article of impeachment alluded to the act of Con- gress passed in 1789, establishing the judicial courts of the United States, which allowed for any crime or offence that the offender might be arrested, imprisoned, or bailed, agree- ably to the laws of the State where the offender might be- found. It further noticed the law of Virginia where Callen- der was tried, which authorized, upon presentment by a grand jury of an offence not capital, that the court should order the clerk to issue a summons against the person or persons offend- ing to appear and answer such presentment at the next court; yet the said Chase did, at the court aforesaid, award a capias against the body of the said Callender, indicted for an offence not capital, whereupon the said Callender was arrested and committed to close custody contrary to law. The sixth article rested upon the charge that the law of Virginia, which was to prevail in all the practical operations of the trial, which in the present instance provided that m OF THE UNITED STATES. 243 cases not capital the offender should not be held to answer any presentment of a grand jury until the court next suc- ceeding that during which such presentment shall have been made; “‘yet,” says the article of impeachment, “the said Samuel Chase, with intent to oppress and procure the con- viction of the said Callender, did, at the court aforesaid, rule and adjudge the said Callender to trial during the term at which he, the said Callender, was presented and indicted, contrary to law in that case made and provided.” The seventh article charged the said Samuel Chase with refusing to discharge the grand jury at the District Court held at New Castle, in the State of Delaware, after the jury had reported that they had found no bills of indictment, and had no presentments to make; when the judge, descending to the level of an informer, proceeded to say he had: understood ‘that a highly seditious temper had manifested itself in the State of Delaware among a certain class of people, particu- larly in New Castle County, and more especially in the town of Wilmington, where lived a most seditious printer, unre- strained by any principle of virtue, and regardless of social order; that the name of this printer was—’’ but, checking himself, as if sensible of the indecorum which he was commit- ting, he added, ‘‘that it might be assuming too much to men- tion the name of this person; but it becomes your duty, gen- tlemen, to inquire diligently into this matter,” or words to that effect. With intention to procure the prosecution of the printer, he authoritatively enjoined on the District-Attorney the necessity of procuring a file of the papers to which he alluded, and by a strict examination of them, to find some passage which might furnish the ground-work of a prosecution against the printer of said paper; “thereby,” concluded the article, “degrading his high judicial functions, and tending to impair the public confidence in, and respect for, the tribu- nals of justice, so essential to the general welfare.” The eighth article charged “‘that the said Samuel Chase, disregarding the duties and dignity of his judicial character, did, at a Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, held at Baltimore, in the month of May, one thousand eight hundred and three, present his official right and duty to address the grand jury then and there assembled, on the matters coming within the province of said jury, for the purpose of delivermg to the said grand jury an intemperate and inflammatory po- litical harangue, with intent to excite the fears and resent- 244 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY ment of the said grand jury and of the good people of Mary- land against their State government and constitution, a con- duct highly censurable in any, but peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States; and moreover, that the said Samuel Chase, then and there, under pretence of exercising his judicial right to ad- dress the said grand jury as aforesaid, did, in a manner highly unwarrantable, endeavor to excite the odium of said grand jury and of the good people of Maryland against the Govern- ment of the United States, by delivering opinions which, even if the judicial authority were competent to that expression on a suitable occasion and in a proper manner, were at that time and as delivered by him, highly indecent, extra judicial, and tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested to the low purpose of an electioneering partisan,’’* These charges embraced the articles of impeachment which the House demanded Judge Chase should be summoned to answer. This trial deserves a minute examination, not only on account of its intrinsic importance and the high fune- tionary to whom it related, but in an especial manner should it receive our consideration on account of the temper excited by the Federal party, which induced them to the unjustifiable extreme of attributing this trial, on the part of the Republican party, to partisan bearing and hatred to the Federal school. A brief attention to the history of this case will not only ex- culpate the Republican party in Congress of all undue and improper feelings, but convince the fair and candid reader of the justness as well as necessity of the trial. The report containing the impeachment was made the order in the House for the 8d of December. On that and the ensuing day the House took the articles into considera- tion, agreeing, according to the following vote, that Judge Chase should be put upon his trial to answer the charges pre- ferred against him:—On the Ist article, yeas 83, nays 34; on the 2d, yeas 83, nays 35; on the 3d, yeas 84, nays 34; on the 4th, yeas 84, nays 34; on the 5th, yeas 72, nays 49; on the 6th, yeas 73, nays 42; on the 7th, yeas 73, nays 42; on the 8th, 1st section, yeas 74, nays 89; 2d section, yeas 78, nays 32. The House proceeded immediately to execute every step * Trial of Judge Chase, vol. i. p. 5. OF THE UNITED STATES. 245 necessary to expedite the trial. On the 5th of December seven managers were chosen by ballot to conduct the im- peachment, consisting of Messrs. J. Randolph, Rodney, Early, Boyle, Nelson, and G. W. Campbell. On the next day Mr. Clarke was appointed in the place of Mr. Nelson, who re- signed. The articles of impeachment were received by the Senate on the Tth of December, whereupon John Randolph read the foregoing articles. The managers were immediately informed by the President of the Senate that proper orders would be forthwith issued on the subject of the impeachment, and notice given to the House of Representatives. The ar- ticles were delivered at the table and the managers withdrew. The Senate, on the 10th of December, sitting as a High Court of Impeachment, adopted the resolution directing a summons to issue to Samuel Chase to answer certain articles of impeachment, returnable the 2d of January, to be served at least fifteen days before the return thereof. On the return day of this important and interesting trial Judge Chase appeared, the summons had been executed, the High Court of Impeach- ment was opened, and Samuel Chase, being formally called, appeared. In answer to the summons he urgently stated the reasons which impelled him to ask for time sufficient to prepare an answer; it was a trial involving charges of the most heinous nature, to which he plead not guilty; and denying specially every charge and every act, with a few exceptions, he thought time should be allowed him. On the next day, the defendant continuing his application for further time, the President of the Senate stated he had received an affidavit from the defendant, stating the necessity of further time,—setting forth the fact of the various offences charged having occurred at different places far removed from each other, that a great many witnesses, living at long distances from each other and from the place of trial, were to be sum- moned, the names of many of whom he had yet to ascertain. The nature of his answer in full reply to every charge must require time for preparation. After the failure of several motions to fix particular days, the motion of Mr. Breckenridge to fill the blank with the words, “the 4th day of February next,” was passed in the affirmative by a vote of 22 to8; on which day the defendant was notified to appear. : . Preparatory to this exciting and interesting event, the Senate chamber was fitted up in a style of elegance suited to 1805. 246 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the occasion. Benches, covered with crimson velvet, on each side of the President were assigned the members of the Senate; on the right and in front of the chair was a place assigned the managers; on the left a place was designated for the defendant and his counsel, with a chair for such par- ticular friends as the distinguished defendant might introduce. The remainder of the hall was occupied with chairs for the accommodation of the members of the House of Representa- tives; and there was a place for the reception of foreign Ministers, and also for the civil and military officers of the United States. Where the benches terminated on the right and left of the chair were assigned places for the stenogra- phers. Spectators of all ranks found indiscriminate admis- sion to the permanent gallery. Below this gallery, and alittle raised from the floor, was a new gallery, finished with striking and peculiar elegance, designed for the exclusive reception of such of the gentler sex as might honor this trial with their presence; whilst at the termination of this place, on each side, a box was erected for the special accommodation of the ladies constituting the families of public characters. To the Marshal of the District was assigned the responsibility and arduous task of preserving order in this large and mixed assemblage. On Monday, February 4, 1805, at a quarter before ten o'clock, the court was opened by proclamation for the trial of Samuel Chase; every member of the Senate (thirty-four) who was to act upon this case was present. The large and extensive chamber in which the trial was to be held was soon filled to overflowing. It was immediately ordered that the Senate was ready to proceed with the trial, and notice sent to the House. Ina few minutes the managers, followed by the House of Repre- sentatives in Committee of the Whole, appeared and took their seats. The defendant upon being asked, announced himself ready, and requested leave to read his answer and appear by counsel who had been called to his assistance. Thus commenced the most important trial which had then ever occurred in the United States. A brilliant array of talent presented itself to the admiration of the country on both sides; and it was a trial that would enlist the highest order of talent, skill, and learning. On the one side was the keen and eloquent Randolph, with the greater learning and more powerful intellect of Rodney, supported by Nichol- OF THE UNITED STATES. 247 son, Boyle, Early, Clarke, and G. W. Campbell. On the other side was the defendant himself, with Harper and Hop- kinson, and that most remarkable man and distinguished advocate and lawyer, Luther Martin, whose ability, skill, and talent, have found few equals and no superior. It would be too tedious and voluminous to make even an abstract of this case, the report making a volume of nearly one thousand pages. Day after day, week after week, this trial proceeded, involving pages and volumes of testimony, learned arguments, and keen and fiery debates. By reference to the articles of impeachment, the reader will learn the dis- tinctive charges upon which the defendant was put upon his trial, the most important of which were boldly and vigorously denied and defended. On Friday, the 5th of March, this tedious and harassing proceeding was concluded, the result of which will throw more light upon the subject than the most extended com- ments of the author. On the day mentioned, the court was opened for the last time; anxious friends gathered around the unfortunate defendant; but whilst the anxiety of devoted friends was great, there was the greater anxiety of the patriot citizen who wept for the purity of the bench and the unsul- lied ministration of the law. On this final day the managers, with the House of Representatives in Committee of the Whole and in full attendance, were there; there, too, sat the aged defendant and his faithful counsel; there were the high functionaries of the bench, with the purest and deepest feel- ings, interested for a distinguished fellow-laborer on the one hand, and the integrity of the bench on the other. It was resolved that in taking the judgment of the Senate upon the impeachment then pending, the President of the Senate should call on each member by his name, and upon each article propose the question of “guilty” or “not guilty” of a high crime or misdemeanor as charged in each article, which was voted on separately,—each member rising in his place and answering guilty or not guilty. The judgment of the Senate taken in this manner avoided all confusion, and preserved the utmost accuracy and fairness. The vote being taken on the first article, the result was,— guilty 16, not guilty 18; on the second article, guilty 10, not guilty 24; on the third article, guilty 18; not guilty 16; on the fourth article, guilty 18, not guilty 16; on the fifth article the defendant was unanimously acquitted; on the 248 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY sixth article, guilty 4, not guilty 30; on the seventh article, guilty 10, not guilty 24; on the eighth article, guilty 19, not guilty 15. Thus ended this trial, which had caused the Government an enormous expenditure of money, a vast amount of trouble and vexation, a month’s delay of the public business, and much anxiety on the part of both friends and foes. It is seen from this that the defendant escaped impeach- ment from every charge; on three only,—the third, fourth, and eighth,—was he found guilty by a majority of the Senate; yet it fell below the constitutional majority required for impeach- ment; and whilst the distinguished defendant escaped by an arbitrary provision of the fundamental law, the majority vote of the Senate fixes the stamp of corruption upon Samuel Chase, which, though deeply to be regretted, can never be overlooked by the eye of true and impartial history.* In pursuing the history of the trial of Judge Chase to its close, it was necessary to enter the year 1805; which eft unnoticed several important events and topics of the preceding year. The interesting and then unsettled ques- tion of impressment of American sailors on board American vessels was forced upon the public mind as well as the atten- tion of Congress at this time. The cruelty, outrage, and wanton disregard of our rights as a nation, which had been practiced upon our sailors by the English Government, had reached a point beyond endurance. Marshall, the Secretary of State under Adams’s adminis- tration, had urgently pressed on the British Ministry an adjustment of this subject. The question was, however, after the peace of Amiens, allowed to linger unnoticed for a while, until the prospect of a new war aroused the attention of Congress. King, our Minister at the British Court, had again brought it to the attention of the British Government. A practice so unjust, so insulting to our national dignity, so contrary to national right and good-will between nations could not be palliated or submitted to. A short time previous to the departure of our Minister from England he had succeeded, with Sir John Jarvis, then at the head of the British Admi- ralty, to consent to an agreement for five years that neither nation should take any seamen out of the ships of the other on the high seas. When the agreement was about being signed, the British negotiator, not content with the right of 1804. * Trial of Judge Chase, in 2 vols., by Smith & Lloyd, Washington, 1805. OF THE UNITED STATES. 249 visitation and impressment as to all American vessels in any British harbor, claimed to except the narrow seas also; mean- ing the seas surrounding England. Such pretensions had been previously set up in negotiations with other nations: the Dutch had oftentimes submitted to it. The reservation was so monstrous and unjust, that the representative of the American Government,—though not exacting, yet rigorous for right and justice,—rather than consent to Sir John’s reser- vations, preferred abandoning the agreement entirely; and in this he received the approbation of Jefferson. Attempts were made by Congress to legislate on the subject, but the good sense of the Democratic leaders saw the impossibility of settling it by legislation: it was a question properly belong- ing to diplomacy,—and the bills were allowed to rest un- noticed.* At this session of Congress a most exciting and 1804. interesting subject was long and violently agitated, which has been known as the Yazoo question. The history of the question runs back to the 7th day of February, 1795, at which time the legislature of Georgia passed an act, au- thorizing the sale of four tracts of land to four companies, embracing the greater part of the country west of the Alabama River. The land contained within the boundaries of the four companies forty millions of acres, for which the companies were to pay five hundred thousand dollars. The inadequacy of the price at once excited the suspicions of the people of Georgia. Upon an impartial but close examination into the secret history of this question, a scene of iniquitous swindling was disclosed, which had scarcely found a parallel in any age or country. An enormous tract of country, rich and valua- ble beyond calculation, belonging to a State, had been sold to companies, and that by express legislative enactment, for a sum of money (in comparison to its value) actually insignifi- cant. The full development of the fraud that had been practiced upon the State was made apparent by the result of an investigation, which proved that every member of both branches of the legislature who voted for this law and sanc- tioned this sale, were, with one exception, parties to the pur- chase. The question of the Yazoo purchase became the sole and absorbing topic of the day; the succeeding legislature was elected solely with reference to it; repeal or no repeal * Hild. Hist. U. S., second series, vol. ii. p. 536. Vou. I.—17 250 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY was the only question canvassed before the people. On the 30th of January, 1796, an act was passed, with only three dissenting voices, declaring the act of 1795 void, and expung- ing the same from the public records. This matter was brought before Congress at the session of 1802-3. The New England and Mississippi Land Company had purchased from the other companies their interest in this fraudulent grant. The company contended that under the agreement between Georgia and the United States, ‘the latter might dispose of, or appropriate a portion of the said lands not exceeding five millions of acres, or the proceeds of five millions of acres or any part thereof, for the purpose of satisfying, quieting, or compensating for any claims, other than those recognized in the article of agreement, which may be made to the said lands.” At the session of 1802-8, Madison and Gallatin, members of the President’s cabinet, and Levi Simeon, were appointed commissioners to investigate this subject. They made an elaborate report, and recommended that “so much of the five millions of acres as shall remain after having satisfied the claims of settlers and others not recognized by the agreement of Georgia, which shall be confirmed by the United States, be appropriated for the purpose of satisfying and quieting the claims of persons who derive their titles from an act of the State of Georgia, passed the 7th day of Jan- uary, 1795.” The Administration became pledged in this manner, along with some of its leading members, to the justice of the claim. Gideon Granger, the Postmaster-General, was at the head of the New England and Mississippi Land Company, and acted as agent to prosecute the claim before Congress. He contended, in an able and extensive argument, that the company were innocent purchasers without notice. He cen- sured the people of Georgia for repudiating the act of the legislature, though it had been convicted of bribery, charging that State and the United States with injustice in appropri- ating to their own use lands which had been legally sold by the State and purchased by his company. On the 25th of January a resolution was intro- duced into the House, that three commissioners be appointed to receive propositions of compromise and settle- ment from the several companies, or persons holding claims to lands within the present limits of the Mississippi Territory, in such manner as will, in their opinion, conduce to the in- 1805. OF THE UNITED STATES. 251 terest of the United States; provided, such settlement shall not exceed the limit prescribed by the convention with the State of Georgia. The resolution was introduced by Dana, chairman of the Committee of Claims. A bold and animated debate ensued, and the more so, as parties were nearly ba- lanced on this question. The one consisted of those who believed that the principles of public faith required that the grant by the legislature of Georgia should be ratified, how- ever corrupt may have been the motives of the members who voted for it, especially when on the faith of its acts, those who were parties to the fraud had been able to impose on in- nocent purchasers; some there were, who, though not admit- ting the legal validity of those claims, thought it politic to compromise them and end an otherwise interminable source of complaint. The opponents insisted that those claims, having originated in a course of fraud and corruption as alarming by its mag- nitude as it was odious by its baseness, ought to receive no notice from Congress. That those purchasers who had no knowledge of the corruption practiced on the legislature of Georgia, if there were any such, could receive no better title than the original perpetrators of the fraud could convey, according to the settled principles of jurisprudence; and that for the injury sustained they should look for redress to those who had deceived them rather than to the people of Georgia, or their assignees, the people of the United States; and that it was repugnant to principle as well as policy to sanction claims which originated in fraud. The most efficient opponent of Dana’s resolution was John Randolph. He had, whilst on a visit to Georgia at the time of this excitement, made himself thoroughly acquainted with the subject. His honest and burning indignation was poured out with his own matchless skill and eloquence, in one of the finest efforts he ever made. He succeeded in defeating the resolution. Granger, the Postmaster-General, who had been the special object of Randolph’s satire, openly declared that either he or Randolph must fall. There was an effort to put him down, but the expression was explained to apply as a public man. Almost every Southern member went with Ran- dolph, the Yazoo claims being held chiefly at the North. Leib, Clay, of Philadelphia, and Sloan, of New Jersey, were also found side by side with the opponents of this measure. The result of this vexatious question was gratifying to the 252 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY country; yet it was to be lamented that it excited a strong prejudice on the part of some administration members of Congress against Randolph. Madison, Gallatin, and Lincoln, who had acted as commissioners, did not escape Randolph’s violence. Granger was compelled to send a communication to the House asking an investigation into his conduct, but the request was gotten rid of by a postponement. Whatever may have been alleged against Granger, certain it is no breath of suspicion ever found an advocate against Madison or Galla- tin. The bitterness of feeling which was engendered between Randolph and a segment of the Republican party at this time had a strong tendency to fan the flame of discord which ulti- mately drove Randolph from the administration of Jefferson. Randolph had become obnoxious to many of the Republicans, chiefly on account of his violence and acerbity of temper, which often drove him to great extremes. After the adjournment of the present session of Ling Congress Granger made a tour through the Northern States, with the view of organizing a party to destroy the influence and popularity of Randolph. The most promi- nent leader was Barnibas Bidwell. They represented them- selves as the exclusive friends of the Administration, and Randolph as an enemy. Randolph, as an orator, with a bright and blazing genius, could not be suppressed or ex- tinguished; yet, as a leader of the Administration, he was rapidly destroying his own popularity as well as influence for good. He could not, would not act with the Federal party, and his erratic course towards the Administration served to break down the political force of his own character; whilst the administration of Jefferson was immovably planted in the high regard and affection of the American people.* The other subjects which engaged the attention of Con- gress towards its close were of little importance. There was passed an act for the government of the Territory of New Orleans. The District of Louisiana, hitherto belonging to Indiana, was at this session converted into a separate Territory ; the power of legislation being vested in the Governor and Judges. The government of the Orleans Territory, which the President had reserved for Monroe, was allowed to remain * Hild. Hist., second series, vol. ii. p. 542; Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 162; Garland’s Life of Randolph, vol. i. p. 205. OF THE UNITED STATES. 253 under the control of the then incumbent, Governor Claiborne, Monroe being otherwise provided for. The Territory of Indiana was subjected to another curtail- ment by the erection of Michigan into a new and separate Territory, the government of which was given to William Hull, of Massachusetts, who, though he had served with honor in the revolutionary war, lived long enough to be called into service again only to deface the brilliancy of his former glory, and leave a name despised and execrated by every good and virtuous citizen. The government of the Territory of Lou- isiana was bestowed on General Wilkinson, then Commander- in-chief of the American army. The condition of the District of Columbia was the subject of much excited debate. The system of laws under which the District was governed was exceedingly confused and hete- rogeneous. Two different codes were in existence on opposite sides of the Potomac; the laws of Virginia on one side, and those of Maryland on the other.* The idea was started that it was contrary to republican principles, that the District should be governed by Congress without any legislature chosen by the people of the District ; consequently it was proposed to retrocede the District, with the exception of the city of Washington, but the proposition was unsustained and the effort failed. Sloan, of New Jersey, introduced a bill which, at Jan. 18, the time, excited little or no interest, that all chil- dren born of slaves within the District after the ensuing 4th of July, should become free at a certain age. The bill met with marked disapprobation. The House refused to refer it to a Committee of the Whole by a vote of 65 to 47; after- wards being rejected by a vote of 77 to 31. The thirty-one who voted in the affirmative were chiefly Republicans from New England, Pennsylvania, and New York. Five members of the Federal party voted with them,—two from New Hamp- shire, two from Massachusetts, and one from New York.t In reaching the close of the Eighth Congress, which is memorable as being the end of the first {sos term of Thomas Jefferson, the reader will not fail to observe the great success which followed the administra- * By act of Congress the laws of Virginia and Maryland were in opera- tion in the District on those parts formerly belonging to one or the other. + Hild. Hist., second series, vol. ii. p. 546. 254 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY tion of the Government. The preceding Administration had been signalized by extravagance, and disturbed by faction and broils. The party by which it was supported had be- come corrupt, and had fallen into insignificance, with no great event or glorious achievement to mark its place in history or endear it in the memory of the people. But, on the contrary, the first term of the administration of Jefferson had won the admiration and affections of the people of the United States. Our commerce had expanded; the revenue had reached seven- teen millions of dollars; the expenditures were twelve and a half millions; in four years thirteen millions of public debt, including interest, had been paid; the taxes had been les- sened; a host of useless officers had been discharged; the area of the United States had been doubled; war with France and Spain had been averted; Tripoli had been whipped; Tunis and Algiers had been taught to know their place and duty; the title to a large tract of Indian lands was extin- guished; the poor Indians themselves enlightened and in- structed; the nation was respected throughout the world; prosperity bloomed over the land; quiet and contentment pervaded nearly every bosom.* In the language even of a strong (though fair and enlightened) Federal historian, “The country had reached a pitch of pecuniary prosperity never before known.’’t The force, the character, the unsurpassed popularity of Jefferson, as then understood, as well as the decided Republi- can cast of the people, is fully and satisfactorily exhibited by the flattering vote which sustained his policy and bore him triumphantly a second time to the Presidency of the United States, at the election which had taken place the pre- ceding year. Jefferson was re-nominated for President, and George Clin- ton, for some time Governor of New York, was nominated for Vice-President in the place of Burr, who had been abandoned by the Republican party, and discarded from the regard of the American people. The friends of Jefferson looked upon Burr not only as a rival of the great favorite of the Republi- can party, but as a dangerous, designing, and unprincipled man. The Federalists equally despised him as the murderer * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 180; Bradford’s Federal Govern- ment, p. 135. } Hildreth. OF THE UNITED STATES. 255 of the last great light and pillar of Federalism, Alexander Hamilton, whom he had challenged and killed in a duel. The Federalists, though in the feebleness of their declining days, yet endeavored to make an opposition. They nominated Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, for Pre- sident, and Rufus King, of New York, for Vice-President. When the election took place, Jefferson and Clinton received one hundred and sixty-two votes of the Electoral College, whilst the Federal candidates received but fourteen. 256 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CHAPTER VI. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (CONTINUED.) On the 4th of March, 1805, commenced the second Pre- sidential term of Thomas Jefferson. Before the Congress of the nation, with an enormous assemblage of people from every quarter of the country, was delivered that Inaugural Address which stands unsurpassed by anything of its kind. Calm, philosophic, and bold, he reviews the past Administra- tion and the prosperity of the country with a modesty be- coming his unparalleled public merit and wisdom. He had been faithful to the principles avowed, when first the Govern- ment had been intrusted to his hands, and he spoke in a tone of high and commanding moral feeling which the world felt and admired. ‘We are firmly convinced,” he says, ‘“‘and we act on that conviction, that with nations as well as indi- viduals our interest, soundly calculated, will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties.” He alludes with high satisfaction to the reduction of our taxes, and believes the newly acquired territory will pay for itself before we are called upon to pay for it. He ably answers the objections to the enlargement of our territory, and in conclusion, he an- nounces that he will proceed in the spirit of those principles which the people of the United States had approved.* In the interval between the inauguration and the meeting of Congress, the President retired for a while to the delight- ful country home he had reared in the mountains of Virginia; here he could find relaxation and repose from the exciting and laborious cares of State; here he could breathe the fresh and invigorating mountain air of his own native State, happy in his quietude, happy in the free intercourse of his friends, and that interesting group of little children who were just learning to lisp a grandfather’s name. In October he re- * See Address, Stat. Man., vol. ii. pp. 173-6. OF THE UNITED STATES. 257 turned to Washington; the feelings of the statesman were changed; the first four years of his administration had been calm and prosperous; now the aspect of political affairs assumed a different hue,—the sea once so smooth, began to rage and roughen; the sky once so clear and bright, was growing dark and stormy. Difficulties existed in the foreign relations of the country. The commerce of neutral nations in time of war is always subjected to vexation and harassments, especially from mari- time belligerents. Britain was exhibiting a disposition to restrict the commercial rights of neutral nations, with the assertion of principles of national law so abhorrent to the people of the United States as to be beyond endurance. Spain was in an attitude of hostility, being not only unwilling to settle the boundaries of Louisiana, or allow compensation for past outrages, but continued to give renewed provocation. Tunis exhibited a disposition to give us trouble, and would have done so, but for the timely appearance of Barron, with his entire fleet, which soon brought the Bey to terms. The United States was annoyed in its commercial rela- tions at this time more than any other nation. When war recommenced in Europe, the carrying trade of the United States had reached an extension before unknown, and was, upon the progress of the war, continually expanding. The vessels and cargoes of our citizens were subject to constant seizure and depredation. Spain seemed ever on the alert to capture our vessels; our trade was carried on with armed ships, so great and constant was the danger. The southern coast of the United States,—the very entrances of the har- bors,—were annoyed by these piratical vessels of the French, Spanish, and English. The views entertained at this time by the British Admi- ralty Court added difficulty and alarm to the then excit- ing course of the European belligerents. The rule of war, recognized by the British orders in council since the year 1756, allowed the Americans to trade with the Colonies of belligerents in produce or goods of every description. The United States and the other neutrals,—Sweeden, Denmark, and the Hanse Towns,—were rapidly becoming rich by the carrying trade. The belligerents had no longer merchant- vessels, which made the trade so exceedingly profitable to the neutrals. The British Court of Admiralty by its opinions,—suggesting 258 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY’ that the rich cargoes carried from one belligerent to another, or carried to one port and reshipped in the same vessel, was a subterfuge and fraud; that the vessels, in fact, belonged to, or were engaged by, the belligerents,—laid the ground-work for the condemnation of several American vessels, with their cargoes of great value.* Congress had not met, though the day was not distant. The President and cabinet were in constant session at Wash- ington. The mind of Jefferson, amidst all these difficulties, was clear, unembarrassed, and comprehensive, with an eye ever to the future advancement of his country. It occurred to him that as the Louisiana purchase had been attended with so much success and good to the country, that the best way to settle the existing difficulties with Spain, whilst at the same time it would result in immense advantage to the United States, would be the offer to purchase Florida. France, it was known, would favor the proposition; she and Austria were again at war; Spain had been in the habit of furnish- ing supplies to the French army, but was no longer able to keep up with the demands of France for her overgrown army. The President, taking these facts into consideration, thought it the very best time to make a proposition to purchase; he proposed to enter upon the negotiation at once and leave it to the wisdom of Congress to sustain and approve the effort if successful. The cabinet entertained the opinion that in regard to so important a question as the acquisition of a large territory, the proper course was to obtain the sanction of Congress, before any step was taken. This course was agreed upon, and the Secretary of the Treasury requested to prepare a plan for raising the requisite funds, so certain was the cabinet that the project would succeed. On the second day of December the Ninth Con- gress met. In view of the exciting questions which clustered around the foreign relations of the country, the Congress, the people, and the civilized world felt the deepest anxiety to know what course the President had taken, and what course he would pursue. On the next day the anxiously wished-for Message was presented to Congress. No Administration, before or since, was ever surrounded 1805. ca second series, vol. ii. p. 565; Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 185. OF THE UNITED STATES. 259 with greater difficulties or embarrassments. Our relations with France, Spain, and England were exceedingly compli- cated and critical. The President had the satisfaction to observe in both branches of the National Legislature an overwhelming Republican majority. In the Senate the Fe- deralists were reduced to seven,—Plumer, of New Hampshire, Pickering and John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, Tracy and Hillhouse, of Connecticut, Bayard and White, of Dela- ware. The other members were all firm and reliable Repub- licans and staunch friends of the Administration. Among the most distinguished, as leaders of the party, may be reck- oned Giles, of Virginia, and Smith, of Maryland, (Giles, it appears, was away most of this session,) Baldwin and Jack- son, of Georgia, and Dr. Mitchell, of New York,—men of the highest order of talent, and soon occupied an enviable position among the leaders of the Administration. The Federal party was as weak in the House of Repre- sentatives as in the Senate, numbering not more than twenty- five, and they mostly from New England; humble as members and ordinary in intellect, they but feebly upheld the fading glory of their party. Griswold, of Connecticut, for several ses- sions the leader of the party, had retired; Dana, Cotton, Da- venport, and Smith, were there, but impotent. Josiah Quincy, the representative of Boston and successor of Eustace, took his seat as a new member, and proved a great acquisition to the Federal side by the talent he displayed and the virtue and honor which marked and distinguished the man; but the party was feeble and the days of its great men had passed away. Macon was again elected Speaker after an arduous struggle; the Northern Democrats, thinking it just that the chair should be filled from the North, endeavored to elect Varnum. Macon reappointed John Randolph chairman of the Com- mittee of Ways and Means, the probability of which had been a great cause of the violence of the Northern Republi- cans to the re-election of Macon; and Randolph was at once in opposition to a large number of his party who refused to acknowledge him any longer as a leader. Randolph was evidently in a dissatisfied and restless position; his influence with his party had ended; his association and intimacy with the President had passed away, and he stood a solitary monu- ment of his own stubborn and refractory spirit. On the 6th of December the President communicated to 260 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY te Congress, a confidential Message on the subject of our relations with Spain. This Message was referred to a select committee: John Randolph, by the influence of the Southern portion of the Republican party, was made chairman. The appointment was rather unfortunate; Ran- dolph at once began to show he could no longer be relied upon as the friend of the Administration; and about this time occurred that separation between him and the Administra- tion, between him and Jefferson personally and politically, which proved to be continuous as well as bitter. He was a loss to the Administration; his endowments as a public speaker, his oratory, his fearless denunciation, made him one of the most remarkable men of his day. He was not, however, without his faults, and the unbounded influence he once exerted melted away before the haughty, sour, and un- compromising temper which he of late always exhibited. Domineering with his associates, headstrong and intractable with the Executive, he was destined to enjoy but a brief popu- larity. Opposition was alone suited to his mind, he could not originate a measure; he never did identify himself as the patron of any great bill. His wit, sarcasm, boldness, and temper, were first brought into exercise when he entered Congress in 1779, and found himself in the minority, as he indulged his peculiar fitness to oppose and pull to pieces everything appertaining to the majority. When not in the minority “he felt the disadvantage of his new situation and sighed for the occasions he had once enjoyed, which better suited the character of his mind and disposition and were more propitious to his form.” It is said, displeased at Jefferson’s backwardness in sup- porting his radical though violent course, and the leaning which the President exhibited towards Granger and the other Northern Republicans at the time of the excitement about the Yazoo purchase, first irriated and rendered him dissatis- fied with the Administration,—doubtlessly he exhibited many signs of disquietude at that time.* A distinguished biographer of Jefferson states that Christo- pher Clark, one of Randolph’s colleagues and warm admirers, being of the opinion that the mission to England would be acceptable to him, applied to the Executive to give him the appointment; but it received no favor either from Jefferson * Hild. Hist. United States, second series, vol. ii. p. 566. OF THE UNITED STATES. 261 or Madison. They knew enough of Randolph to be satisfied that his temper unfitted him for the place. Clark urged his nomination, as did several other colleagues of Randolph; the Executive refused positively. “Although,” says Tucker, “ Randolph had no agency in this application, and perhaps had not even been privy to it, yet the application and its rejection were soon made known to him, and to his proud and resentful spirit the offence was the same as if the refusal had been to himself. He was soon afterwards found in the ranks of the opposition,—to which he was most cordially welcomed, and a large portion of the pub- lic had no hesitation in referring his change to his resentment, although the office which had been refused to him had not been solicited with his privity, as his friends strenuously in- sisted.’”* As has been stated, Randolph was chairman of the select committee appointed in reference to our affairs with Spain. On the third of January the chairman presented his report; it noticed, in detail, the many injuries and aggres- sions Spain had imposed upon this country, which, in the opinion of the committee, afforded full cause of war. Spain had refused to ratify the convention of 1802, nor would she settle the boundaries of Louisiana; she obstructed the trade of the American Settlements on the Tombigbee, by a pretended claim to exact a duty from American produce descending the Mobile River; and she had furthermore been guilty of an accumulation of wrong by recent violations of the territory of the United States. War is at all times to be dreaded: it would have been peculiarly oppressive to the people and Government of the United States at this period,—the commerce of the country, so much to be valued and guarded, was just expanding into manhood, which would have been crippled and crushed by war. We were anxious to pay off the war debt, which we could not for ages accom- plish without the revenue our commerce was then yielding, which was comparatively large and increasing. These, among other considerations, induced the committee (even with the opinion that just cause of war existed) to re- commend forbearance and a continuance of peace as long as the honor of the nation was untouched. The committee, however, recommended that such number of troops as the Pre- 1806. * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 190. 262 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY sident should think requisite to protect our Southern frontier, should be immediately raised. The reason and necessity of raising and dispatching troops to our Southern frontier, were for immediate protection to our citizens; the Spanish soldiery had invaded our territory, and our people had been subjected to injury and outrage. An animated debate ensued upon the report of the committee. On the same day, Bidwell, of Massachusetts, offered a resolution by way of substitute for the resolution of the committee,—that an appropriation of two millions of dollars be made for the purpose of defraying any extraordinary expenses that might be incurred in the in- tercourse between the United States and foreign nations, to be applied under the direction of the President, who was authorized to borrow it; which was ultimately to be paid by a continuance of the two-and-a-half per cent. additional duty imposed under the name of the Mediterranean Fund, but which would soon expire on account of the peace with Tripoli. The first resolution,—that which emanated from the com- mittee,—was considered objectionable by the friends of the Administration. It might eventually produce war with Spain and ultimately with France. Bidwell’s resolution, it was con- tended, would in all likelihood prevent war, by enabling the President to purchase Florida, which idea was for the first time publicly spoken of. Randolph, chairman of the select committee, objected to Bidwell’s resolution, upon the ground that the Message did not ask for money. Varnum, a warm and enthusiastic Republican and devoted friend of Jefferson, responded to Randolph, and stated that he knew the Presi- dent was anxious for an appropriation; he knew such to be the “secret wishes” of the President.* Varnum, who spoke with the intimate confidence of the Executive, at once induced the House to reject the resolution of the committee. Both resolutions were warmly debated in secret session, until the 11th of January, at which time Randolph and the new friends he had found for his association, suffered the mortification of seeing the voice of the committee disregarded, its resolution voted down by seventy-two to fifty-eight,—the Republicans voting against it because they wished to sustain the resolution of Bidwell. The debate in secret session was continued on Bidwell’s resolution for two weeks. It was opposed by the Federal- * Hild. Hist., second series, vol. ii. p. 570. OF THE UNITED STATES. 263 ists,—Randolph, whether belonging to their party or acting with them, it matters not, was the chief and foremost spokes- man, and their leader in debates. He exerted himself to restrict the extraordinary expenses spoken of in the resolu- tion for the purchase of the Spanish territory east of the Mississippi, which embraced Florida. The House rejected that portion of Bidwell’s resolution which proposed a con- tinuance of the Mediterranean duties for the purpose of meeting the appropriation. The bill was ultimately passed as offered, with the above exception. Two millions of dollars were appropriated for “‘any extraordinary expenses which may be incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations.” The Federalists had endeavored to make it read, the ‘expense which may be incurred in the purchase of the Spanish territories lying on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and eastward of the Mississippi;” but the effort failed. An excited and interesting debate was protracted on the questions connected with the Spanish dif- ficulties, up to the 6th of February: before it closed, the minority succeeded in passing a resolution to the effect that the best mode of settling the difficulties between Spain and the United States, which originated in a great measure about their respective boundaries, would be an exchange of territory. The resolution was indefinite, and was said to be objectionable to the President, though it was passed by a vote of 80 to 52.* After this discussion had ended, it was clearly seen that Randolph and the Administration were at open war: the bit- terest terms he could invent were too mild to be applied to the distinguished leaders of the Administration. Varnum, Bidwell, and a few others enjoying the special confidence of the President, were often the designated marks of his venom. The influence of this erratic orator was of little damage to the Administration ; its principles were too deeply planted in the hearts of the American people to be shaken even by a greater power than the wit, the sarcasm, or the oratory of Randolph. A few weak-headed members of Congress, who in derison were called ‘Quids,” were carried along with him for a while, being induced to leave their party and forsake their principle, either from personal fear or personal love of Randolph. ‘This little disaffection soon passed away; the Administration remained firm, united, and unshaken; whilst * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 192; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 247. 264 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Randolph stood “solitary,” though not voiceless “in his woe,” but ‘with none so poor to do him reverence.” It was during the excitement attendant on the discussion of the Spanish difficulties (and it is worthy of mention, as it had a tendency to excite the public mind to a higher pitch of indignation,) that an impudent and ill-bred man, named Yrujo, the Spanish Minister at Washington, who, becoming obnoxious to our Government, his recall had been requested. The Minister had left Washington a short time pre- vious, but returning on the 15th of January, or about that time, Madison, in a letter, reminded him that the Spanish Government, in reply to a request for his recall, had de- sired,—as leave to return had already been asked for by the Minister,—that his departure should rest on that ground. This arrangement met the approbation of the Executive, and the Spanish Minister was informed, though it was not required that he should leave the country at so inclement a season, his presence was “ dissatisfactory to the President.” Yrujo made two replies to this letter: in the first he in- sisted on his right to remain as an individual and as a public Minister; he was engaged in no plot against the Government, and had a right to reside in the City of Washington, which he would do as long as it suited him. In another letter, he informed the Secretary of State “that the Envoy Extraor- dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of his Catholic Majesty near the United States, receives no orders except from his sovereign ;’’ contending at the same time that his diplomatic rights had been invaded. The conduct of this man had been objectionable to our Government; the President and cabinet had acted with exceeding mildness and forbearance; his recall had been requested by this Government, yet as the Minister had requested his recall previously, the President consented that his departure might be placed on that footing. We were in imminent peril of a war with Spain. Peace was our policy, and the President was determined to maintain it if it could be done with honor. Our relations with other coun- tries were also greatly entangled, and Jefferson and his cabi- net felt resting upon their shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining an amicable position with the world. This affair with the Spanish Minister was passed by without notice from the Executive, probably as unworthy of consideration, in reference to the other matters existing between Spain and the United States. It was in truth a matter of little moment; 1806. OF THE UNITED STATES. 265 the President so considered it, and nothing more would have been thought of it, had not John Quincy Adams, in a fit of imprudence, introduced a bill into the Senate to prevent foreign Ministers from abusing their privileges as such, and giving the President authority to order their departure in certain cases. The bill never passed: there was no necessity that it should; if the President cannot remove a Minister actually dangerous, he can take such steps necessary to avert the danger, and upon application to the Government he re- presents, he can have him recalled; indeed, the comity exist- ing among nations will always induce a Government to recall a Minister when his conduct becomes disagreeable or unplea- sant to the Court near which he resides. The attention of the reader will be called from 1806. the vexations of Spain to circumstances more mo- mentous, and difficulties far more imposing. Our relations with England had assumed a dangerous character. In addi- tion to the difficulties about ¢mpressment, we had to contend against the doctrine laid down by the British Admiralty Court, in the most stringent terms, in reference to our carrying trade. British officers, cruel and insolent and arrogant, had long been in the habit of boarding American vessels and taking there- from the hardy but devoted American patriot and sailor, and, under the pretence that he was a British subject, tearing him from the service of the stars and stripes and that proud flag it was his joy to bear unmolested to the ports of the world. More than three thousand sailors, it has been estimated, were taken from American vessels and forced into the Bri- tish service. No outrage could be more enormous, and it demanded instant attention; the consideration of which was more pressing upon Congress, inasmuch as it had been often laid before the English Ministry, and received but little en- couragement. This doctrine, which found its origin in Eng- lish cupidity, was attended with more hardship to the United States navy than that of any other country; the same lan- guage, personal appearance, manners, and customs would, as it did, often lead to the greatest oppression and outrage. The reason adduced by the English Ministry was that their Govern- ment had the right to capture their own sailors, wherever found; but it is known that the English naval officers never confined themselves to the capture of their own citizens. Our Minister, Monroe, had ably discussed this question at Vou. I.