Lear. Langdon, Cabot, and some others of the Senate, standing in a knot
before the fire after the Senate had adjourned, and growling together
about some measure which they had just lost; ‘Ah!’ said Cabot,
‘things will never go right till you have a President for life, and an
hereditary Senate.’ Langdon told this to Lear, who mentioned it to the
President. The President seemed struck with it, and declared he had not
supposed there was a man in the United States who could have entertained
such an idea.
*****
*****
March the 2nd, 1797. I arrived at Philadelphia to qualify as
Vice-President, and called instantly on Mr. Adams, who lodged at
Francis’s, in Fourth street. The next morning he returned my visit
at Mr. Madison’s, where I lodged. He found me alone in my room, and
shutting the door himself, he said he was glad to find me alone, for
that he wished a free conversation with me. He entered immediately on an
explanation of the situation of our affairs with France, and the
danger of rupture with that nation, a rupture which would convulse the
attachments of this country; that he was impressed with the necessity of
an immediate mission to the Directory; that it would have been the first
wish of his heart to have got me to go there, but that he supposed it
was out of the question, as it did not seem justifiable for him to
send away the person destined to take his place in case of accident to
himself, nor decent to remove from competition one who was a rival in
the public favor. That he had, therefore, concluded to send a mission,
which, by its dignity, should satisfy France, and by its selection from
the three great divisions of the continent, should satisfy all parts of
the United States; in short, that he had determined to join Gerry and
Madison to Pinckney, and he wished me to consult Mr. Madison for him.
I told him that, as to myself, I concurred in the opinion of
the impropriety of my leaving the post assigned me, and that my
inclinations, moreover, would never permit me to cross the Atlantic
again; that I would, as he desired, consult Mr. Madison, but I feared
it was desperate, as he had refused that mission on my leaving it, in
General Washington’s time, though it was kept open a twelvemonth for
him. He said that if Mr. Madison should refuse, he would still appoint
him, and leave the responsibility on him. I consulted Mr. Madison, who
declined, as I expected. I think it was on Monday the 6th of March, Mr.
Adams and myself met at dinner at General Washington’s, and we happened,
in the evening, to rise from table and come away together. As soon as
we got into the street, I told him the event of my negotiation with Mr.
Madison. He immediately said, that, on consultation, some objections to
that nomination had been raised, which he had not contemplated; and was
going on with excuses which evidently embarrassed him, when we came to
Fifth street, where our road separated, his being down Market street,
mine off along Fifth, and we took leave: and he never after that said
one word to me on the subject, or ever consulted me as to any measures
of the government. The opinion I formed at the time on this transaction
was, that Mr. Adams, in the first moments of the enthusiasm of the
occasion (his inauguration), forgot party sentiments, and, as he never
acted on any system, but was always governed by the feeling of the
moment, he thought, for a moment, to steer impartially between the
parties; that Monday, the 6th of March, being the first time he had
met his cabinet, on expressing ideas of this kind, he had been at once
diverted from them, and returned to his former party views.
July, 1797. Murray is rewarded for his services by an appointment to
Amsterdam; W. Smith of Charleston, to Lisbon.
August the 24th. About the time of the British treaty, Hamilton and
Talleyrand, bishop of Autun, dined together, and Hamilton drank freely.
Conversing on the treaty, Talleyrand says, ‘_Mais vraiment, Monsieur
Hamilton, ce n’est pas Men honnete_, after making the Senate ratify
the treaty, to advise the President to reject it.’ ‘The treaty,’ says
Hamilton, ‘is an execrable one, and Jay was an old woman for making
it; but the whole credit of saving us from it must be given to the
President.’ After circumstances had led to a conclusion that the
President also must ratify it, he said to the same Talleyrand, ‘Though
the treaty is a most execrable one, yet when once we have come to a
determination on it, we must carry it through thick and thin, right or
wrong.’ Talleyrand told this to Volney, who told it to me.
There is a letter now appearing in the papers, from Pickering to Monroe,
dated July the 24th, 1797, which I am satisfied is written by Hamilton.
He was in Philadelphia at that date.
December the 26th, 1797. Langdon tells me, that at the second election
of President and Vice-President of the United States, when there was a
considerable vote given to Clinton in opposition to Mr. Adams, he took
occasion to remark it in conversation in the Senate chamber with Mr.
Adams, who gritting his teeth, said, ‘Damn ‘