—18 266 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the Court of St. James. Our position was, that a neutral flag on the high seas was a safeguard to those sailing under it. Upon this principle of justice we planted ourselves, and no force of argument could alter our determination; with all the ability of English statesmen and English diplomacy, we remained firm and immovable. The other question of difficulty which presented itself was in reference to the carrying trade. France and England, with other European powers, were at war; the navy of the belligerents was useless for this trade. We were neutrals, and our enterprising commercial men embraced this golden opportunity for supplying the belligerents with all articles of trade and commerce. England objected to our furnishing to France, for example, breadstuffs brought from the French Colonies, which, by the European colonial system, we could not touch in times of peace. Did war increase the rights of neutrals and give us the right to carry from one French or Spanish port goods which in peace times would have rotted - on their wharves if they had not the means of transportation? The necessities of war might induce the opening of different ports, yet it had not been done. A subterfuge was adopted, which obtained the sanction of the British Admiralty Courts. An American vessel would take from a French colonial port a cargo, intended no doubt for the Mother Country, bring it to New York, the cargo is landed, duties paid, the cargo re- shipped, a bill of lading from our own port is produced, and the vessel sails for some French port. When the cargo had been honestly purchased, there could be no objection legally or morally; but it was rarely the case that an American, who had made a bona fide purchase, brought his goods to New York, and then reshipped to France. ° Many vessels, however, tempted by the richness of the prize, boldly braved every danger and sailed directly from the port of one belligerent to another. When caught they were invariably condemned by the Admiralty Court. Many remonstrances from citizens, companies, and towns, were con- stantly pouring in upon the Executive asking relief. This formed another grave and serious difficulty; the sanctity of our flag had been invaded, the rights of our merchants had been trampled upon, and our injured citizens were crying for relief. The opinion of many was that we were engaged in an unlawful trade, and that we had no right to ask for indemnity. OF THE UNITED STATES. 267 Our Secretary of State, Madison, maintained with great force the right of our citizens to engage in this carrying trade. He took a high position, it is true, and such is generally the right one :— “The right of taking neutral vessels engaged in this kind of trade, under all the circumstances, was a principle of mo- dern date; it was not sanctioned by national law, for it was maintained by no nation but Great Britain. She assumed it in the pride of her maritime ascendency, but it had met with no countenance elsewhere. The regulations on this subject were very unsettled, and were constantly being modified.* “The principle is contrary to the interest of commercial nations, as well as the law of nations settled by the most approved authorities, which recognized no restraints on the trade of nations not at war with nations at war, other than that it shall be impartial between the latter; that it shall not extend to certain military articles, nor the transportation of persons in military service, nor to places actually blockaded or besieged. “The principle is both contrary to reason and to right, inasmuch as the admission of neutrals into a colonial trade shut against them in times of peace may, and often does, result from considerations which open to neutrals direct chan- nels of trade with the Parent Country, shut to them in times of peace, the legality of which latter regulation is not known to have been contested; and inasmuch as a commerce may be, and frequently is opened in time of war, between a Colony and other countries from considerations which are not incident to war, and which would produce the same effect in a time of peace; such, for example, as a failure or diminution of the ordinary sources of necessary supplies, or new terms in the course of profitable interchanges. “Tt is particularly worthy of attention that the board of commissioners jointly constituted by the British and Ameri- can Governments, under the seventh article of the treaty of 1794, by reversing condemnations of the British courts founded on the British instructions of 1793, condemned the principle that a trade forbidden to neutrals in time of peace could not be open to them in time of war.” + * Rob. Admiralty Reports, vol. iv. Appendix. + American State Papers, vol. v. p. 215. Madison to Monroe. 268 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Such were the views and arguments sent to the American Minister in London, with instructions to urge them before the English Ministry. Whilst this subject was agitated before the English Minis- try, and apparently without effect, a more efficient course was adopted by the Executive. A communication from Jan-17, the Minister at the English Court was received, the character of which is unknown, as it was never made public; it was sent to Congress, accompanied by various me- morials from the maritime towns, remonstrating against the British doctrines as well as detailing their loss. A few days later the Committee of Ways and Means presented to the House a well-written and ably-argued report upon the subject of neutral rights. This report was drawn up by Madison for the President, which was communicated by him to the committee. As soon as the question was introduced into Congress it became a source of great excitement, upon which an animated debate ensued. Such subjects are peculiarly calculated to enlist the attention and interest of an American Congress. Oppression and outrage first excited our forefathers to resist- ance, and paved the way to freedom. The American mind, trained in the school of liberty, right, and justice, takes fire immediately when it hears the report of injury to its fellow- citizens; with whose distress it mingles a sympathizing tear, and in whose defence it lends a willing arm and generous purse. The report of the Committee of Ways and Means indicated a highly restrictive policy upon the commerce of Great Britain. The report, it has been seen, was from the pen of James Madison, and was in unison with opinions long entertained by that distinguished statesman, of reducing the pride and haughty spirit of Great Britain to a sense of justice by severe and heavy taxes on her commerce. The President was known to concur with the Secretary of State in his opinion on this subject. Whatever effect it may have had whilst held in terrorem over the English Government, no policy could have been more injurious to the best interest of this country. As soon as the report of the Committee of Ways and Means was presented and referred to a Committee of the Whole, Gregg, of Pennsylvania, offered a resolution to suspend all further importation from Great Britain until just and satis- Jan. 29, OF THE UNITED STATES. 269 factory arrangements were made on the subject of captures and impressments. Clay, a member from Pennsylvania, with more foresight and consideration than Gregg, offered a series of resolutions, the purport and object of which were, that when American vessels were not permanently permitted to trade with the dominions of any foreign nation, the ships of such nation should be interdicted the like trade with the United States; that all merchandise which American vessels were prohibited from importing into any port of a foreign nation, should not be exported from the United States in vessels of such nation; that such merchandise as American vessels were interdicted by foreign nations from exporting from any part of their do- minions, should not be imported into the United States in the vessels of such nation; and finally, to retort the policy of the British Navigation Act, that no foreign vessel should be per- mitted to import into the United States any merchandise which was not the product of such nation, except it was ex- pressly permitted by treaty or in time of war. Nicholson offered a resolution which seemed less at war with the commercial interest of the United States. It was to prohibit certain specific articles of English growth or manufacture, embracing all fabrics of leather, tin, hemp, brass, flax, silk, glass, fine cloths, silver-wares, beer, hats, nails, paper,—these and other like articles the mover very justly preferred to the preceding motion, as it would not have so injurious an effect upon the revenue, nor would its opera- tion upon the class of consumers be so oppressive. Congress was well united upon a determination to pass some retaliatory law, though the members differed as to the most efficient plan, and one, at the same time, less injurious to our own commer- cial interest. Crowningshield, of Massachusetts, likewise offered a reso- lution to the effect that no merchandise should be imported or exported to or from any European Colonies in America, unless the importation in American vessels was at all times admitted into said Colonies, and unless the exportation of the said Colonies was permanently permitted to American vessels sailing to the United States. Within a short time thereafter Sloan, a member from New Jersey, offered a resolution providing, in effect, if the British Government did not, within a prescribed time, restore every 270 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY American seaman who had been impressed, and every Ame- rican vessel that had been detained contrary to the law of nations, and likewise make compensation for past detention and illegal condemnation, all intercourse between the two countries should cease. The same spirit actuated the Senate. Smith, of Maryland, chairman of a committee to whom the subject had been re- ferred, reported a bill for the heavy imposition of duties on many and various specified articles. The different House resolutions were all referred to a Com- mittee of the Whole. They were warmly debated for some days, when, being brought up on the 17th of March, the House agreed to the policy of prohibiting specified articles of British growth or manufacture by a vote of 87 to 85. On the 28th of March the bill laying prohibitions, in accordance with the resolution previously offered by Nicholson, passed the House by a vote of 93 to 32.* The same bill passed the Senate on the 15th day of April by a vote of 19 to 9.F The Federal party generally acted against the resolutions. In the House, however, twelve of the Virginia delegation, Mr. Eppes (son-in-law of the President) among the number, voted against the bill. The leader of the minority in the House on this important question was John Randolph, of Virginia, who, though no Federalist, was on this occasion the chief on whom they rested. Randolph’s opposition to the Administration made this apparent alliance with the Federal party inevitable, though in reality no truer or bolder State-rights man was ever seated in the halls of Congress. These restrictive and prohibitory measures may sometimes have the desired effect in bringing a nation to a sense of jus- tice and propriety; no doubt, it stayed the hand of English outrage in reference to the United States; under its influence there was even an effort to effect a treaty. Yet but little doubt remains that they are attended with more harm than good. The Government, with a view to ultimate defence, appro- priated $150,000 for fortifying the ports and harbors, and $250,000 for building gun-boats. 1806. * House Journal, 1805-6; Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 247; Hild. Hist. of U.S., second series, vol. ii. p. 574; Garland’s Life of Randolph, vol. i. p. 218. } Journal of the Senate, 1805-6. OF THE UNITED STATES. 271 There were other questions of importance which engrossed the attention of Congress during the balance of the session. One especially, exceeded by no other in magnitude, taken in its present or future bearing upon the welfare of this Govern- ment. The question of the construction of a national road from Cumberland, in the State of Maryland, to the State of Ohio, had for some time agitated Congress. The act con- structing this road and paying for it out of the Treasury of the United States passed the House on the 24th of March, by a vote of 66 to’50. The act made an appropriation of $30,000, which was the initiatory step of internal improvements by the General Government. It met with decided opposition, passing as it did by a majority of only sixteen. The opponents of this bill contended that. it was unconstitutional; nor is there any guaranty in the Con- stitution for the construction of roads (except post-roads;) the consent of the States of Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio, through whose territory the road passes, was obtained. If Congress has no power to make roads, the consent of a State can grant noright. The great objection to the exercise of this power is, that it is not authorized by the Constitution. The great mischief that may occur from it is its being the cause of local jealousy; the means of wasting the resources of the nation in costly, and ultimately useless and senseless undertakings; the source of the great extension of the influ- ence of the General Government, which is liable to every principle of corruption, if the extension itself be not the acme of corruption, with the liability and facility of bribery to the States, as well as their delegates in Congress; and finally, the boundless field of operation on which the money of our National Treasury may, and will be wasted, limited only by the cupidity of the States and the extent of the means of our treasury. ‘The bill received the approbation of Jefferson; and it is ever to be lamented that he did not add the sanction of his Administration and the lustre of his name to the opposition of this principle, then, for the first time, rear- ing its frightful head in the halls of Congress. If this,— the first bantling of the most dangerous exercise of power,— had been exterminated in its infancy, for years, perhaps for ages, we might have escaped the venomous breath of this ser- - pent in our modern Eden. This question has continued from that day down to the 1806. 272 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY present moment to be the subject of party discussion and angry debate; and I regret to say, the reader will find the tendency to the development of this system increasing, and its exercise sometimes alarming. During the latter part of this session, a question of much moment and interest was brought to the attention of Con- gress, producing no little excitement in regard to the faith and honor of the Government, which many supposed to be involved; the question was the connection with Miranda’s expedition against Spanish America. The bold and successful steps which had been taken by the North American Colonies,—the result of the war of the Revolution which freed the United States from English tyranny,—doubtless had a decided effect upon the South American Provinces in exciting and moving the minds of the people towards a similar effort. In such times there is never wanting anxious and often suitable characters, who, throwing themselves upon the popular current, secure the great object and desire of the people, and frequently ‘a well-earned title to fame for themselves. Though success did not follow the exertions of Miranda, yet as our Government was unjustly implicated with the plans he advocated, a short notice of this remarkable man will be pardoned by the reader. Francis Miranda was born in Spanish America, and was for many years an officer in the Spanish army. He was, during the time he held office in the army, detected in a plot against the Spanish Government. It being necessary that he should fly, he made his escape to Europe; he visited the English and Russian Courts, presenting to them plans, which they received favorably, for revolutionizing the Government of the Spanish Colonies. S This restless Spaniard went over to Paris: there he con- nected himself with the Girondists. On the the breaking out of the war, he was made a General of Division; owing to his conduct at the siege of Maestricht and the battle of Ner- winde, he fell into disgrace, and was ultimately imprisoned by the successful Jacobins. He was set at liberty in 1794, with orders to leave France; twice after this he returned to France. In 1804 he was in Paris, when accusations were brought against him as being unfriendly to the Government of Bonaparte, when he was sent off for the last time. It was long a cherished object with Pitt to aid the South OF THE UNITED STATES. 273 Americans in their efforts of emancipation from Spanish thraldom; his keen powers of observation opened to his mind the lucrative commerce Great Britain would be enabled to carry on with the Provinces, could they be disencumbered from Old Spain, and their commerce unshackled by Euro- pean politics. The British Ministry had encouraged Miranda in his designs against the Government of Venezuela; they granted him very efficient aid in the unfortunate expedition he fitted out in 1801 against that country. It was in the early part of the year 1806 that Miranda visited this country, with letters of introduction to Jefferson. He made but little concealment of the purpose of his visit, which was to raise and equip an army to revolutionize the Spanish Province of Caraccas. His preparations were made for this expedition chiefly at New York, though Miranda was often in Washington and upon habits of intimacy with Jeffer- son and Madison. It is unknown, and immaterial, whether he communicated freely with the President and Secretary of State or not; doubtless they were apprised of his plans and gave him their sympathy; more they could not do without a violation of national faith towards Spain,—besides, the im- policy of an act evidently hostile, whilst we were endeavoring to treat with Spain and produce reconciliation between that Government and the United States. Much excitement, how- ever, prevailed among the people of the United States towards the Government, which it was thought was assisting Miranda. This opinion was strengthened by the fact that the act prohibiting the exportation of arms was repealed at this time, and many thought for Miranda’s benefit. “It is certain,” says Hildreth, ‘at least, that a Mr. Ogden, of New York, whose ship (the Leander) was chartered by Miranda, and W. 8. Smith, John Adams’s son-in-law, who held at that time the lucrative post of Surveyor of that port, and who was engaged in furthering Miranda’s preparations, both believed that he was secretly countenanced by the Govern- ment.”’ The Leander left New York with Miranda, a supply of arms, and several hundred men, who had enlisted for the expedition. The matter was soon much talked about; the Government feeling uneasy, lest they might be compromited with Spain, ordered a prosecution against Ogden and Smith. The defendants memorialized Congress, acknowledging that they had been engaged in the enterprise, and that they had 274 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY strong reasons to believe, from the representations of Miranda, that the Government was secretly giving him encouragement and support. A resolution passed the House by a large majority,—a few of the Federalists voting to the contrary,— asserting their belief that there existed no reason or evidence to sustain these unjust imputations on the Government. It is a memorable fact, notwithstanding the resolution of the House, that Ogden and Smith were acquitted by a jury, on the ground that the Government had countenanced the enter- prise. The cabinet Ministers at Washington were summoned as witnesses. The President interposed his authority to pre- vent, and did prevent them from attending, upon the ground that they were needed in the cabinet, and could not leave Washington. These facts were calculated to make an impres- sion on the people, as it did, that the Executive had connived at this undertaking. It is clear, however, beyond dispute, that Miranda obtained no money from this Government, but that the funds were furnished by the British Ministry.* That it was an object of cupidity with the British Ministry, is evident from the fitting out of an expe- dition, after the failure of Miranda, which, under Sir Home Popham, entered the La Plata on the 25th of June. The object of this expedition was not to assist the Colonists to revolt, but to subjugate the country; the commanders, in their instructions from Wyndham, were directed to discourage any other hope than that of their being annexed to the English Crown.t The justice and policy of this question, as far as the United States Government was interested, were obviously an entire avoidance of everything connected with it, espe- cially as hostile feelings were rife between the two countries, without the further addition of a most unjustifiable outrage, had it ever taken place. The philanthropist must ever wish the disinthrallment of a nation from the hands of tyranny; and doubtless the President gave Miranda his sympathy; beyond that no evidence exists to attach even the slightest blame to the Executive. The wishes and feelings of the cotemporaries of Jefferson were decidedly in favor of Miranda’s earlier schemes, and were in correspondence with him,—especially Hamilton and 1806. * History of Spanish America, by Niles, p. 90. } Ibid., and the Trial of Popham, and the documents annexed to the Trial of Whitlock. OF THE UNITED STATES. 275 Knox; the correspondence shows the feeling of those men at the time of an earlier visit Miranda made to this country, which was about the year 1797.* The difficulties existing between England and the United States continued a source of much excite- ment and interest. The Executive was not free from fearful anxiety in reference to the influence of the disaffected wing of the Republican party. The disaffection of Randolph, which manifested itself in a strong partiality for England, created serious apprehension on the mind of the President in reference to an amicable adjustment of our foreign affairs. “A majority of the Senate,” says Jefferson, ‘means well. But Tracy and Bayard are too dexterous for them and have very much influenced their proceedings. * * * Seven Fede- ralists, voting always in phalanx, and joined by some discon- tented Republicans, some oblique ones, some capricious, have often made a majority, so as to produce very serious embar- rassment to the public operations; and very much do I dread submitting to them at the next session any treaty which can 1806. * As a matter of history perhaps but little known, it may not be im- proper to notice the letters of Miranda at that time, which indicate the opinions of those addressed as well as the writer. April 6th, 1798, Miranda wrote to Alexander Hamilton,—‘“‘ This, my dear and respected friend, will be handed to you by my countryman, Don , who is charged with dispatches of the highest importance to the President of the United States. He will tell you confidentially all that you wish to know on this subject. The only danger which I foresee, is the introduction of French principles, which would poison our liberty in its cradle, and would finish by destroying yours.’’ Whilst this exploit was being agitated, it is remarkably strange that in July, 1798, Generals Hamilton, Pinckney, and Knox, were appointed Major-Generals in the standing army raised that summer, nominally for the purpose of repelling a French invasion at a moment when France had not a ship-of-war on the ocean, and whilst British squadrons were hovering on her whole coast. October 19th, 1798, Mi- randa again wrote to Hamilton,—‘‘ Your wishes are in some sort already accomplished. Seeing it has been agreed here on one side not to employ in the operations on land English troops; seeing that the auxiliary land forces are to be exclusively American, while the naval force shall be purely English,—everything is smooth, and we wait only the fiat of your illustrious President to depart like lightning.” To General Knox he wrote on the same day, in which he expresses his delight at Knox’s nomination for General in the Continental army,—‘‘It would appear,” he says, ‘that your wishes are at length accomplished, and that every possible circumstance is united at this moment in our favor.”’ These parties have all passed from the stage of life, and the question is no longer of moment; yet it is sur- prising that the administration of John Adams should be connected with such an enterprise. Miranda addressed Mr. Adams, but it does not appear that he ever made an answer. (Vide Memoirs of Burr, vol. ii. p. 879.) 276 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY be made with either England or Spain, when I consider that five joining the Federalists can defeat a friendly settlement of our affairs.””* The Senate consisted at this time of thirty-four members; two-thirds were necessary to the ratification of a treaty, which required twenty-three. There were in the Senate seven Fede- ralists, and the union of five disaffected Republicans could defeat any treaty the Executive might make. The grounds of difficulty the President had to encounter with the Repub- lican party were in reference to the course to be pursued towards England and Spain. The feelings of the President inclined warmly to France. Many who had espoused her cause as that of civil liberty had lost their ardor after Napo- leon had exercised the prerogative of Emperor, under the title of first Consul. But when he threw aside the form and name of a Republican, and when all France bowed in humble acquiescence, the hopes, the admiration, and the feelings of many of the American people were turned to hatred and dis- gust. The outrages England had committed, and was com- mitting, had excited the Executive as well as the American people. The angry contentions and distractive war between England and France could not fail to enlist partisans in Ame- rica, though we were a neutral people. The many excesses of the French alienating the affections of the Americans, produced an alteration of feeling which, as it was increased towards France, was equally inclined towards England. Spain, too, had to be conciliated; we had been on the verge of war with her. The President saw the policy of maintain- ing friendly relations with France, whose language was,—“A last friendly settlement with Spain is proposed to be made at Paris under the auspices of France.” + To effect which treaty the President appointed Messrs. Boudoin and Armstrong (both then at Paris) joint Commissioners, the former being then Minister to Spain. Armstrong’s nomination was not con- firmed by the Senate. The commission would have resulted in no good if it had been, the two Commissioners being of opposite sentiments, and Armstrong particularly obnoxious to the French, an open rupture would have taken place be- tween the two Commissioners. The most pressing engagement upon the Government at * Letter to W. C. Nicholas, April 13, 1806; Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. p. 47. t Letter to W. C. Nicholas, March 24, 1806; Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. p- 46. OF THE UNITED STATES. 277 this time was the negotiation with England. The death of Pitt in January of this year, and Fox, the leader of the Whig party, being then in the Ministry, induced Jefferson to enter- tain more brilliant hopes of an amicable adjustment of our difficulties. Fox was always inclined to amicable relations with the world, and often devoted the great powers of his mind toa general peace in Europe. Jefferson knew him per- sonally and spoke in the highest terms of his honesty; and said,—‘‘ While he shall be in the Administration, my re- liance on that Government will be solid.” ‘To carry out the wishes of the Government and secure a favorable negotiation with England, the President associated with Monroe, then Minister to England, William Pinckney, of Maryland. This appointment was highly judicious; no one enjoyed a higher reputation not only as a diplomatist, but as a lawyer, a states- man, and orator, than William Pinckney. Amidst this de- tail of history it is pleasant and instructive to turn to a general view of the political parties of this day, and the em- barrassments they sought to throw around the Executive. By Pinckney the President had an opportunity of communi- cating freely and fully with Monroe, to whom he addressed a long communication. He alludes to the desertion of Mercer, a member of Con- gress from Virginia, who soon became identified with the Federalists. Randolph, he said, was in the same track, whose disaffection produced momentary astonishment and even dismay, but for a moment only. He indicates to Mon- roe that Randolph is advocating his pretentions to the Presi- dency, but warns him against his friendship. The change in the Ministry became highly favorable to our Government. He clearly indicates the opinion he entertains in reference to the policy of the two countries, none having so many points of common interest as England and the United States. The only rivalry that can arise being on the ocean: “England may by petty larceny thwartings check us on that element a little, but nothing she can do will retard us there one year’s growth. We shall be supported there by other nations, and throw into their scale to make a part of the great counterpoise to her navy. If, on the other hand, she Is just to us, conciliatory, and encourages the sentiment of family feelings and conduct, it cannot fail to befriend the security of both. We have the seamen and materials for fifty ships of the line, and half that number of frigates, and 278 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY were France to give us the money and England the disposi- tions to equip them, they would give to England serious proofs of the stock from which they are sprung. * * * Were, on the other hand, England to give the money and France the dispositions to place us on the sea in all our force, the whole world out of the continent of Europe might be one joint monopoly. We wish for neither of these scenes.’”’* This letter, whilst it is not in conflict with Jefferson’s known partiality for France, clearly indicates the advantages result- ing from a treaty of amity with England, as preferable to the United States, to a friendly alliance with any other people whatsoever. The American Commissioners were instructed to make no treaty which did not secure American vessels on the high seas against the visitation of English vessels. The Commissioners were instructed by the Secretary of State to contend that the right of impressment existing by mere municipal law could bear no authority beyond the jurisdiction of Great Britain. The British Commissioners contended that the King had the right to require against his maritime enemies the services of all his sub’ects, especially if they were seafaring people, as well as the right to seize such by force everywhere, except within the territorial limits of another power; and that the high seas were extra-territorial; that merchant-vessels navi- gating thereon did not carry any foreign jurisdiction to pro- tect British subjects from the authority of the King. In this they were sustained by the Board of Admiralty, and they stated that they could not give it up. The British Commis- sioners were yet willing to negotiate satisfactorily with the American Commissioners, with the exception of the relin- quishment of the right of impressment, and Monroe and Pinckney were requested to point out anything short of such relinquishment, but this they could not do. The American Commissioners insisted upon an absolute relinquishment. On the other hand, it was proposed to them that laws should be enacted by both nations, making it penal for British commanders to impress American citizens, and also penal for any officer of the American Government to grant British subjects certificates of citizenship. This the American Commissioners were compelled to refuse. It would * Jefferson’s Letter to Monroe, whilst the latter was Minister to England; Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. p. 51. OF THE UNITED STATES. 279 overthrow the American doctrine of the right of naturaliza- tion, which has ‘enticed so many people from the oppression of tyranny of the Old World to the freedom of America, where they not only become good citizens, but contribute largely to the agricultural and commercial development of the States. Although the British negotiators would not give up the right of impressment, it was manifest they were anxious to conclude a treaty. They even consented that special instruc- tions should be given and enforced for the observance of the greatest caution against subjecting any American-born citi- zen to molestation or injury, and in case of injury the redress should be efficient and prompt. This appeared like approach- ing the American claims, yet it did not decide who were Ame- rican citizens. The above assurances were committed to writing, with the suggestion that while both parties reserved their rights, this stipulation might answer temporarily all the purposes of a treaty. It appears that whilst the British Commissioners would not allow the surrender of the right of impressment, the American Commissioners were given to understand that the intention of the British Government was not to allow impressments from American vessels, except under extraordi- nary circumstances, as if the British Government was willing gradually and silently to abandon the practice. It seemed as if every concession short of the actual aban- donment of the right of impressment had been obtained, upon which question the United States, though not obtaining its just rights, had been placed upon grounds more favorable than had been ever before enjoyed. In consideration of the vast commercial losses which daily visited the American citizen, the fear, though unjust, that we were unable to resist the English naval force, and in imitation of the example of Jay and the commission to France in 1799, our Commissioners determined to proceed with the negotiation, having first informed the British Commissioners that they did so on their own responsibility, and with the reservation of the Government at home to ratify or not. The great difficulty of the question of impressment being removed, the terms of the treaty for ten years were soon agreed to. It was based prin- cipally upon Jay’s treaty, with some more liberal concessions in favor of the commerce of the United States. The treaty conceded the right to transport in American vessels to any 280 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY belligerent Colony, not blockaded by a British force, any Eu- ropean goods, except contraband of war; provided the same were American property, had previously been loaded in the United States, and paid a duty of at least one per cent. above the amount drawn back on re-exportation. The treaty, as signed by the American and British Commissioners, was im- mediately transmitted to Washington. The hopes of the mercantile community were raised to the highest pitch by the announcement; yet they were doomed to sudden disappoint- ment; Jefferson determined at once to reject it. It was equally objectionable to the sound national views of Madison, then Secretary of State. The rejection of this treaty caused the bitterest excitement on the part of the Federalists, who looked upon Jefferson with a habitual hatred as strong and intense as the Round-heads had ever entertained towards Charles I. Jefferson was reviled most unjustly. The Fede- ralists seemed to think that hatred to England formed the chief bond of union with the Republican party, and that their leaders were influenced by a partiality for France, which carried them beyond the bounds of patriotism or prudence. The written opinions of Jefferson and Madison are too well known to suffer detriment from an idea so unfounded. In the letter above quoted to Monroe, his opinions are clearly set forth, indicating his desire for a permanent peace with England. This is his Janguage:—“The late change in the Ministry I consider as insuring us a just settlement of our difficulties, and we ask no more. In Mr. Fox, personally, I have more confidence than in any man in England, and it is founded in what, through unquestionable channels, I have had opportunities of knowing of his honesty and good sense. While he shall be in the Administration my reliance on that Government will be solid.” This is the language held towards the resident Minister in London, communicated in the strictest privacy, in which the author even withheld his name. Is there not enough in it to show Jefferson’s anxiety for a peace?* But in addition to the above the reader will appreciate the unanswerable reasons which existed against the ratification of the treaty, which of themselves would place the Executive beyond the reach of censure and the unjust clamor raised by the Federalists, in conjunction with a small fragment of dis- affected Republicans. * Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. p. 61. OF THE UNITED STATES. 281 Insuperable objections existed in a commercial view to the treaty. In reference to the East India trade, as objectionable as had been Jay’s treaty, this was even less favorable, our vessels being limited to a direct voyage to British India and back. No favorable terms could be made in reference to the British West Indies, American vessels being then as hereto- fore entirely excluded. The questions of blockades and con- traband goods were virtually untouched, no alteration being made in this respect from Jay’s treaty, except an immunity from visitation and seizure within five miles of the American shore. The leading object of the commission to England was in reference to impressments from American vessels by British cruisers; this was entirely overlooked, as far as the treaty itself was involved. This the President could not, ought not to have sanctioned; whilst it was apparent that Congress had looked upon the securing of this right to America as the pri- mary cause which suggested the necessity of an extraordinary mission. On the 18th of March Madison acknowledged the _180.. reception of the treaty. On the 20th of May he communicates to the Commissioners the reasons of the Ex- ecutive in refusing to ratify it. The Secretary of State authorized our Commissioners to renew the negotiation. In the mean time Fox’s death, which had taken place the 13th of September, 1806, occasioned a vacancy in the Ministry, which had been filled by the appointment of George Canning. The instructions to the Commissioners in reference to a renewal of the negotiation were full and explicit. England must surrender the question of impressments. The eleventh article of the treaty, which related to the colo- nial trade, could not be admitted unless freed from the condi- tions which restrict to the market of Kurope the re-exportation of colonial produce, and to European articles the supplies to the colonial market. The limit of a direct trade with the British Indies to and from America was an insuperable objection. There must be an express provision for indemnifying sufferers from unlawful captures. The eighteenth and nineteenth articles must be so altered as to leave the United States free, as a neutral nation, to keep and place other belligerent nations on an equality with Great Britain. These, with many other objections and instructions, were communicated to the American Commissioners. Vou. I.—19 282 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY In obedience to instructions the Commissioners addressed a note to Mr. Canning on the 24th of July, proposing a renewal of the negotiation, and transmitting the proposed alterations. The attack of the Seaford on the Chesapeake suspended all diplomatic correspondence until the 22d of October, when the British Minister replied, justi- fying the reservation made of the right to retaliate the French decrees, which had been strongly objected to by the Executive, and also insisting on the right of impressment. Canning con- cludes by informing the American Commissioners that it is impossible to renew negotiations upon the basis of the treaty which had been lately concluded.* The President had at a previous day asked for an appro- priation for building and equipping gun-boats. Congress refused this appropriation, but called on the President for information in respect to their efficiency and the number wanted for defence. The President immediately communi- cated to Congress on the subject, stating that he had the opinions of various military gentlemen in their favor, and that they were in use by every maritime nation. In refer- ence to the number, the President stated that two hundred would be sufficient, the cost of which would be from five to six hundred thousand dollars. An appropriation of one hun- dred and fifty thousand dollars was made for building thirty gun-boats; the scheme proved a complete failure, subjecting its author to considerable ridicule and the Government to a heavy expense. The Message of the President had called the attention of Congress to a subject which at an early day of the Republic had engaged the most anxious and attentive consideration of the statesmen of the United States,—the abolition of the slave-trade. In tracing its history I will take a short retro- spective view of its rise and development, its growth and maturity, until it has reached a degree of dignity, import- ance, and usefulness that presents it in favorable comparison with the first and best institutions of the world. ; About the year 1562, England became first interested in the slave-trade, under the patronage of Sir John Hawkins, who had fraudulently transported a cargo of Africans to His- 1807. 1807. * Madison’s Letter to Monroe and Pinckney, Am. State Papers, vol. vi. p. 265; Canning’s Letter, ib., p. 417; Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 228. + Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 198. OF THE UNITED STATES. 283 paniola. The returns of sugar, pearls, and other rich and valuable cargoes so interested Queen Elizabeth, that upon the fitting out of a new expedition, she not only extended to it the favor of the Crown, but became a participant in the pro- fits. This trade, nurtured and sustained by the Government of Great Britain, soon became engrafted upon the Colonies. In August, 1620, a Dutch man-of-war ascended James River and discharged twenty negroes for sale; and in thirty years from that time, so great had become the slave population of Virginia that the proportion stood as one white to fifty blacks. This was an important event; a new problem was about to be worked out in reference to the social organization of man, the result of which, after the lapse of two centuries, is not only undecided, but involved in doubt, and the source of constant political warfare and excitement with the people of the United States. It was a new problem in the history of the world. The Ethiopian and the Caucasian,—the one from the torrid zone, the other from the regions of the north,—were to unite under the milder climate of the temperate; the one to be devoted to the soil, the other to be the master and legal owner. This is the institution of negro slavery in the United States; and whilst it is not within the province of this work to discuss the moral bearing of the propriety or the abstract right of reducing the negro to slavery, no doubt can exist in reference to the utility of this institution. The race itself has received the most incalculable improvement, moral, social, and physical. The vast development of the agricultural resources of the United States owes to this institution its immeasurable pro- ductions which, in their turn, have created and sustained a commerce which makes the United States one of the greatest of modern powers; and which has for years fed, as it now feeds and clothes and enriches more than half the civilized world. Look to the amount of breadstuffs that are made in the United States and consumed abroad, and the innumerable articles which are brought back in return; look to the raw material which is worked up into the woollen and cotten fabrics which clothe, to a large extent, the Old World, and the reader will form but an inadequate idea of its vast influence in enriching, refining, and developing the great resources of the world; en- livening and expanding its physical as well as moral energies, to be attributed, in an eminent degree, to the institution of negro slavery. : : ee It must be evident to every reflective mind that this insti- 284 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY tution,—if unmolested by a mistaken and false zeal, under the guise of philanthropy and kindness for the happiest and best conditioned race on earth,—is the best safeguard for the per- manency of a Republic like that of the United States. A government that recognizes an entire political equality among its citizens, of every class and condition, will always be more stable where there is a class of people with every political and social right, as far as the government extends, entirely withheld. If that class which now composes the negro slave did not exist, it would be supplied, as far as the wants of man demanded, by a portion of the citizens of the country; this class, as ignorant as the slave, yet doomed to supply his place and bound to the soil, would be a most dan- gerous feature in our social organization. The laws under which they would live make them equal citizens with the wealthy, the enlightened, and the patriotic, none of whose interest or feeling they possess. Envy, jealousy, hatred to their employers, soon inflame the worst passions of men. They feel not that domestic attach- ment and dependence which the negro feels towards his master, which is dearly mutual, and mutually cherished; but under that true system of government which this Republic devel- oped, the political equality of the citizen—the poor citizen— who feels himself, if not another race, an outcast and alien, as he would be, will form at once naturally and inevitably a band of revolutionists. Their ignorance makes them the dupes of every dangerous and malicious doctrine; they are Red Republicans in France, Chartists and Fourierites in Eng- land, Socialists everywhere, Mobocrats and anti-Renters in the United States, ready to break down every guaranty to individual rights, and subvert a government which holds out equality to the citizen, whilst the unchangeable law of nature demands a class to be doomed to the plough, the loom, and the anvil. The United States Government was the first to take the bold and decided step which commenced the abolition of this trade, which had done so much for the world, which had im- proved and cultivated the African, and was the precursor to Christianizing their native country. By the Constitution the trade could exist until the year 1808, but a tax could be laid on the importation of each slave not exceeding ten dollars. It appears somewhat inexplicable, that whilst nearly every- OF THE UNITED STATES. 285 body took a lively interest in slavery as it existed among us, that the prospect of the abolition of the trade should have been received with such approbation. The States in their individual capacity had made efforts to abolish the trade, and, in some States emancipation was assuming a popularity not to be resisted. In 1790, slavery existed in every State in this Union except Massachusetts. The early constitution of that State declared all men to be born free and equal. In 1783, it was judicially decided to have the effect of abolishing slavery.* In 1780, Pennsyl- vania passed an act tending to a gradual emancipation, which ultimately succeeded. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire imitated the example of Pennsylvania. . New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, and Mary- land had passed laws prohibiting the further importation of slaves. In Virginia, Jefferson and Wythe, acting as commissioners to revise the laws of Virginia, had drafted a bill for gradual emancipation. It came before the House in 1785, and was defeated. In New York even, an effort was made in the same year for gradual emancipation ; the effort failed. It is true, nevertheless, that, from North Carolina northward, there were many warm and influential advocates for the emancipation of slavery. At this period the North was not entirely united in reference to emancipation; nor was the South fully determined how to proceed; the slave had not fallen a prey to fanaticism; the question had not reached that degree of importance which it was destined to receive; the institution had existed in every State and was partially scattered over the Union, Massachusetts alone excepted. Slavery, like everything in creation, has certain great natural laws to obey, a natural fitness to which it is to be subjected. It is a striking fact that the peculiar adaptation of slavery had not forcibly presented itself to the minds of the people. Had Jefferson remained at home, instead of going abroad in 1785, it is highly probable that Virginia would have emancipated ; now (1858) nothing could induce it. In the same year, New York refused to emancipate; now, no inducement could restore slavery. It has been thus adjusted by its very nature. The negro slave belongs to, and requires a warm climate. The South suits him; agriculture better than any other pursuit; the 1790. * Hild. Hist., second series, vol. i. p. 175. 286 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY South held out inducements in its sunny clime and broad and smiling fields; the North being from necessity less agricul- tural, slavery obeyed but an inevitable law in gradually re- ceding; the North was to become the seat of manufactories and the emporium of commerce; these things were rapidly filling up the country with a dense population, which latter fact leads to the following conclusions in reference to slavery and population, the truth of which I will attest by history, that slavery recedes as population increases, and that it abates at about a certain density of population to the square mile. At no very distant day in the nation’s history, the density of population in the Southern States will occupy and’ bring under cultivation all the land of the country; those now scarcely capable of production, will be enriched, until only the necessary forest will be left untouched by the hand of enterprise and labor. When this point is reached, the price of labor, compared with the cost of living, will begin to fall. The tendency of man to multiply, his dependence upon the soil for subsistence, and the limited extent of the land, whilst population is limited only by the supply yielded from the soil, renders this result inevitable. Labor, as it increases in a country, is cheapened; it is given in exchange for less food or for inferior kind. It is a long time, perhaps, to look into the workings of the future; but in the progressive increase of population and the progressive declension of the price of labor, until the slave finally attains that condition in which it becomes a tax to rear and support him, it is a dim eye that cannot read the euthanasy of slavery. By reference to the sixth census, it is ascertained that the population of the slave States and Territories had an average of not quite twelve to the square mile, more than one-third of which are slaves. It cannot be accurately defined at what density of population slave labor will be unprofitable; for whilst I shall judge it comparatively with other countries, the productiveness of the soil, the climate, as well as the standard of comfort of the slave, are controlling elements in approx- imating the truth. In the European countries in which slavery was abolished, no motives are assigned, no religious scruples are proclaimed to the world; and where slavery is profitable they never exist. The conclusion must be, that it was abolished because no longer profitable. : A distinguished politico-economist of the present day, in OF THE UNITED STATES. 287 speaking of the abolition of villenage in England in 1690, at which time it had ceased to exist, estimates the population at ninety-two to the square mile. In Russia, where slavery exists, its population is twenty-five to the square mile; in those countries which have been free for years from slavery, the population is about one hundred and ten to the square mile; it is assumed that in England, a highly and perhaps the best cultivated country on the globe, villenage abated at about sixty-six to the square mile. In the United States, the abolition of slavery has taken place at a less density. In New Jersey it was only forty to the square mile, at which time it was thought the labor of the slaves did not much exceed the cost of subsistence. The author to whom allusion has been made, supposes from the abolition of slavery in the States where it has occurred, to be apt to take place at about fifty to the square mile, whilst it would not average that in the New England States.* As early as 1790, the power of Congress over slavery had been warmly debated in the House. In February of that year there came up from the annual meeting of the Penn- sylvania Quakers a petition, asking Congress if there was not some power the exercise of which “‘ must produce the aboli- tion of the slave-trade.”’ It was moved by Hartley to refer this petition to a special committee; this motion was supported by Madison, Parker, Page, and White, of Virginia; Lawrence, Sedgwick, Boudi- not, Sherman, and Gerry, likewise gave their warm support to the resolution. On the 12th of February, 1790, a petition, signed by Benjamin Franklin as president, came up from Pennsylvania, from what was called the Pennsylvania So- ciety, praying for the abolition of slavery. The signing of this petition was the last public act of a wise, good, and great man, who thought not, and could not have foreseen the folly of such a step. Franklin was a philosopher, whose fame is as imperishable as the roll of the thunder or the lightning upon the clouds; not a statesman, yet a patriot; and if departed spirits can be conscious of the extent to which this early effort has gone, it would receive no stronger anathema than from the breast of this departed sage. The petition of the Quakers was harmless, and a tax could be laid upon the slave imported, not exceeding ten dollars, * Progress of the United States, by George Tucker. 288 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY though the importation could not be prohibited prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. The petition which was signed by Franklin bore upon its face an abuse of slavery, talked about the equality of man and liberty, “the birth-right of all men.” The Quaker petition was warmly debated; Tucker’ and Burke contended that it was unconstitutional to meddle with slavery before 1808; Scott thought it constitutional, and he was violent against slavery. ‘1 look upon it,’ he said, “to be one of the most abominable things on earth, and if there were neither God nor devil, I should oppose it on principles of humanity and the law of nature. For my part, I cannot conceive how any person can be said to acquire a property in another.” Madison, Page, Gerry, and Boudinot advocated the com- mitment of the petition. Page and Madison, representing a large slave interest, were in favor of having a report from a committee, which might have the sanction of the House and the approval of the people. Page was a large slaveholder, yet he had sufficient confidence in Congress to sustain the Constitution, ‘and their disinclination to exercise any un- constitutional power.” Though Congress could not abolish the slave-trade, Madi- son thought they might countenance the abolition of the trafic. Gerry went to great extremes, contending even that Congress might purchase and liberate the entire slave popu- lation, and that with the means of the United States Treasury. When the question was-put to the vote of the House upon Hartley’s motion, it was decided by the yeas and nays in favor of a reference to a committee, by forty-three to eleven. Of those who voted in the negative, six were from Georgia and South Carolina, being all the delegation present from those States; two were from Virginia, two from Maryland, and one from New York; North Carolina was still unrepre- sented. It was referred to a special committee, consisting of one from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.* Much time was taken up by this committee, and after a month’s deliberation and delay, they presented a report to the fol- lowing effect :— Ist. That the General Government was expressly restrained, * Journal of Congress, 1790. OF THE UNITED STATES. 289 until the year 1808, from prohibiting the importation of any persons whom any of the existing States might until that time think proper to admit. 2d. That by a fair construction of the Constitution, Con- gress was equally restrained from interferring to emancipate slaves within the States, such slaves having been born there or having been imported within the period mentioned. 3d. That Congress had no power to interfere in the internal regulations of particular States relative to the instruction of slaves in the principles of morality and religion, to their com- fortable clothing, accommodation, and subsistence, to the regulation of marriages or the violation of marital rights, to the separation of children and parents, to a comfortable pro- vision in cases of age or infirmity, or to the seizure, trans- portation, and sale of free negroes; but entertained the fullest confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the State legisla- tures, that from time to time they would revise their laws and promote these and all other measures tending to the happi- ness of the slaves. 4th. That Congress had authority to levy a tax of ten dollars, should they see fit to exact it, upon every person imported under the special permission of any of the States. oth. That Congress had authority to interdict or to regu- late the African slave-trade, so far as it might be carried on by citizens of the United States for the supply of foreign countries; and also, to provide for the humane treatment of slaves while on their passage to any ports of the United States into which they might be admitted. 6th. That Congress had the right to prohibit foreigners from fitting out vessels in the United States to be employed in the supply of foreign countries with slaves from Africa. Tth. That Congress would exercise their authority to its full extent, to promote the humane objects aimed at in the Quakers’ memorial.* Here is a clear exposition of the views of the committee, and here they set the example of receiving abolition peti- tions,—certainly in reference to Franklin’s prayer, if not the Quaker memorial. Tucker was warmly opposed to this report, offermg as a substitute a refusal to take the memorial into consideration “as unconstitutional and tending to injure some of the States * Hild, Hist., vol. i. second series, p. 184. 290 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY of the Union.” This resolution, though it found some warm supporters, was declared out of order. Some of the most distinguished Southern members were decidedly opposed to this report; White and Moore, of Virginia, and Smith, of South Carolina, ably defended the South and the slave-trade. Slaves were required to cultivate our lands; a white laborer from the North required two dollars per day; this could not be given, and the plantations would be deserted. Baldwin thought the question ought not to be entertained, and all de- bate upon it was improper. Madison, cool, deliberate, and just as he always was, thought the report of the committee should be entered on the journals for the information of the public, and to quiet the fears of the South by showing that Congress claimed no power, and would exercise none, in re- ference to the prohibition of the importation of slaves before 1808, and never the power of manumission. The motion to enter the report upon the journal finally prevailed, by a vote of twenty-nine to twenty-five, and, as modified, it was thus entered :— “That the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, can- not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808. “That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy require. ‘That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African slave-trade for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by proper regulations for their humane treatment, during their passage, of slaves imported by said citizens into said States admitting such importation. “‘That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners from fitting out vessels in any port of the United States for transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port.” This was the first introduction into Congress of the slavery question, and it thus terminated for a time. It was not even at that period free from sectional feeling, but the debates were conducted with a decorum and dignity that should teach a high moral and practical lesson to the fanatics of the present day. It is a striking feature in this debate, and in the his- tory of this report, that mild and constitutional and conser- OF THE UNITED STATES. 291 vative as it is, clearly declaring that Congress had no power to interfere with slavery in the States, and none to prohibit the slave-trade by the States, that the most animated opposi- tion should have sprung from the South. It was South Caro- lina and Georgia that constituted the Southern opposition, with the addition of North Carolina, which still admitted the importation of slaves. A majority of the representation of Virginia and Maryland, though firm in their devotion to the South, voted for the report. Virginia was an advocate of the abolition of the slave-trade; many of her citizens favored eman- cipation; and whilst Virginia is more unanimous for slavery now than at the time of the debate upon this report, yet it is not true that she ever ‘leaned to anti-slavery views’ when brought in conflict with the rights of the State, or when she supposed that there was to be an unconstitutional exercise of the powers of Congress over this her cherished institution.* From the date of this report, (in March, 1790,) a calm was given to the slavery question, which remained until 1804, at which time we find the existence of those abominable pests, “Societies for the promotion of the abolition of slavery,” pressing their petitions before Congress. Louisiana had but recently been added to the family of the States, when, in 1804, in the early part of the session of Congress, one of the Pennsylvania societies, with constant pretences for the welfare of the African, was found puling at the door of Congress Hall asking the prohibition of slavery in the newly-acquired territory. They had seen the proceedings of a meeting of the people held at Vincennes, the object of which was to obtain a sus- pension of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery’ north of the Ohio. The memorial was, in the first instance, referred to a com- mittee, consisting of , at the head of which was John Randolph. This committee considered it dangerous and in- expedient to impair a provision, in their own words, “wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country ;” expressing their belief ‘in the salu- tary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, the inhabitants of Indiana would at no distant day find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and immi- gration.” * Hild. Hist., second series, vol. i. p. 204. 292 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 1804. The memorial just alluded to in reference to the extension of slavery in the newly-acquired territory, which was applicable to Louisiana, was at the next session referred to the committee on the government of that territory, of which Rodney was chairman. When the act was passed organizing the Territory of Orleans, a provision was inserted prohibiting slaves to be carried into that Territory, except by citizens from the United States moving into the Territory as actual and permanent settlers; but this provision did not ex- tend to negroes introduced into the United States since 1798, the object of which provision was to counteract the effect of an act passed by the South Carolina Legislature to revive the slave-trade. The committee, of which Rodney was chairman, reported in favor of a suspension of the prohibition of the introduction of slavery into the newly-acquired territory for ten years; but Congress took no action upon it. With the resolution of Bard, a delegate from Pennsylvania, and the debate on it, closed for a season the attention of Con- gress in reference to a question always producing excitement and touching deeply the interest as well as the most delicate sensibilities of a large portion of the Southern delegation. In addition to the restriction upon slaves in reference to Louisiana, Bard moved a tax of ten dollars upon all slaves imported. The resolution was brought before the Committee of the Whole. Lowndes, of South Carolina, opposed the motion, though he regretted the step his State had taken. Bard defended the resolution as constitutional, and thought it was designed to operate, and would operate, as special legislation; it was still contended that it was a legitimate source of reve- nue; since the slave-trade made men articles of traffic, they were subject to impost like any article of merchandise. Na- thaniel Mason, a wise man and always exercising a large in- fluence, opposed the motion; he thought it was an effort on the part of the Government to correct a State for the un- doubted exercise of its rights. As this debate progressed it elicited the talent of Southard and Mitchell, of New Jersey, Smilie, Lucas, and others,—Pennsylvania always furnishing a large corps of anti-slavery speakers. Griswold, the veteran leader of the Federal party, opposed it upon the old ground taken by Ames and Sherman, that it would legalize the African slave-trade. Randolph preserved OF THE UNITED STATES. 293 a studious silence, though the talented and distinguished son- in-law of the President, John W. Eppes, gave the resolution his warmest support. The bill of Bard, with a majority in its favor, was twice read and referred to the Committee of the Whole; yet no further action was ever taken on it, and it was allowed to die away without notice or honor.* I have taken a retrospective view of the slavery question in order to present its full history, as well as the development of the party that we will see has founded an existence upon it, and the manner and reasons of its being almost strictly geographical. It was a slight divergence, yet to maintain the continuity of the subject and its importance, will be my only excuse. In recurring to the period at which I digressed, the most important, excitive, and interesting question was the trial of Aaron Burr for high treason. A personal sketch of this re- markable man, with the varied incidents of a long and eventful life, presents to the reader one of the most striking, and often the most offensive, characters ever exhibited by American his- tory. Descended from enlightened, virtuous, and refined parents and grandparents, with every opportunity for moral and religious culture, the world was the more astonished at the fall and degradation that overwhelmed the son of science and genius. He studied well at school and exhibited great facility in mastering his lessons, yet an early waywardness seized upon his boyish imagination, and at ten years of age he was caught as a cabin-boy on an outward-bound vessel, whither he had escaped for the purpose of taking a sea voyage. He always exhibited talent, though the seeds of vice were soon germinating in his youthful bosom; even his latter col- legiate years were given to vice and dissipation. The breaking out of the Revolution and the flow of Ame- rican blood on the field of Lexington, aroused the ardent temper of Burr; and, despite the urgent remonstrances of his guardian, he joined the army. He was with Arnold in his thirty-two days’ march across the wilderness, when on his way to Chaudiere Pond, in Canada. He afterwards joined the detachment under Montgomery and became his aid; was with that gallant champion when he fell at the siege of Quebec, in the front ranks of the army, and near his general. The * Hild. Hist., vol. ii. p. 504; Journ. Cong., 1804. 294 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY death of Montgomery gave Arnold the temporary command- in-chief of the army near Quebec, and Burr, only seventeen years of age, was called to perform the duties of brigade- major. He disagreed with Arnold and joined the army under Washington; he became a member of his military family, Washington, it appears, never gave Burr his confidence, and before the voice of impeachment against his fidelity. or virtue had ever been raised, had lost all confidence in him. It would exceed the limits of this work to enter minutely into the biography of this man. After frequent displays of valor and skill on the field of battle, he retired from the army. He studied law, was admitted to the bar, appointed Attorney- General of the State of New York by Governor Clinton, against whom he voted, elected to the State Senate, then the © Senate of the United States, the judgeship of the Supreme Court tendered and refused; and all this eminence attained, this talent displayed and known from one end of the land to the other, before he had reached his thirty-sixth year. The Presidential election of 1800, which was carried to the House of Representatives, the long and bitter contest between the friends of Jefferson and Burr, when it was palpably known that Burr’s friends designed, in the nomination and election of the latter, that he should occupy the chair of the Vice- Presidency, proved the commencement of the fall of this man, whose career had been so brilliant, and against whom the talent and virtue of the country struggled arduously and ar- dently to suppress; and that with the greatest difficulty, if not a mere accident, which placed him in a minority of only one, and that against Thomas Jefferson. Had this result been different, had the great choice of the people been de- feated by the House of Representatives, had Thomas Jeffer- son been consigned to the inert position of Vice-President, and Aaron Burr made President of the United States, a shock would have occurred to the institutions of this country which would have marred the bright and prosperous picture we present; even at this date as the reflection of Jefferson’s administration exhibits to the world a nation of freemen long crippled and cramped in every human exertion for liberty. No man occupied a more prominent position before the public than Burr, and he would have been the successor of Thomas Jefferson, had not the star of his destiny taken a downward turn from the moment of his election as Vice- President. Doubtlessly, the integrity of Burr had been sus- OF THE UNITED STATES. 295 pected long before. Washington had lost confidence in him at an early day. Seeing, as he clearly must have seen, that he was rapidly losing the dignified position he had occupied with his party, he commenced that system of intrigue with the Federal party, for the purpose of supplanting Jefferson, which began to open the eyes of honest men. He was the object of increasing hatred to the virtuous portion of his own party, and equally despised by the honest Federalists. He saw the effort that would be made, and was ultimately successfully done, to sup- plant him at home. The Livingstons and Clintons, with the talent and virtue of Alexander Hamilton, whose name always calls to mind the dark stain of manslaughter that indelibly marks the name and character of Aaron Burr, were all justly combined against him. The unfortunate man, hemmed in on every side, with a combination of wealth, virtue, and talent against him, extending from the President and Government patronage down to the plain and honest yeoman, sunk with the rapidity of a falling star,—broken in fortune, crushed in hopes, and destitute of friends and character. Thrown thus destitute upon a scrutinizing world, abandoned and undone, he fell an easy, and it may be said, a natural vic- tim to every base and evil passion and habit. The treasonable designs which occupied several years of Burr’s life, spent mostly in the Western States, where he had once been arrested and discharged, led ultimately to his arrest, along with Generals Adair and Dayton, Blennerhas- sett, Swartwout, Alexander, Smith, Ballman, Ogden, and others. Burr and Blennerhassett alone were brought to trial. After much delay, unavoidable in criminal trials, the mitiatory steps in this cause commenced on the 22d of May, 1807, before the Circuit Court of the United States, in the City of Richmond, John Marshall, the distinguished Chief-Justice of the United States, presiding. The prisoner and several of his associates were pronounced by the grand jury guilty of treason. He was committed to prison, but upon the urgent representation of counsel, that the common jail was destruc- tive of the health of the prisoner, he was allowed to occupy the rooms he had been using in the penitentiary, and was placed under guard. On the 3d day of August, the court having adjourned to that day, commenced the trial of Aaron Burr before a jury of his countrymen, which continued until the last day of the month, when he was acquitted of high 296 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY treason. The great effort of Burr’s counsel was the impeach- ment of the testimony of Eaton and Wilkinson; insisting, in respect to Wilkinson, that he was a confederate of Burr, who had betrayed his undertaking with the hope of securing him- self from a public prosecution. With a view to injure to a still greater extent the honor and integrity of Wilkinson, it was also insisted that he had been a Spanish pensioner, and en- gaged many years in intrigues against the Union. It was caught at by the Federal newspapers and indus- triously circulated throughout the land. John Randolph, in his bitterness, introduced it into Congress, whose perseverance and obstinacy ultimately resulted in an investigation by Con- gress, and the honorable acquittal of General Wilkinson. The evidence having closed, after a long and tedious inves- tigation, the argument of counsel commenced; it was able and eloquent. Hay, the attorney for the District, was assisted by the eloquent and gifted William Wirt; whilst Luther Martin and John Wickham, alike distinguished for learning and talent, conducted the defence. Burr was finally acquitted. He had no doubt digested his plan of treason; but the cunning and caution of the prisoner, so confused and secret were his doings and motives, that the testimony utterly failed to convict him even of a misdemeanor, for which he was afterwards put on his trial. It was the opinion of the court, that the assemblage on Blennerhassett’s Island was not a military array in the sense in which it would apply if treason was proven. Thirty or forty men had been seen there and with arms; it was no more a military organization than had often accidentally met on the same island, consisting of boatmen, on the Ohio; or had it been a military array, there was no proof that Burr or Blennerhassett had ever any connection with it. Conse- quently the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the indictments for treason which had been found against Blen- nerhassett, Dayton, Smith, Tyler, and Floyd, were dismissed. Burr and Blennerhassett were committed to be tried after- wards in the District of Ohio, for projecting a military ex- cursion against the Spanish Provinces; they were held to bail in the sum of three thousand dollars each, which they forfeited. Burr soon afterwards withdrew himself from the country, and quiet ensued; the nation was freed from the efforts of treason which had been scattered over the country from one end to the other, as annoying to the people as piracy OF THE UNITED STATES. 297 upon the high seas is to the honest sailor. It is somewhat ' remarkable, but it exhibits the cunning of all concerned in this strange enterprise, that the only man punished among the many brought to trial on account of the conspiracy, was a comparatively humble person named Floyd, who was tried in the Territory of Indiana and found guilty of a misdemeanor. No single event in one man’s life ever occasioned more excitement or attracted more public notice than the trial of Burr; he had occupied a position before the American people surpassed by no one; he had won a popularity in the camp, upon the husting, and at the forum, which no man could excel, and it was sustained by an energy and a genius scarcely ever equaled, and capable of any social, political, or military emergency that could arise. He returned from Europe, having failed to ingratiate him- self with Napoleon, who looked upon him as an English spy; discarded in a great measure by the virtuous of England, he reached his native shore to die in poverty, largely in debt, rejected by his own people and former companions, and utterly destroyed in every human hope and manly aspiration. Treason is fully and clearly defined in the Constitution of the United States, “which shall consist only in levying war against them (the United States,) or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” There cannot be a conviction unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. By the act of the 30th of April, 1790, it was enacted,— “Tf any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall ad- here to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, within the United States or elsewhere, and shall be thereof con- victed on confession in open court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he, she, or they shall stand indicted; such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death.” tke, The term levying war, used in the Constitution as well as in the statute, is technical; it was borrowed from the English law, having the same meaning as when used in the Statute 25 Edw. III., comprehending as well those who create or raise war, as those who make it or carry it on.* A conspi- * United States v. Burr, 4 Cranch, p. 471; U. 8. v. Fries—Trial, p. 167. Vor. IL—20 298 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY racy to levy war is not treason.* A secret unarmed meeting of conspirators, is not treason, if not in force or warlike form, though assembled with a treasonable purpose; nor the actual enlistment of men to serve against the Government, but high misdemeanors, and punishable in such manner ag Congress may provide. In respect to those who are to be considered levying war, all persons leagued in the conspiracy who bear arms, and those who bear the various and essential parts of prosecuting the war, which must be assigned to different persons, may all be said to levy war.t It has been decided that the words “owing allegiance to the United States’ embraced in the statute, are mere surplusage, not affecting the sense in the slightest degree; treason is a breach of allegiance and can only be committed by one owing allegiance, either perpetual or temporary.§ Any combination to subvert, by force, the Government of the United States; violently to dismember the Union; to compel a change in the Administration ; to coerce the repeal -or adoption of a general law, or to revolutionize a Territorial government by force, although this be merely a step to or a means of executing some greater projects, is a conspiracy to levy war; and if the conspiracy be carried into effect by embodying and assembling men in force and in a military posture for the purpose of executing the design, it is treason by levying war.|| It has been decided, however, if the intention of such con- spiracy be merely to defeat the operation of a law in a par- ticular instance, or through the agency of a particular officer, from some private or personal motive, though it is a high offence, it is not treason.J Without pursuing the details of this subject with greater minuteness, it must be a source of great satisfaction to the American reader to reflect, that treason and treasonable designs are of the rarest occurrence with us, and the con- summation of such purposes utterly impossible. In mo- narchical Governments, the throne is sustained by wealth, * United States v. Burr, 4 Cranch, pp. 471, 472. t 4 Cranch, pp. 126, 486. { United States v. Burr, 4 Cranch, pp. 472, 478, 502. @ United States v, Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., p. 97. || United States v. Burr, 4 Cranch, p. 483. Fries’s Trial, charge of Iredell, J. OF THE UNITED STATES. 299 which in its turn employs the sword; and it requires a vigilant eye and a well-nerved arm to suppress the virtue, intellect, and moral rights of the subject. Here the foundation of the Government rests upon the affections, loyalty, and admiration of all classes, the rich, the poor, the enlightened, and the illiterate; whilst each citizen holds himself on the alert to catch the slightest breath of treason that may be wafted over the land, that he who utters it may receive the condemnation of the law. The exigencies of the times, the impending dif- ficulties with England and France, and the embar- rassments likely to gather around the Executive, were the causes of the convocation of Congress, at an earlier day than usual, by the President of the United States. The President submitted his Message on the 27th of October; Jefferson, with his characteristic prudence and caution, makes no specific recommendation in this Message. He called the attention of Congress to the effort which had been made by our Ministers to effect a liberal and honorable treaty with the English Ministers; that the commissioners, after failing in their purpose to obtain arrangements within the limits of their instructions, signed such as could be obtained, and transmitted them for consideration. The treaty fell so far below every right that might have been expected, that the President decided at once not to submit it to the Senate; he had re- ceived it but the day before Congress adjourned from the hands of Mr. Erskine, the British Minister. The President was much censured for rejecting the treaty without sending it to the Senate; the Federal party were of course loud in their clamor against him, and it was much regretted by the commercial community. Yet, upon reflection, it would seem that Jefferson did right; his object was to prolong the nego- tiation. The treaty had the insuperable objections of con- taining no provision upon the subject of impressment, but was accompanied by a note from the British Minister, reserv- ing to his Government the right of releasing itself from the stipulations in favor of neutral rights, if the United States submitted to the Berlin decree or other invasion of those rights by France. The treaty was no better than that negotiated by Jay, and the President could not have done otherwise than reject it. It-was simply a matter of discretion and right which he had, to submit the treaty to the Senate or not. This course had an injurious impression upon the Bri- 1807. 300 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY tish Government, as indicative of a disposition to prolong the existing difficulties. The matters in controversy were referred back to the Ministers. ‘‘On this new reference to amicable discussion, we were reposing-in confidence, when, on the 22d day of June last, by a formal order from the British Admi- ral, the frigate Chesapeake, leaving her port for distant ser- vice, was attacked by one of those vessels which had been lying in our harbors under the indulgences of hospitality, was disabled from proceeding, and had several of her crew killed.’’* As soon as the news of the capture of the Chesapeake reached the Executive ear, he ordered, by proclamation, our harbors and waters to be closed to all British armed vessels; an armed vessel of the United States was dispatched with instructions to our Ministers to call on the Government at London for the satisfaction required by such an outrage. Canning, who entered the British Ministry on the death of Fox as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, disavowed the act in reference to the Chesapeake, tendered reparation, and issued an order recalling Berkeley from his command.{ Thus far the prospects of a speedy adjustment of our dif- ficulties wore a smiling aspect, though England refused to grant that which a just and liberal policy demanded; and when the question of impressment was brought up in connec- tion with the outrage upon the Chesapeake, we were reptilsed for endeavoring to connect the two questions; the former they considered an unquestionable British right and would not negotiate upon it, the latter they would make reparation for. The President, satisfied that he was right, would not abate one jot or tittle of the right to stop the impressment of our citizens. The English Government, with much assumption and in the very face of international as well as moral right, issued its proclamation, calling on all British mariners em- ployed in the service of foreign nations to return home, and all commanders of ships of war were authorized to seize and bring away from foreign merchant-vessels all British mari- ners; all who were found serving on foreign ships of war were to be demanded, and if not returned, the commanders of vessels were to report to the British Minister resident at * Message of October 27th, 1807. + Amer. State Papers, vol. vi., and Cor. of Monroe and Pinckney. OF THE UNITED STATES, 3801 the Court of the nation whose flag floated over the refusing ship. This proclamation was justly objected to by Monroe; yet he received the repulsive reply that it was in obedience to the established law of England. Monroe came home, leaving Pinckney in London as resident Minister. Previous to his departure, the British Minister had made a final reply to the proposition to open negotiations upon the basis of the treaty which Jefferson had rejected. Can- ning protested against the course the President had pursued with the late treaty, which had been signed by the contracting parties and sent to Washington for ratification. He would not proceed with the negotiation upon the basis of the treaty which had been rejected.* Thus was wasted upon the haughty arrogance of England every fair and honorable effort to avert ghe war which fol- lowed. The peaceful relations which ought to have existed were interrupted by the domineering course of that Govern- ment from whom we had wrenched our liberties, but who appeared unwilling to extend to us those principles of high national right which belonged to us as a nation; and whilst sternly refusing the simple acknowledgment of rights insepa- rable from American liberty, little did the British cabinet think they were trying to extinguish those principles of civil liberty which, though they would not recognize as even true or just, were soon destined not only to a world-wide homage, but to an immortal vitality. Not only will the principles of free government exist as long as man will hold his habitation on earth, but those principles of international right, rescued from the iron hand of England, will flourish over the earth in undying youth long after the English throne shall have crumbled to the dust. It was our aim, as it has been our policy, to steer clear of the entangling relations then existing in Europe. We were placed geographically beyond the reach or policy of European affairs; peace evidently was the great object with us; we were a young and vigorous people, designed at that time to till the soul, to build up a navy, and reap the bountiful results of a commerce that should ride over every sea, with a trade that should reach the ports of the world. Had not this war, which was fast approaching, been fastened upon us by the very first 1807. * Amer. State Papers, vol. vi.; Hild. Hist. of the U. S., second series, vol. ii. p. 684. 302 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY law of human nature, obstructed for a season the bright path we were pursuing to unbounded commercial wealth, the mag- nificent position we would have occupied would, at an earlier day, have dazzled the eyes of the world. As it happened, we were forced to fight England or submit to degradations that would have ended only with our extine- tion as a nation. But I will not anticipate the periods and events which are yet before me, and are to be approached through the many trials and storms that gathered around the vessel of State. The commerce of the country, and its financial operations, had been conducted with great skill and talent, and commands our especial admiration, when it is remembered how many interruptions and vexatious harassments beset it on every side. i When the President communicated his Annual Message of the 27th of October, 1807, the receipts of the Government had amounted to nearly sixteen millions of dollars, which, added to the five millions and a half in the Treasury at the beginning of the year, enabled the Government, after meeting its current demands and paying interest on its debts, to pay more than four millions of the funded debt. These payments, with those made in the five years pre- ceding, had extinguished twenty-five and a half millions of the funded debt, which was the whole that could be paid or purchased within the limits of the law and our contracts; and which left us in the Treasury eight millions and a half of dollars.* It is painful to turn from the bright picture of commercial wealth and power, which would have rapidly flowed over the land, to the devastation which was spreading throughout the fairest portions of Europe. The Executive did all that pru- dence and skill could require to avert the storm from pouring a portion of its fury upon our own land, but it was in vain. The mind of man is astonished and distressed, as he looks across the troubled waters and beholds the dreadful carnage, and the destructive influences of European war and bloodshed, at this period. After the treaty of peace, which had been negotiated by Jay, our shipping interest received scarcely an impediment. European warfare had enriched our merchant- men beyond example. It was a national millennium, which * Jefferson's Seventh Annual Message, Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 203. OF THE UNITED STATES. 3803 continued until about the year 1804, when those violent flames of war, which the peace of Amiens had smothered for a sea- son, broke forth with an inveteracy which shook the old thrones of Europe to their very centre. Britain alone seemed to stand unsubdued amidst the mighty conquest of Napoleon; and it was this man who made the first encroachments upon neutral rights. It was on the 21st of November, 1806, that Napoleon defeated the Prussians, and from the capital of their king- dom, from the very walls of the royal palace, issued his Ber- lin decree, declaring the British Isles in a state of blockade, subjecting every American or neutral vessel of other nations going or coming from those isles, to capture. It further declared merchandise coming from England or its Colonies, belonging to neutrals, to be lawful prize on land. Our Minister at Paris regarded the Berlin decree as inap- plicable to us, being grossly violative of the existing treaty between the United States and France. But, in 1807, General Armstrong was informed by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs of the condemnation of American vessels. A bold and reckless spirit, utterly careless of right and justice, had occupied the cabinets of Europe, and that of England was not exempt from the violence of the fever. On the 11th of November, 1807, the well-remembered orders in council were issued, the object of which was to destroy all direct trade from America to any port of Europe at war with Great Britain, or which excluded the British flag; or if the merchants of America or other neutrals chose to pay ex- orbitant tribute to England, this haughty Leviathan of the deep allowed goods to be landed, required a heavy duty to be paid, and then permitted them to be reshipped to other parts of the globe. Napoleon, increasing in wrath not only towards England, and wishing to destroy her commerce, but aiming a still more effective injury towards the United States, issued from the royal palace at Milan, on the 17th day of December, 1807, his famous Milan decree, which not only declared the British Islands in a state of blockade both by sea and land, but every ship sailing from English ports as good and lawful prize, and liable to capture by the French ships-of-war or privateers.*” This, in the language of the decree, done “only in just retaliation of the barbarous system adopted by England, * American State Papers, vol. vi. p. 471. 804 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY which assimilates its legislation to that of Algiers, shall cease to have any effect with respect to all nations who shall have the firmness to compel the English Government to respect their flag.” France at this period held no sway on the ocean; even her fleets had been transferred to her powerful and victorious rival; she could scarcely preserve a single cruiser against the unrivaled discipline of the British navy, and in this respect she could only wage a combat of decrees. It is evident that both England and France not only assumed an attitude the most inimical towards the United States, but that England burned with a jealous rage because the United States had delayed so long resistance to the feeble marine of France; whilst France was equally enraged that we, as neutrals, had so patiently suffered the encroachments of England. Both continued their depredations, and were each anxious that we should be embroiled in war with the other. England continued more aggressive and constantly added to the many causes of irritation which she had imposed upon us, by the insufferable custom of searching our vessels and impressing therefrom American as well as British sea- men,—a practice against the free principles of her own constitution; against a just, liberal, and enlightened inter- national policy; barbarous even beyond example, and cer- tainly incompatible with the dignity of the liberty of America. Added to all these, was the climax of audacity and insult in .the affair of the Chesapeake on the 22d of June, of which mention has been made. In the midst of all this difficulty, when every vessel of the United States seemed doomed to the avarice of France or the rapacity of England, when public indignation was lashed to its highest fury, and an insulted nation panted ardently for the contest,—and that with England, the greatest of- fender,—the President sent to Congress, on the 18th day of December, 1807, a special and confidential message, recom- mending an embargo on all vessels of the United ‘States. It was only one day after the Milan de- cree,—of which Jefferson, of course, had not heard; nor did he make mention of the British orders in council, which had been issued on the 11th of November preceding; yet there is no doubt, but that he had been apprised of them through an authentic private channel; as we are informed by Tucker, 1807. OF THE UNITED STATES. 805 in his life of Jefferson, and upon the authority of the Secre- tary of State.* This subject was immediately brought under discussion in both Houses of Congress. A bill was passed on the day of its first introduction in the Senate, in obedience to the recom- mendation of the President, by a vote of 22 to 6. It was discussed in both Houses in secret session, and on Monday, the 22d of December, at eleven o'clock, it passed the House by a vote of 82 to 44. The bill prohibited all American vessels from sailing from foreign ports, all foreign vessels from taking out cargoes, and all coasting vessels were required to give bond to land their cargoes in the United States. Many American statesmen, as well as a large party in the United States, were violently opposed to this measure; Ran- dolph denounced it with much bitterness as the “Iliad of all our woes.” It was evidently designed as a coercive measure to restore amicable relations with England, and she suffered much; but it fell with greater violence upon the commerce of the United States. It failed in its primary object, though Canning urged its repeal. It was a kind of retaliation not only unmanly, but unworthy a strong and growing nation. If England had given us cause for war, and it could-not be removed, we should have gone into the contest with an energy and boldness characteristic of our people; with a force that would have shivered the trident in her grasp, and made her very throne tremble from the shock. It was unjust to our own commercial people. Permit no shackles upon trade; let our merchants encounter the risk and dangers of the sea; if profitable, they would have clung to it, even beneath the guns of England; the moment it ceased to be a source of profit, that moment all trade with foreign nations would have ended. It ruined for a season, a commerce that had given em- ployment to a million and a half tons of navigation, and occupation for hundreds of thousands of our citizens, and had spread wealth and prosperity throughout the land. We were confined to a coasting trade between the States; the noblest of our ships that traversed the ocean were thrown upon the hands of our merchants as worthless lumber; the * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 249. } Ibid.; Journal of Congress—Session 1807-8. 3806 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY plentiful products of a generous soil wasted and decayed on the hands of the agriculturists; the comforts of life which we had been accustomed to gather abroad were cut off; the scarcity of apparel was but inadequately relieved by the feeble efforts of domestic manufacture, for which we were un- fit, and which in no possible necessity was or could be suited to our interests; and if its origin be traceable to an unavoid- able necessity, its injury at the time was very great, and has been considered by some statesmen the nucleus of that prin- ciple which has in later times diverted or seduced the energies of our people from the cultivation of the land, and ploughing every wave of the ocean with the rich freights of a boundless commerce, into a system of manufacturing, which fattened only under the wing of sectional legislation. If we consider it a trial between the two nations which could endure the evil the longest, the result must be more favorable to Great Bri- tain, inasmuch as we deprived her only of our own trade, whilst we endured the deprivation of the trade of the world. A protracted and exceedingly diplomatic correspondence, especially on the part of England, was entered into between the Ministers of the two countries, in reference to the storms that were gathering around us; which terminated for the present with a communication from Erskine to the Secretary of State. This communication contained a copy of the British orders in council of which so much has been said. Written with that skill and adroitness which so eminently belonged to Erskine, he yet failed in his effort to convince that the great system of retaliation which at that time marked the inter- national course of England was aimed at France, and not us. He boldly maintains, as belonging of right to Britain, to issue her orders in council; yet he was commanded by his King “especially to represent to the Government of the United States the earnest desire of his Majesty to see the commerce of the world restored once more to that freedom which is necessary for its prosperity, and his readiness to abandon the system which has been forced upon him, whenever the enemy shall retract the principles which have rendered it necessary.’* The true intent of the spirit of the understanding of this voluminous correspondence will be fully appreciated by re- ference to the report of the Senate, made through the chatr- 1808. * American State Papers by Wait, vol. vi. p. 476. OF THE UNITED STATES. 307 man of the committee, Mr. Anderson, to which the papers had been referred. This report was made April 16, 1808. “It recapitulated the outrages which England had inflicted upon us, which amounted to impressment from American ves- sels on various and repeated occasions; the numerous orders in council and decrees for blockades. There were many decrees and acts of the French Government from which much injury and outrage had been imposed upon our commerce; whilst England was more aggressive than France, yet the committee forebore to enter into a compari- tive view of the proceedings of the different belligerent powers. France had been guilty of many seizures of our cargoes upon the high seas, but had never asserted or main- tained the doctrine of impressment, or the right of search. In reviewing the different ways of redress which were open to the United States, this committee enumerates,—a protec- tion of commerce by ships of war; a protection of it by self- armed vessels; a war of offence as well as of defence; a general suppression of foreign commerce; an embargo on our vessels, marines, and merchandise. The last was the one which had been adopted, and was highly sustained by the report of the committee and also in the Senate, and recom- mends a continuance of the embargo as the best policy to secure the blessing of peace.* Opposition out of the halls of Congress continued to in- crease more and more, as the pressure was more and more felt. Unfortunately, it was the source of unbounded fraud and corruption; Eastport, in Maine, and St. Mary’s, in Georgia, each on the frontier, the one communicating with the British territory of New Brunswick, the other with the Spanish territory of Florida, were great store-houses for the smuggling trade with the West Indies and other markets. The attention of Congress was soon excited to arrest this and many other invasions of the embargo laws. It resulted in a third supplementary embargo act, requiring all lake, river, and bay crafts to clear in due form, like sea-vessels, to fur- nish the collectors with manifests of their cargoes, and also with proof, in two months afterwards, that the same had been reloaded in the United States. Sea-vessels could take no cargo except under the inspection of a custom-house officer; collectors could seize and detain suspected vessels; the special 1808. * Wait’s State Papers, vol. vi. p. 481. 308 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY: permission of the President was necessary to grant clearances to ports adjacent to foreign territories; unusual quantities of produce and merchandise in such ports were liable to seizure and detention, until the owners could give bonds not to carry them out of the United States; foreign vessels could not enter the coasting trade; the penalties were largely increased, and even gun-boats were furnished for searching and seizing all suspected vessels. The President, who had imbibed too strong a love for the embargo as a retaliative measure, and with the exercise of a rather doubtful authority, issued orders to the collectors of the customs not only to detain suspicious vessels, but to grant no clearances to vessels laden with flour. Massachu- setts and other States who had to import flour, were com- pelled to rely upon the permit which their governors could give other vessels to enter their ports, or authority to special individuals. An effort was made to put a similar restriction upon the rice of South Carolina; but Johnson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, (appointed to the judgeship by Jeffer- son,) with a proper appreciation of the right and dignity of his State, though he occupied a place which is but too often supposed to be a Golgotha for State rights, issued his man- damus to the officer to grant clearances.* It is manifest that the injury and deprivation was alarming and even distressing to many portions of the Union in heing deprived of the entire export trade of the country, and whilst opposition was intense, it is surprising how the President, with the influence of his Secretary of State, succeeded in fastening this measure upon the country; and nothing but the great executive influence of Jefferson and his leading cabinet min- ister Madison, could have given it the vitality it possessed. John Quincy Adams made a motion in the Senate to in- quire how soon the embargo might be repealed; but it was summarily rejected. The President had a large majority on the floor of Con- gress, where much zeal was exhibited in behalf of the embargo. In the State legislatures the Administration had strong sup- porters. The legislatures of Virginia, Maryland, and, what was somewhat more singular, Pennsylvania and Massachu- setts, approved the embargo by strong resolutions; and it * Hild. Hist. of the U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 70. OF THE UNITED STATES. 309 was sustained in the agricultural States, though under its operation wheat had fallen from two dollars a hushel to seventy cents. On the 7th of November, 1808, Congress assembled, the time being appointed at the last session. On the next day Jefferson transmitted to both Houses his Eighth and last Annual Message. Congress had convened under that state of excitement which had begun to pervade and agitate the public mind to the very highest grade. The Message of the President re- lated chiefly to the foreign affairs of the country in connection with the belligerent nations of Europe, whose disregard of neutral rights had been so destructive to our commerce. France and England had exhibited a disposition to have the American ports opened to their commerce, having pledged their readiness to renounce the destructive policy they had been pursuing; whereupon the President, under the authority vested by the act laying an embargo, would have immediately suspended it. The President informs Congress of the failure of the arrangement, and submits to its wisdom and discretion the proper steps to be taken which the crisis demanded. Whilst the Message regrets the injury done our commerce by the restrictive system, it also makes allusion to the benefits likely to become permanent, resulting from domestic manu- factories. The accounts from the Treasury though not fully made up, exhibit, up to the year ending the 30th of September, the receipt of nearly eighteen millions of dollars, which, with eight millions and a half at the beginning of the year, enabled the Government, after meeting the expenses of the current year, to pay two million three hundred thousand dol- lars of the funded debt, with a balance of fourteen millions in the Treasury. The reader will observe in referring to this Message, that Thomas Jefferson,—the very embodiment of strict construction,—recommends that the surplus revenue, instead of being reduced to the standard wants of the Govern- ment, should be retained and expended in “the improvements of roads, canals, rivers, education, and other great founda- tions of prosperity and union, under the powers which Con- gress may already possess, or such amendments to the Con- stitution as may be approved by the States.” On the 11th of November, so much of the Pre- — jgog. sident’s Message as respected our foreign relations 310 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY was referred to the appropriate committee of the House, of which Campbell, was chairman. This report, which was said to bear the impress of the combined talent of Jefferson and Madison, was received by the House as a reflection of the Executive will.* It is an able, manly, and efficient review of the protracted and multiplied injuries which had been inflicted upon us; but at the same time it clearly acknow- ledges that a permanent suspension of commerce, after fre- quent and unavailing efforts to obtain peace, would not properly be resistance. It would be an abandonment of our indisputable right to navigate the ocean.t It was advised to maintain the embargo a while longer with the hope of induc- ing the belligerents to abandon their policy; but, after all, the true and real means of resistance was war. Yet it was not compatible with our condition or inclination to encounter both England and France. The report recommended,— 1st. That the United States could not, without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late edicts of France and Great Britain. 2d. That it was expedient to prohibit the admission of either the ships or merchandise of those belligerents into the ports of the United States. 3d. That the country ought immediately to be placed in a state of defence. It was on the same day that Campbell’s report and reso- lutions were introduced into the House that an animated and able debate occurred in the Senate on a resolution offered by Hillhouse for a repeal of the embargo, which was sustained by Lloyd and Pickering from Massachusetts, as well as by White, the Senator from Delaware. The Ad- ministration was sustained by Giles and Moore, of Virginia, Mitchell, of New York, Smith, of Maryland, Pope, of Ken- tucky, and Crawford, of Georgia. After ten days’ debate, the resolution offered by Hillhouse was rejected by a vote of 25 to 6. On the 28th of November, the discussion in the House was opened by a speech from Campbell, which was very much a rehearsal from his report as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. 1808. * Hild. Hist. of the U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 96; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 261. + Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Nov. 22, 1808; Amer. Stat. Papers, vol. vii. p. 75. OF THE UNITED STATES. 311 The embargo encountered an able opposition from the Federalists, whose leader on this occasion was that distin- guished debater Josiah Quincy; the champion of the opposi- tion, though not of the Federal party, was John Randolph, who delivered several speeches which rank among the ablest and most brilliant of his life. The reader may easily apprehend the spirit which moved the Administration, as well as the ground upon which the Federal ‘party stood, enlisting in opposition to the embargo some coadjutors who despised in other respects all affiliation with them, and most conspicuously among whom will be found the undying name of Randolph, of Roanoke. As was contended by Quincy, the decrees of France pro- hibited our trading with Great Britain; whilst the orders of the latter would prevent our trading with France, and our embargo, in direct subserviency to both, prohibited our trading with either. It was an effort on the part of England and France to destroy the trade of each, and we were sustaining either the oppressive policy of Napoleon or the avarice of England, and in doing so it was the destruction of the trade of our countrymen. It was chiefly opposed by New England men, because commerce was (as it 1s now) not only associated with all their feelings, and habits, and interests, but the nature of their soil, of their coasts, the state of their population, and the mode of its distribution over their territory rendered it indispensable to their well-being. In the language of Quincy, they possessed five hundred miles of sea-coast, all furnished with harbors, bays, creeks, rivers, inlets, basins, with every variety of invitation to the sea, with every species of facility to violate the embargo laws, with a people not scattered over an immense territory, at a solemn distance from each other, in lordly retirement, in the midst of extended plantations and intervening waste, but collected on the mar- gin of the ocean, by the sides of rivers, at the heads of bays, looking into the water or on the surface of it, for the incite- ment and the reward of their interest. Among such a people, deprived of their daily avocation as well as their daily bread, it was impossible for them to remain unexcited beneath such pressure and hardship. It was contemplated to add twelve additional revenue cut- ters to enforce the embargo laws. ‘‘ Multiply the number by twelve, multiply it by a hundred, join all your ships of war, all your gun-boats, and all your militia,—in spite of them 3812 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY all, such laws as these are of no avail when they become odious to public sentiment. Continue these laws any consi- derable time longer, and it is very doubtful if you will have officers to execute, juries to convict, or purchasers to bid for your confiscations.”’* The friends of the embargo were chiefly from the South, and it must be attributable to the influence of Jefferson and Madison, added to the fact that the South being an agricul- tural people, did not feel the pressure so soon or so’ sensibly as the people of the North. The New Englanders were taunted with avarice, in not being willing to endure the privations which the embargo created, when honor demanded retaliation. ‘‘We have done everything for commerce,” said a distinguished member from the South; “‘we have negotiated for it; we have jeoparded the peace of the country for it; we have passed an embargo to protect it, and commerce is now the first to abandon us. Suppose the embargo raised, none would trade but men of bankrupt character and desperate fortunes. Permission to arm is tantamount to a declaration of war; and do you think we are ready to plunge headlong into a ruinous war, naked and unarmed, to gratify a few bankrupt commercial specu- lators? The embargo would always have had its effect as a measure of retaliation, but for the anti-embargo men of Mas- sachusetts.’’f . Giles, of Virginia, then a member of the United States Senate, occupied the same position with Troup, a member of the House from Georgia, and contended that opposition to the embargo in New England was the work of demagogues, anxious to reinstate themselves in power. To whom Pinckney replied, in bold and animated defence, citing, as among those who opposed it, the immortal Ames, and others of equal patriotism, though of less talent. Ames wrote as long as he had strength to hold a pen, and died on the anniversary morning of the nation’s birthday, the 4th of July, 1808, with the prayer on his lips, ““God save my country.” The charge of demagogism, avaricious policy, and such violent epithets and abuse as were heaped upon the New * Speech of Josiah Quincy, delivered in the House of Representatives, Noy. 28, 1808. + Troup’s Speech in the House of Representatives. OF THE UNITED STATES. 313 England men, was violently and bitterly hurled back upon the Southern members of Congress, as well as the Adminis- tration, by ascribing the embargo to French influence, ope- rating on Jefferson and his cabinet, and through them upon the members.* It is strange, indeed, that a policy so suicidal, working in- jury and devastation throughout the land, should have been so well sustained. It was felt at the South in a diminished extent to what it was at the North, yet it contained the seed of that policy (the manufacturing interest) which, when fos- tered by the very men who opposed the embargo, has thrown the South far and lamentably in the rear of our national pro- gress as compared with the North. The report and resolu- tions of the Committee of Foreign Relations were carried,— the two first by a vote of 84 to 30, the last unanimously. The resolution offered in the Senate by Hillhouse, = ec. 2, of Connecticut, to repeal the embargo law, was voted 1808.’ down by 25 to 6. It was in pursuance of the third resolution that the House voted an appropriation of four hundred and seventy-five thou- sand dollars, which was applied to fortifications, principally at New York; four additional frigates were ordered to be equipped, and three thousand six hundred additional seamen to be enlisted. As a matter of the first importance, the attention of Con- gress was directed to the financial condition of the Govern- ment. It was the sanguine expectation of the opponents of the embargo, that its existence would be speedily closed by the wants of the Treasury; yet they were mistaken; the effect on the finances was not seriously felt, on account of the large surplus of seventeen millions of dollars, beyond the annual expenses of the Government, which was on hand when the embargo was established. The new year (1809) would com- mence with money and bonds to the amount of sixteen millions of dollars. This amount was required to be set aside to meet the annual expenses, which, according to the existing rate, was thirteen millions, including eight millions for the interest and reimbursement of the public debt. ; If the country was to be put in a state of defence, in the just apprehension of an approaching war, it would absorb * It was calculated in the fall of 1808, that the supension of exports had imposed a loss of nearly thirty millions of dollars on the maritime interest. Vor. I.—21 314 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY more than this large surplus of eight millions of dollars. Under existing circumstances but little hope could spring from a reliance on commerce. If the thought of war was abandoned, a loan of five millions would scarcely serve the demands upon the Treasury for the ensuing year. The uni- versal cry of the Federalists was, that the country would be crushed beneath the weight of direct taxation, the oft-repeated lamentation of an unmanly sect who neither feel nor know the unfailing willingness and ever-sustaining ability of the people of the United States. At the éarly meeting of Congress these anticipations were dissipated, like the flying cloud before the morning sun, by the lucid and powerful report of the Secretary of the Treasury. It was impossible that we could be harassed with frequent war; our geographical position, as well as the fixed policy of the nation, forbade it: and he clearly opposed the idea of a resort to loans, under the belief that even a diminished revenue from imports would be sufficient; he was fully persuaded that a resort to direct taxes would never be required; the war could not be so protracted as to place it beyond the power of the Government, upon the re- turn of peace, to meet the existing indebtedness from the duties on imports. This view of Gallatin proved ultimately unsound; and such views ever will be so. No statesman or financier ever approximates the expenses or duration of a war. If the receipts of the Treasury proved insufficient, a loan, he thought, with doubling our duties, would meet the exigency.* The effects of the embargo were becoming more dreadful every day, whilst its increasing unpopularity was decidedly manifested from the increasing violence of the means resorted to by Congress to enforce it. It was necessary to pass a law, which received the name and is known in history as the Hn- forcing Act, to sustain the unjust and oppressive cruelty of the embargo. ‘More effectually to enforce the embargo.” Giles, a Congressman from Virginia,—who, with but little learning, yet possessing a native intellectual vigor, united with much practice upon the floor of the House, had become a most skill- ful debater,—was the author of this act, which, after a yan. sharp debate, was hurried through a midnight session of the House; suitable time, in its deepest darkness, * Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1808-9. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States. OF THE UNITED STATES. 815 for such an act, which forfeited every vessel or boat, with every kind of cargo, loading at any of the ports of the United States, to be carried off in violation of the embargo, or to be placed on foreign boats, to be caryied off. Collectors were also required to seize all goods “apparently on their way’ to any foreign power, and hold them until bonds were given for their delivery im some port of the United States, not adjacent to any foreign territory. Many other harsh and despotic features existed in this law, even to authorizing the President to employ the army and navy, and to hire thirty additional cruisers, to keep in entire and unlimited subjection every species of foreign com- merce. The effect of the embargo was as injurious in some respects to Great Britain as to the United States; indeed, it had been admitted by Canning to be palpably so; hence his proposition to repeal it, and restore to his country, perhaps, the most im- portant branch of her trade. It has been supposed that the offer was made because the repeal would be more likely to promote the views of Great Britain than the orders in council, not only in extending her trade, but in bringing the United States in conflict with France. At this time, and even before the passage of the Enforcing Act, a political crisis had arrived which doubtlessly would have severed the Union, had not the Administration and its party taken a course which resulted in the repeal of the-em- bargo. Meetings were held in New England to protest against it, and also in Albany and the City of New York. The Fe- deral papers of Boston, in announcing the passage of the Enforcing Act, proclaimed, with their columns signalized in mourning, that “Liberty is dead.” General Lincoln, and many other custom-house officers, resigned their post, rather than be the instruments for enforcing this last feature of the embargo. The merchants had determined, and thus gave notice, that in every instance of seizure they would institute suit in the State courts. dt : A Boston town meeting resolved not to assist in carrying the Enforcing Act into execution, and that all who would, ought to be considered “enemies to the Constitution of the United States, enemies to the State of Massachusetts, and hostile to the liberties of the people.” A violent and most decided report passed the Massachu- 316 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY setts Legislature, pronouncing it “unjust, oppressive, and un- constitutional, and not legally binding.”’ John Quincy Adams, who had resigned his place in the - Senate of the United States, on ascertaining that his course in sustaining the Administration was not in accordance with the views of his constituents; but returning to Washington with the ostensible purpose of attending the Supreme Court, he, how- ever, having sought an interview with the leaders of the Admin- istration party, communicated to Giles, W. C. Nicholas, and Robinson, a Senator from Vermont, ‘That a continuance of the embargo much longer would certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the legislature, and probably by the judiciary of the State. That if force should be resorted to by the Government to quell that resistance, it would produce a civil war; and in that event, he had no doubt the leaders of the party would secure the co-operation of Great Britain. That their object was, and had been for several years, a dis- solution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate confederacy, he knew from unequivocal evidence, though not provable in a court of law. That in case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain to effect that purpose would be as surely resorted to, as it would be indispensably necessary to the de- sign.”’* In an interview of the same character, and for the same purpose, held with the President, this distinguished states- man informed him “That a secret agent of Great Britain was then in New England, by whose intrigues every aid would be proffered by that Government to carry a project into execu- tion, which would at once render the restrictions on the com- merce between the United States and Great Britain nugatory, and all future opposition unavailing.”’+ Adams, in all pro- bability, likewise informed Jefferson that # severance from the Union was already concluded, and the plan digested, if the restrictions upon commerce were persisted in.t In consideration of the existing danger to the Union, and the determination of the Federalists, a disposition on the part of the President and cabinet was mani- fested in the early part of the year, to remove the commercial restrictions that were not only occasioning such dissatisfac- tion, but actually impoverishing the country. 1809. * Hild. Hist. of the U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 118. } Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 286. a ; National Intelligencer, Oct. 22,1828; Niles’s Register, vol. xxv. p. 188. OF THE UNITED STATES. 317 At one time it appears that the President not only held the opposition to the embargo in supreme contempt, but that its opponents themselves had abandoned all hope of resist- ance.* At a later day, however, he ascribed the repeal of the embargo to the Federalists, who, in his own language, “believed in the alternative of repeal or civil war, and pro- duced the fatal measure of repeal.’ This was Jefferson’s opinion, written from the shades of his classic mountain-home after the embargo had been repealed and he himself having ‘retired from the turmoil, the excitement, and the cares of the Chief Magistracy; and strange it is that he clung with such tenacious fondness to a scheme he was forced to abandon, rather than face the horrid storm of civil war.} Congress at this time again became the theatre of angry and stormy debates in reference to an increase of the army and navy, for which large appropria- tions were asked. Joseph Story (who sat but a short time in Congress, and afterwards became the most brilliant, learned, and accomplished jurist that ever graced the American courts,) urgently advocated a large appropriation for the navy; the Democrats of the Middle and Southern States opposed bitterly the proposition of Story, it being insisted that if we build ships they would fall into the hands of the enemy. It was during this debate, with a view to obtain an immediate and decided expression from Congress, either for a continuance of the embargo or war, that Nicholas introduced, as a substitute for the embargo, the issuing of letters of marque and reprisal against all nations violating our maritime rights. Various propositions were offered and discussed as substitutes for the resolutions of Nicholas, among them was one by ~ Bacon, proposing only to have our merchant-vessels well armed. It was during this debate that a division was called for and obtained on the resolution offered by Nicholas. The first vote was on the repeal of the [{};” embargo. The Administration, it was known, had retreated from its former position, and preferred the Ist of June upon which the embargo should terminate; this was voted down by 73 to 40. An effort was then made for inde- finite postponement, which was lost by a vote of 26 to 93. When, finally, the 15th day of March was agreed upon Feb. 1809. * Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. p. 123. + Ibid., vol. iv. p. 148, Letter to Dearborn, July 16, 1810. 818 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY for the expiration of the embargo, to all nations except France and Great Britain, by a vote of 81 to 40. The interdiction of all commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain has been historically known as the Won-intercourse Law, which was, however, limited in its operations to the end of the next Con- gress. The provisions of this act were such as to render it nearly nugatory, many supposing it to be thus im- perfectly adjusted to favor negotiations which were going on with the British Minister.* t No other proceedings of importance occurred at this ses- sion of Congress, except the act creating the new Territory of Illinois, which then embraced the present States of Illinois and Wisconsin, with a population of about ten thousand. On the 3d day of March, 1809, ended the labors of the Tenth Congress, and with it terminated the administration of Thomas Jefferson. As the reader approaches the close of this Administration, he is not only forcibly struck with the total dissimilarity to those that preceded it, with its decided influence upon the tone and character of the Government, but the deep and lasting impression it made upon the public mind. In the days of Washington, party spirit, slowly but gradually developing, had in the declining days of the elder Adams assumed a most violent type; but it was the last raging fever of Federalism, which was finally allayed by the election of Jefferson. The most decided feature of the administration of this man was the permanent establishment of the States-right school of politics; and whilst Jefferson was not entirely consistent in this respect, yet to him and the supporters of his Adminis- tration belong the credit of placing the States-right doctrine upon its impregnable foundation. As a natural effect, from the success of the principles of the States-right party resulted the progressive and increasing popularity of the Democratic school. The Administration that preceded Jefferson’s was not only weak, but shaken by those violent storms of passion which had driven the Ship of State far from the true republican track; the Constitution still hung in the political firmament, Feb. 27. March 1. * Tucker’s Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. p. 287; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 263; Hild. Hist. of the United States, second series, vol. iii. p. 137; Bradford’s History of the Federal Government, chapter vii. OF THE UNITED STATES. 319 as the unfailing star of our national safety; but dimly was its light to be seen when John Adams left the Presidential chair and Jefferson assumed the helm, on whom rested the duty of protecting us from the storm that raged without, and steering back to the shores of the Constitution. The Government was also to be re-established in the favor of the mass of the people, without which no Government at this day can stand. The first great necessity of this Admin- istration was to purify,—to purify the Federal bench, to purify the republican court, from which as from a common centre was to spread throughout the land those fundamental principles of our Government with an influence that would reach the mansion of the rich, the humble cottage of the poor, the learned student in his cloistered cell, and the hardy ploughman in his fields. This Administration forms a great and eventful drama, running through eight years of our con- stitutional history, the greatest and best act of which was the acquisition of Louisiana, which in all probability saved a dis- memberment of our Union by opening the navigation of the Mississippi, and brought under the mild rule of our republican Government an extensive territory where unborn millions are yet to rejoice in the light of freedom. The erroneous impression of Jefferson, that it was uncon- stitutional, is a notable exception to his strict construction tenets, and one of the rare instances in which Jefferson indi- vidually rose equal to the emergency; yet the occasion demanded it, and it ought to have been done; and not only was the brightest precedent established, (that of acquiring territory by treaty,) but its propriety is sustained by the strictest constitutional construction. The great and consummate error of this Administration was the embargo, the folly of which was accumulative by the tenacity with which it was adhered to and pressed upon the country by the President and his party, until forced to yield by the exhausted patience of a suffering community. With this exception, the domestic administration of the Govern- ment was tranquil and popular. Impartial history must also add the additional slur upon the intelligence of the President, his consistent hostility to the navy; and almost an isolated case of consistency does it form in the history of J efferson. In reference to our foreign relations many difficulties beset us, growing chiefly out of the belligerent state of European affairs. Most of the difficulties with the nations abroad, had 320 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY been transmitted by the preceding Administration. Peace seemed the great ruling passion and idol of Thomas Jeffer- son. The cultivation of friendly relations with all mankind should be the highest aim of the Government, but never at the expense of that just and powerful spirit of resentment which is requisite to maintain the honor and dignity of a nation; for it must be remembered the road to national great- ness is won and maintained by high dignity of character and daring chivalry. It was, nevertheless, a high and statesman- like philosophy that led the Executive to dread the devastat- ing shock of war, and look with burning anxiety to the development of the mighty resources of this country, which could not be done, save under the smiling beams of peace. The difficulties with France and Spain, which Adams ought to have settled, were left to accumulate on the hands of Jef- ferson, which he not only suffered to remain unadjusted, but to which were added the increasing difficulties with Great Britain. It must be admitted that our diplomatic relations with England were not only most unskillfully conducted, but that an inevitable war was postponed but for a while, by a bungling diplomacy and unjust legislation, not less injurious in either its immediate or ultimate effects than was the war which in a few more years was spread over the land. Jefferson’s administration, though in some particulars ex- ceedingly objectionable, resulted in much good, and worked a lasting advantage to the country. Jefferson himself may be very properly esteemed a representative man, one who gave tone and character to the period in which he presided over the nation with an influence that long survived him; and as Strange as it may appear, the political tone which Jeffer- son imparted to the Government and to the people, was purer by far and much more elevated than the source from which this mighty personal influence arose. It cannot be denied that Jefferson obtained a personal popularity and political influence unparalleled in the United States. He was wafted to the zenith of his popularity by that powerful storm which prostrated the Federal party, the mighty agency of which, besides the strong States-right current which was rapidly coming over the minds of the people, was the belief, which Jef- ferson wickedly implanted and as wickedly sustained, that the Federal party were mancuvring to introduce a monarchy modeled on the forms of the British Government; that they were in alliance with it, if not already subjected to its influ- OF THE UNITED STATES. 321 ence. Doubtlessly it was to give full effect to this scheme that he relinquished the most important post in the cabinet and retired to the shades of private life, and the cultivation of “peas and philosophy” amidst the sunny slopes of Mon- ticello. And it was necessary he should retire from the cabinet, or be overwhelmed in his own slanderous schemes. In order to gain the political influence at which he was aim- ing, it was necessary that he should convince the people that the Government was wrong in its conduct towards France, and e converso France was right in her treatment towards the United States; and whilst he accused Washington of having “truckled servilely to England,” the candid reader must admit that whilst there is no evidence of such a charge being true towards Washington, there is strong grounds of applying it to Jefferson in reference to France, especially as he is not free from the truthfulness of the charge that linked him in intimacy with the Democratic societies which at that day were under the patronage of citizen Genet,* a warm supporter of whom was Freneau, translating clerk in the Department of State, who was the foul-mouthed slanderer of Washington, but towards whom Jefferson was exceedingly kind, and would not procure his removal from office, because “his paper has saved the Constitution, which was galloping fast into monarchy, and has been checked by no one means so powerfully as by that paper.’’} In pursuing the truthful path of history, I am not only compelled to record Jefferson as one of the most inconsistent of men, but the living impersonation of deceit and slander. He was among the last to give up the longing desire of a restoration of the colonial connection with Great Britain ; and the man who styled Hamilton and Washington monocrats, declared “that there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do;” and this whilst he was a member of Congress, and as late as 1775.{ He was first violently opposed to the Constitution, and then in favor of four States holding off or refusing their ratification. He advocated the assumption by the General Government of the debts of the States, and afterwards be- * Lee’s Remarks upon the Writings of Jefferson, Letter second. + Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. p. 485, under the title of Ana. { Jefferson’s Works, vol. i. p. 152, Letter to John Randolph, dated No- vember 29, 1775. 822 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY came bitterly opposed to it, accusing Hamilton of tricking him into a scheme, the like of which he had recommended - whilst Governor of Virginia.* He opposed the United States Bank and the establishment of branch banks, but approved and signed the bill creating the Branch Bank of the United States at New Orleans. He was the author of the ordinance of 1787; yet in reference to the Missouri restriction, he thought slavery ought to be extended on grounds of policy.t He abused the excise law as ‘‘an infernal one,” and whilst he admitted its constitutionality, he thought it a vice in the Con- stitution itself; but it will be remembered that he was the father of the embargo.{ He approved the Cumberland Road Bill, which was a large appropriation for an internal improve- ment; yet he considered and made opposition to internal improvements one of his fundamental principles. He first advocated and then condemned a protective tariff. He wasa strict constructionist, but he acknowledged, and gave it as his opinion, that he overleaped the bounds of the Constitution in negotiating for Louisiana. He was the embodiment of the State-rights doctrine, and even carried it to the extent of the bitterest recrimination against Washington, for sending an army to suppress the “whisky insurrection,” and to extin- guish the open defiance of the laws of the Government, which raged in western Pennsylvania, to the extent of an avowed opposition to the executive, legislative, and judiciary of the United States.§ When informed of the opposition of the New England people to the embargo, he could then see and pronounce it treason. I have said that it was a part of the mission of Jefferson to purify the Federal Judiciary, which he did; yet it is a melancholy reflection that in the trial of Burr, Jefferson acted in reference to it and towards the bench, in a manner not to be justified by his warmest admirer. That it was incumbent on the President to arrest Burr and have him tried none will deny; that he was guilty of some heinous offence is beyond dispute; but, after the criminal was arrested and before the bar of justice to await that impartial * Lee’s Remarks on the Writings of Jefferson, p. 76. + Letter to Holmes, Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. p. 823. { Letter to Madison, Jefferson’s Works, vol. iii. p. 307. 2 Marshall’s Life of Washington, vol. v. pp. 286 to 298, and 575 to 590; Ramsey’s History of the United States, vol. iii. p. 74. OF THE UNITED STATES. 323 trial, to which all are entitled, it was beneath the dignity of the Executive, whither resided the right to appeal and the right to pardon, to mingle as a partisan in a trial at law, and assume even the livery of a prosecutor.* In vain had we escaped the thraldom of England, worse than useless the great revolutionary struggle, if an American President, pending a trial for high treason, could closet him- self with witnesses, give way to the rankest intemperance, suggest the arrest of counsel employed in the defence, as particeps criminis; and whilst even it might fail, it would have the effect “of putting down this unprincipled and im- pudent Federal bull-dog.”’+ This must always be regarded as a dangerous and impure manifestation of ungovernable temper on the part of Jeffer- son, at which the judicial atrocities of the days of the Tudors and Stuarts may blush. The inconsistency of a statesman, when applied in the com- mon interpretation of the word, is not only often excusable, but frequently right. In all ages, in every country, policy and measures are not only the result of experience, but the rapid changes which are daily occurring will require measures at one time which might be dangerous at another; the diseases of the body politic, like those of the human system, are changeable, the very symptoms even variable, and the policy of the statesman, like that of the physician, may often be judiciously and properly adjusted to the different conditions of the patient. But this was not the variableness of Jefferson; his imme- diate expression of opinions, his constant avowal of princi- ples, were too little in unison with his public acts to be ex- cused or palliated in the man, whatever may have been the brilliant results of his public career. In pursuing still further the character of Jefferson as a public man, and only as such do I allude to him, it is the more painful to find that he was exceedingly deceitful in his intercourse with the public men of his day, often convicting him of slandering those to whom he professed admiration and attachment, or of heartless and insincere flattery. The reader, upon a full examination of the very voluminous cor- * Jefferson’s Works, vol. iv. pp. 75 to 103, embracing the correspondence with the District-Attorney. { The allusion is to Luther Martin, one of Burr’s counsel. 324 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY respondence of Jefferson, may be surprised but convinced of the truth in this particular. We find him at one time the warm admirer and professed friend of Washington, to whom he unbosoms himself with a most abundant show of esteem and regard.* At the same time James Madison had in his possession the written evidence of abuse and want of confidence in the President, a copy of which was carefully preserved by Jefferson.t No doubt exists that Jefferson’s honest opinion was, that Washington was an upright, able, and efficient statesman and patriot; this is ap- parent from many passages in his works. Yet it is evidently as apparent that he used the weapon of defamation without restraint, which all must believe was done in the first instance to render the administration of Washington unpopular; and when, in the second place, we find it continued even to the death of Washington, that it was solely the outpouring of a malevolent temper.{ In the daylight, his was the open voice of friendship; in the darkness of the night, it was the low and stealthy whisper of enmity and slander. In the cabinet, one of the pillars of the administration of Washington; but from the heights of his ‘little Olympus,’ he endeavored to scatter the poison that he hoped would undermine his Admin- istration. He united with the cabinet in the endeavor to put down the ‘Democratic societies,’ which Genet had been instrumental in establishing, and which deserved universal odium; yet he thought the denunciation of the Democratic societies “one of the extraordinary acts of boldness of which we have seen so many from the faction of monocrats. It is wonderful, indeed, that the President should have permitted himself to be the organ of such an attack on the freedom of discussion, the freedom of writing, printing, and publishing.’’§ The reader will remember the offensive character these societies assumed to our Government, and the treatment Genet received, who was the chief instigator of all their dis- order and public disturbance, and which so justly excited the indignation not only of the President, but a large part of the community. * Jefferson’s Works, vol. iii. p. 330, Letter to the President, June 19, 1796. + Jefferson’s Works, vol. iii. p. 307, Letter to Madison, Dec. 23, 1794. { Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 27, 28, 35, 87, 49, 58, 57, 58, 807; vol. iv. pp. 184-5, Letter to Melish; vol. iii. p. 898, Letter to Colonel Tay- lor; vol. iv. p. 234, Letter to Dr. Jones. @ Jefferson’s Works, vol. iii. p. 307. OF THE UNITED STATES. 825 The same spirit of duplicity is exhibited towards the well- known and venerable society of the Cincinnati, the object of which was a friendly affiliation of the war-worn officers of the Revolution, with Washington as their President. It is well known that he prepared the article on the “Cincinnati,” for Meusnier, the author of that part of the Encyclopédie Mé- thodique entitled Economie Politique et Diplomatique,* which he afterwards corrected, under the inspection of La Fayette and Colonel Humphreys, and which he sent to Ge- neral Washington.t In this paper he not only spoke in the most favorable, respectful, and affectionate manner, but cor- rected the views Meusnier had inserted, because it contained a philippic against the society. The reader will be surprised to learn, after this, that the most violent philippic ever published against this society was from the pen of Jefferson himself.{ If the history which he took so much pains to correct (which he had prepared whilst in Paris for Meusnier) be true, the reader can form but one opinion in reference to a totally dissimilar one furnished to Madison. Upon a further inspection into the deceitful character of Jefferson, we find it manifested to a most disgusting extent for mere selfish ends towards the unfortunate Burr, who, it will be remembered, was his competitor for the Presidency, in reference to whom he says,—‘‘I had never seen Colonel Burr, until he came as a member to the Senate. His conduct very soon inspired me with distrust; I habitually cautioned Madison against trusting him too much; I saw afterwards, that under General Washington’s and Mr. Adams’s adminis- trations, whenever a great military appointment or a diplo- matic one was to be made, he came post to Philadelphia to show himself; and, in fact, he was always at market if they had wanted him. He was, indeed, told by Dayton in 1800, that he might be Secretary at War; but this bid was too late; his election as Vice-President was then foreseen. With these impressions of Colonel Burr, there never had been any inti- macy between us, and but little association.’’$ 2 These, it will be seen, were the long standing opinions of Jefferson, running back to Washington’s first administration. * Jefferson’s Works, vol. i. p. 398. + Ibid., vol. ii. p. 62. . { Ibid., vol. iii. p. 807, Letter to Madison. @ Ibid., vol. iv. p. 520, January 26, 1804. 326 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY With what honesty of purpose, then, could he write to thig man on the 17th of June, 1807,—“ Perhaps, however, some general view of our situation and prospects since you left us, may not be unacceptable; at any rate, it will give me an opportunity of recalling myself to your memory, and of evidencing my esteem for you;’* in which letter, after his usual indulgence of taunts against the Administration, he has the boldness to style himself “With great and sincere esteem, dear sir, your friend and servant.” But at another time, when Jefferson thought that he had been elected President and Burr Vice-President, whilst he congratulates him on the issue of the contest, he feels the loss sustained in his aid of the new Administration; and evi- dently alluding to his desire to have placed him in the cabinet, he says,—“I had endeavored to compose an Administration whose talents, entegrity, names, and disposition, should at once inspire unbounded public confidence, and insure a per- fect harmony in the conduct of the public business. I lose you from the list, and I am not sure of all the others.’’+ At a later date, when it appears a letter was received by Judge Breckenridge from Jefferson, reflecting severely upon Burr, he wrote to him again, that it was a forgery, if it con- tained anything unfriendly or disrespectful; sending him at the same time a press copy, leaving the question of veracity to be decided between it and those who saw the letter.{ This was the man against whom he habitually cautioned Madison, and of whom he said in 1807,—“ Against Burr personally, I never had one hostile sentiment. I never, in- deed, thought him an honest, frank-dealing man, but consi- dered him as a crooked gun or other perverted machine, whose aim or shot you could never be sure of.’’§ Notwithstanding the blemishes so apparent on the character of Jefferson, he has been justly esteemed in some respects a good man, as well as a patriot, and one whose political career was not only remarkable for its decided influence upon the * Jefferson’s Works, vol. iii. p. 536. (Whilst Jefferson was Vice-President.) } Ibid., vol. iii. p. 445, Letter to Burr, December 15, 1800. ft Ibid., vol. iii. p. 449. @ Ibid., vol. iv. p. 74, Letter to Giles. See also Lee’s Remarks on the Writings of Jefferson; see Jefferson’s Letter to Mazzei, vol. iii. p. 827, highly abusive of the different branches of the Government, and his futile attempt to explain it in his Letter to Madison, vol. iii. p. 362; Letter to Martin Van Buren, 29th of June, 1824, and the remarks of Lee on the Writings of Jefferson, p. 91. OF THE UNITED STATES. 327 Government, but stamping the age in which he lived with the deep and lasting impress of the principles of human liberty and human rights, with which his own mind was so strongly imbued. He retired from office with the warmest applause of a large majority of his fellow-citizens, many of whom were desirous that he should serve another term, but he could not be in- duced to violate the precedent which had been set by Wash- ington, and he voluntarily retired to the shades and quiet of his mountain-home, devoting his time alternately to the pur- suits of philosophy and the cultivation of his farm.* There existed a wide difference between the administrations of Washington and Jefferson; the one was conducted with reference to the firm establishment of the Federal Govern- ment which was to receive vigor and effictency in contradistinc- tion to the weak and inefficient Articles of Confederation, the deficiencies of which were to be supplied by the Constitution. It was necessary that the Government should be administered with sufficient force in its beginning, to give it that dignity and character which would satisfy the public mind that it possessed a self-sustaining power. There were many conflicts between the General and State governments, and the great difficulty in the first stages of its operation, was to define the proper limits to each. The State governments were each jealous of their own prerogatives, and evinced a strong tendency to encroach on the Federal domain. The same tendency would always be suspected (as has always been the case with the General Government) towards the State governments. Washington, placed at the head of the first administration, could not have sustained the Constitution had he yielded to the clamors against it; it was inevitable that he should main- tain the Federal doctrine. It will be easily perceived, however, that the tendency to increase the exercise of power, which is almost inseparable from the nature of the Government, was early manifested under the operations of the Constitution. It was the imperi- * He received addresses from the legislatures of Vermont, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, the House of Delegates of Virginia, and the Senate of New York, to serve a third term; and from the legislature of Virginia he received a flattering and complimentary address ‘for the model of an Administration conducted on the purest principles of repub- licanism.” The paper was drawn up by Wirt, and passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 116 to 24. 328 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY ous necessity for proper checks and balances that called into existence the States-right doctrine, and this accretive ten- dency to power in the Government has sustained it ever since. There is no inconsistency in bestowing a just and due praise upon the administration of Washington, under the circum- stances that surrounded him and the exigencies that beset the Government, when first the Ship of State was launched, and at the same time bestowing a like due approval of that policy which afterwards regulated its machinery, tempered the force that first wafted it from shore, and controlled that immense motive power by a scale which the hand of experience had defined. If the principles of the Federal party had continued to be administered, it must be apparent that the rights of the States would soon have been destroyed; and instead of the Federal Government working in unison with those of the States, instead of each moving harmoniously with the other in its respective orbit, a powerful and consolidated empire would be wielding its massive agency in the place of the pre- sent well-defined and restricted forms of Federal and State governments. Jefferson’s policy was formed more in accord- ance with the current of popular opinion than Washington’s; he placed more confidence in men, more reliance in their capa- city for government, as well as in their common integrity. It was in exact accordance with those enlarged ideas of human rights and human liberty, which had signalized his public career, and forms the most conspicuous feature among his political sentiments. It cannot be denied that danger lurks in such policy. Every Government must possess a principle of energy and coercion, a self-sustaining power, else it is liable to be prostrated by the first outbreak of popular feeling. In a republic, where the Government rests entirely on popular opinion, the greater is the danger of sudden downfall and destruction; a slight cause more easily affects the people; the minds of the citizens of a republic are more inflammable than those of a monarchy, especially from slight causes. It should always be remembered by those who seek the favor of the masses that they are playing upon the strongest pas- sion of the mind, the excitement of self-interest; that man has always been prone to think himself oppressed by Government, and ever ready to raise his arm against the authority that is over him; and in a Government like that of the United States, where political power is directly wielded by the peo- OF THE UNITED STATES. 329 ple, it is always dangerous to the Constitution to be con- stantly diminishing its authority by yielding to popular prejudice and clamor. The political sentiments of Jefferson were certainly tinc- tured with an inclination to flattery of the populace, with a tendency to place an over-confidence in the acts and opinions of the masses. Yet with himself, it cannot be said that he yielded to the influence his own doctrine so naturally sug- gested. History will show that he more frequently origiated and directed public opinion than yielded to its popular cur- rent or courted its influence. Vor, 1.—22 330 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CHAPTER VII. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JAMES MADISON. JAMES MaDISon was born in the County of Orange, on the 16th of March, 1751. His family were of Welsh descent, and early emigrants to Virginia. The subject of this sketch graduated at Princeton in 1771. THe was a close student, which somewhat impaired his constitution, enfeebling his health for many years. After completing his collegiate course, he remained at Princeton a year, pursuing his studies under the venerable Dr. Witherspoon. After returning to Virginia he commenced the practice of the law. His talents were soon appreciated by the community in which he resided; the solicitations of his friends soon enticed him from the walks of private life; the high order of intellect, which had been adorned by a polished education, designated him as one eminently suited to occupy an influential station upon the political theatre. He was elected to the General Assembly of Virginia in 1776, and in 1778 he was appointed to the Executive Council. In 1779 he was sent a delegate to the Continental Con- gress, in which body he was an active and leading member until 1784. geice In 1786, the legislature of his native State ap- " pointed him one of her delegates to a convention from the several States, which was to meet at Annapolis the ensuing September, to devise a uniform system of commer- cial regulations, which, when ratified, were to be binding on the Confederacy. This convention resulted in no important good; only five States were represented, and the body ad- journed without recommending any decisive action, except that a convention of delegates of all the States be held at Philadelphia in May, 1787, to take into consideration the condition of the States, to devise such further provisions as should appear to them necessary to render the Constitution OF THE UNITED STATES. 331 of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union. This was the Convention that framed the Constitution of the United States. It has been previously stated that Madi- son ranked as one of the very first in this body of intellectual giants. He was one of the leading debaters, and preserved quite a copious body of notes, which have recently been given to the world. In the Convention he is known to have advocated a strong national government, and generally to have coincided with Washington and those of his friends who were in favor of such form of government.* After the Constitution had passed the ordeal of the Con- vention, and was submitted to the people of the States, Madi- son was elected a member of the Virginia Convention, which had been called to take the Constitution into consideration. In this body, where sat a large number of the ablest men of Virginia, when her statesmen were equal to any the world ever knew, Madison stood foremost among the first. The Constitution was adopted by a vote of 89 to 79, by this Convention. With Madison were found Marshall, Pen- dleton, Wythe, and Edmund Randolph; whilst Patrick Henry, Monroe, Grayson, and George Mason were his ablest oppo- nents. The ratification of the Constitution was considered a tri- umph by the Federal party. The anti-Federalists held the majority in the legislature, and Madison was defeated when the election came on for United States Senators, Grayson and R. H. Lee being the successful candidates. No man at that day had contributed more towards the framing as well as the ratification of the Constitution than Madison. The larger part of those elegant essays, known as the “Federalist,” was the product of his pen; and the result of the vote in the Vir- ginia Convention is justly attributed, in a large degree, to his talent and exhaustless energy. ‘To this cause is to be attri- buted his defeat for the Senate. He was, however, elected a member of the House of Repre- sentatives, and took his seat in Congress in April, 1789. Here he bore an active and distinguished part in adopting the mea- sures necessary for the organization of the Government. He * Stat Man., vol. i. p. 268. See North American Review, vol. xxv., con- taining a document from the pen of Washington, exhibiting a summary of Madison’s opinions on the form of » constitution to be adopted. 832 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY served in Congress during the entire administration of Wash- ington. The measures of this period have been previously treated of. Madison was opposed to the leading features of the Administration, especially the funding system and the national bank. He took sides with Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State, in opposition to Hamilton, who was the most influ- ential member of the cabinet. It will be seen that Madison was defeated by the anti-Fe- deral party for the Senate; that he was one of the first of the Federal school, a coadjutor of Hamilton and Jay, in urging the adoption of the Constitution, though he never went to the extremes of Hamilton; yet as soon almost as he was elected to the House of Representatives, he is allied with the anti- Federal party, and becomes their leader in Congress during Washington’s term of service. In January, 1794, Madison introduced his commercial re- solutions; they were based on a report which Jefferson had made, as Secretary of State, on the subject of our foreign relations, and as a manuscript copy was found among the papers of Jefferson, they were probably prepared with his concurrence. They reflected accurately the sentiments of the Secretary of State in reference to his hostility towards England, as well as his partiality for France. The substance of the first resolution was, that the interest of the United States would be promoted by further restric- tions and higher duties in certain cases, on the manufacture and navigation of foreign nations. The additional duties were to be laid on certain articles manufactured by those European nations which had no commercial treaties with the United States. These resolutions required reciprocity in navigation, except with respect to the West India trade. The last of the resolutions declared that provision ought to be made for ascertaining the losses sustained by American citi- zens, from the operation of particular regulations of any country contravening the law of nations; and that these losses be reimbursed, in the first instance, out of the addi- tional duties on the manufactures and vessels of nations establishing such regulations. A long and animated debate ensued on these resolutions. On the 3d of February the first was adopted by a majority of five only.* * Pitkin. Lives of the Presidents, by Lincoln, p. 189 OF THE UNITED STATES. 833 Madison continued to act with the anti-Federal party during his political life, which ultimately assumed the name of Demo- cratic party. He seems to have co-operated with Jefferson with great unanimity, and during their long service and pro- tracted lives, the warmest friendship and confidence always existed between them. Madison retired from Congress in 1797. He was a strong and decided opponent of the admin- istration of John Adams. When party feeling reached its utmost violence in reference to the Alien and Sedition Laws, Madison, with a view of opposing the Administration, but at the same time wishing to conciliate the State within the limits of a constitutional opposition, accepted a seat in the Virginia Legislature. In 1798 he drew the celebrated report on the Alien and Sedition Laws, which concluded with a series of resolutions against them. After retiring from the legislature of Virginia, for a very short time, he was, on the election of Jefferson, appointed Secretary of State, where he remained during his Administration. Madison, in personal appearance, was rather small, and somewhat inclined to corpulency; slow, solemn, and deliberate in speech; a blue, penetrating eye, though a calm and quiet expression; his manner modest, gentle, and retiring, whilst his cultivated mind rendered him a pleasing and instructive companion. By constant care and much practice he became not only an elegant but a formidable debater. He was like- wise an exceedingly popular and polished writer, his style being surpassed by few American statesmen of his day. The leading position he occupied in framing the Constitu- tion, and the clear and forcible contributions of his pen, in behalf of that instrument, won for him the lasting and en- dearing title of “Father of the Constitution,” as had the patriotism, the trials, and wisdom of Washington, intwined around his name the fadeless appellation of ‘Father of his Country.” ; ; Madison, who had embraced the Democratic doctrine, and was looked to by the country as the proper successor of Jef- ferson, was. elected to the Presidency by a vote of 122 out of 175 electoral votes, George Clinton receiving 113 for Vice- President. The three rival candidates were Madison, Monroe, ‘and Clinton. Much bitterness had been engendered during the contest, by Clinton’s competing for the Presidency; threats were afloat of substituting another candidate for the Vice- 334 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Presidency. This offended the friends of Clinton, who went to the extent of making overtures to the Federalists, which, however, after some consideration was declined.* The Fede- ralists, determining to maintain their position, voted for their candidates, C. C. Pinckney and Rufus King. The Federal vote in this election amounted only to 47. On the 4th of March, 1809, Madison was inaugurated Pre- sident of the United States; the oath of office was adminis- tered by Chief-Justice Marshall. The first business that en- gaged his attention was the selection of his cabinet, which consisted of Robert Smith, of Maryland, Secretary of State; William Eustis, of Massachusetts, Secretary of War; Paul Hamilton, of South Carolina, Secretary of the Navy. Gal- latin, who had been so long in the cabinet, was retained as Secretary of the Treasury, and Czesar A. Rodney, of Dela- ware, reappointed Attorney-General. When the President approached the Executive chair, he found our own country not only full of difficulties, but the condition of Europe with- out a parallel in the history of the world, which, indeed, had affected the relations which we bore with the leading foreign powers to so alarming an extent. The relations between the United States and England, as well as with France and Spain, were unsettled. Madison, it was supposed, was not so imbued with hatred to England as was his predecessor, which elated the hopes of the country that some arrangement might be made to adjust the difficulties that existed; he was anxious for an amicable adjustment of our English difficulties, but sufficiently firm and resolute to defend the interest and honor of his country. The critical state of our foreign affairs occasioned the Eleventh Congress to convene at an early day after the inauguration of the President; war was apprehended either with England or France. The late elections to Congress had sustained the Demo- cratic majority; Joseph B. Varnum was elected Speaker. This session of Congress lasted but a short time, adjourning on the 22d of June, having done but little. The last Congress had substituted in place of the embargo, the Non-intercourse Act with Great Britain and France; this was continued with some slight modifications. Very soon after Madison’s administration commenced, an 1809. - May 22. * Hild. Hist., second series, vol. iii. p. 94. OF THE UNITED STATES. 335 effort was made on the part of Erskine, the British Minister at Washington, towards adjusting the difficulties between his Government and the United States. He had received from Canning, the English Secretary of State, powers to treat, embracing instructions as to the points to be insisted on. The orders in council were to be withdrawn on condition that the prohibition against English ships appearing in the American waters should be repealed, and an abandonment of the right claimed by the United States to trade with such of the ene- mies’ Colonies as she was not permitted to trade with in times of peace. These conditions were disregarded by Erskine; he considered the suspension of the Non-intercourse Law as a fair equivalent for that of the orders in council, and unhe- sitatingly stipulated that they should not be in force after the 10th day of June. The President forthwith suspended the Non-intercourse Act.* As soon as Erskine communicated with his Government, he was informed by Canning that he had transcended the instructions given to him and that his stipulations would not be received. The English Minister acknowledged that he had transcended his authority, urging as his reason for doing so, the great anxiety to accomplish the object which his Majesty had in view, which no doubt was the settlement of all existing difficulties. It was unfortunate that such blunders in the diplomacy of Erskine should have occurred. It had a great tendency to influence the minds of the American people, believing that Erskine had acted in obedience to his instructions, and that it was the capriciousness of Canning that induced the dis- avowal; and though afterwards proved to be untrue, the par- liamentary opposition embraced at the time the same belief. The immediate consequence was the proclamation of the President, renewing the operation of the Non-intercourse Law and the recall of Erskine. The first special session of the Eleventh Congress had adjourned with brighter hopes of a restoration of harmony with the European powers, when sud- denly the news spread over the land of the disavowal of all the stipulations of Erskine. ; But little was done at this extra session; the most import- ant act was the dispensing with the provisions of the embargo, * American State Papers, vol. vii..p. 218; Lincoln’s Lives of the Pre- sidents, p. 143. 336 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and also the removal of the restrictions upon foreign armed vessels, with a provision legalizing the trade with Great Bri- tain, under the proclamation of the President; but at the same time continuing the non-importation system. Though this act, which was somewhat complicated, passed with considerable unanimity, there was some objection to the admission of French ships-of-war, it being considered a concession to France contrary to the understanding with the English Minister; this objection continued but a short time, as the arrangement with Erskine was soon broken up. It was, however, considered a plausible advance to the French Government; and it was strange that it was so, for it was at that period that Turreau, the French Minister, ad- dressed our Secretary of State very rudely, with severe reflec- tions upon our Government in reference to the Erskine ar- rangement, with accusations of partiality to Great Britain, with complaints against the American press for the manner in which they had reflected upon Bonaparte, and asserting that the Emperor would not renew the convention of Commerce, which would soon expire, until these grievances were re- dressed.* During the debate at this session of Congress on the Non- intercourse Bill, Livermore introduced a resolution to allow commercial intercourse with Hayti. The island was consi- dered a dependency of France, but the French part of it had in reality been independent for a long time. Since the death of Dessalines, the French Colony of St. Domingo had been divided into two different States or departments; Cape Haytien under Christopher, with a government of blacks, and Port-au-Prince under Petion, with a government of mu- lattoes. The Spanish part had revolted, though formerly acknowledging allegiance to the French authority; the City of St. Domingo being held under garrison by Ferrand. The proposition of Livermore was fiercely assailed by John Randolph and Macon, as tending to disturb the institution of slavery in the Southern States; the resolution was finally put to a vote of the House, when it received but one vote; that of the distinguished mover. It appears to have been a fri- volous and groundless opposition, for in a few months the prohibitory enactments expired and commercial intercourse * Hild. Hist., second series, vol. iii. p. 181. OF THE UNITED STATES. 8387 with Hayti was renewed, and has been carried on ever since.* Notwithstanding the thick and dark cloud overshadowing our political relations with England, which every effort at nego- tiation seemed to render thicker and darker, the two countries, it would appear, were anxious to restore harmony by the re- newal of diplomatic intercourse and continued effort at nego- tiation. It is not to be supposed that the English Government desired to provoke a war with the United States; and whilst her course was entirely unjustifiable towards us, her condition then, surrounded with dangers and difficulties on every side, struggling for existence against the unrivaled power of a most desperate foe, it was natural for her to resort to the most extreme measures of defence. It was at France these injuries were directed, though the indirect blow to the United States was beyond the power of endurance. The duplicity and unfair dealing on the part of the British Government towards us in disavowing the acts of its accredited Minister, Erskine, who, whilst he acknowledges to Canning that he had transcended his authority, endeavors to prove to our own Secretary of State, that he had fairly represented the British Government, do not admit of explanation. This state of our affairs caused the President to issue another proclamation, reviving the Non-intercourse Act.t The English Government, after the recall of Erskine, sent to this country a gentleman of extensive diplomatic skill and expe- rience, named Jackson, who reached the seat of Government towards the latter part of the year. In obedience to instructions, he refused to state the rea- sons for the disavowal of the three propositions, which had been assented to, by Canning, but was willing to enter into negotiations for the restoration of amicable relations between the United States and Great Britain. The three conditions, on which were based a project for a treaty, were— Ist. The repealing as to Great Britain, but keeping in force as to France and all countries adopting her decrees,. as long as those decrees were continued, all existing non-impor- tation and non-intercourse acts, and acts excluding foreign ships-of-war. . 2d. The renunciation by the United States, during the pre- 1809, * Hild. Hist. vol. iii, p. 183. + American State Papers, vol. vii. p. 229. 338 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY sent war, of any pretensions to carry on any trade with the Colonies of the belligerents, not allowed in time of peace. 3d. To allow British ships-of-war to enforce, by capture, the American non-intercourse with France and her allies. It was the disavowal of these conditions by the English Government that occasioned the dissatisfaction that existed towards Erskine, and was ultimately the cause of his being recalled. It is beyond comprehension, why our cabinet officer, the honorable Secretary of State, R. Smith, clung with such pertinacity to the arrangement which had been made with Canning. The conditions were of scarcely any value to us, whilst England would have obtained full and free access to our ports. The disavowal on the part of England served to exasperate and heighten the war fever in this country, and may be said to have increased it, more especially at the North, which at that day was assuming that high commercial position which but faintly indicated the career of wealth and prosperity that awaited her. Under such a state of national feeling (from which the cabi- net even was not free or able to conceal) commenced the diplomatic correspondence between Jackson and Smith. The mission of Jackson was not of the slightest importance; he had not only become at an early day distasteful to our Government, but was utterly inefficient in his effort at nego- tiation. He was willing to settle the affair of the Chesapeake upon the terms proposed by Erskine, and was surprised that our Minister did not accept them; yet he acknowledges that Erskine had no authority to make such stipulations, and that the very arrangements which he then proposed were not within the limits of a Minister Plenipotentiary.* It must, however, have been evident to Jackson, if our Government but a few months previous, having by its note in accepting the arrangement in reference to the Chesapeake, caused its disavowal by the English Government, that its renewal would lead to no successful issue. The mis- sion of Jackson terminated by the rude and unpleasant inter- course he engendered; by the roughness of his manner and temper, which led at an early day to his recall. The second session of the Eleventh Congress assembled on the 27th of November. Madison sent in his First Annual Message on the 29th, accompanying which were a large mass 1809, * American State Papers, vol. vii. p. 277. OF THE UNITED STATES. 339 of papers relating to the foreign affairs of the country, which also engrossed the principal part of the Message. The President alludes to the course taken towards Jackson, the late English Minister. Giles, of Virginia, who yet occupied the position of a leader in the ranks of the Administration, was the author of the series of resolutions introduced into the Senate for the purpose of sustaining the course of the Execu- tive. These resolutions passed the Senate without debate, and with nearly a unanimous vote. In the House of Repre- sentatives, the Federalists, with the aid of John Randolph and Nathaniel Macon, waged a powerful opposition, which was finally voted down, and the resolutions sustaining the course of the President passed by a handsome majority. __ Bitter experience had now taught the country the failure of the existing commercial restrictions we had persisted in against England and France, which were not only useless but oppressive and ruinous to American ship- ping. Macon alone stood out for the embargo; but the war party in and out of Congress had began to spread, with an increasing sense of the wrong and injury we had recieved from the English Government. The wealthy merchants, the large planters, indeed, all classes, had suffered severely by the embargo, which was but a substitute for the war, and had failed in every respect. The Federal party at this time acquired some strength of position from the unpopularity of the. embargo, being almost unanimously in favor of letting commerce entirely alone. The Administration party, though receding in a measure from the vigor of the old system, could not adopt the position of the Federalists. Macon, a decided anti-war man at this time, and preferring the embargo to any other measure, rather than war, brought forward, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, what was known as the American Navigation Act, which re- quired the French and British flags, borne either by private or public vessels, to be excluded from American harbors; and limiting the exportation of French and British goods to Ame- rican ships, coming direct from the ports of production. This was the plan of Gallatin, and met the approbation of the President. This bill passed the House on the 29th of January, by a vote of 73 to 52. The Federalists voted against it, as did those who advocated stronger measures. It encountered the 1810. 340 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY same opposition in the Senate, and by means of a fusion with the Federalists and some disaffected Democrats, was stricken from the bill every feature, except the repeal of the existing restrictive act, and the exclusion of armed belligerent vessels, It was proposed by Smith, the Senator from Maryland, to substitute armed merchant-vessels, who, though a Democrat, expected co-operation from the Federalists, as he had acted with them against the bill from the Committee on Foreign Relations; but they unexpectedly came to the support of the Administration and voted down the proposition. The bill, as sent back to the House, was violently opposed, especially by Macon and Eppes, who insinuated in very plain terms the existence of a coalition between the Federalists and some disaffected Democrats, for the purpose of embarrassing the Administration. Angry discussion took the place of calm consideration, which even reached the chamber of the cabinet, in the persons of the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury. With a view to unite the party, the amendments, along with the bill itself, were referred to a select committee. The Senate had proposed an amendment, by authorizing the arm- ing of merchant-vessels, which was thought by Macon and his wing of the party, to be equivalent to a declaration of war. The committee reported adversely to the Senate’s amend- ment, which resulted in the appointment of a committee of conference, but which could not agree; the Senate stood out in favor of its own amendment, 17 to 15, the House adhering to its original position, 66 to 58. The Dill was finally lost. It was a measure of the Administration, and though but little, if anything, would have been gained by the country, yet it was to be regretted that a section of the Democratic party should be found in concert with the Federalists of that day, whose chief aim was to embarrass the Administration. The President was anxious to avert the calamities of war, and did everything in his power to bring about amicable rela- tions. In connection with the act of March, 1809, March, the President was authorized by another act, ‘in case either Great Britain or France should, before the Ist of March following, revoke her edicts or so modify them that they would cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, to issue a proclamation to that effect, and on the omission of the other nation to do the same thing, OF THE UNITED STATES. 341 the act interdicting communication with England and France, passed in 1809, should continue as to the nation refusing.” The act of Congress under which the President was au- thorized to proceed was soon after communicated to the French Court, in answer to which the French Minister for Foreign Affairs replied to our Minister, John Armstrong, “that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked,” and would have no effect after the Ist of November ensuing.* Dupli- city and cunning marked the character of this communication from the Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong. The Presi- dent issued his proclamation to the effect that the decrees were revoked, and that the Non-intercourse Laws would be in force as regarded Great Britain, unless her orders were revoked in three months from that day.+ Subsequent events proved that the Emperor of France intended to deceive our Government, and that he had no idea of revoking the decrees, unless Great Britain should also withdraw her orders in council. Our Go- vernment was lulled for a brief period only, for after the 1st of November, instead of the promised and expected revoca- tion of the offensive decrees, our vessels were seized and held for sequestration, whilst Napoleon boasted “that the Berlin and Milan decress were the fundamental laws of his empire ;”’ and a new Envoy, who reached Washington from France, gave notice to the Government that no remuneration would be made for the sequestered property.t Notice was sent to Armstrong by the French Ministry, that the vessels which had been taken, belonging to the United States, were to be sold. Our Minister, whose indolent habits and procrastinating disposition was at length excited, replied with much force and spirit, recapitulating the outrageous conduct of France towards our Government, and the many aggressions upon American property, and at the same time pointing out the fact, that instead of retaliation for the Non- intercourse Act, when first passed, the Emperor had waited until, under a modification of it, more than one hundred vessels had been sequestrated.§ The reply of our Minister elicited but the iniquitous Rambouillet decree, which was alleged to be in retaliation of the American Non-intercourse * Amer. Stat. Papers, vol. vii. p. 469. } Bradford, 174; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 344. } Bradford, p. 176. ; 2 oy @ Amer. Stat. Papers, vol. vii.; Hild. Hist., vol. iii. p. 215. 342 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Act, and ordered the sale of one hundred and thirty-two vessels, estimated, with their cargoes, to be worth eight mil- lions of dollars; the proceeds of which were to be deposited in the Caisse d’ Amortissement, or Chest of Death, as it has been translated. This remarkable and high-handed injustice made a strong impression upon the American people. In- structions were sent to Armstrong not only to require a repeal of the Berlin and. Milan decrees, but satisfactory jane, provision for the property confiscated, such pro- vision being an indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the United States. Pinckney at this time was engaged in renewed negotia- tions at London, but with no better success than Armstrong at Paris; and in reference to the repeated applications on the subject of blockades, Wellesley replied that the blockade of May, 1806, had never been withdrawn, and the blockade of Venice, of July, 1807, was still in force. The British Go- vernment, though apprised of the position of Napoleon in reference to the Berlin and Milan decrees, which would have been repealed if the blockade had been removed, seemed en- tirely unwilling to do anything towards favoring the prospect of reconciliation towards the United States, either with her- self or the French, the English diplomatic course being as unfair as that of the French, and tending equally to com- plicate the existing difficulties in reference to the English blockades.* The third session of the Eleventh Congress assembled on the 3d of December; on the 5th Madison sent in his Annual Message; allusion was made to the existing difficulties in our foreign relations, but no specific recommendations. Among the political and constitutional questions of interest which at- tracted the attention of Congress were, besides the renewal of the bank charter, the occupation of West Florida, and the erec- tion of Orleans Territory into a State. Nothing of import- ance was effected at this time in reference to the occupation of West Florida, in consequence of the abandonment by the Executive of all intention for the present, on account of the doubtfulness of our territorial right. At this time Louisiana was applying for admission into the Union as a State. The formation of a new State out of territory not originally belong- * Correspondence between Wellesley and Pinckney, Amer. Stat. Papers, vols. vii. and viii. OF THE UNITED STATES. 843 ing to the United States was not only novel, but of exceeding « interest in its constitutional bearing, as well as its future poli- tical import. The great constitutional objection which was alleged at the time, was that new States could not be formed out of territory acquired since the adoption of the Constitu- tion. Quincy, who had no sympathy with the Jeffersonian school of strict construction, was, nevertheless, bold and free in the use of every argument against the erection of this or any other new territory into a State. At this time, however, it is not to be disguised, that political considerations, mixed with sectional jealousy, were the strongest inducements to opposition on this question, for it was pressed exclusively by Northern members. Quincy, who occupied a distinguished part in this debate, may properly be considered the representative of Northern feelings, when he contended that this was a violation of the Constitution, which, in its grossness and violence, would lead to a dissolution of the Union, “amicably if they might, for- cibly if they must.’” This was the earliest indication of the doctrine of secession, which, upon its announcement, fell like an electric shock upon the Congress of the nation. Poindexter, of Mississippi, afterwards distinguished as a Senator, but then only Territorial delegate, and feeling much interest in the argument of the distinguished member from Massachusetts, rose to a point of order, stating that no mem- ber of the House ought to be permitted to incite any portion of the people to insurrection and a dissolution of the Union. Varnum, the Speaker, decided that Quincy was in order, no one having the right to object to the opinion that the admission of Louisiana would lead to a dissolution of the Union.* The Speaker, however, decided that the declaration as to the duty of certain States under a certain contingency, to separate peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must, was out of order. Quincy, however, appealed from the chair, and was sustained, with the influence of some Democratic votes, by a majority of three. Quincy then proceeded to declare, “that he had uttered the statement which had so startled the House, not for agitation, but as a warning; not from hostility to the Union, but of an earnest desire to pre- serve it. The clause in the Constitution authorizing the * Hild. Hist. U. 8., second series, vol. iii. p. 226. 344 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY admission of new States must, from the context, be under- stood to relate only to the formation of new States within the limits of the Union as then existing.’’ This idea, a mere abstraction of the speaker, deserves comparatively little consideration; but he touched a chord which vibrated many thousand hearts, when he continued,—“ Now-a-days there is no limit to our ambitious hopes; we were about to cross the Mississippi; the Missouri and the Red River were but roads upon which our imagination traveled to new lands and new States to be erected and admitted under a power now about to be usurped. The debates on the Federal Constitution would show that the effect of the slave representation and of the transfer power to the West, were subjects of great jealousy to some of the best patriots of the Northern and Eastern States. Had it been foreseen that besides all this, the population of a world beyond the Mississippi was to come in to change all existing proportions of political weight and influence,—to make our laws, control our actions, and decide our destiny,—would such an arrangement, such a throwing of our rights, liberties, and property into hotch-potch with the wild men on the Missouri, have been listened to for a moment ?’’ I shall at another time take occasion to demonstrate the narrow and mistaken policy which the Federal party at this early day manifested to an enlargement of our territorial limits; all must be now convinced that it was jealousy of that great and magnificent power which was looming up in the South and West which would divide the political power with the North. The Territory. was allowed to come in as the State of Louisiana; but the Territory of Mississippi, likewise an appli- cant, was postponed until another session. The act incorporating the United States Bank would expire at this session of Congress; the bank had been ori- ginally chartered in 1791, and had become extensively con- nected with the internal trade of the country; the directors were applying for a renewal of the charter. The constitutional question was still unsettled, notwith- standing the use of the institution for so many years and the authority of those who had given it their sanction. Gral- latin’s report, at a prior date to the application for a renewal of the charter, proposed that the bank should pay a bonus of $1,250,000. The Secretary was himself a warm advocate of OF THE UNITED STATES. 345 this measure, and even with this heavy tax the directors did not hesitate to urge the charter. The friends of this institution urged that it had taken such deep root in every kind of business, that great embar- rassment must ensue if brought suddenly to close its opera- tions. The chief reason with Gallatin was the agency it had exercised in the management of the revenue. The members from the large commercial districts urged that the greatest injury would result to the trading community, especially in the then depressed state of commerce, for the winding up of this bank would necessarily send from the country an enor- mous proportion of its capital. On the 24th of January this important and in- teresting question was brought before the House for final action, where it was indefinitely postponed by a majority of one, whilst in the Senate it was defeated by the casting-vote of the presiding officer, Vice-President Clinton. In the Senate, Clay, Smith, and Bayard, were among the most distinguished and efficient opponents of the bank-bill; Clinton opposed it not on constitutional grounds, nor on grounds of general policy, but with special objections that the bank would only be a private corporation and irresponsi- ble to the Government, except by a forfeiture of its charter. The ablest defender of this bill was Crawford, the most reliable administration man in the Senate, and the immediate friend and confidant of the Secretary of the Treasury. Wm. B. Giles, a distinguished Senator from Virginia, made an elaborate argument in favor of the constitutional power to create a bank, and in elucidation of the implied powers of the Government. The Virginia and Pennsylvania legisla- tures had sent instructions to the Senators from these States adverse to a recharter of the bank; Giles, at the same time that he obeyed the instructions, made a speech against the right of this famous and very popular doctrine, which ren- dered him for a while exceedingly distasteful to the people of Virginia. The friends. of this favorite Federal measure, after defeat and disappointment at the hands of Congress, applied to the legislature of Pennsylvania with the alluring bait of an annual bonus of $40,000; upon the failure of which there was left no alternative but for the bank to transfer its effects to trustees for the purpose of winding up its business. Ame- rican commerce had been subject to so many interruptions Vou. I.—23 1811. 346 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and ruinous restrictions, and the consequent reduction in the trade of the United States, it was but what every reflective mind could see, that our financial operations would be ver much embarrassed. During the years 1808, 1809, and 1810, there had been a constant and heavy reduction in the exports of the country, which to a similar extent had depressed our imports. In May, 1810, a law had been passed authorizing a loan equal to the public debt, which sum was reimbursable during this year. From the third year of the administration of the Government, we had adopted a system to reduce the principal of the national debt, which required the appropriation of large sums to be applied annually for that purpose; but yet, such was the condition of our finances, that though by this annual appropriation a large amount of debt had been paid off, we were compelled to make a negotiation for a loan to meet our current expenses. The expenses of our Government for this year were estimated at above thir- teen millions of dollars; our outstanding revenue bonds were, at the commencement of the year, estimated at eleven millions; but half a million from the sale of public lands; this would leave the Treasury deficient, and to prevent which five mil- lions of dollars were borrowed. It is worthy of notice that at this time fifty thousand dollars were appropriated for the Cumberland road, and one hundred and thirty-one thousand for completing those fortifications which had already been commenced, with an allowance of seventy-five thousand dol- lars to relieve and bring home our destitute seamen.* The Eleventh Congress was now rapidly drawing to a close; the country was in a high state of excitement and perplexity; especially the mercantile community. The conditional Non- importation Act in reference to Great Britain would soon go into operation; this was a most unwise and unjust piece of legislation, which was but slightly improved by the amend- ment of the chairman of Foreign Relations, John W. Eppes, of Virginia. This act, which excited so much odium, pro- vided for the forfeiture of all goods after the 2d day of February, 1811, imported from Great Britain or her Colo- nies, whether belonging to our own merchants or not. On the 2d of February Mr. Eppes introduced a bill into the House, with a saving clause as respects those goods ship- 1811. * Hild, Hist. U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 231; Bradford, p. 178. OF THE UNITED STATES. 847 ped prior to the commencement of the act; Randolph, with great foresight and ability, urged the repeal of this law entirely ; an angry debate ensued between Eppes and Randolph, which resulted in a challenge to mortal combat from Eppes,—though fortunately it went no further, being honorably and amicably settled by the intervention of mutual friends. In the last moments of the expiring Congress, a desperate effort was made to push the bill of Eppes through the House, which continued to sit during the night, the Federalists hoping to protract the debate beyond the limits of the session of Con- gress; when ultimately, through much violence, disorder, and palpable violation of parliamentary rules, it was forced through the House, and was carried in the Senate by a vote of 20 to 7; after which, with the passage of two bills,—one incorporating an Episcopal Church in the District of Co- lumbia, the other making a donation of a piece of land in the State of Mississippi to a Baptist Church, both of which received the veto of President Madison,—Congress finally adjourned. This Congress adjourned on the 4th day of March, 1811; with its three sessions it had been sitting an unusual num- ber of days; perhaps no Congress in our governmental his- tory had done so little or incurred a higher odium from an incensed people,—and justly incensed, not only on account of the unmanly, protracted, and senseless parley with Great Britain, or the duplicity and favoritism shown France, whose conduct had been equally aggressive, but the commercial dis- tress and monetary embarrassments brought upon the coun- try by unwise legislation, which was aggravated by the Eleventh Congress, rather than retrace its mistaken course and alleviate the distress of an embarrassed, tax-burdened people. : The President and his cabinet were, however, continuous in their efforts to maintain friendly relations with England and France, and especially so towards the latter; for in February, Barlow was appointed Minister to the French Court, with full powers to negotiate a treaty of commerce. Napoleon’s Ministers received Barlow with great kindness, and vaguely intimated a disposition to form a treaty with his Government. Napoleon continued impracticable to the utmost extreme, maintaining that policy which would subject a large portion of American commerce to his control; at all events, he would exclude all British manufactures from the 348 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY continent of Europe. Barlow did not succeed in any effort,— and it was impossible that he could, with the instructions that bound him down to a mere cypher, and the haughty and high- handed policy which he had to face. The Administration wag very much censured on account of its manner of conducting our relations with England and France; yet the Congressional elections which had taken place for members of the Twelfth Congress indicated a continued favor of the Administration party with the people; but the Democratic members of Con- gress were more inclined to quick and decided measures of hostility than they had appeared to be at any previous time. The census of 1810, the third enumeration under the Con- stitution, (the result of which was made known in 1811) may very properly be noticed in this place. The distribution of population was under the same heads as by the last census; but, in addition to the population of the former territory of the United States, is to be embraced that settled portion of Louisiana which we had acquired since the last enumeration. Between the white and colored races, the population was as follows :— Wihite mal es: sccss0 jess sends sewsiccedsedes teepecene secession 2,987,571 White females.) csccc.-ss caceveawescoagennes ceepanes. eewaerees 2,874,433 Free Color edscssinevanaee des vreqssesieceswrien’ sipeieaniaanaas 186,446 SlaVGSicscaviners voovevevs seetenstavaciai vaasscwinaes sovaeess ooaees 1,191,364 Making a total population of seven millions two hundred and thirty-nine thousand eight hundred and fourteen; which shows an increase of upwards of 36 per cent. upon the popu- lation of 1800,—of the whites, 86°18 per cent.; of the free colored, 72 per cent.; and of the slaves 33-40 per cent. The greater rate of increase which was exhibited by this census is attributable, in reference to the whole population, to the acquisition of Louisiana, and also in some degree to an increased importation of slaves prior to 1808; for it was known that Congress would exercise the power it possessed of prohibiting, after this period, any further importation.* The following statement shows the number of white, free colored, and slaves, in the slaveholding States :— WNUGE sess vat acets cas-ce sued dance eaveans sPadacciinaupeueeea Levees 2,208,785 Free colored , wee 108,265 \ SIAV6Seivne rerccsicsmrestss wrvegeaeiew seca sigeseteaieancrstons 1,163,854 Whole populations. .iecscrcasnvae denscoerscveanesses nace oosieee 8,480,904 * Tucker’s Population of the United States, chapter iii. OF THE UNITED STATES. 349 From which it appears that both descriptions of the colored population had increased much faster than the whites in the last ten years. In 1810 the slaves constituted less than one- third of the population of the slave States, but now it was more than a third* After the result of the census was ascertained, the ratio of representation was fixed at 35,000, increasing the number of the lower House to 182 members, which was forty more than belonged to the preceding Congress, the adjustment of which will appear from the following statement; which will also show the alterations made in the number of representatives from different States, and the comparative increase and de- crease of different sections of the country :— States. Free Whites. Slaves. Allothers. Total. Reps. New York........ eceietaw daa 918,699 15,017 25,338 959,049 27 Virginia......... -- 556,534 392,518 30,570 979,622 28 Pennsylvania 786,804 795 22,492 810,091 23 Massachusetts & Maine... 692,939 wee 7,706 700,745 20 North Carolina.............. 376,310 168,824 10,266 555,500 13 Kentucky ......... sinGideredeite 324,237 80,561 1,718 406,511 10 South Carolina............. 214,196 196,365 4,554 415,115 9 Maryland.......... see 285,116 111,502 33,927 380,446 9 Connecticut... ...ccceeececeee 255,179 310 6,453 261,942 7 Tennessee.........cecceseeeee 215,875 44,555 1,317 261,727 6 Georgia ....... sesesseee 146,414 105,215 1,801 252,483 6 New Jersey......scccccs seca 226,868 10,851 7,843 245,562 6 Ohio......... acepaeciers 228,861 vee 1,899 230,760 6 Vermont.....csccessceeeceeeee 217,145 Ait 750 217,895 6 New Hampshire............ 213,490 weeds 970 214,460 6 Rhode Island......... wees 78,214 108 3,609 76,931 2 DelaWare isi cossesecscoiesacne 55,361 4,177 18,1386 72,674 2 LOvisianaescwvssceccecs venvex 34,311 84,660 7,585 76,556 1 The territorial population was insufficient to allow a repre- sentative at this time. * Tucker’s Population of the United States, chap. iii. p. 27. 850 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY CHAPTER VIII. THE WAR OF 1812. Tue Twelfth Congress, which convened on the 4th of November, was called together by the pro- clamation of the President, which had been issued on account of the critical condition of the country. Hopes had been entertained when the last Congress adjourned that the orders in council would be repealed, especially as the causes which led to their enactment were supposed to be done away with by the formal revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees. The orders in council were not repealed, under the pretence, which for a time was true, that the French decrees were not effectually repealed. Although Foster, the British Minister, had admitted to Monroe, then Secretary of State, that no blockade could be binding unless supported by an adequate force, England audaciously and impudently demanded of this Government a strict observance of her orders, closing the ports of France, from the Elbe to Brest, against vessels that did not carry on their trade through Great Britain. England was aiming a death-blow at our commerce, merely to obtain revenge on France in the Berlin and Milan decrees. Our vessels were constantly seized upon the ocean on no other pretext but the bare suspicion of an intention on our part to violate this paper blockade, which is always considered by the law of nations as utterly useless unless sustained by a sufli- cient force. Whilst this Government was using every means to preserve friendly relations with the belligerents, the world will impar- tially judge of the wrongs done us, when it is apprised that under the British orders in council, and since the recommence- ment of the Continental war, that there were 917 captures, 389 having occurred since the orders in council. The French seizures and captures amounted to 558, 317 1811. OF THE UNITED STATES. 351 being under the Berlin and Milan decrees, and 45 since their alleged repeal;* and under the iniquitous system of impress- ment, England had taken from the crews of American vessels, peaceably navigating the high seas, upwards of six thousand mariners, sailing under the stars and stripes and claiming to be American citizens. When Congress convened, the President sent in his Third Annual Message, stating the cause of calling jy.” the representatives of the people together at an earlier date than their usual time of meeting, in which he briefly recapitulated the causes of complaint against Great Britain, urging an immediate and effectual vindication of our rights and our honor. He also expressed the great dissatis- faction we were compelled to entertain towards France, on account of the grievous injuries she had done us, which were, however, then under consideration at Paris between our Minister and the French Government. After recapitulating the many wrongs we had received from the belligerent nations, he boldly stated, ‘with this evidence of hostile inflexibility in trampling on rights which no independent nation can relin- quish, Congress will feel the duty of putting the United States into an armor and an attitude demanded by the crisis, and corresponding with the national spirit and expectations.”’ The Congress to which this Message was sent was over- whelmingly Republican; in the Senate there were only six Federalists, Massachusetts even being partially represented by a Republican in the person of Varnum, so often Speaker of the House, but then the successor of Pickering in the Senate of the United States. Bayard and Lloyd still ably represented the Federal party, and Dana was there as the successor of Hillhouse. The Federalists were indirectly aided by the influence of Giles and Smith and Leib, who used every effort to thwart the policy of the Administration. In the desertion of Giles, the Republican party in the Senate found as efficient a leader in the person of Crawford, who, if less skilled in debate, was more influential as a man; whilst at the same time he was ably supported by a new member from Ten- nessee named Campbell. In the House, the entire strength of the Federal party had dwindled to 36, though in debate they relied much on the veteran Quincy, sustained by Key and Martin and Chittien- - * Hild, Hist., second series, vol. iii. p. 312. + Ingersoll, vol. i. p. 39. 852 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY den. Randolph, like Giles in the Senate, did everything genius and wit and satire could effect, to thwart the Republican party, which, however, had strengthened since the last Congress. With the exception of Connecticut and Rhode Island, New England, as well as New York, was decidedly Republican. Pennsylvania had but one Federalist. Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina had only ten. As a strong evidence that the war spirit was increasing, every violent war member of the last Congress had been re-elected. Porter, Wright, Wil- liams, Troup, Desha, Johnson, McKee, and Cheves were all old members and violent war men; whilst added to the list were three new names ever to be remembered in the annals of America,—Clay, Calhoun, and Lowndes. The peace and war parties divided off at the very beginning of the session, as was manifest in the contest for Speaker, the war party being represented by Henry Clay, whose talent, energy, and character, had marked him as the proper man to fill the Speaker’s chair, though it was his first session. Clay was known to Congress and the country, having served a short time in the Senate. William W. Bibb,—who had been a member of Congress for six years from the State of Georgia, was a warm political friend of Gallatin, and was urgent for the maintenance of peace,—was the peace candidate for Speaker, but was beaten by Clay, the war candidate, by a vote of 75 to 35. That part of the Message which had reference to our for- eign affairs, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, which the Speaker had appointed with characteristic skill, so as to favor the war sentiment, which day by day was spreading with increased rapidity. Peter B. Porter, of New York, chairman of the committee, was determined that inactivity and indecision should no longer mark the character of the Republican, or, as it was beginning to be called, the Democratic party; with zeal and assiduity it commenced work, and in a short time presented to thé House the celebrated report, which was the first official document which breathed a high and determined spirit of resistance to the unparalleled wrongs we had suffered.* This report was brief, but fervent, eloquent, and patriotic, and exerted a beneficial influence upon the community. It noticed the many injuries committed against us by France Nov. 29. * American State Papers, vol. viii. p. 241. OF THE UNITED STATES. 853 and England. The former for more than five years, by her oppressive Berlin and Milan decrees, seizing the property of our citizens, producing derangement and ruin to our commerce; in aiming a blow at the power and prosperity of England, we were more deeply injured. Whilst, in a few words, the great cause of complaint against Great Britain, the committee had only to say, “That the United States, as a sovereign and in- dependent power, claim the right to use the ocean, which is the common and acknowledged highway of nations, for the purpose of transporting in their own vessels the protlucts of their own soil and the acquisitions of their ‘own industry, to a market in the ports of friendly nations, and to bring home in return such articles as their necessities or convenience may require, always regarding the rights of belligerents as defined by the established laws of nations. Great Britain, in defiance of this incontestible right, captures every American vessel bound to or returning from a port where her commerce is not favored, enslaves our seamen, and in spite of our remon- strances perseveres in these aggressions. To wrongs so daring in character and so disgraceful in their execution, it is impos- sible that the people of the United States should remain in- different; we must now tamely and quietly submit, or we must resist by those means which God has placed within our reach.” The committee would not cast a shade over the American name by the expression of a doubt which branch of this alter- native would be embraced.* This report concluded with a recommendation of the im- mediate and adequate increase of the military forces of the United States. The doctrines of this report were thoroughly those of the war party, among the most conspicuous was Henry Clay; and it was through the influence of this party that the distinguished Speaker appointed men on this committee known to be in favor of war with England as the only alternative. The first efforts of the war party were directed to an increase of the army and navy; and now it was that the unwise policy of Jefferson in reducing the right and left arm of our national defence (the army and navy) to comparative insignificance, began to be seriously felt. On the 6th of November this report was taken |... up in the Committee of the Whole; the chairman, * Report of Committee, Amer. State Papers, vol. viii. p. 245. 354 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY in vindicating its recommendations and position, contended that the conduct of Great Britain was regulated solely by our sense of forbearance, the operation of whose orders had de- stroyed three-fourths of our trade. That we were able to meet Great Britain fleet to fleet, he did not pretend; but without a navy, we might greatly harass her commerce by hundreds of privateers that would ride the ocean. The North American British Provinces, valuable to us, indispensable to the Mother Country, were an alluring bait, and it was argued we might easily occupy them. There were many and very able speeches made in favor of war with Great Britain, enumerating the causes of complaint and elaborating the views of the com- mittee. There was opposition, however, to these warlike proceed- ings; the most brilliant of which was from John Randolph, who, with his accustomed discursiveness, mingled with occa- sional force of argument and keen satire, lent a charm and interest to everything he said. The main features of the argument of Randolph, which were indeed the reflection of the sentiments of the anti-war party, were the inability of the United States to contend with Great Britain; the great dis- tress that would result to our commercial and financial af- fairs, and to which was added a want of adequate cause for war.* The most efficient argument made to the various efforts of this fearless champion of the anti-war party, was from John C. Calhoun, who was always able, always eloquent and effec- tive, but then a young and ambitious member of the House from South Carolina, who gave an early exhibition of that keen analysis and dexterous logic which made him at all times the ablest and most philosophic debater that has per- haps ever appeared in the American Congress. The commit- tee on Foreign Relations had recommended an additional force of ten thousand regulars to be raised immediately and to serve for three years; the word ten was struck out in the Committee of the Whole; it was upon this amendment that Randolph made the great opposition speech of the session to all warlike preparations, which was noticed above, and in answer to which Calhoun spoke on the 12th of December; a summary of which will place the reader in pos- #1 session of all the strong points of the war party, as * Hild. Hist. U. §., second series, vol. iii; Garland’s Life of Randolph. OF THE UNITED STATES. 855 well as the weak ones of the anti-war party. He spoke of the extent, the character, and duration of the injuries we had received. He inquired, Which shall we do, abandon or defend our own commercial and maritime rights and the personal liberties of our citizens employed in exercising them? These rights are vitally attacked; the gentleman from Virginia suggests no means of redress; though none other exist but war, he considers patient: and resigned submission the best remedy. The first argument made by Randolph, was the unprepared state of the country. Whatever weight this argument might have in a question of immediate war, it surely has little in that of preparation for it. If the country is unprepared, let us remedy the evil as soon as possible. “We are next told,” said Calhoun, “of the expenses of the war, and that the people will not pay them. Why not? Is it from want of means? What! with one million tons of shipping and a commerce of $100,000,000 annually, manufactures yielding a yearly product of $150,000,000, and agriculture of thrice that amount, shall we be told the coun- try wants capacity to raise and support ten or fifteen thousand additional regulars?” Randolph dwelt at great length upon the dangers of the war: first, that which would result from the influence of the black population of the Southern States. In reply to which all that Calhoun could say was, to ‘‘regret that such is the state of apprehension in his (Randolph’s) part of the country.” Randolph thought our Constitution, in the second place, was not calculated for war and that it could not stand the shock. “This,” said Calhoun, “is rather extraordinary. If true, we must then depend upon the commisseration or contempt of other nations for our existence. The Constitution, then, it seems, has failed in an essential object,—‘to provide ‘for the common defence,’ and none could doubt that this was not a defensive war.’’* After all this debate, which lasted for several weeks, the resolutions of the committee finally passed on the 19th of December, by a vote of 109 to 22. This was the first signal for warlike preparations, and a bill was forthwith introduced to fill up the ranks of the existing army to 25,000 men, to ® Randolph’s Speech; American Oratory, by Biddle, 1836; Calhoun’s Works, vol. ii. p. 1. 356 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY serve for five years or until discharged. In the Senate this bill was urged by Giles, in preference to a small number; probably because he knew one or the other must inevitably pass. In the House, Calhoun, Clay, and many other bright and gallant spirits, determined not only on resistance, but a bold and efficient one, advocated the larger bill calling for 25,000 men. It was distinctly intimated, especially by Clay, that war was nigh at hand, and in his patriotic fervor he exclaimed, —“‘ Philadelphia may be invaded, New York or Boston may fall, and every seaport be taken; but the country will remain free. The whole of our territory this side of the Alleghany may be invaded, still liberty will not be subdued.” This bill speedily passed the House by a vote of 94 to 34, Besides raising 25,000 additional regulars, two major and five brigadier-generals were appointed; to the recruits was a bounty of sixteen dollars; two dollars to the enlisting officer; when dischaged, two months’ extra pay and one hundred and sixty acres of land. On the 14th of January, Congress appropriated $1,500,000 to buy arms, ordnance, and other necessary appurtenances for an army, and $400,000 for powder, ordnance and small arms for the navy. At this time the action of Congress met the cordial approval of many of the State legislatures; from Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, resolutions were sent up promising to sustain the General Government; and Massachusetts, speaking through the House of Repre- sentatives, boldly denounced Great Britain; her impressments as ‘“‘man-stealing,”’ and the opponents of the Administration as ‘“‘inceptive traitors.” Congress seemed to give its attention almost entirely to the preparations necessary for a vigorous prosecution of the approaching struggle; and besides the last army bill so re- cently enacted, a bill passed authorizing the President to employ 50,000 twelve-months’ volunteers. Soon after the passage of these acts, the other recom- mendations of the President were acted upon; in reference to the navy, Cheves, chairman of the Naval Committee, reported in favor of a large increase in the number of our boats, recommending a standing appropriation for the pur- chase of timber and establishing a dock for repairs. The chairman was in favor of filling the blank which authorized the building of a number of frigates with ten; Rhea, of Ten- nessee, moved to strike out that section which authorized the 1812. OF THE UNITED STATES. 357 building of new frigates; he was sustained by some very intelligent members of Congress,—especially by Boyd, of New Jersey, Blackledge, of North Carolina, and Smilie. They were opposed in masterly arguments by Cheves, Clay, and Lowndes, the later being in favor of forty frigates and twenty-five ships of the line. The argument of Henry Clay, the bright, gifted, and eloquent representative of the war party and unflinching defender of the rights of his country, was as brilliant as it was effective. Though glancing at the general grounds for war, he directed his aim chiefly to a vin- dication of the navy from the suspicions of jealousy to which it had been so often subjected. He contended that the whole Western section of the country was as immediately interested in the maintenance of a naval force as the Atlantic States. After alluding to the exposed situation of certain ports of our Atlantic border, Clay proceeded to say,—‘ Whilst I feel the deepest solicitude for the safety of New York and other cities on the coast, I would be pardoned by the committee for referring to the interest of that section of the Union from which I come. If there be a point more than any other in the United States demanding the aid of naval protection, that point is the mouth of the Mississippi. What is the population of the Western country dependent on this single , outlet for its surplus productions? Kentucky, according to the last enumeration, has 405,511; Tennessee, 261,727; Ohio, 230,760; and when the population of the western ports of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the territories which are drained by the Mississippi or its waters, is added, it will form an aggregate equal to about one-fifth of the whole population of the United States, resting all their commercial hopes on this solitary vent. * * * * Icall the attention of my Western friends, especially my worthy Kentucky friends (from whom I feel myself with regret con- strained to differ on this occasion,) to the state of the public feeling in that quarter whilst the navigation of the Missis- sippi was withheld by Spain; and to the still more recent period when the right of depot was violated. Abandon all idea of protecting by maritime force the mouth of the Mis- sissippi, and we shall have the recurrence of many similar scenes; we shall hold the inestimable right of the navigation of that river by the most precarious tenure. The whole com- . merce of the Mississippi—a commerce that is destined to be 358 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the richest that was ever borne by a single stream—is placed at the mercy of a single ship lying off the Balize.”’* This speech of Clay is a proud monument of that noble love for the whole Union, in that distinction from local at- tachments which always marked his public acts. So great was the prejudice existing to the navy, that Rhea’s motion was carried by a vote of 62 to 59. The bill as it went to the Senate contained only an appro- priation of $480,000 for fitting out the Constellation, Chesa- peake, and Adams frigates, and $200,000 for three years to buy timber to rebuild three other rotten frigates. After reaching the Senate, Lloyd moved to insert an appropriation for twenty new frigates. He was opposed to the war; yet he thought the course of Great Britain inde- fensible. ‘Give us,” said he, “this little fleet, and in a quarter of the time in which you would operate upon her in any other way we would bring Great Britain to terms.” Lloyd failed in his effort, which was in every respect praise-. worthy and marked by a speech of great ability. His great opponent was Crawford, and under his lead the Senate re- duced even the appropriation for repairs down to $300,000. The financial relations of a country, always important and interesting, become especially so on the approach of a war. Gallatin’s financial report, submitted to Congress in the early part of the present session, had flushed the hopes of the war party to the very highest pitch; not that the Secretary had said anything in advocation of the war, for he was bitterly opposed to it, but his report had presented so favorable a condition of our finances, that the war party supposed but little if any difficulty could exist on that ground. It was to be accounted for from the unexampled success that had at- tended the Treasury by the brief period of unrestrained commerce after the expiration of the embargo. It is an important truth and worthy of the most profound considera- tion, that every expense for the year 1811, even to the pay- ment of the temporary loan of the year 1810, was not only fully met out of the current receipts, but left a balance of $3,000,000 in the Treasury, with $7,500,000 of revenue bonds. From the sales of land and miscellaneous sources, * Speech of Henry Clay on the Increase of the Navy. + Hild. Hist. U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 281. OF THE UNITED STATES. 859 $700,000 might be calculated on, according to the estimate of the Secretary. The ordinary expenses of the Government, with the interest on the public debt, which was reduced to $2,221,000, with a million annually to meet the principal, only amounted to $10,000,000. Thus would occur for the ensuing year but a small deficit, which could be easily met, the Secretary thought, by increasing the rate of duties; but if this was not done, enough money could be raised by loans to meet any extraordinary expenses of the Government; even those of war. It is somewhat strange that so able and experienced a finan- cier as Gallatin should have fallen into so great an error, as will presently appear. Some six weeks after the session had commenced, the Secretary was consulted by the Committee of Ways and Means in reference to the ten millions needed for the new and unexpected expenses of the Government. I quote from an elegant and accurate historian, who says :— “Gallatin found himself obliged to present things in a very different light. He informed the Committee of Ways and Means that his project of 1808 for the prosecution of a war by loans only, must be taken in connection with his recom- mendation then made to double the existing duties. Had that recommendation been adopted, there would now have been twenty millions in the Treasury. He had also then reason to suppose that the Bank of the United States would have been rechartered. Had that been done on the plan he had suggested, there would have been a sure resource for loans to the extent of fifteen millions. To borrow elsewhere was an ‘untried experiment, and to give it the least chance of success, taxes must be provided for paying the interest. His recent calculation of six millions from customs had been based on an expected continuation of peace. A war would probably re- duce that source of income to two millions and a half, or five millions if the duties were doubled.” This report, which was presented on the 21st of January, estimated a deficit of four millions, which ought to be pro- vided for by a direct tax to the amount of two millions, and internal taxes to raise three millions, which was one million more than the regular expenses would require. Great sur- prise as well as dissatisfaction was expressed by many mem- bers of Congress and throughout the country at this report; nor did the leading war journals of that day hesitate to charge 360 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY unfair motives to the Secretary, in thus presenting so unfa- vorable a view of our finances, in order to avert the approach- ing war if possible. It failed most signally, if such was the purpose of the Secretary of the Treasury, for very soon there- after a loan of eleven millions was authorized, and the means provided for its payment by a new tax bill. About this period the President transmitted to Congress several papers, showing a base effort on the part of the Bri- tish Government to induce the anti-war party, which was for the most part found at the North, not only to divide the Union, but to secure the Northern section as an ally to Great Britain. This information was communicated to our Government by a man named Henry, who was a native of Treland, but for many years a naturalized citizen, and once an editor of a political paper in the city of Philadelphia. This exposure greatly exasperated the Republican against the Federal party, which was chiefly the anti-war party, and also agitated the feelings of the war party against the Eng- lish Government.* Henry had been a secret agent of the British Government, and upon refusal to pay him, he volun- tarily gave all the information in his possession to the Presi- dent of the United States. Henry received fifty thousand dollars for the disclosures he made; and, for some reason en- tirely unknown, the President kept them a profound secret for nearly a month. The British Minister disavowed any knowledge of the ex- istence of such a mission or transactions as Henry referred to; yet the language of the Committee on Foreign Relations was,—‘‘The transactions disclosed by the President’s Mes- sage present to the mind of the committee conclusive evi- dence that the British Government, at a period of peace and during the most friendly professions, have been deliberately and perfidiously pursuing measures to divide these States, and to involve our citizens in all the guilt of treason and the horrors of a civil war.’ Madison was known to be averse to war, in which position he was sustained by Gallatin. The elections of 1811 had, however, resulted largely in favor of the Republicans, and * Hild. Hist. U. 8., second series, vol. iii. p. 284; Life of H. Clay, vol. i. p. 62; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 349. + Dwight’s Hist. and Review; Sullivan. } Journ. Cong., 1812. OF THE UNITED STATES, 361 that party was strongly disposed to immediate war; indeed, it may be said the most prominent friends of the Adminis- tration were determined on war. Most conspicuous among them were H. Clay, Calhoun, Lowndes, Porter, and Cheves, besides other gallant spirits. It was impossible for Madison to retain the position of chief of the Republican party, if he stood longer indifferent to war. The Presidential election was approaching. The Federalists were determined to make a vigorous opposition to the Republican ticket, and mainly upon the war question, and they well knew the candidate would be a decided war man. Madison was popular, but was too much inclined to peace; if he would assume the lead in the approaching war, he was the most fit and proper person. He was placed in a most embar- rassing position; he and his most confidential adviser, Gal- latin, were opposed to the war, whilst his party, led on by the most talented members of Congress, were in favor of it. Randolph and Macon stood almost alone of the old Republi- can party. The war party on one side were making as des- perate an effort to secure the nomination for President, as the present party in power was to retain the position it then occu- pied. Many newspapers were indulging in daily assaults upon the Administration on account of its feebleness and want of resolution. De Witt Clinton was prominent among the Federalists, but stood ready to accept the nomi- nation from the war party. The leaders of the war party were determined to have Madison; a committee called on him, under the personal influence of Henry Clay, its advocate and leader. Madison waived his individual feelings and convic- tions for the good of his country, and consented to recommend a declaration of war. Under no other circumstances could he have obtained a second nomination for President, which he did soon thereafter unanimously, from the Republican members of Congress, assembled in caucus at the City of Washington, on the 18th day of May, 1812. ; It must be observed that early in April of this year, Madi- son had undergone some change in his opinion in reference to hostilities towards England. From his known and avowed disposition for conciliation is rather to be attributed his dilatory course, than a want of those qualities necessary to uphold the dignity of the Government, though it must be admitted he long halted where forbearance could scarcely be considered a virtue. Vot. I.—24 1812. 362 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY It was evident that the mind of the President was being aroused to a sense of the injuries we were suffering and had long endured. He sent to Congress a confidential Message, “considering it as expedient, under existing circumstances and prospects, that a general embargo be laid on all vessels now in port, or hereafter arriving, for the period of sixty days,” and recommending its immediate passage.* Porter had withdrawn from the head of the Committee of Foreign Relations, whose place was now filled by John 0. Calhoun. The Message was referred to this committee, and a bill introduced in accordance with its recommendation. In the House an effort was made by Boyd, of New Jersey, to prolong the embargo to 120 days, which was lost by a vote of two to one, and the bill finally passed by a vote of 70 to 41. When it reached the Senate, it was amended by substituting ninety days instead of sixty, and thus it became a law on the next day by the signature of the President, “prohibiting the sailing of any vessels for any foreign port, except foreign vessels, with such cargoes as they had on board when notified of the act.t A spirited debate ensued on this bill, to an inquiry whether it was a precursor of war. Grundy said it was. Henry Clay was among the first to express his warmest approval of this measure, “because it is to be viewed as a direct precursor to war.” John Randolph opposed the embargo with all that extraordinary power that distinguished his every effort. He did not consider it an initial step to war, but as a subterfuge, a retreat from battle. ‘What new cause of war,” he asked, “or of an embargo, has arisen in the last twelve months?” Addressing himself to Henry. Clay, he exclaimed,—‘“I hope, Sir, the spirit of party and every improper passion will be exorcised, that our hearts may be as pure and clean as fall to the lot of human nature. I am confident in the declaration, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a measure of the Executive, but it is engendered by an entensive excitement upon the Executive.” He was fearlessly met and fully answered by Henry Clay, with words burning with patriotic zeal and eloquence in be- half of the honor of his country. “The gentleman from April 3. * Madison’s Confidential Message, April 1, 1812; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 292. + Journ. Cong. 1812; Memoir of Henry Clay, p. 66; Hild. Hist. U. 8., second series, vol. iii. p. 293. OF THE UNITED STATES. 863 Virginia,’ he said, “need not have reminded them, in the manner he had, of that Being who watched over and sur- rounded them. From this sentiment we should draw very different conclusions from those which occurred to him. It ought to influence them to that patriotism and to a display of those high qualifications so much more honorable to the human character. The gentleman asks what new cause of war has been avowed? ‘The affair of the Chesapeake is set- tled, to be sure, but only to paralyze the spirit of the country. Has Great Britain abstained from impressing our seamen,— from depredations upon our property? We have complete proof, in her capture of our ships, in her exciting our frontier Indians to hostility, and in her sending an emissary to our cities to excite civil war, that she will do everything to destroy us; our resolution and our spirit are our only dependence. Although I feel warm upon this subject, I pride myself upon those feelings, and should despise myself if I were destitute of them.” Randolph, as if it were possible to frighten Henry Clay from his well-matured convictions, exclaimed,—‘‘ He had known a gentleman not inferior in gallantry, in wisdom, in experience, in the talents of a statesman, to any upon the floor, consigned to oblivion for advocating a war upon the public sentiment.’ But in answer to this, Clay could exhibit the gleaming and patriotic resolutions of fourteen different State legislatures, indicating how strongly the tide of public opinion was rushing in behalf of war. Quincy, of Massachusetts, possessed of much eloquence and ability, opposed the embargo with all his strength. It was, in his opinion, an act of treason to the interest of the country; its enactment an outrage upon common sense. He acknowledged that, in connection with some of his colleagues, he had sent expresses to the Eastern cities, announcing the undoubted establishment of an embargo. He said,—‘‘We did it to escape into the jaws of the British lion and of the French tiger, which are places of repose, of joy, and delight, when compared with the grasp and fang of this hyena em- bargo.” Dr. Mitchell, of New York, had been educated among the British; knew them well; they were proud and overbearing; with a population of seven millions we ought not to be fright- ened. “We need not fear to face a nation whose head (the Prince-regent, afterwards George IV.) had been some years 364 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY before expelled from a jocky-club for cheating, and had been lately turned out of doors for his unworthy conduct to a neigh- bor’s wife.’’* ; The nation had now taken the first preliminary step to- wards a declaration of war against Great Britain. It was received with general approval by the people, though in some sections it was as bitterly opposed, as any other act of hos- tility towards England would have been. All that could now engross the attention of Congress was the preparation for the coming contest, which all saw was inevitable. A majority of the people, as well as the Republican members of Congress, thought that too much delay had already occurred in bringing matters to a crisis. Negotiations even were carried on with Foster, the British Minister, who frequently held out the hope that the difficulties would be adjusted. It was evident, from the diplomatic correspondence with Foster, that no concession was proposed, and it was determined by the Republican mem- bers of Congress that a deputation should wait on the Presi- dent, and urge not only an active and vigorous preparation, but a speedy declaration of war. Henry Clay, who was fore- most in this delegation, exerted the most decided influence upon the President; he demonstrated the folly of seeking a peaceful adjustment of our difficulties. He would cut short the argument with Foster, and appeal to arms and the God of battles for the vindication of our rights. It was about this time that the attention of the Government was arrested from the consideration of war with England, to a brief notice of the condition of affairs with France. The dispatches which had been anxiously expected from Barlow, our Minister to France, were brought in by the Hor- net. They only told of the fruitless mission he was filling, and of the determination of the French to hold on to the Berlin and Milan decrees. At this session of Congress, Louisiana was admitted into the Union as a State, and the Territory previously called Louisiana was organized, with a Territorial government, under the name of Missouri. Acts were also passed to prohibit the exportation of specie, wares, or merchandise from the United States during the continuance of the embargo. A General March 22. * Garland’s Life of Randolph, vol. i. p. 298; Memoir of Clay, vol. i. p. 64; Hild. Hist. U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 294. OF THE UNITED STATES. 865 Land Office was established as a part of the Treasury Depart- ment; six millions of acres were set apart to pay the one hundred and sixty acres bounty promised to the soldiers of the United States; an issue of five millions of dol- lars in Treasury notes was authorized, and the duties on imports were raised one hundred per cent.; American vessels were prohibited from trading with the enemy. The elections which had taken place in the spring of this year were somewhat unfavorable to the views of the Admin- istration; in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, a considerable change had taken place in favor of the Federal party. After the interview between the com- mittee which had waited on Madison, his mind seemed fixed on taking immediate steps of hostility against England; Clay, whose personal influence was always very great, was perhaps of more weight on this occasion than in any other event of his brilliant and useful career, for he was the spokes- man of this famous deputation, and successfully persuaded Madison to the decisive steps he took, though his chief con- fidential adviser, Albert Gallatin, remained inflexible in his opposition to war. On the Ist of June, the long-sought event was consummated; Madison performed the crowning event, not of his administration, but his life; he issued his War Message, as it has been styled; in which, after recapi- tulating in clear and strong language the aggressions of the English Government, he says,—‘ We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States; and on the other side, of the United States, a state of peace towards Great Britain. Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or opposing force to force in defence of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friend- ship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely con- fides to the legislative department of the Government.” After recommending the above course to be pursued towards Great Britain, the President abstained from recommending any definite measures to be taken towards France, because 1812. 1812. 366 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY there then existed an unclosed discussion between our Minis- ter at Paris and the French Government. John Randolph moved to refer the Message of the Presi- dent to a Committee of the Whole; but the House preferred referring it to the Committee on Foreign Relations. John C. Calhoun, the chairman, with a majority of the committee, consisting of Felix Grundy, John Smilie, John A. Harper, Joseph Desha, and Ebenezer Seaver, reported to the House a full and explicit manifesto, which was the basis of a declaration of war. The committee, after ex- hibiting a long, continuous, and unsatisfied demand for remuneration on account of the depredations the English had. been committing on our commerce, the impressment of Ame- rican seamen by the commanders of British ships-of-war, the British doctrine and system of blockade, and the adop- tion and continuance of the orders in council, in an able and patriotic State paper, concluded,—“ Relying on the patriotism of the nation, and confidently trusting that the Lord of Hosts will go with us to battle in a righteous cause, and crown our efforts with success, your committee recommend an immediate appeal to arms.’’* In consideration of the multiplied wrongs we had received from the British Government, a detailed enumeration of which I have given elsewhere, Congress was not long in adopting the recommendation of the committee. Calhoun, who presented the report, likewise offered a bill declaring war against Great Britain. ‘The bill was referred to a Committee of the Whole; on the next day it was reported back, when a resolution was offered by McKee to include France also in a declaration of war. This proposition re- ceived only ten votes. When the bill was reported to the House, the declaration of war passed by a vote of 79 to 49. The bill was delayed fourteen days in the Senate; Giles, one of the Senators from Virginia, moved to substitute letters of marque and reprisals against both France and England, in the place of a declaration of war against the latter; this motion was lost by a vote of 14 to 18, when the bill passed by a vote of 19 to 13. Seven Republicans,—Bradley, of Vermont, Gilman, of New Hampshire, German, of New York, Lambert, of New Jersey, Worthington, of Ohio, Reed, of June 3. * American State Papers, vol. viii. p. 899. OF THE UNITED STATES. 367 Maryland, and Pope, of Kentucky,—out of honest convictions of opposition to the war, voted with the Federalists. Of the seventy-nine members who voted for the war in the House, sixty-two resided south and seventeen north of the Delaware; of the nineteen Senators who voted for war, fourteen resided south and five north of the Delaware.* The war was evidently a measure of the South and West; and it is but another evidence of the blind devotion to imme- diate profit rather than future incalculable good, that bound the North to the anti-war party, for it was to their benefit that it ultimately resulted, as I will show at another time. The act declaring war was from the pen of William Pinck- ney, the Attorney-General: it was brief, but comprehensive; and on the 18th day of June, 1812, received the approval of the President, and on the following day he issued the procla- mation announcing that war existed between this country and Great Britain, and calling upon the people to sustain the public authorities. t Upon the immediate declaration of war was organized an anti-war party, composed chiefly of the Federalists and those disaffected Democrats who had used every exertion to thwart the efforts of the Administration, and to smother the voice of an outraged and oppressed people. The great object of the Republican party being now ob- tained, nothing remained but to provide the necessary means for conducting the war in the most energetic manner. Not- withstanding the long time the prospect of war hung over the nation, Congress had yet been exceedingly remiss in provid- ing for the wants of the Government in case it should occur. Fifteen millions of dollars were appropriated for the army; nearly two millions seven hundred thousand for the navy. Not one cent had, however, been provided for by taxes, and * Hild. Hist., second series, vol. iii. p. 306; Stat, Man., vol. i. p. 3854; Sullivan. + This brief and comprehensive act is in the following words:—“ Be it enacted, §c., That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions, or let- ters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the Government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the subjects thereof.”—Journal of Congress, 1812. 368 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the income by customs and from the public land sales was not more than nine millions five hundred thousand dollars. It was a true policy to avoid the imposition of taxes at the commencement of the war, which might have been at its earliest stage too severe a test for the popularity of the Ad- ministration. It is a remarkable incidents that within five days after the declaration of war by Congress, the English Government repealed the orders in council, which was done as soon as official information was received that the French decrees had been repealed. The duplicity of the French Government had doubtlessly prolonged the existence of the orders in council, and it is more than probable, had the decla- ration of war been postponed until the news of the repeal could have reached the American Government, that the war would either have been averted for a while, or been declared against the French Government, for which a large party in the country and some members of Congress were equally inclined. It would have been impossible, however, to stay but for a short time that high and burning temper so justly manifested against the outrageous conduct of Great Britain by the ma- jority of the American people. The orders in council were repealed; yet what atonement had been offered in satisfac- tion of that systematic effort, so long pursued, to prostrate the commerce of the country beneath the relentless trident of Great Britain? Could the repeal of the orders reimburse us for the immense value of the boats and cargoes that had been destroyed? or was it possible to make reparation for the thousands of true-hearted American sailors who had been piratically taken from our vessels and forced into the British service? Not only those American citizens who had fled from the tyranny of the English Government were taken, but the adopted citizens of this country, without regard to their lan- guage or nativity, were as ruthlessly snatched from the Ame- rican deck with that ensign of liberty in hand,—the stars and stripes of the United States,—as would have been the — of a vagrant sailor about to depart from some English oat. The declaration of war had scarcely passed the American Congress, when the Federal members in the House of Repre- sentatives published an address to their constituents, setting forth the grounds of their opposition to the war. This address, which was drafted by Quincy, was marked by con- OF THE UNITED STATES. 369 summate skill as an able and ingenious argument; supporting a cause against which truth and justice, and all sense of honor would ultimately appear in bold and unmistakable opposition. This paper, which was purged of the violence and temper it had received from its author, served as the great incentive to the anti-war party, which greatly increased in a short time. It opposed the war, because aggressions by one of two nations at war afforded no ground of retaliation by a neutral nation. The British orders in council excluded us only from the trade of France and its dependents, Holland and Italy. The utter ruin to our commerce, the inability to cope with Great Bri- tain, and the danger to our constitutional form of Govern- ment, were some of the chief objections stated in this paper, and constantly urged by the anti-war party in and out of Congress. The most violent opposition to the war existed in Massa- chusetts; especially about Boston, which, though the cradle of the Revolution, was then the nursery of Federalism. Here it was that Elbridge Gerry, the candidate of the war party for Governor, was beaten by Caleb Strong, the anti-war can- didate, by a vote of thirteen hundred. From the very same Plymouth Rock, where the firm and unwavering standard of liberty was first planted, Caleb Strong, the Governor of Mas- sachusetts, in his message to the legislature, denounced the Administration as subservient to France, threw odium and discredit upon the war loans, and planted, perhaps, the seed of that opposition which will be a lasting shame to the New England States. The infection spread to Maryland, and also to Connecticut and other Northern States. The Boston press was bold and abusive in denunciation of the war and the war loans, whilst the pulpit itself was stained by the abuse poured forth by the clergy in opposition to the war, and those measures necessary to carry it on. Copious extracts might be made from the many political discourses, which, under the garb and assumed sanctity of a sermon, issued from the Northern pulpit.* The entire separation of Chtrch and State under the Con- stitution of the United States, as well as under the constitu- tions of all the States, is among the most valuable and inte- resting features in our Government. This separation tends greatly to enhance the purity of the Church, and it is always * Ingersoll, vol. i. chapter i. 370 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY a melancholy scene when the pulpit is to be corrupted by the political passions of the day, the most violent being always hurled from that sacred desk, when once contaminated by the foul breath of party spirit. It is an element in American politics that, whilst it is unmixed with the splendor of that holy creed which is above the temporary wants of man, feels and appreciates the force and purity of its moral power. The pastoral relation is one of great influence and family endearment, which stamps its image upon politics, manners, habits, society, education, and even Government itself; for it has been supposed by an eminent historian that “The Congress which declared war, deterred by the denunciations of the Church and authorities of the several States, left undone the duty of levying direct taxes and in- ternal duties.”* Upon this point, however, the opinion may be safely maintained, that it was the policy of Congress to rely at this time upon loans, rather than the immediate assess- ment of taxes. During the session of this Congress James Madi- 1d. son was nominated for re-election as President by a unanimous vote of eighty-two Republican members of Congress, who met in caucus for that purpose. Langdon, of New Hampshire, was nominated at the same time for Vice- President, but being upwards of seventy years of age, he refused to accept. The nomination was afterwards conferred on Gerry, the recently defeated war candidate for governor, in Massachusetts. The Republican members of the New York Legislature were dissatisfied with the administration of Madison, and, fusing with some of the Federal friends of De Witt Clinton, nomi- nated him in opposition to Madison. In September of this year the Federalists held a convention in the City of New York; eleven States were represented, and seventy members were present. This convention, deeming it the surest means of defeating the election of Madison, resolved to support Clinton for the Presidency, and nominated Jared Ingersoll as Vice-President. Congress had been in session since the 4th of November; it had been a protracted and exciting ses- sion; war had been declared against the most powerful nation in Europe; all eyes were turned to the means of sustaining the country in its arduous and perilous undertaking; and firm * Ingersoll, vol. i. chap. i. OF THE UNITED STATES. 3871 and willing hearts will always find the means of self-preser- vation. The expenditures had been greatly increased by the new army bill, and by appropriations for the navy. The only tax laid was one doubling the impost. Five millions of Treasury notes were issued, and a loan of eleven millions of dollars, with a surplus of eight millions a year from impost, previously pledged to redeem the national debt, which amounted to forty- five millions of dollars, were the financial efforts of this Con- gress. The national income for the year 1812 was only about nine millions and a half of dollars; whilst it was estimated the war would cost between thirty and forty millions. The revenue from impost, with double duties, could not exceed thirteen millions. With such a miserable show in our financiering talent, it would seem that the heart of the patriot must sicken; yet it is a pleasing reflection to learn, that the forty millions of old debt with which we commenced the war, which in less than three years reached one hundred and twenty millions, was, interest and principal, all liquidated in less than twenty- four years.* Let the statesmen of Europe learn this truth and profit by its force and beauty, that this young and often ridiculed re- publican Government, is the only one known to history that bas ever paid its national debts. The manner in which it was done, and the credit to whom it belongs, I will notice in the progress of this work. With this exhibition of our financial talent and capacity, Congress adjourned on the 12th of July, 1812. Notwithstanding the declaration of war which had but so recently been proclaimed to the world, before a hostile foe had trod our soil, or a single vessel reached our shore, this Government was still anxious to restore the friendly relations that had once existed. The orders in council had been repealed a few days after the declaration of war by the United States Government, which was unknown in Washington, as was the declaration of war in London. Whilst each Government was ignorant of the steps taken by the other, Monroe, the American Secretary of State, wrote June 23. * Ingersoll, vol. i. p. 58. 3872 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY to Russell, Chargé d’ Affaires of the United States in England, apprising him of the declaration of war, but authorizing him to agree to an armistice for the negotia- tion of a treaty, on condition that the orders in council should be repealed, and the impressment of seamen from our vessels should be discontinued. As an inducement to the British Government to discontinue the practice of impressment, Russell was authorized to give assurance that a law would be passed (to be reciprocal) to prohibit the employment of British seamen in the public or commercial service of the United States. At an interview between Russell and Castle- reagh, the latter spoke with great impatience of the continued hopes that were entertained in America, that the right of im- pressment would ever be relinquished. He went so far as to say that ‘‘our friends in Congress had been so confident in that mistake, that they had ascribed the failure of such an arrangement solely to the misconduct of the American Go- vernment.” All of Russell’s propositions were rejected, though they were exceedingly temperate and just. Castle- reagh expressed surprise, that as a condition preliminary to a suspension of hostilities, the Government should have made the proposition that the British Government should desist from its time-honored custom of impressment.* The haughty Englishman had even gone so far as taunt- ingly to say, “If the American Government was so anxious to get rid of the war, it would have an opportunity of doing so on learning the revocation of the orders in council.” After this contemptuous rejection of the fair and just pro- positions for an amicable adjustment of our difficulties, it de- volved upon the United States to prosecute the war with the utmost vigor by land and by sea. It is a pleasing and instructive duty to notice at this period, not only the happy influence the republican form of our Go- vernment had upon the minds of a large class of people then constituting a portion of our population, but the essential service they rendered the cause of liberty by the generous support they offered in behalf of their adopted country. I allude to the co-operation of a body of influential for- eigners, then residing in the United States, in the bold and fearless manner in which they advocated the war. There was June 26. * Correspondence between Russell and Castlereagh, Amer. State Papers, vol. ix. p. 70. OF THE UNITED STATES. 373 a large demand for printers and editors, which could not be sup- plied from domestic sources; many who had been driven from their Parent Land, by the oppression of their Government, found a safe and happy home in the United States. They had seen abroad the wrongs that had been imposed upon our unof- fending country. Upon reaching our shores they mingled their sympathy with our distress, and freely came to our rescue in advocating a war that necessity had forced upon us. Ran- dolph complained that nearly every influential press in favor of the war was conducted by foreigners. He instanced, with a sneer, whilst history heralds it with a blaze of honor, the “Aurora” and the ‘Democratic Press,” at Philadelphia, ed- ited, the one by Duane, the other by Binns; the “Whig,” at Baltimore, edited by Irving; and the “Intelligencer,” at Washington, by Gales. It was noticed by Foster, the Bri- tish Minister, present when war was declared, which he stated in the House of Commons, that among those who voted for war “were no less than six late members of the Society of United Irishmen.’’* The policy of the United States has been severely censured by many able writers on the war of 1812. There was error in the particular blow that was first aimed at the enemy, the invasion of Canada; but the design of invasion was right as well as politic. We could do nothing by sea, was then the universal impression; to meet the gigantic force of Great Britain either on the land or the ocean, we had but the skele- tons of a few regiments and a few frigates. The great effort should have been to destroy the chief elements of British naval and territorial power at the first blow. The aim at conquer- ing Canada was exceedingly unpopular at the North; whilst in reality it would have been, if successful, but stripping the branches of English aggrandizement on this continent, instead of striking at the root of this overshadowing power. With the limited force we then had, we could have made it much more effectual by the seizure and occupation of Halifax than any other point belonging to the British. This was the great rendezvous, in America, of British naval power, by the occu- pation of which all her transatlantic facilities would be para- lyzed; which might effect an entire revolution in the commer- cial and naval power of England. The people of the North would have favored this design, and lent a more generous aid * Hild. Hist. U. §., second series, vol. iii. p. 315. 374 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY to effect it. If successful, Canada would have fallen into our hands as falls the limbs when the trunk is severed. With Halifax in our possession, no other fit place could be found to shelter and repair, with convenience and safety, the vessels of Britain. If Canada fell,—and surely it would, including Quebec, cut off from all assistance from the Mother Country for six months in the year,—Montreal, Kingston, York, and Malden would also fall, and remain ever subject to the arms or the Government of the United States.* It is not the purpose of this work to notice the naval or military operations of the war. The sad reverses that hung around our arms in Canada, the surrender of Hull, the repulse of Van Rensselaer, near Niagara, with many other failures and disasters, but convince the reader of the folly of the inva- sion of that section of the enemy’s territory, which remained unhurt during the war. After the rejection of the offer made by Russell to Castle- reagh, it seems that the English Government was still anxious for the restoration of amicable rela- tions. In July, Sir George Prevost, Governor of Canada, sent Baynes, his adjutant-general, to Greenbush, near Albany, with a flag of truce, to negotiate with General Dearborn, who was induced to sign an armistice. The arrangement between Baynes and Dearborn was promptly set aside by Madison, because it refused to relinquish the right of impressment. Admiral Warren arrived at Halifax in September, 1812, who was invested with full power to negotiate a provisional accommodation. He addressed a letter to Monroe, stating that the orders in council had nearly ceased at the time of the declaration of war; but on the receipt of the declaration, an order had issued to detain all American vessels. If the American Government would consent to the proposition, he was authorized to negotiate for an adjustment of the difficul- ties between the two countries. Monroe replied that the President would agree to an armis- tice, provided the Admiral was authorized and would agree to negotiate terms by which impressment should cease. These 1812. * Ingersoll, vol. i. p. 77. This idea was suggested to Eustis, Secretary of War, by Major Jessup, a young Kentuckian ; the Secretary laid it aside. It was afterwards communicated to General Armstrong, when Secretary of War, by Colonel Duane; but none seem to favor it but Monroe, who suc- ceeded Armstrong, as Secretary of War, and it was thought Monroe would recommend it for the ensuing campaign, but for the intervention of peace. OF THE UNITED STATES. 875 terms, so very just and accommodating, were refused by the British Government, and the war was to be continued upon the question of impressment.* _ The disgrace which had attended our army in Canada was, in a measure, wiped away by the unexpected brilliancy of our naval exploits, commencing with the capture of the Guerrier by the Constitution, under the command of Captain Hull, on the 18th of August, followed by the sur- ai render of the Frolic on the 18th of October, to the Wasp, commanded by Captain Jones; on the 25th, Decatur cap- tured the Macedonian, and shortly afterwards the Constitu- tion added another wreath to our fame and the glory of the American navy, by the capture of the British frigate Java. These results were attended with the twofold advantage of inspiring a new zeal into the American heart, and breaking down that obstinate objection the Democratic party had so long maintained towards an American navy. After this, they will be found voting with the Federalists in making liberal appropriations for the navy. At this period arose a very important question, discussed with much interest in Congress, and involving a great consti- tutional principle in reference to the power of the Federal Executive over the militia; whether under his uncontrolled and discretionary power, or whether the authority of the General Government was limited, and only to be exercised in certain specified exigencies. In obedience to the Consti- tution, Congress had power ‘to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrec- tions, and repel invasions.” The President directed the general officers of the United States army to call on the Governors of the different States for the militia, to be put under the command of these officers in any case they might require. Some of the Governors refused to obey the requisi- tions made in obedience to the authority vested in the general officers, so as to place the soldiery of the State under the command of officers of the regular army. They were willing, when actual invasion should occur, or there should be imme- diate danger of invasion, that the State militia should be ordered out to repel it and defend the invaded coast, and placed under the command of an officer of the general army. The argument used by those who were opposed to placing * Amer. State Papers, vol. ix.; Ingersoll, vol. i.; Stat. Man., vol. i. 376 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the militia under the command of officers of the national army, was, that it was inconsistent with the rights of the militia, as citizens, to dispose of them against their will and convert them into a body of standing troops; that the Constitution only contemplated their being called into military service by the Federal Government to repel invasion unexpectedly arising, when no regular troops were at hand to defend the country. It was contended that the power of the militia, the citizen soldiery of a State, was invested entirely in the Gover- nor, except under those emergencies specified in the Con- stitution. On the side of the Administration, it was contended that precedent, as set forth by the example of the earlier Admin- istrations, upheld the right to call out the State militia; and the Governors were charged with gross neglect of duty. It was argued that upon the declaration of war the entire coun- try was exposed to attacks from the enemy, and that for offensive as well as defensive measures the entire force of the United States should be at the service of the General Govern- ment at such time, and in such manner, as the Executive should think necessary. This is doubtlessly a subject of vast importance, and even at this day is as far from being per- manently decided as in 1812. The General Government has authority to declare war, whose duty it is to conduct the war as it may seem best for the welfare of the United States; and if it be right to leave it to the Governors of the States to say when and where the militia are to be ordered, the most disastrous results would be likely to occur. It is not to be denied, however, that this is a dangerous doctrine, with a tendency to the most oppressive results; and when the citizen soldiery of the State is placed at the call of the President, it may be the instrument by which some ambitious man might prostrate the liberties of the country beneath the irresistible power of the Federal Government. The incidental questions that arise under any limited form of government in reference to the prosecution of a war, is always dangerous to the Constitution; they go often beyond its stipulated grants and always require the immediate exer- cise of power, and that by some single person, who, to render it efficient, must act promptly and oftentimes violently. It may be recorded, that one of the many instances of an entire change of opinion by a party as it passes from a minority OF THE UNITED STATES. 377 to a majority, is the opinion expressed by the Administration being so entirely different from that which the same party had advocated a few years back when striving to overthrow the administration of John Adams. Then they insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, opposing all Jatitu- dinous construction as well as the undue exercise of powers not clearly delegated, which unfortunately marked .to an alarming extent the administration of the Government before this party came into power. They then contended not only for a strict construction under all circumstances, but most strenuously for the right of authority in the State govern- ments to act in all cases not expressly granted to the General Government. In several States where the militia had not been called for, the legislatures, acting in view of an anticipated danger, authorized the Governors to order it out in the event of inva- sion or of imminent danger of invasion. Massachusetts and Connecticut were more disposed to thwart the efforts of the General Government. In reference to Massachusetts, on the application of the people near the northeast boundary of Maine, then part of Massachusetts, the Governor ordered several companies of militia to march to that frontier for de- fence under an apprehension of an attack from the British in New Brunswick; he had promptly ordered a sufficient force for the protection of that frontier, though he had declined to order out the militia of the State when the war was first declared. In the State of New York, where the Adminis- tration was most unpopular, a large and enthusiastic meeting was held in the City of New York on the 19th of August, under the auspices of such men as John Jay, Rufus King, Governeur Morris, Judge Benson, Matthew Clarkson, and Richard Varick, all eminent for public service and moral worth, having been distinguished patriots of the Revolution. By their joint labor was prepared several strong resolutions, indicating that the Federal Government was conducted in a manner destructive to the rights of the States, endangering the Union, and crippling the trade and commerce of the country. The war was denounced in bold and unmeasured terms, and the declaration published to the world that they had no confidence in the men who had brought the country to this perilous condition.* 1812. * Bradford. vou. 1.—25 378 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY This was a period of great excitement ; the minds of grave and sensible men had reached to a degree of madness which resulted in mobs and the most outrageous violence, in which the peace and war parties deserve the severest censure, espe- cially in reference to the violence and bloodshed that stained and disgraced the streets of the City of Baltimore.* The Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut had denied the validity of the Articles of War, as being uncon- stitutional, in which they had been supported by an elaborate opinion of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Massachu- setts, even to the extent that the militia could not be com- manded except by State officers. There are few able men of the present day who would advocate the extreme doctrine that the power of appointing officers to the army, whose duty it was to fight the battles of the country, did not belong to the General Government, especially an army raised, equipped, and paid out of the United States Treasury. The excitement that raged in the public mind prevailed to a considerable extent in the halls of Congress. Men of talent and influence were not wanting who used every endeavor to thwart the exertions of the Fe- deral Government in its efforts to prosecute the war. Ona bill for raising volunteer corps, Poindexter contended that we could not constitutionally employ volunteer militia to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States in the pro- secution of hostilities in the enemy’s country, and that no legislative act of Congress could confer such power on the President. Grundy properly contended, if the Constitution forbade the President from sending the militia out of the United States, that Congress could not confer the power by legisla- tion, the authority depending upon the construction the Pre- sident might give to the Constitution. It must be conceded, however, that Grundy was in error in thinking the bill unconstitutional in that provision which allows the militiaman to consent to being sent beyond the limits of the United States. Porter, who had always been a distinguished advocate of the war, contended that the services of the army could not be limited, under any constitutional construction, to any geo- graphical limits. If it be necessary for the Executive to call 1812. * Hild. Hist., U. 8., second series, vol. iii. p. 329, OF THE UNITED STATES. 3879 out the militia to repel invasion, he thought they might pur- sue the enemy beyond the limits, until the invaders were effectually dispersed. Cheves said if they may cross the line, why not go to the walls of Quebec? The principle is trampled upon the instant they pass beyond the territorial limits of the United States; nor, if this be the right construction, can the consent of the individual add anything to the powers or the rights of the General Government while he remains a member of the militia of the States. It is to be observed, however, that the argument of Cheves was defective in this, that after the militia were mustered into the United States army, they were no longer the militia of the States. Grundy was opposed to the bill; he read from the Virgi- nia debates, on the adoption of the Constitution, a detached portion of the argument of Nicholas, in which, speaking of that article in the Constitution which gives power to Congress “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,” he said they could be called forth for no other purpose than thus specified. In the debate to which he alluded is found the argument and high sanction of the authority of Madison, who said the most effectual way to render such a call upon the militia un- necessary, was to give’the General Government full power to call forth the entire strength of the Union whenever it might be required. Henry Clay was a warm and efficient advocate of the bill, whose argument was clear and convincing. In one of the Amendments to the Constitution, he said, it is declared that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. But if you limit the use of the militia to executing the laws, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions ; if the use of the militia be denied to make war, can it be said they are “the security of a State?””* This question ought to be considered as finally settled by the course of the General Government, as well as the acqui- escence of the American people. There were three invasions of Canada, which were not only approved, but the later in- vasion of Mexico by the army of the United States to the * Elliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 446. 380 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY very capitol of that country, chiefly by volunteers, has not only won the admiration, but the hearty concurrence of every citizen. ; As has been previously stated, the minds of the Demo- cratic party had undergone a great change in regard to the navy; the narrow ¢hd unstatesman-like policy of Jefferson, which had been too strongly engrafted upon the minds of the people in this particular, had given way to more expansive views. After the brilliant success of our little navy, not only did all murmuring cease to this strong arm of the Go- vernment, but the most liberal policy was pursued in reference to appropriations in its behalf. The Administration was now convinced of the vast necessity of a navy, and in addition to the appropriations which had been made, Congress voted two millions and a half for its further augmentation. The Presi- dent was authorized to build four ships-of-the-line of seventy- four guys each, six large frigates of forty-four guns, and six sloops-of-war of twenty guns. He was further authorized to purchase or procure other sloops-of-war and smaller ves- sels, for which purpose the further sum of two hundred thou- sand dollars was appropriated. It had been often said by a portion of the people that unless it was the policy of the present as well as the preceding Administration to retire from the ocean and relinquish all commercial pursuits, it would be absolutely necessary to prepare an efficient navy. These measures clearly indicated a determination not only to defend the maritime rights of the nation, but to maintain that posi- tion upon the ocean which the then unfolding commerce of the country indicated and demanded. A brief allusion has been made to the nomination of Madi- son for re-election to the Presidency; the election which came on in the fall of 1812 was highly propitious to the best in- terest of the country; it exhibited the popularity of the mea- sures of the Democratic party, and dissipated forever all doubt concerning the determination of the people to sustain the Administration in the prosecution of the war. The opponents of the Administration, upon the nearer approach of the election, tried to prevail on Clinton to with- draw from the canvass, by promises that he should be the next Republican candidate; it was ascertained, however, that Clinton would not only concentrate the Federal vote upon himself, but would carry off such of the Democratic party as were then opposed to the war. The immediate managers of OF THE UNITED STATES. 3881 the Clinton clique did not openly avow opposition to the war, but availed themselves of an ad captandum argument against the impropriety of Congressional nominations which had so frequently resulted in the selection of a Virginia candidate. _ They argued that the interest of New York, whose capital was threatened by the enemy, required the election of a man in whom her welfare could be more safely confided. Such sectional views were fallacious in the extreme, and could have no influence beyond the limited sphere of the wire-workers about New York. The electoral vote stood:—Madison, 128; Gerry, 131; Clinton, 89; Ingersoll, 86. The States south and west of the Potomac, including Ohio, voted in a body for Madison. The New England States, with the exception of Vermont, voted for Clinton. He obtained five out of the eleven electoral votes of Maryland, which swelled his vote up to 89. The second session of the Twelfth Congress had commenced on the 2d of November. Up to the period of its meeting, disasters had fallen heavily upon the American army. The campaign of 1812 may be said to have ended in a total eclipse, in which there was not even a gleam of consolation; in refer- ence to which an accurate historian of the war of 1812 has said,—‘“‘ Dearborn’s, the last and most unexplicable of all its miscarriages; Hull’s incomprehensible surrender, which was alarming and terrible; the battle of Queenstown, a discom- fiture not entirely without valor; Smyth’s ridiculous balk ; to which may be added the miserable failure of the commander- in-chief, without even the heroism of a disaster, afflicted the friends of the war with the gloomiest forebodings.”’* Ihave noticed the heavy appropriations made to the navy, the recent brilliant achievements of which raised the drooping spirits of America; in addition to which, to meet the financial engagements of the Government, authority was given to issue five millions of dollars in Treasury notes, and to create a new stock for a loan of sixteen millions. Laws were also passed for a further augmentation of the army. The volunteer system, so popular at the last session, was not only exceedingly expensive, but 79; almost useless. It was accordingly repealed, and, as a substitute, the President was authorized to enlist twenty regiments of twelve months’ regulars, with an offer of $16 1812. * Ingersoll. 3882 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY bounty. Authority was also given to create six major-gene- rals, and an equal number of brigadiers. On the 24th of December the military committee, in the House, reported a bill to raise, in addition to the existing military establishment, a regular force of twenty thousand men, which, added to the existing army, would make fifty thousand soldiers for the year, unless they should be soon discharged. Among the ablest opponents of the bill were Randolph, Pitkin, and Quincy, especially the last-named gen- tleman, who, undeterred by what he considered the many attempts to put him down by opposition, insult, and brow- beating, denounced the Administration and opposed the bill with more than his accustomed vehemence and bitterness. The invasion of Canada he pronounced senseless, cruel, and wicked. The entire plan of the Administration met his bit- terest invective, as being controlled by young politicians, flut- tering and cackling on the floor of the House, half-hatched, the shell still on their heads, and their pin-feathers not yet shed,—politicians to whom reason, justice, pity, were nothing, revenge everything. Quincy continued in this violent and abusive strain through- out the greater part of his speech. If, said he, the Govern- ment would confine itself to a war of defence, it shotld have his support; but for a war of conquest and annexation, whether in East Florida or Canada, he would not contribute a single dollar; nor was he to be frightened from his position by the old and stale cry of British connection, raised anew by a pack of mangy, mongrel blood-hounds, for the most part of recent importation, their necks marked with the collar, and their backs sore with the stripes of European castigation, kept in pay by the Administration to hunt down all who op- posed the court. ‘There is nothing,” said he, “in history like this war. The disgrace of our armies is celestial glory compared to the disgrace reflected on our country by this in- vasion—(alluding to the invasion of Canada)—yet it is called a war for glory! Glory? Yes, such glory as that of the tiger, when he tears the bowels from the lamb, filling the wilderness with its savage roars! The glory of Zenghis Khan without his greatness; the glory of Bonaparte!” Those who opposed the sentiments advocated by Quincy were characterized “as creatures, household troops, who lounge for what they can pick up about the Government house.’’ These quotations may serve as an indication of the OF THE UNITED STATES. 883 temper the opposition manifested towards the Administration and its supporters. The Administration had many of the first men of the country to bear its burdens, and proudly sustain its interests during this trying period. Clay, Calhoun, Lowndes, Cheves, Porter, Bibb, John W. Eppes, and others, were among those whose talents were more than a match for the ablest of the Federal advocates. To the sarcastic and contemptuous speech just delivered, Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House, was by unanimous consent the chosen weapon with which to prostrate this defiant champion of the Federalists. Among the fervent and the fear- less, with the highest order of talent and unsurpassed purity of heart and patriotic devotion, no man excelled Henry Clay; whilst the memory of no member of the Congress of this day should be more deeply engraven on the national heart than this statesman, whose life will brilliantly adorn the page of American history. An impartial writer, who served long in Congress with him, and subsequently, in the evolutions of parties, was long the bitter opponent of Clay, even after he had reached the still more exalted position in the history of America, has the frankness to acknowledge that he was “‘prompt, clear, cogent, and authoritative in the chair ; eloquent, forcible, aggressive in speech; impulsive and over- bearing, yet adroit and commanding in conduct; resolute and daring in all things, without much learning, study, or polish. He was then in the flower of his age and robust health, the powerful champion of whatever he undertook, the master- spirit wherever he acted.”’* This was the friend of Madison, the friend of the war, the defender of the rights and honor of his country, who now un- dertook to answer the speech just delivered by J osiah Quincy, of Massachusetts. Perhaps no effort of Clay’s life is superior to this speech. Where Quincy reasoned, Clay was his supe- rior; when in the full sweep of his satire, he yet fell, like the prostrate foe beneath the scimitar of Saladin, as the fire of Clay’s withering sarcasm blazed around him. The reply to this man, “whom,” said he, ‘no sense of decency or pro- priety could restrain from soiling the carpet on which he treads,” has scarcely a parallel in point of severity; whilst his touching sketch of the piteous condition of American sea- * Ingersoll. 384 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY men, held in bonds by British tyranny, is a most captivating and affecting piece of-eloquence. In a newspaper of the day, published in the City of Washington, it was said, “It is im- possible to describe the pathetic effect produced by that part of it. The day was chilling cold, yet there were few who did not testify to the sensibility excited.* The discussion on the Army Bill continued many days, and was marked by the most consummate ability on both sides. The latitude of debate extended to the whole foreign and do- mestic policy of the Administration. The high and decided stand taken by Clay and others, defended the position of the Administration with such fervor and eloquence, that a new feeling seemed to be awakened in the minds of Congressmen as well as the people. The Army Bill passed the House by a vote of 77 Jan-14 +042. In the Senate a few unimportant amendments were made, when, two days from its passage in the House, it became a law by the approval of the President. * National Intelligencer. OF THE UNITED STATES, 885 CHAPTER IX. MADISON’S SECOND TERM—THE WAR oF 1812 (CONTINUED. ) Ow the 4th of March, 1813, Madison entered upon the discharge of his duties for the second term of his Adminis- tration. At 12 o’clock on the same day he delivered his In- augural Address, which was received with rapturous applause by the vast concourse of attentive listeners assembled at the capitol, and met also the hearty approbation of the American people. Notwithstanding the heavy disasters that had fallen upon our army, a vein of animated hope and confident success pervaded this paper, which fired the minds of the people to a more strenuous effort. ‘‘On the issue of the war,” said the President, “are staked our national sovereignty on the high seas, and security of an important class of citizens, whose occupations give the proper value to those of every other class. Not to contend for such a stake is to surrender our equality with other powers on the element common to all, and to violate the sacred title which every member of society has to its protection. I need not call into view the unlawfulness of the practice by which our mariners are forced, at the will of every cruising officer, from their own vessels into foreign ones, nor paint the outrages inseparable from it. “The proofs are in the records of each successive adminis- tration of our Government; and the cruel sufferings of that portion of the American people have found their way to every man’s bosom not dead to the sympathies of human nature.” Allusion is made to the first origin of the war, its necessary and noble objects, and the ample resources at command to bring it to an honorable termination.* It was about this time that several important changes occurred in the President’s cabinet. * Second Inaugural Address, Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 307. 386 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Eustis had resigned in consequence of the violent clamors that raged against him, which devolved the duties of the War Department upon Monroe. Hamilton was dismissed from the Navy Department to make room for William Jones, of Philadelphia, once a ship- master; and General John Armstrong, just returned from France, was placed in the position vacated by Dr. Eustis. This was, perhaps, the most indifferent cabinet appointment Madison ever made; he was possessed of great military knowledge, but utterly unfitted by his excessive indolence for any position of labor or thought. Nothing but his high military reputation could have secured him the place, for it is said he did not enjoy the confidence of either the President, or Monroe, the most intimate of all the confidential advisers of Madison. As the last session of the Twelfth Congress approximated its termination, nothing more of interest transpired, except a commercial bill of considerable importance, the success of which was chiefly attributed to the influence and exertions of Cheves, of South Carolina, aided by the matchless talent of his rising colleague, John C. Calhoun. It was a bill to can- cel the merchants’ bonds given for goods seized under the Non-importation Act, and imported from Great Britain and Ireland after the declaration of war. It was opposed by many Democratic members of Congress, but was finally car- ried by the close vote of 64 to 61. This bill was of importance to the Government, as well as to a large class of mercantile men, who, upon the repeal of the British orders in council, had immediately commenced loading all the American vessels at the time lying in British ports, with British merchandise. This exportation had been carried on for six weeks after the declaration of war had reached England, under the im- pression which had received encouragement by the advice of the American Chargé d’Affaires, that the Non-intercourse Act would be virtually suspended as soon as the English Government was apprised of the declaration of war. The goods which had been shipped at an invoice value of more than eighteen millions of dollars, with about twice as much previously in the American market, had been seized and forfeited on their arrival under the interpretation of the Non-importation Act. Many of the District Courts had decided that these goods OF THE UNITED STATES. 387 should be surrendered to the claimants upon filing bonds for their estimated value; it was to render this interpretation of the law uniform that Congress determined that all the goods thus forfeited should be released. By the statute half the forfeited goods belonged to the informers. Were these bonds enforced, nine millions would belong to the Government; if they were canceled, a still larger amount would accrue in the form of duties, besides the liability on the importers of an additional forfeiture of three times the value of the goods. The Secretary of the Treasury submitted a plan to sur- render to the merchants the half to which the informers would be entitled,—which would be nine millions,—and that the Government should receive the other half. This power was invested in the President and the Secretary of the Trea- sury, but the President preferred the reference of the entire matter to Congress.* In obedience to an act passed in February, the Thirteenth Congress assembled in special session on the 24th of May. It was a source of great satisfaction to the Administration to find that its increased popularity was still manifested by an enlarged number of Democratic mem- bers. It was also a pleasing reflection to observe the uncom- mon array of talent which appeared at this time in the House of Representatives: it contained Clay, Calhoun, Lowndes, Pickering, and Gaston, standing in the front rank; whilst of scarcely inferior note were Macon, Benson, J. W. Taylor, Oakley, Grundy, Grosvenor, W. R. King, Kent, of Mary- land, C. J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, and Petkin, of Con- necticut. Among the youngest and least experienced,—for it was his first session,—was Daniel Webster, then the Repre- sentative from New Hampshire, who assumed on his very first appearance in the political world, a position of undisputed equality with the most distinguished statesmen of the age.} The attention of Congress was at once directed to the critical condition of our country; the pressing business of 1813. * Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 361; Hild. Hist. U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 389. +The Senate stood nominally twenty-seven Democrats to nine Fede- ralists; Giles, Lieb, and Smith, formerly distinguished leaders in the Re- publican party, with Germon, of New York, Stone, of North Carolina, and several others, often united with the Federalists to defeat the measures of the Administration. 388 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the times being the financial and military conduct of the war. The strength of the Democratic party was tested b the vote Clay had received for Speaker, being 89 to 54 over Timothy Pitkin, who was put in nomination by the Federal arty. i The special Message which the President sent to May 25, Congress the day after its organization disclosed a formal communication from the Emperor of Rus- sia, for his mediation as the common friend of the United States and Great Britain, for the purpose of facilitating a eace. : The exalted character of Alexander was a sufficient pledge for the sincerity and impartiality of the offer, which was im- mediately accepted. The suggestion had been previously made to John Quincy Adams, Resident-Minister of the United States at the Court of St. Petersburg, and was eagerly em- braced by Daschoff, the Russian Embassador at Washing- ton. Russia, since the French invasion, had become entirely friendly towards Great Britain, which rendered the Emperor eminently fit to act in the proposed capacity of mediator. The brief allusion made in the Message to our finances, exhibited the receipts of the Treasury from 31st of October last up to March following, including the sums received on account of Treasury notes and of loans authorized by the last and preceding sessions of Congress, the sum of fifteen millions four hundred and twelve thousand dollars. The expenditures for the same period amounted to fifteen millions nine hundred and twenty thousand dollars; which left in the Treasury on the 1st of April, one million eight hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars. The loan of sixteen millions authorized by the act of February 8th, had been contracted for, one million of which had been paid into the Treasury. The remainder of the loan, with the five millions to be raised by Treasury notes and the receipts from customs and public land sales, amounting in the whole to twenty-nine millions three hundred thousand dollars, the President thought would meet the demands upon the Treasury for the ensuing nine months of the year. This view of the finances, whilst it showed that due prepa- ration had been made for the present year, exhibited at the same time, by the limited amount of our actual revenue, which amounted to only nine millions three hundred thousand dollars, the dependence of the Government upon loans, and demon- OF THE UNITED STATES. 889 strated the necessity of providing more adequately for the future wants of the Government, which, in the opinion of the Executive, would be more effectually accomplished by a well- digested system of internal revenue. ; The Message also makes a touching allusion to the cruelties practiced by the English, and, whilst anxious for peace, still urges a bold and vigorous prosecution of the war as the most effectual means for its attaiment.* With the utmost enthusiasm for the war, it was not incon- sistent in Madison to pursue the high and statesman-like course he did. In reference to the Russian mediation, he immediately nominated Gallatin and Bayard, both peace men, to act conjointly with John Quincy Adams, in negotiating a peace. At almost the same time, Wm. H. Crawford, then a Senator from Georgia, and a conspicuous advocate for peace, was appointed Minister to the French Court, as the successor of Barlow. The nominations of Adams and Bayard were confirmed; Gallatin was rejected by a vote of 18 to 17, on the ground of an incompatibility with the offices of Envoy Extraordinary and cabinet Minister. The Russian mediation was declined by Castlereagh, on account of objections to mingling the negotiation with affairs on the continent, but informed the American Government that Great Britain was willing to enter upon a direct nego- tiation for peace. The American Congress, notwithstanding the pending of the proposition for peace, was determined on a vigorous pre- paration for war, and boldly expressed the sentiment of the nation in denouncing the flagrant violation of all the rules of civilized warfare which England had practiced towards us. The President, in his Message to this Congress, had alluded to the English practice in this respect in the very strongest terms of denunciation; the mention of the wrongs and out- rages suffered by our gallant countrymen fired the indig- nation of Clay, who, upon the immediate reading of the Message, called attention to that portion of its contents, remarking in the most spirited manner in reference to the British armies and their savage allies, the American Indians, * President’s Message, Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 309. ; + Castlereagh to the Secretary of State; American State Papers, vol. ix. . 283. P 390 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY “Tf they should be found to be as public report had stated them, they called for the indignation of all Christendom, and ought to be embodied in an authentic document which might perpetuate them on the page of history.”’ On his motion, passed without opposition, that portion of the Message refer- ring to British cruelties and outrage, was referred to a select committee, which reported through its. chairman, Nathaniel Macon,—a wise, upright, and conservative man,—in a clear and forcible manner the many inhuman outrages the Indian allies of Great Britain had perpetrated upon American prison- ers. The appointment of this committee was made with all due appreciation of the important and delicate trust committed to its keeping; a State paper was td be prepared under the sanction of an American Congress, which was to embody a volume of facts which will stamp ineffable infamy upon the English Government, its army, and its officers, as long as history itself shall endure, or the mild virtues of an enlight- ened society shall find a single votary. Besides the eminent chairman, this committee consisted of Forsyth, Robert Wright, James Clarke, Perry W. Hum- phreys, Gaston, and Thomas Cooper, the two last being of the anti-war party. They were all men of the highest moral worth, and equally eminent for talent and long public ser- vice; Forsyth lived to be Governor of Georgia, Senator of tue United States, Minister to Spain, and Secretary of State; Wright had been Governor of Maryland, and Senator of the United States; Clarke was afterwards Governor of Ken- tucky, and Gaston was a leading member of the Federal party, and afterwards Chief-Justice of North Carolina. It is proper that the members of this committee should be mentioned, that their authority may stand out as living and enduring testi- mony to the truth. Under different heads, this report (which made a printed volume of two hundred pages) established the bad treatment of American prisoners; their detention as British subjects; the detention of mariners as prisoners, found in England when war was declared; the compulsory service of American sea- men in British ships-of-war; the violation of flags of truce; the ransom of American prisoners from Indians in the Bri- tish service; the pillage and destruction of private property in the Chesapeake Bay and neighborhood; the massacre and burning of prisoners, pillage and shooting of citizens, and burning their houses after surrendering to the British and OF THE UNITED STATES. 891 under their protection. The outrages at Hampton were the last mentioned in the report, in reference to which there exists ample authority for saying, that women who could not escape were hunted down by perpetrators of every indignity on their person; no help given to the wounded; the dead left un- buried; the females were not only violated by these wretches, the English soldiers and officers, but slaves were encouraged to violate their own mistresses; the sick were murdered in their beds, as were the maimed and decrepid from extreme age; the pulpit and communion service of the Episcopal Church at Hampton was despoiled and robbed of the plate which bore the donor’s name; to which must be added indis- criminate rape,—one woman, the victim of multiplied bru- tality and ravishment on many occasions.* Though painful, it is nevertheless the duty of history to record these brutal outrages. The English Government, always rapacious, will ever be remembered for its still darker deeds, in perpetrating, in defiance of the principles of an enlightened and Christianized civilization, acts that would disgrace the reign of Nero, and stamp even with a deeper dye the age of Heliogabalus or Cesar Borgia; whilst in all time to come the spirit of the British Ministry of 1813 will find its kindred feeling in those Vandal outrages long since committed, though permanent upon the page of history, but to receive universal indignation; and if Castlereagh is for- gotten, Cockburn and Beckwith will be linked in the record of English history as the licentious leaders of a licentious soldiery, whose disgraceful conduct would have been rebuked not only by Napoleon, but even the ruthless Attica or insa- tiate Zenghis. In turning our attention to Congress at this period, we find it deeply engaged in the most important preparations for the vigorous prosecution of the war. The great need of the country, and the chief business of the Thirteenth Congress, was the adoption of the fiscal measures which the expenses of the war demanded, and more especially since the Russian mediation had been refused by Great Britain, and proposi- tions from Great Britain for a cessation of hostilities rejected ; to which may be added the increasing determination of the Executive to prosecute the war with greater vigor. * Report of the Select Committee of the House of Representatives; Journal of Congress, 1813; Ingersoll, vol. i. chapter vii. 892 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Gallatin’s plan to increase our finances was to double the existing duties on imports, as had been done, and to raise the deficiency which would exist by a resort to direct taxes. The latter mode, it was feared, would be unpopular. Madison thought that taxation and war would not work well together ; and the Twelfth Congress had failed in a great measure to adopt any permanent system for raising funds adequate to the wants of the Government. The finances at this time were in a state of great embar- rassment. The Treasury notes which Congress had author- ized to be issued, were at a heavy discount; the loans which had been made were effected at a corresponding rate, whilst nearly every bank in the Union was in a crippled condition. In the early part of this year the Government had felt very severely the pressure upon the Treasury; in truth, little or no economy had been exercised in the public expenditures in reference to the army; nor was it possible that the Executive could have acted otherwise, owing to the totally unprepared condition of the militia. John W. Eppes, of Virginia, the son-in-law of Jefferson, and the successor of John Randolph, was at this time chair- man of the Committee of Ways and Means, by whom a bill was reported, which passed the House, imposing a direct tax of three millions of dollars. The bill was very comprehen- sive in its details, embracing lands, houses, slaves, and nearly every article of luxury or general use appertaining to the internal commerce of the country. The taxes on lands, dwelling-houses, improvements, and slaves, were levied in accordance with the assessed value of the respective articles. The United States were di- vided into one hundred and ninety-nine collection districts, each having one principal collector and one principal assessor; this was the adjustment of a barely tolerable system of taxation, which was entirely inadequate to the war expenses. We pass from this period to the reassembling of Congress, December 19, 1813. The reader will observe the omission to notice the military features of the war, which are foreign to the plan of this work, unless depending upon questions brought before Congress. The Annual Message which was sent to Congress on this occasion alludes to the rejected mediation of Russia in the following bold and decided language :—“ The British cabinet, 1813. July, 1813. OF THE UNITED STATES. 393 either mistaking our desire of peace for a dread of British power, or misled by other fallacious calculations, has disap- pointed this reasonable anticipation. No communications from our Envoys having reached us, no information on the subject has been received from that source. But it is known that the mediation was declined in the first instance, and there is no evidence, notwithstanding the lapse of time, that a change of disposition in the British councils has taken place or is to be expected. Under such circumstances, a nation, proud of its rights and conscious of its strength, has no choice but an exercise of the one in support of the other.’’* The war, which pressed with peculiar heaviness on the New England States, was becoming still more unpopular. The newspapers of that section, through their correspondence as well as editorially, broached and kept alive the idea of a sepa- rate peace or a position of neutrality, leaving those States which chose to fight it out to bear the entire burden of the war. The anti-war party of New England was still more exas- perated at the confidential Message of the President, recom- mending ‘that an effectual embargo on exports be imme- diately enacted.” The reasons given by the President in urging this measure were, the tendency of our commercial and navigation laws to favor the enemy and thereby prolong the war, supplies of the most essential kind continually finding their way to the Bri- tish armies, in our own neighborhood as well as at a distance. Even the fleets that infested our coasts were constantly sup- plied from our own resources. This was an unwise as well as an abortive measure of the Administration. Calhoun, Cheves, and other talented members of the House opposed it. Cal- houn was at the time chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and gave it a reluctant vote. It was hurried through both Houses in secresy. In the Senate it was apprehended that the votes of Giles, Stone, and Anderson would defeat this measure. Whilst this body, however, was in conclave, King and Gore reached Washington, and, without stopping even at their lodgings, hurried to the capitol to save this the too favorite policy of the Administra- tion. Upon the publication of this act, it was received with dismay and consternation by the entire commercial commu- * Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 812. Vou. I.—26 894 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY nity. It was, indeed, a privation, in many respects as pain- ful as war, without any of its advantages, its excitements, or attractions.* This impolitic restriction upon American commerce was destined to a very brief career. It was a passive belligerency that harmed this country more than the enemy, which was now more apparent to the President on account of the changes which had taken place in Europe; for it is a striking coinci- dence, that on the day the victorious banner of the ies) allies was unfurled in the capital of France, Madi- son recommended the repeal of the embargo by a special Message to Congress. In this Message is to be traced the foundation of that restrictive policy which Madison too fondly favored, and at this time pressed upon Congress, by urging “‘as a more effec- tual safeguard and encouragement to our growing manufac- tures, that the additional duties on imports, which are to expire at the end of one year after a peace with Great Bri- tain, be prolonged to the end of two years after that event.” } This may be considered the germ of that protective policy towards American manufactures, which, springing forth from the war, has proved the source of evil to the United States, soon to be overcome by the vigorous youth of a nation whose strength could be trammeled but for a brief period. In connection with this subject I will remark, that upon the motion of 8. D. Ingham, the House adopted a resolution directing the Secretary of the Treasury to report to the next Congress a tariff of duties. The adoption of this report (which will be noticed at the proper time) may properly be considered the first important step towards inducting the American people into that extensive system of manufactures, on which parties debated and raved for up- wards of thirty years. At an early day of the session the Secretary of the Trea- sury, submitting to Congress his annual report, pre- sented the following condition of the finances :—The receipts for the year ending September 30, 1818, were thirty- seven millions and a half, which, added to the balance at the beginning of the same year, made nearly forty millions. The annual disbursements had not been thirty millions. For the 1814. Jan. 10. * Ingersoll, vol. ii. p. 51. + Special Message, March 31, 1814. OF THE UNITED STATES. 895 expenses of the year 1814 he allowed more than forty mil- lions, and proposed to raise thirty millions by loan. In about one month from this time Eppes, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, presented his report to the House. The chairman of this com- ** mittee was a bold and honest man, with more than ordinary talent, a good speaker, with a keen and analytic mind, but far too theoretic for the practical wants of the country, and en- tirely unfit for the post he then occupied. In presenting his budget to the House, he proposed a loan for twenty-five mil- lions and the issue of five millions of Treasury notes. These loans could only be raised by a most ruinous discount, and the issue of Treasury notes had proved almost a failure. The chairman of the committee introduced his financial scheme to the House in a speech which was chiefly remarkable as an apology for not calling into immediate requisition the resources of the country, by the only certain and reliable mode then attainable by the Government,—tazation. Of the twenty days’ saturnalian debate which this bill afforded to nearly every speaking member of the House, it is not worthy the attention of the reader to digest. The most distinguished among the many were Webster, more re- markable for forensic than parliamentary display; Forsyth, just beginning a splendid oratorial career, which kept him for years among the most eminent speakers of Congress; and John C. Calhoun; after which the bill passed the House by a strict war-party vote of 97 to 55. ; On Monday, the 18th of April, this unproductive session of Congress closed. Something, it is true, was done to invigorate the army and navy; but no law was passed to pay the army or sustain the navy by taxing the people to raise the funds; nothing but loans and Treasury notes to meet loans and interest thereon accruing. Yet it is a pleasing reflection in the history of this period, that a free people shrink less from taxes, the hardships, and perils of war than their Government. ; ; The war was prosecuted with more vigor this year than since its commencement, and resulted in the most brilliant achievements by the American arms. Two years had been spent in abortive efforts in the field and idle debate in Con- gress; the expenses of the Government were enormous and increasing; for the army and navy were both to be enlarged 1814, 396 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and rendered more efficient. Though amidst the long cata- logue of disasters which had darkened the hopes of the na- tion, the brilliant exploits of our navy in the beginning of the war still glowed in every American bosom, and nerved with renewed energy every patriotic heart in the land. There was occasion, too, for redoubled effort on the part of the United States; heretofore we had been fighting England whilst her resources were directed to the war that devastated Europe. But now that country, who had fought single-handed against nearly half the powers of Europe, the mad ambition which she had dreaded, and at one time seemed ready to engulf her, had subsided; she had stricken from its ascendency the star of Napoleon; she had torn the diadem from the brow of the hero of Austerlitz, and shaken to atoms the confede- racy of the Rhine, and none could fear the sickly glare of that burning genius which was ultimately forever quenched on the plains of Belgium. Such had been the prowess of England, free now from every restraint and determined to concentrate her mighty energy against the United States. She did make much greater exertion this year than ever before; her armies were largely increased, better equipped, and the resolution of the nation more excited to victory and vengeance. The veterans of several of Wellington’s cam- paigns were sent over to America, whilst the English flect, released from the war on the continent, hovered along our coast. Notwithstanding all this, the renewed strength of the United States was equal to its greatest necessity; and the concentrated English army in Lower Canada, which was de- signed to invade the United States, was mere empty show to the power, the genius, the success, that has immortalized the army that fought under Scott and Ripley, that crossed the Niagara and carried dismay to the home of the English; whilst the prowess of England, the pride of the conqueror of Napoleon, was stripped of its lustre by the unparalleled exploit at New Orleans, doubtlessly the most brilliant achieve- ment that graces the records of modern warfare. The National Legislature, which had been adjourned by resolution to meet the last Monday in October, was convened at an earlier day by the special call of the President. The sudden change in the affairs of Europe, as well as the critical and exciting aspect of the position of the United States, demanded an early meeting of the representa- tives of the nation. The reasons given by the President were Sept. 19. OF THE UNITED STATES. 397 that some provision might be made for the inadequacy of the Treasury, and that no delay might happen in providing for the result of negotiations on foot with Great Britain. Tt was during the present session of Congress, and amidst the most brilliant achievements of our arms, that a domestic evil seemed gathering in our midst. It cannot be denied that the situation of the New England States during the year 1814 was in the highest degree critical and dangerous. For two years the service of the militia had been extremely severe; they were suddenly taken from their daily occupations, trans- ported beyond the limits of their States, and subjected to the hardships of the camp. It was especially severe upon the militia of Massachusetts and Connecticut, from whom had been withheld all supplies, whilst these States were subjected to the most vigorous exactions. In most of the New Eng- land States, the exposure of the extensive coast, dotted with towns and villages, was alarming, the body of the militia being drawn to the distant theatre of war, and the entire burden of defence still resting upon those States to save their property, their towns, the very women and children, from a ruthless enemy. The special action of the Eastern States, in their refusal to allow the militia to be carried beyond the limits of their respective borders, has been noticed in a previous part of this work. For several weeks in November and December, a bill was pending in Congress, authorizing the President, on the refusal of the Governor of any State to call out the mi- litia when requested, to order subordinate militia officers im- mediately to march their men, as might be directed by the officers of the regular army. This bill was approved by the majority of the House of Representatives, but lost, after an animated and protracted debate, in the Senate by one vote.* The arguments for and against this measure have already received the extended consideration of the writer, and needs no further comment. In view of all these considerations, under the pressure of these manifold ills, sprang the celebrated Hartford Conven- tion, which has received most unjustly and undeservedly the most unmeasured indignation of nearly the whole community. Congress even was thrown into consternation and confusion, at designs then thought treasonable; and the pen has not been * Bradford, p. 224. 398 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY inactive in attempting to write down the members of this Convention, and all who did not see the treasonable designs of this harmless body of twenty-six of the most enlightened, virtuous, and patriotic citizens of New England. Even at this day, such is the prejudice or ignorance of a large portion of the community, the mention of the name of a member of this Convention 1s sufficient to consign his memory to eternal infamy. But a brief allusion to its origin and history, it is hoped, will dissipate all such groundless prejudice. In consideration of the critical condition of the several States above mentioned, memorials from a great number of towns in Massachusetts were forwarded to the legislature, asking that body to protect the citizens in their constitutional rights, and suggesting the expediency of appointing delegates “to meet delegates from such other States as might think proper to appoint them, for the purpose of devising proper measures to procure the united efforts of the commercial States, to obtain such amendments and explanations of the Constitution as will secure them from further evils.” These memorials were referred to a joint committee of the two houses of the Massachusetts Legislature, which reported against the expediency of the proposed Convention. At a subsequent day, however, the legislature adopted a resolution in favor of the Convention by a vote of 260 to 90; which simply appointed twelve delegates to meet delegates from the other New England States or any other, upon the subject of their public griev- ances and concerns, ‘‘and upon the best means of preserving our resources, and of defence against the enemy, and to devise and suggest for adoption by those respective States such measures as they may deem expedient; and also to take measures, if they may think it proper, for procuring a con- vention of delegates from all the United States, in order to revise the Constitution thereof, and more effectually to secure the support and attachment of all the people by placing all upon the basis of fair representation ;’’ whereupon the dele- gates were elected by a vote of 226 to 67. These proceedings were communicated, in obedience to a resolution to that effect, to the different States of the Union by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the State of Massachusetts. In the Joint letter of these gentlemen the object of the Convention is expressly stated to be “to devise, if practicable, means of Feb. 1814. Oct. 6. OF THE UNITED STATES. 399 security and defence which may be consistent with the pre- servation of their resources from total ruin, and adapted to their local situation, mutual relations and habits, and not re- pugnant to other obligations as members of the Union.” When these proceedings reached Connecticut, the General Assembly was in session; on the second Thursday in October, a joint committee of the two houses submitted a report reviewing the evils to which the State had been subjected, approving the Convention, but disclaiming all disloyalty or infidelity to the Union. Upon the reception of this report, the General Assembly of Connecticut appointed seven delegates to meet the delegates of Massachusetts and any other of the New England States at Hartford, on the 15th day of December, ‘and confer with them on the subjects proposed by a resolution of said Commonwealth communi- cated to this legislature, and upon any other subjects which may come before them, for the purpose of devising and re- commending such measures for the safety and welfare of these States as may consist with our obligations as members of the national Union.” The General Assembly of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations received a copy of the same proceedings which had been sent to Connecticut and the other States; this body took immediate action thereon, and appointed four delegates to meet at Hartford, “‘and confer with such delegates as are or shall be appointed by other States, upon the common dan- gers to which these States are exposed, upon the best means of co-operating for our mutual defence against the enemy, and upon the measures which may be in the power of said States, consistently with their obligations, to adopt, to restore and secure to the people thereof their rights and privileges under the Constitution of the United States.” The only other States that took any action in reference to these proceedings were New Hampshire, which sent two dele- gates, and Vermont, which sent one, from primary assemblies of the people.* . . This was the authority and instructions of the twenty-six virtuous and enlightened patriots who formed the Hartford Convention which assembled on the 16th day of December, 1814. George Cabot, a native and citizen of Massachusetts, 1814. * History of the Hartford Convention, by T. Dwight, Secretary of the Convention, pp. 342, 351. 400 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY was elected president. He was a descendant of one of the discoverers of a portion of this continent, and was possessed of strong powers of mind and extensive acquirements, united with the strictest integrity and the purest morals; he was a distinguished patriot in the Revolution, and afterwards a Senator in Congress from his native State. In truth may it be said, this was a body of honorable men, consisting for the most part of statesmen, eminent judges and lawyers, remark- able for their position, their attainments, and their virtue. The action of this Convention will further prove, beyond all doubt and cavil, that its proceedings were all constitu- tional, loyal, and right. After being in session three weeks, a report was unanimously adopted by that body, which pre- sented a review of the war and the condition of the New England States; but not one word about disloyalty to the Union. Accompanying the report were a series of resolu- tions declaring, in the first place, that it be recommended to the several States represented in the Convention to authorize an application to be made to the Government of the United States, requesting their consent to some arrangement whereby the States may separately or in concert be empowered to assume upon themselves the defence of their own territory against the enemy; and that a reasonable portion of the taxes collected within said States may be paid into the respective treasuries thereof and appropriated to the payment of the balance due said States and to the future defence thereof.* There were other resolutions, but they bore either directly upon the request of the States to defend themselves by their own militia, or recommended some amendment to the Consti- tution, Thus, the Hartford Convention appears legitimate in its origin, in no respect violating the Federal compact, either in letter or spirit. The commissions under which the members assembled were scrupulously guarded against any violation of the Constitution; whilst the account of their proceedings shows that they punctiliously observed the in- junctions contained in their instructions. Without one act or expression that was unconstitutional, this harmless body of intelligent gentlemen adjourned sine die, January 5th, 1815, and returned home to meet the execration of their countrymen, and die disliked by a large number of the Ame- rican people, without cause and guiltless of any offence. * Journal of the Hartford Convention. OF THE UNITED STATES. 401 It is worthy of historical notice, that the President and Secretary of War, fired with sudden fear at the assembling of this mighty body of warlike disturbers of the tranquillity of the Union, dispatched Lieutenant-Colonel Jessup to Hart- ford, to counteract its proceedings, if necessary, by force; the result of which was that Jessup, after a daily correspondence with the Secretary of War, conveying no information of the slightest importance, accepted an invitation, in conjunction with all of his officers, to a public ball; and left the capital of Connecticut no doubt in a very pleasant humor, and with no complaints against the Convention or the people of Hart- ford, whose generous hospitality he had so freely received. The true and just doctrine of State rights has been suffi- ciently discussed in another portion of this work; yet nothing can be more striking in the history of parties in this country than the position occupied on this occasion by the distin- guished hero of State rights, the author of the report of the Virginia Legislature, in 1799, in reference to the “palpa- ble and alarming infractions of the Constitution in the two late cases of the ‘Alien and Sedition Acts.’”” When the Federalists of New England occupied the same position it was treason, and the father of the States-right school in Vir- ginia, stood ready to put them down by the Federal sword. If the Hartford Convention is condemned, how will the States-right party reconcile the position it assumed in 1882, in South Carolina, in reference to the tariff? For it is not to be forgotten that the legislature called a convention which passed an ordinance determining not to obey the laws of Con- gress in reference to the collection of duties at the ports of that State, and to resist if their collection should be attempted to be enforced by the General Government. If Otis, Cabot, Done, and Sherman in 1814, were guilty of opposition to the laws of their country, how will the memory of Hayne, Hamilton, McDuffie, and Calhoun escape the fierce denun- ciation of the Democratic party in reference to the position they and their State occupied in 1832? : Whilst the nation was becoming more and more united, and Congress was engaged with a stronger feeling of deter- mination in passing acts for the more vigorous prosecution of the war, the Executive was not unmindful of the opportunt- ties that offered in obtaining an honorable peace. | The letter of Castlereagh declining the mediation of oe sia, nevertheless expressed a desire for the restoration 0 402 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY amicable relations, and a willingness on the part of Great Britain to enter into direct negotiations. In consideration of the Russian mediation, Madison had appointed Adams, then American Minister at the Russian Court, Albert Gal- latin, and James A. Bayard, Commissioners to negotiate a peace. In January, 1814, when it was believed that there was no prospect of peace, and Gallatin and Bayard supposed to be on ther way home, Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell were added to the existing commission and sailed immediately for Kurope. The Commissioners were arranged by the Pre- sident and Senate in the following order:—Adams, Bayard, Clay, Russell, and Gallatin. The American Commissioners, were directed to proceed to Gottenburg, the place first desig- nated, from whence the negotiation was afterwards trans- ferred to Ghent, where they met the British Commissioners Lord Gambier, Henry Goulburn, and William Adams. The American Commissioners, with their Secretary of Legation, Christopher Hughes, and four junior assistants, established themselves in considerable style and kept house together with uncommon dignity, with the joint outfit and salary of one hundred thousand dollars per annum. Ghent, a Belgian city of seventy or eighty thousand inhabitants, between the Scheldt and Lys, and not far distant from the sea, was then occupied by British troops under the command of Sir Edward Lyons, whose only personal knowledge of America, it is said, was that his father had been killed in the battle of Bunker Hill. The Commissioners were hospitably enter- tained by the authorities of Ghent, with dinners and balls, the only dancing member of which was the venerable John Quincy Adams. Gambier, the head of the British Commission, then a re- tired naval officer, possessed no marked character, and was of ordinary ability; William Adams was an Admiralty officer of strong prejudices and little learning; Goulburn was a young man of hereditary distinction, tramed for a statesman and acquainted with the laws and rights of nations, rather as a student than a diplomatist. On the other hand, America presented at the Congress of Ghent, a brilliant and bold array of talent. John Quincy Adams was a man of vast learning, an educated and prac- tical diplomatist; Bayard, a distinguished debater and expe- rienced member of Congress; Clay, eminently suited for the occasion by his indomitable firmness, great familiarity with OF THE UNITED STATES. 403 the history of the war, the exceeding readiness and sound- ness of his thoughts, which he imparted with unconquerable array of argument, brilliant force, and fluency; Russell had been Chargé d’ Affaires, first at Paris and afterwards at Lon- don, when war was declared, where he won universal admira- tion by the skill and firmness with which he discharged his delicate trust; Gallatin had been for many years a favorite cabinet officer, and was a man of strong and capacious mind, eminently versed in the domestic and diplomatic history of his country, and especially familiar with all the commercial and maritime questions to be discussed. In the instructions first given to our Commissioners, the impressment of Ame- rican seamen and illegal blockades were alleged as the prin- cipal causes of war; this was also stated in the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations of the House of Represen- tatives. By an act of Congress, passed in pursuance of that report, it will be seen that the United States were disposed to exclude all British seamen from American service; but the instructions required that England should be bound by the same restrictions in reference to our seamen being forced into British service. At a subsequent period, the Secretary of State instructed our Commissioners, if found indispensably necessary, to omit the subject of impressment; the altered condition of Kuro- pean affairs, in consequence of the downfall of Napoleon, was stated as the reason, and consequently it was omitted in the treaty. If it appears strange or inconsistent, the justification can only be found in the entire cessation of any cause of complaint on this score, from the date of the treaty to the present time. ; The English Commissioners were exceedingly rigorous and exacting in their first communication, requiring a settlement of the existing difficulties with the Indian tribes and the guaranty of a tract of country for them, which was empha- tically refused on the part of the United States; and the British Commissioners were compelled to be satisfied with a mutual stipulation for peace with the Indians.* Upon the final disposition of this question, arose others of more magnitude and importance in reference to the naviga- tion of the Mississippi River. By the treaty of 1783, it had been stipulated that Great Britain in common with the citi- * American State Papers, vol. ix. 404 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY zens of the United States, should forever enjoy the free navigation, from its source to the ocean, of this the Father of Waters. The same rights were stipulated in the treaty concluded by Jay in 1794. At the date of both of these treaties Spain possessed the sovereignty of the entire western side of the Mississippi, and both sides from its mouth to the 31st degree of north latitude. From that point to the source of the river, the residue on the eastern side belonged to the United States. The English Commissioners were under the erroneous idea that the territory of his Majesty would include a small portion of this river, when the boundary line was run from the Lake of the Woods, as provided in the treaty of peace. The idea was that the Mississippi had its origin beyond the line of the British possessions, which, under the law of nations as well as by virtue of the former treaty stipulations, gave them the right to navigate this river. The situation of the two countries at the time of the treaty of Ghent was entirely different from what it was at the date of the treaties of 1783 and 1794. Since which periods the Province of Louisiana had been acquired, which vested all the rights of Spain, in regard to the navigation of the river, in the United States. It had also been ascertained prior to the treaty of Ghent, that the British line, designated by the treaty of 1783 to run from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, would not strike the river at all; indeed, since the annexation of Louisiana, the United States claimed to the Pacific. Nothing was more preposterous than this claim of the British Government, in connection with which must be noticed the position of some of the American Commis- sioners. By the third article of the treaty of 1783, it was agreed “that the people of the United States should continue to en- joy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries had used at any time to fish; and also that the inhabitants of the United States should have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British seamen might use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island,) and also on the coasts, bays, and crecks of all other of his Bri- tannic Majesty’s dominions in America; and that the Ame- OF THE UNITED STATES. 405 rican fishermen should have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same might remain unsettled ; but so soon as the same, or either of them, should be settled, it should not be lawful for the said fisher- men to dry or cure fish at such settlement, without a previous agreement for that purpose, with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.” At an early day after the opening of the negotiations, the British Commissioners gave notice that they would not renew our liberty to catch and cure fish within their exclusive juris- diction, without an equivalent. The American Commissioners were divided in reference to the question, whether the above clause in the treaty of 1783 had been abrogated by the breaking out of the war, or whether from the peculiar nature of the treaty, being one resulting in the severance of an empire and the acknowledgment of a new power, the stipulation did not survive the war. All of the Commissioners thought, except Mr. Adams, that the stipulations ceased with the war. It would have been very instructive had the learned diplomatist favored the world with some reason or authority for so important a doctrine, and one of such special interest to the United States; in which, had he been successful, the valuable right of catching and curing fish on the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which had been used from the earliest times, would still have been retained to the New England people. : In order to dissipate all doubt, as well as to secure this privilege, Gallatin proposed to insert an article providing on the one hand for the renewal of the rights and liberties of the fisheries, and on the other the right to the navigation of the Mississippi to Great Britain. The keen and practical mind of Clay saw at a glance the folly of such an agreement, to the introduction of which he instantly objected. After an animated discussion, principally between Clay and Galla- tin, Messrs. Adams, Gallatin, and Bayard, were found to be in favor of yielding the anxiously-desired privilege by Great Britain of navigating this great American river, communi- cating as it does with the richest and most productive area of the continent. The bold and manly heart of Clay could not allow him to sign any treaty giving, in comparison even with the New England fisheries, such a right; and with that inherent readiness and promptness which belonged to the man, 406 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY he emphatically refused to give the treaty the sanction of his name, if it contained such a clause; which probably induced Bayard to change his position and vote with the minority, and, uniting with Clay and Russell, save the country from the degrading position it would otherwise have assumed, if by possibility the treaty could have received the sanction of the President and Senate.* Without casting the slightest imputations upon the firm- ness, patriotism, or skill of the eminent statesmen who formed the American commission, it is but simple justice to say there was one man more inflexibly resolved on yielding nothing— ““not even one inch of the waters of the Mississippi’’—than - the rest, and that man, with ultra-montane feeling, stood like the Alleghany of his own native State, utterly immovable; and that man, as Lord Castlereagh called him, was the “ Ken- tuckian,” who, if with less cultivation than his accomplished colleagues, was possessed of that genius which, either in war or peace, in oratory or diplomacy, will override the. highest endowments of culture. The majority of the Commissioners, upon the accession of Bayard, not to oppose the proposed article in reference to the navigation of the Mississippi, adopted a clause in their note to the British Commissioners, prepared by Clay, totally re- fusing to treat upon the point proposed. The most consum- mate skill was manifested throughout by the American Com- missioners, and their firmness no doubt was the cause of England’s receding from her very haughty, exacting, and overbearing position. Every point for which the United States contended was secured, except a stipulation on the right of impressment, in reference to which our Commis- sioners had been instructed to preserve silence, if necessary; but it must be remembered that the silence which was pre- seryed was granted at the express desire of the British cabi- net, who first asserted and exercised the right, and a propo- sition to ‘‘omit any stipulations on this subject,” not only was a clear backing out on the part of Great Britain, but obviated any necessity for a treaty on this subject; whilst the subse- quent scrupulous regard to our rights in reference to this great cause of complaint, may now be regarded as a great triumph of the war. * Letter of Clay to Russell, July 9, 1822. + American State Papers, vol. ix. OF THE UNITED STATES. 407 On the 24th of December, 1814, the treaty was signed and immediately dispatched to the United States. As soon as its provisions were known at London, the press and many dis- tinguished politicians, with a large portion of the community, readily and fearlessly expressed their condemnation of it. One of the leading papers in London called upon the Prince- regent not to ratify ‘so disgraceful a treaty ;” another said the treaty forms a deplorable contrast with the high-sounding threats of a part of the public press; whilst in the House of Lords, even Wellesley, known for his implacable hatred to America, denounced the British cabinet for advancing claims they could not sustain, and confessed the “astonishing supe- riority”’ the American Ministers had shown over the British. On the 13th of February, 1815, the treaty reached the City of Washington. It was received at the seat of Govern- ment with great satisfaction, and joyously throughout the country, as it was known “that not an inch was ceded or lost.” The welcome news of peace reached Washington during the session of Congress, and amidst its busiest preparations for a more vigorous prosecution of the war. By special Message the President communicated the treaty to the Senate, by whom it was immediately ratified. “‘Peace,’’ said the President, “at all times a blessing, is pe- culiarly welcome, therefore, at a period when the causes of war have ceased to operate; when the Government has de- monstrated the efficiency of its powers of defence, and when the nation can review its conduct without regret and without reproach.” After the negotiation of peace had been confirmed a com- mercial treaty was formed at London, signed on the part of the United States by Adams, Gallatin, and Clay. This was exclusively a commercial treaty, but not more favorable to the United States than Jay’s, made in 1794. The immediate effect of the war had been disastrous to the commerce and finances of the United States, besides the loss of about thirty thousand lives, which may be considered no large number, taking into consideration the battles fought and the duration of the war. Thé cost of the war has been estimated at one hundred millions of dollars. The loss of life as well as the cost of war to the British was much greater; for during the war the Americans had captured on the ocean and lakes 50 British Feb. 20. 408 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY vessels of war, mounting 886 guns; 2360 merchant-vessels, mounting 8000 guns, of which 345 were war-ships, 610 brigs, 520 schooners, 185 sloops, and 750 vessels of various sizes, making altogether 2416 vessels, with their cargoes, provisions, and specie, and about 30,000 prisoners of war; to which may be added 1610 merchant-vessels, which arrived in port or were destroyed, and 29 ships-of-war wrecked on the Ameri- can coast, mounting about 800 guns. The loss on the part of the United States was much smaller, being, as was esti- mated, the President, Essex, and Chesapeake, two sloops-of- war, six brigs, and fourteen smaller vessels and gun-boats, carrying a total of 350 guns. A statement made to the House of Commons from the Ad- miralty Office, makes an estimate of 1407 merchant-vessels taken by the British or destroyed, and 20,961 American pri- soners of war. The Americans lost, besides this estimate, two other frigates, and one sloop-of-war.* But a few days of the session of the Fourteenth Congress remained after the reception of the news of peace and the ratification of the treaty, which were devoted to the adjust- ment of national affairs to. the new condition of the country. The act imposing discriminating duties on foreign vessels, and the lingering features of the Non-intercourse and Non-impor- tation Acts were speedily repealed. Large appropriations were made for rebuilding the public edifices at Washington, which British barbarism had laid in ashes; and whilst the opposition to it by a few members of Congress was alike futile and impracticable, the proposition of Rhea, a representative from Pennsylvania, deserves a place in history, if but to stamp a burning and indelible disgrace upon the brow of the most ruthless enemy that ever waged a civilized war. He pro- posed to encircle the ruins of the capitol with an iron ballus- trade, where the green ivy might grow, and the perpetual inscription, ‘Americans, this is the effect of British barbar- ism!” might in after ages meet the eye of the American patriot. Our military establishment was immediately reduced; the President recommended 20,000 men for the peace establish- ment, the House proposed 6000, the Senate 15,000, when, by way of compromise, it was fixed at 10,000 men. The direct taxes were retained and the navy kept up for the pur- * Niles’s Register, vol. ix. 825; Stat. Man., vol. i. 377. OF THE UNITED STATES. 409 pose of protecting our commerce from the piratical hands of the Algerine cruisers. Upon the eve of the session steps were taken to re-establish our diplomatic relations with many of the European courts. Eustis was sent Minister to Holland, John Quincy Adams Minister to Great Britain, Gallatin to France, Bayard to St. Petersburg; the latter being then in Europe, hastened home but to close his eyes in death, and rest beneath the soil of that land which had ever been the object of his love, and with which his virtue and his fame are imperishably blended. Don Onis had at length been received as Minister from Spain, and Irving was sent to that country to renew our diplomatic relations, which for some time had been in entire abeyance. In consequence of the late fire and destruction of the capitol, several private individuals had erected on Capitol Hilla temporary building, which, though indifferently adapted for the use of the National Legislature, had been leased to the Government; and here the Fourteenth Congress opened its session, charged with the heaviest and ee most important duties to the country. Clay, just returned from Europe and again a member of Congress, was elected Speaker by 82 votes out of 122 cast, on this occasion. Most of the members had been elected during the war, and the old party distinctions had nearly subsided. Out of 65 Federalists elected to Congress, only 10 were found to vote against the Administration candidate for the speakership. The return of peace had dissipated all ground of opposition to Madison, and the present aspect of the House exhibited the popularity of the Administration. ; In the Senate there were 24 Republicans to 12 Federalists, in which body the President was supported by some of the first men of the age, among whom is to be recognized Bar- bour, of Virginia, Macon, of North Carolina, and Campbell, of Tennessee; whilst of the 117 Democratic members in the House, were Taylor and Southard, Wright and Pinckney, Calhoun and Lowndes, Forsyth and Wilde, and many others of equal talent and influence. In opposition to the Admin- istration, among the ablest may be considered Webster, John Randolph, Gaston, Cyrus King, Sargeant, and Grosvenor, of the House; with Dana and Harper, Mason and Gore, of the Senate. Vou. I.—27 410 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY We had just passed through a war with the most powerful nation on earth, and though waged successfully and ended honorably, it had not only involved the country in extreme suffering but had left the finances in considerable embarrass- ment and thrown confusion and discredit upon the currency; these were subjects of vast magnitude and vital interest. The war had wrought many new ideas, and, in some respects, a change in the policy of the Administration; the weapons of war were laid aside, and the arts of peace were revived. Manufactures which had necessarily sprung into existence during the war, were then in a condition requiring aid from the hands of Government, or they would sink, and with their fall ruin thousands of our energetic citizens. Com- merce was again to unfold its silvery wing to every breeze, and agriculture to supply the domestic market and fill the granaries of Europe. Our citizens were restricted in many respects to the plainest and often a scanty supply of clothing, or subjected to the highest and most exorbitant prices; for a time, now that war had ceased, we would have to look to the foreign market for our supplies, which, unfortunately, created rather too strong a feeling for their protection. But to increase the gloom that gathered over us, our banks had suspended specie payments, and almost every dollar had gone to Europe to buy the neces- saries of life at exorbitant rates, not one cent of which found its way back; whilst exchanges upon England stood at twenty and twenty-five per cent. above par; andif possible to heighten the distress of the mercantile community (which affects every relation of life and every person) the issue of the banks amounted to over one hundred millions of dollars, with an estimate of about fifteen millions of specie in the country. Such was the condition of the country over which Congress was now to legislate, and in its wisdom and discretion to pro- vide adequate means for paying off the national debt. Ina clear and concise Message, the President communicated to Congress the condition of public affairs. The embarrass- ments arising from the want of a uniform currency had not been diminished since the adjournment of the last Congress, which induced the President to recommend the establishment of a national bank, though he had vetoed a bill for that purpose at a very recent period. Some modification had also taken place in his opinions upon the tariff, and he did not hesitate to call the attention of Congress, “‘in adjusting OF THE UNITED STATES. 411 the duties on imports to the objects of revenue,” to the influ- ence of a tariff on the domestic manufactures. Madison was not a protectionist in the most objectionable aspect of the term; nor had the principle at this day reached the extent that it ultimately attained. There were circum- stances which had given a powerful impulse to domestic. manufactures, under which many of our citizens had embarked with the investment of large capitals; if these establishments were left to contend with the influx of foreign articles when Europe was free from the distractions of war, the sudden fall of the price and the ultimate suspension from business would be inevitable ruin. It does not appear, however, that Madi- son favored a step beyond the ‘objects of revenue” in laying duties which might incidentally give protection to such articles as were subject to casual failures, and for which we were de- pendent ‘‘on foreign supplies.” The subject of internal improvements was also recom- mended to Congress; but upon this point the Message was exceedingly vague and uncertain, being applied only to roads and canals, without further distinction or explanation. The receipts of the Treasury for nine months ending the 80th of September last, were estimated at twelve millions and a half of dollars; the issue of Trea- sury notes during the same period amounted to fourteen mil- lions; and there was obtained upon loans nine millions; which, added to the million and a half in the Treasury on the 1st of January, and thirty-three millions paid up to the Ist of October, left a balance in the Treasury, according to the estimate of the President, of three millions. The national debt was ascertained to be, on the Ist of October, one hun- dred and twenty millions of dollars.* Notwithstanding the occurrence of peace, which would doubtlessly curtail the expenses of the Government, there were great demands upon the Treasury, and peculiarly em- barrassing on account of any reliable currency with which to collect the public dues. The expenditures for the present year, according to the estimate of the Secretary of the Treasury, would not be less than fifty mil- lions of dollars, whilst the expenses of 1816 would reach beyond forty-three millions, which could not be met under Dec. 1815. 1815. % Madison’s Message, Dec. 5, 1815. 412 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY the existing tariff, as the double duties would cease in Feb- ruary of that year. There was at this time new and great wants and interests springing up at home, throwing the former topic of dispute in the shade, and calling for the highest efforts of patriotism and statesmanship which the country possessed. Among those who stood boldly conspicuous for the brilliant and lasting service of their country, were Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Lowndes, and Cheves. It is a matter of interest to observe the little difference that existed among those distinguished characters at this time. No broad or general lines of party difference is discernible immediately after the assembling of the Fourteenth Congress, at which time, however, the great measures brought forward,—the bank, the tariff, and internal improvements,—were the subjects on which the members divided, without reference to previous party organization, from sectional considerations or indi- vidual convictions. On the bank and internal improvement questions, no systematic difference was disclosed between the Northern and Southern sections of the Union. In reference to the tariff it was perceived that the issue was upon protec- tion to manufactures; a difference at once sprung up which has been continued with bitterness and angry discussion to a very recent period. John C. Calhoun reported a bill from the com- mittee on the national currency, to incorporate the subscribers to the bank of the United States; annexed to which was a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, sub- mitting an outline for this powerful institution, with a capital of thirty-five millions of dollars. The Bank-bill passed the House by a majority of nine votes and the Senate by a ma- jority of ten, two members (Messrs. Bibb and Thompson) being absent on account of ill-health. On the 10th of April, the President signed the bill, though the bank did not com- mence operations until the next year. The sudden transition of the Republican party in the year 1816 from being opposed to the bank to the position of being its very father, surpasses all comprehension. Clay, the dis- tinguished leader in the House, who formerly opposed with all his talent and energy the bill which Madison vetoed, because it was unconstitutional, now sustained with all his powers a simi- lar bill, which, in a very short period, Madison found to be 1816. Jan. 13. OF THE UNITED STATES. 413 constitutional. Expediency is the practical code of most American statesmen; the doctrine of strict construction and constitutionality is but too frequently estimated by the stand- ard of party predilection. he constitutional bearing of every question must be permanent, yet statesmen have but too often allowed the expediency doctrine to control all other questions. The bank gave no satisfaction to its friends in the first few years of its operation, and but little aid to the commercial community; an occasional loan, with the annual tribute of a million and a half bonus to the Government as a tax upon its life, may have been a temporary relief to the Government; but its future history will present an engine of dreadful commercial destruction, which will long be borne upon the memory of the American people. The first bank, which was incorporated in 1791, and ushered into existence under the auspices of the Federalists, was opposed by Jeffer- son; and the little Republican party, just struggling into existence, opposed it not only as inexpedient and dangerous, but as unconstitutional. In 1811, when the effort was made to recharter the bank, the Republican party, then in the majority, wisely defeated it; Clay was in the Senate, and the “vagrant power,” which he called it, to establish a bank ‘had wandered throughout the whole Constitution in quest of some congenial spot whereon to fasten.”’ Madison, who had been a member of the Convention that formed the Constitution, and author of the resolutions of 1798 and 1799, was remarkable for an adhesion to a strict construction of the Constitution, had opposed all previous authority and despised all precedent. Whilst the Republican party surrendered the Constitution upon the plea of necessity, Madison did it upon the ground of precedent. . . Some of the true and firm old Republicans opposed with great energy and bitterness not only the Bank-bill, but the lamentable giving way of James Madison on a point on which he had before shown the greatest firmness Among the most distinguished opponents of Madison at this time was. John Randolph, who did not hesitate to charge this act of incon- sistency to the weakness of old age, as he applied to him the well-known quotation— ‘From Marlborough’s eyes the streams of dotage flow, ‘And swift expires a driv’ler and a show.” 414 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY But this, the reader will understand, as being more the in- dulgence of a heated temper than the true feeling of the country towards the sage of Montpelier, who died respected and admired by every party. The most important feature in the’ Bank-bill, if not the only one that saved it from immediate destruction, was the adoption of the specie resolution, by which from and after the 20th of February, 1817, all debts due to the Treasury were to be paid in gold or silver, in Treasury notes, the notes of the bank of the United States, or notes of banks which pay in gold or silver on demand. ‘This clause worked well for a while, and was the means of a considerable saving to the Treasury. All the New England banks had at the time suspended specie payments, but such was the miserable con- dition of the currency, that their depreciated bills passed by a general consent from hand to hand, and the public money even had to be collected in this degraded medium. The country was indebted to Daniel Webster for this salutary measure, who, though opposed to the bill, introduced this clause somewhat against the consent of a portion of the Re- publican party; but by his commanding talent and profound knowledge of the financial interest of the country, succeeded in making the bank a better institution than its very fathers did when it was first proposed to the National Legislature. At the present session of the Fourteenth Congress was introduced a system of legislation which the statesman or historian must alike approach with the most mature consider- ation, which, in its immediate as well as subsequent opera- tion, was the most momentous ever offered to the consideration of Congress. Through the influence of that most unfortunate experiment, the restrictive system which sprung from unwise councils during the war, domestic manufactures had assumed an importance in some of the States, which now, the war being over and the restrictions removed, left those who had embarked in such enterprises. from sheer necessity, suppli- ants for relief at the hands of the Government. The amount of capital involved in domestic manufactures had suddenly reached to a considerable extent. In the year 1800, only five hundred bales of cotton had been worked up in the United States; in 1805, one thousand; in 1815, the number had reached ninety thousand, employed ninety-four thousand operatives, and a capital of nearly forty-two millions of dol- OF THE UNITED STATES. 415 lars.* This is but a faint picture of that vast, gigantic, and incalculable interest that has since pervaded the country. Against the full and rapid development of the manufacturing interest of the United States, no man can say anything; yet it is the duty of impartial history to trace the origin of that system which brought them into such sudden and plethoric existence, and also to examine the policy of those measures which impelled the American people in a certain course of business, which, if left to the unfettered laws of trade, would certainly have been postponed for a time. With the tariff of 1816, containing the minimum duty on coarse cotton fabrics, will be found the corner-stone of the protective system. In the Northern States some advance had been made in the manufactories, but no great interest had as yet sprung into existence, asking the protective hand of the Government. Navigation and foreign trade were the pursuits of the citizens of the North, and they feared these interests would suffer from the attempt to build up manufac- tures. It is a striking fact that this principle, afterwards the means of building up the magnificence and wealth of the Northern States, which they at first opposed, was first recom- mended by a Southern President, and ardently supported by Southern statesmen, with Calhoun at their head, who, think- ing it of the highest interest to the growers of the great staples of Southern agriculture, advocated the protective tariff of 1816; and an equally well-known fact in its history is the sudden change which the South assumed when it was discovered, too late, that it warred upon Southern interest, but was the path to Northern wealth and power, which in a few years made it their favorite pursuit and placed the states- men of their section from being its bitterest opponents, in the front rank of its champions and defenders. Calhoun and Webster, the most distinguished statesmen and more iden- tified with this measure than any other great effort of Ame- rican legislation, not only changed places in reference to the principle of protection to American industry, but with them the North and the South alternately occupied the same ground,—the one of opposition, the other of advocacy of this very question. Nor is it a ground of just reproach to either ; * Report of the Committee on Manufactures in the House of Represen- tatives, 1816; Niles’s Register, vol. ix. + Memoirs of Webster, by Everett, p. 43. 416 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY Webster saw that the people he represented had turned the course of legislation to their own advantage, and unforeseen events had made it the sure pathway to them of wealth as well as political power, that manufacturing was eminently suited to the genius of the great section of which he was the first representative man, in talent and influence, in the whole country. Calhoun soon saw, with the eye of a statesman and the wisdom of a philosopher, that the Republican party, with Madison at the head, had placed the South in an unfortunate position, as far as making it tributary to the North and ex- cluding to a great extent the markets of Europe, were con- cerned; and from necessity he, with many other Southern statesmen, were compelled to oppose the further continuance of a system that preyed with vulture-like voracity upon their dearest rights in a pecuniary as well as a political sense. Lowndes, a very distinguished statesman, and eminent witha reputation for financial talent, was chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to whom had been committed so much of the President’s Message as related to the revenue. This committee reported in favor of the plan of revenue contained in the report of the Secre- tary of the Treasury, with very slight and immaterial ex- ceptions. This report, as well as that submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, whilst recommending certain modifications of the tariff for revenue, was silent on the sub- ject of protection, though in some instances enormous duties were recommended.* The Secretary of the Treasury had been called upon by a resolution of the House to submit a plan for a tariff, which he accordingly did at great length, showing considerable labor and research on the part of the Hon. A. J. Dallas, but exhibiting very little skill and foresight as a financier. In framing the propositions which he submitted to Congress, he made the following divisions which would come under consi- deration in adjusting a general tariff,— 1st. The object of raising, by duties on imports and ton- nage, the proportion of public revenue which must be drawn from that source. 2d. The object of conciliating the various national interests 1816. Jan. 9. * Niles’s Register, vol. ix. pp. 261, 356. OF THE UNITED STATES. 417 which arise from the pursuits of agriculture, manufactures, trade, and navigation. 3d. The object of rendering the collection of the duties convenient, equal, and certain. The mind of the Secretary was in advance of the ideas of those who lived in the same section of the Union with him- self; he was evidently strongly inclined to protection. In reference to the second point of consideration embraced in this report, he not only says there are few if any Govern- ments which do not regard the establishment of manufac- tures a chief object of public policy, but in the schedules submitted along with the report at the same time, his recom- mendation was to raise the duties eighty per cent. ad valorem upon the aggregate products of the existing duties. In the classification he proposed was the following scheme, with an enumeration under each head of the articles properly belonging thereto :— 1st. Manufactures which are firmly and permanently established, and which wholly, or almost wholly, supply the demand for domestic use and consumption. 2d. Manufactures which, being recently or partly esta- blished, do not at present supply the demand for domestic use and consumption, but which with proper culture are capa- ble of being matured to the whole extent of the demand. 3d. Manufactures which are so slightly cultivated as to leave the demand of the country wholly, or almost wholly, dependent upon foreign sources for a supply. The second class embraces those articles which he clearly saw were the great objects of governmental nursing and care, but upon articles of the third class they had not sufficiently interested the capitalists of the country as to be worthy of much notice by the Government.* When the Tariff-bill was introduced into the House, a severe and most important struggle took place upon the duties on cotton and woollen manufactures. The mercantile representatives uniting with the great body of Federalists, who, unmindful of the striking similarity between the report of Dallas and that which had been submitted to the consider- ation of Congress by Alexander Hamilton, and now quite popular with the Republican or Democratic party, were the * Report of A. J. Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury, Feb. 12, 1816; Niles’s Register, vol. ii. p. 487. 418 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY chief opponents of the bill, with an occasional help from a few old-school Southern Democrats, the first and formost of whom was John Randolph. The cotton-growing States, whose interest seemed to be most specially represented by John C. Calhoun, did not come out as decidedly in favor of protection to that article as it was supposed they would have done, and by some unaccount- able change of sentiment, the Northern States, those sup- posed to be mostly interested in commerce and navigation, gave a larger vote in behalf of protection. It is strange, but nevertheless true, that whilst the leading representative from the South first unfurled the banner of protection, which was most violently assailed by some of the first statesmen of the North, that when the final vote was taken in the House, it was passed by a vote of 88 to 54, the largest number of yeas being from the North and the largest number of nays being from the South; in Virginia, only seven out of twenty-three voted for it; North Carolina unani- mously voted against it; in South Carolina, only four out of nine voted for the bill; in Georgia, three out of six; in Ten- nessee, three out of six; and Thomas Robertson, then the only Representative from Louisiana, voted also against it. Among the Northern Representatives the vote was 59 yeas to 25 nays. int In the Senate the bill passed by a vote of 25 to pril 19. oo. : : 7, a majority of Northern Senators voting for it,— Barbour, Mason, Turner, Goldsborough, and Harper, of the South, voting against it.* On the 17th of April this bill received the approval of James Madison. Henry Clay, the early and constant friend of protection to American industry, Lowndes, and Calhoun, all boasted that protection was the purpose of this bill; whether the rates fixed were insufficient, or whether the nation would suffer such legislation, as it was not yet ready to receive, is at this time immaterial; sufficient is it to know, that many of those establishments, designed to be fostered by the Government, languished and perished under the competition of the heavy importations that were kept up after the close of the war. aisha The diplomatic relations of the United States * and Spain, which had been somewhat overlooked, and for a while suspended, were brought under discussion * Journal of the House, April 5, 1816; J: ournal of the Senate, April 19, 1816; Niles’s Register, vol. ix. p. 280, vol. x. pp. 101, 150. OF THE UNITED STATES. 419 during the course of this year. West Florida was occupied by the United States troops, which elicited a remonstrance from Don Onis, the Spanish Minister, who insisted that this portion of the territory be surrendered to his Catholic Ma- jesty. The direct and official relations between the two Governments had been broken off since the year 1808, during which period the territory alluded to had been reduced into the possession of the United States. The communication of the Spanish Minister further presented, that expeditions were fitting out on the Mississippi against New Spain, and de- manded that no intercourse should be allowed between the United States and the revolted Colonies of the King of Spain. The communication of Don Onis was not only passionate and violent, but in extremely bad taste; to all of which the Secretary of State replied with becoming dignity and force. After a brief and pointed allusion to the treaty which a few years back had been entered into between Spain and the United States, providing indemnity for the unlawful seizure and condemnation of American vessels in the ports of Spain, he noticed the several points made in the communication of this restless and uncouth diplomatic functionary. In reference to the occupation of West Florida, there was but one answer to be given,—that the United States claimed by cession, at a fair equivalent, the Province of Louisiana, as it was held by France prior to the treaty of 1763, extend- ing from the Perdido, on the eastern side of the Mississippi, to the Bravo or Grande, on the western; to the territory within these limits the right of the United States was esta- blished by treaty. In reference to the second demand,—that the troops that were being raised to fight in behalf of the revolted Provinces of Mexico should be arrested and tried,—Monroe denied that the men engaged in the expeditions alluded to were American citizens; that the expedition assembled by Toledo consisted of Spaniards and Frenchmen, living in the wilder- ness between the settlements of the United States and Spain, and not within the settled parts of Louisiana, and beyond the actual operation of our laws; and that this Government could not be called upon to surrender the inhabitants of Spain or of the Spanish Provinces, on the demand of Spain, such people not being punishable by the laws of the United States for acts committed ‘beyond their jurisdiction, the case of pirates alone excepted. Yet the Secretary of State fully 420 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY and manfully met the question as far as it was within the operation of our laws and the principles of national juris- prudence, by assuring the Spanish Minister that whenever American citizens were detected in such enterprises they would be brought to immediate trial. In reply to the third demand made by the Spanish Minis- ter,—the exclusion of the flag of the revolted Provinces from our ports,—the Secretary of State justly and correctly con- tended that, in consequence of the unsettled state of many countries and repeated changes of the ruling authority in each, there being at the same time several competitors, and each party bearing its appropriate flag, the President thought it proper to give orders to the collectors not to make the flag of any vessel the criterion of its admission into the ports of the United States. This Government took no part in the convulsions which shook and agitated and destroyed other powers, and it was consistent not only with our interest, but. with the received and just principles of public law, to admit into our ports vessels of all countries under whatever flag they sailed, piratical ones alone excepted. Whether the able and dignified State paper of Secretary Monroe satisfied or convinced the querulous Embassador or not is unknown; the Spanish difficulties were not agitated again for several years, when Monroe had been transferred from the cabinet to the Executive Chair. It is a fundamental policy of this Government, recognized and practiced from its earliest days, to maintain the strictest neutrality in reference to the quar- rels of foreign nations, and of this the Spanish Government was assured in reference to her revolted Provinces in South America; yet there was no impropriety and no injustice in trading with them, be their political allegiance bound to a Spanish King or in transitu from despotism to freedom.* To the second session of the Fourteenth Con- gress, which assembled on the 2d of December, the Chief Magistrate of the United States addressed his eighth and last Annual Message. In directing the legislative attention to the state of the national finances, it was a subject of gratification to find that within the short period which had elapsed since the return of peace the revenue had largely exceeded the current demands upon the Treasury. It was estimated that during the year 1816. * Bradford, p. 240; American State Papers, vol. xi. p. 54. OF THE UNITED STATES. 421 1816 the receipts of the revenue at the Treasury, including the balance at the end of the year and excluding the pro- ceeds of loans and Treasury notes, would reach the sum of forty-seven millions of dollars. The amount, however, re- ceived was about thirty-eight millions, which left at the end of the year a surplus of about nine millions in the Treasury. The operations of the Treasury continued to be obstructed by difficulties arising from the condition of the national cur- rency; the bank had as yet done but little good, which could be but temporary, though the President thought it had been organized under ‘“‘auspices the most favorable.” The floating debt of-the Treasury notes and temporary loans, was soon to be discharged. The aggregate of the funded debt did not exceed one hundred and ten millions of dollars. The annual expenses of the Government,—civil, military, and naval,—were estimated at less than twenty mil- lions; the permanent revenue from all sources was estimated to exceed twenty-five millions. It was upon this general view that the President thought there was only wanting to the fiscal prosperity of the Govern- ment, the restoration of a uniform medium of exchange. The political views which the President at this time enter- tained were generally, though not always, approved by the Democratic party. The policy he recommended differed in some respects most materially from the views hitherto ex- pressed. Protection to domestic manufactures was urged as deserving the especial guardianship of the Government. The bank was a favorite scheme; and, indeed, it did appear that many of the repudiated doctrines of the Federal school had no small occupancy in the mind of the Executive. _ In view of an approaching retirement from the chief magis- tracy of the nation, Madison,—a beautiful and effective writer, always forcible, brilliant, and clear,—drew a striking and phi- losophic picture of the great duty and destiny of the country he had faithfully served and ardently loved; in which he ex- hibited the character of the American people in their devotion to true liberty and to the Constitution, which is its palladium. Sure presages that the destined career of the country will exhibit a Government pursuing the public good as its sole ob- ject, and regulating its means by the great Benes ee crated by its charter, and by those moral principles to whic they are so well allied; a Government which watches over the purity of elections, the freedom of speech and of the 422 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY press, the trial by jury, and the equal interdict against the encroachments and compacts between religion and State; which maintains inviolable the maxims of public faith, the security of persons and property, and encourages, in every authorized mode, that general diffusion of knowledge which guaranties to public liberty its permanency, and to those who possess the blessing the true enjoyment of it; a Government which avoids intrusion on the internal repose of other nations, and repels them from its own; which does justice to all na- tions with a readiness equal to the firmness with which it requires justice from them; and which, while it refines its do- mestic code from every ingredient not congenial with the pre- cepts of our enlightened age, and the sentiments of a virtuous people, seeks by appeals to reason and by its liberal examples, to infuse into the law which governs the civilized world a spirit which may diminish the frequency or circumscribe the calami- ties of war, and meliorate the social and beneficent relations of peace; a Government, in a word, whose conduct, within and without, may bespeak the most noble of all ambitions,— that of promoting peace on earth and good-will to men. Such were the lessons of truth which Madison addressed to the last Congress which assembled under his administration; and long may they be remembered and appreciated by a free and virtuous people! Under that extensive power of the free principles of the American Constitution, another State was added to the bright galaxy of the Union,—Indiana, which had formed a part of the Northwestern Territory till January, 1801, when it was, by act of Congress, erected into a Territorial government, with the usual power and privileges. Under this form of government it remained till 1816, when the population being sufficient, Congress passed a law authorizing the people to establish a State government. A constitution was - adopted on the 29th of June; 1816, and on the 6th of December was admitted into the Union as the nineteenth State. It is a lesson of striking import, which should be referred to with pride and satisfaction, to observe the easy and undis- turbed manner in which the State of Indiana was brought into the fellowship of union with the other States. Free from party feeling and sectional strife, Morrow, the Senator from Ohio, from the select committee to whom was referred the resolution for admitting the State of Indiana into the 1816. OF THE UNITED STATES. 423 ee reported the simple preamble and resolution that,— | lereas, In pursuance of an act of the Congress of the uae States, passed on the 19th day of April, 1816, en- titled ‘An act to enable the people of the Indiana Territory to form a State government, and for the admission of that State into the Union, the people of the said Territory did, on the 29th day of June in the present year, by a convention called for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and State government; which constitution and State govern- ment, So formed, is republican, and in conformity to the prin- ciples of the Articles of Compact between the original States and the people, and the States in the territory northwest of the River Ohio, passed on the 23d day of July, 1787;’ therefore be it “Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Indiana shall be one, and is hereby de- clared to be one of the United States of America, and ad- mitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.” This was all the legislation the constitution required. The only condition to be exacted was a republican form of govern- ment, which being complied with, Congress had no legitimate right to hesitate for a moment about its admission as a State, upon an equal footing with the other members of the Con- federacy.* The allusion in the preamble to the ordinance of 1787, was rendered essential for the obvious reason, that the law of Congress passed at that day prohibited slavery in what was known as the Northwest Territory. At this session the western portion of the Territory of Mississippi was erected into the new Territory of Alabama, over which Bibb, of Georgia, was appointed the first Governor, and authority given to the eastern portion to establish a con- stitution for the State of Mississippi.{ The rapid development of the resources of the southwestern portion of the Confederacy, and the great profits likely to accrue from the cultivation of cotton, had revived the African * Niles’s Register, vol. ae 256. 1 of Congress. : . {ua ‘Hist. of v. 8., second series, vol. iii. p. 613; Niles’s Register, vol. xi. p. 398. 424 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY slave-trade to such an extent as to receive special attention in the Annual Message of the President, with the hope that some steps would be taken by Congress to render the law as efficient as would be necessary. The legislation of Congress was directed to no further action than the enactment of more severe laws for the purpose of restraining the African slave- trade, which, nevertheless, was indulged in to some extent for years afterwards. The African slave-trade was doubtlessly conducted with many scenes, alike abhorent to Christian feelings and the dictates of humanity; but with all the objections which the civilized world very justly made to a further indulgence in this traffic, it is equally clear that a most important social, political, and commercial interest has been engrafted upon the policy of the United States, which has not only become permanent with us and produced the great development of the resources of the agricultural States, but tended in a large degree to meliorate the condition of the Old World, by making this country the great reservoir for supplying with wholsome and necessary food its starving population. ‘The great and crown- ing glory of this much-abused system has not yet been written, though commenced, in the grand drama of the world’s history, and when done it will prove that it will have been the means, and the only means known to man, of Christianizing the African continent. The planting in Liberia a colony of free blacks, with seeds of liberty and Christianity, nurtured and sustained by that enlightened principle under which it flour- ishes, is alone due to the American Colonization Society. Experience has sufficiently demonstrated that it was, in a great measure, the mission of the black man to carry back to the home of his fathers those true principles of Christianity which, derived from the Bible, are the only means of giving a true and exalted position to the human family. The climate ever will present an impassable barrier to the white man, but to the. black no such obstacle exists. The most remarkable event about this time was the for- mation of the American Colonization Society at the City of Washington, under the auspices and assistance of such men as Henry Olay, John Randolph, Wright, of Maryland, Bush- rod Washington, its president, and other slaveholders. The president and managers of this society memorialized is% Congress, in an address signed by Judge Washing- ton, setting forth the objects in view and asking OF THE UNITED STATES. 425 assistance. All connection with emancipation was disclaimed, except providing a place for the free blacks, in which the South was deeply interested. Many evils were likely to re- sult from the anomalous position of this class of our popu- lation, the members of which were free men, but exposed to many evils in consequence of their degraded position, and the social and civil disabilities under which they must forever rest. ‘The necessity of some such society was becoming still more pressing, because the laws of most of the States forbade the recently emancipated slaves to remain in the State; which was followed up by counter-legislation on the part of other States, forbidding the migration of free people of color into their borders. This memorial was referred to a committee, who suggested that a settlement might very properly be effected at Sierra Leone; and a resolution was reported au- thorizing the President to enter into negotiations with Great Britain for that purpose; but not meeting with that success from the Southern members which it merited, the resolution failed, and the society was left to its own efforts.* A bill to set apart and pledge as a permanent fund for internal improvements the bonus of the [gs National Bank, and the United States share of its dividends, passed, at this session, both Houses of Congress. The constitutionality and expediency of internal improve- ments by the General Government was fully and ably dis- cussed. The bill was reported to the House by a special committee, to whom the subject had been referred at an early part of the session, and was passed by a vote of 86 to 84. Calhoun was its most prominent advocate. He argued with great force and clearness not only its constitutionality, but demonstrated the policy and necessity of the adoption of a system of internal improvements by the General Government. “ Abounding in pecuniary means,” he inquires, ‘to what can we direct our resources and attention more important than internal improvements? What can add more to the wealth, the strength, and the political prosperity of our country?” He contended that the first power given to Congress is com- prised in these words,—“To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States ; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform through- * Niles’s Register, vol. xi. p. 355. Vor. L—28 426 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY out the United States.” The Constitution gives the power to establish post-offices and post-roads. ‘I know,” said Cal- houn, ‘“‘the interpretation given to these words confines our powers to that of designating only post-roads; but it seems to me that the word ‘establish’ comprehends something more. But suppose the Constitution to be silent, why should we be confined in the application of moneys to the enumerated powers?” He demonstrated that the uniform practice of our Government had been to appropriate money without refer- ence to the enumerated powers, and cited examples in proof thereof.* Pickering stated he remembered that the supposition that Congress might, under the clause establishing post-roads, exercise the power of making roads in any State and where they pleased, was offered as a serious objection to the adop- tion of the Constitution, in the Convention of Pennsylvania, of which he was a member; and he answered the objection, observing, that the power to establish post-offices and post- roads could intend no more than the power to direct where post-offices should be kept, and on what roads the mails should be carried.t Henry Clay, who had not a doubt upon his mind as to the constitutionality of the act, explained at some length the na- ture of the bill, which was merely to designate the fund to be set aside for internal improvements, and from time to time, as the proceeds of it came in, Congress could at some future day examine and decide upon the constitutionality of the question as it would arise.t The bill, as it passed both Houses of Congress, setting aside this fund for internal improvements, which was to be invested by the Secretary of the Treasury in United March 3, States Stock, until called for, was sent to the Pre- sident, and by him returned with his objections. Madison, who in his seventh and eighth Annual Messages had urgently recommended internal improvements to the at- tention of Congress, and who was extremely solicitous that there should be established in the District of Columbia a National University, vetoed the Bonus Bill because “the legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enu- merated in the 8th section of the First Article of the Con- * Works of Calhoun, vol. ii. p. 186. } Hlliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 487. t Ibid. OF THE UNITED STATES. 427 stitution,—and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls, by any just interpretation, within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execu- tion those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.’ On the same day that the bill received the veto of Madison, the effort was made to pass it, “notwithstanding the objec- tions of the President.” It failed not only to obtain the consti- tutional vote of two-thirds, necessary under the circunistances to pass it, but fell below a majority of the House by four votes. The administration of James Madison had now reached its termination. After a long and eventful public career, he passed from the highest office in the country to the shades of private life, with a reputation for patriotism and every moral virtue surpassed by no public man of his day. The condition of the country presented a bright picture of Increasing prosperity. Our finances were in a most properous condition. We had during the year appropriated nineteen millions of dollars to reduce the debt incurred to obtain our independence; and advanced four millions more for the same purpose, in anticipation of the regular appropriation for 1818. The law for levying a direct tax was suffered to expire by its own limitation, with the prospect of a repeal of all internal duties at an early period. The gallant army that lately snatched victory from the brave battalions of England, though reduced in numbers, was yet sufficient for every purpose. The illustrious and unri- valed navy had reached a degree of power and efficiency to sustain the star spangled banner over whatever waters it floated or wheresoever it waved. ; ; Our manufactures were raising their heads and starting upon a career of success that would soon invite competition with the world. ‘Our commerce had spread its sails to every breeze, with an export trade of more than eighty-five millions of dollars annually, with a yearly tonnage of one million three hundred and sixty-eight thousand. . The administration of Madison was the most trying to our constitutional form of Government that had occurred since its organization; more difficulties beset its pathway than * Elliott’s Debates, vol. iv. p. 488. t Niles’s Register, vol. xii. p. 26. 428 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY when the Ship of State was first launched on the troubled waters. The war which was ultimately so successfully waged and so honorably closed, at times threatened the integrity of our Union and the safety of our Constitution; not from the force of foreign aggression, for we were invincible from with- out, but from internal broils and domestic feuds; and if this Government is ever destroyed, it will be by the hands of its own people; all others combined can never move it from its firm foundation. The American people will cherish and admire for many years the skill, the fortitude, and the eminent judgment dis- played by Madison in the management of our Government during the war; the calm and considerate policy which re- strained the passions of those citizens who opposed the war, and the bold and energetic manner in which the enemy were met, until victory proudly rested upon our banner. That the plan of the different campaigns were always the most jadicious, is not asserted; for there should have been no invasion of Canada; that our army was alyays placed in the most judicious position for defence, is not maintained; if it had been, Washington would not have been the scene of British barbarity. But none can deny that the war was sustained and conducted with great foresight, prudence, and wisdom. It was vehemently contended by many: able and distinguished statesmen, that our Constitution rendered the Government unfit for war, and that it would be destroyed if a conflict with a foreign nation ensued. Experience soon demonstrated that if the people of the United States were true and loyal, that the Constitution could accompany and defend them through the severest trials of war, unharmed and unpolluted. The long political career of Madison demonstrated that he was a wise, skillful, and judicious statesman; yet his pre- sidential career was not free from error. He temporized too long with Britain, and retarded for a while the development of our country by adhering to the embargo, instead of meet- ing the difficulty on the very threshold. It would have been better for the country had war ensued during the administra- tion of Jefferson; and the only excuse for Madison is, that he too fondly hoped the difficulties could be settled without an appeal to arms. The charge of inconsistency, which lies at the door of nearly every eminent statesman, is likewise visitable upon OF THE UNITED STATES. 429 Madison; but it can never be said, with truth, that he ever deviated from the path of moral rectitude or forsook the standard of the loftiest and most exemplary virtue. In 1791 he expressly denied the power of Congress to establish banks; in 1815 he concedes the constitutionality of the bank-bill, though he vetoes it; in 1816 it receives his unqualified approval. It appears somewhat inconsistent in Madison, in all the erratic discussions of the powers of Con- gress, that he advocated the strictest construction of the Constitution ; but when called to act practically, he obeyed the most latitudinous doctrines, especially in reference to the national bank, a protective tariff, and to some extent the policy of internal improvements by the General Government. It is, however, a pleasing duty to be able to say of James Madison, as a Congressman, as a cabinet officer, as President of the United States, he faithfully sought the interest and did much to promote the welfare of his country, and whether in the position of honor and trust, or the quiet pursuits of a private citizen, honor and virtue were alike the auxiliary of a character preserved through life with a purity beyond the reach of slander or suspicion, the memory of which is not only loved and cherished by the sons of Virginia, but pre- served in the deepest regard by the people of the United States. Madison was well educated, and more studious through life than a majority of American politicians and statesmen; his political, historical, and philosophical reading were extensive. In his sixty-seventh year, when he retired from the Presi- dency to his country-seat in the County of Orange, he spent nearly the remnant of his days in great privacy and retire- ment. Wearied by habitual vigilance, and the weighty cares of the responsible position he had occupied, the lineaments of his face wore a cast of reflection and severity which gave him the appearance of more advanced age. The only public sta- tion he afterwards occupied, with the exception of being a visitor and rector at the University of Virginia, was a mem- ber of the convention of 1829, to revise the constitution of "ee intercourse of private life, his warm and generous feelings, liberal and elevated sentiments, secured the affec- all who knew him. Laborious and indefatigable, . f * * sIGnA (© in his taste, and in his dress, he may simple in his manners, 430 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. “s be said to have resembled, in these and other particulars, the sages of antiquity. Full of years and full of honors, he died in his eighty-seventh year, on the 28th day of June, 1836. Congress adopted resolutions of respect for his memory, and many addresses were delivered commemorative of his charac- ter and public services. END OF VOL. I. ee = acd ee PORT. i oN a FAN aie oy MN AN ¥ \ NA A AER PAN Near tb LEENA nie way PASM Ye Sue One "i b Dei Wicd OLUREN ELENA AU RGAE Td BEAM NRL AUN SIAAC ADS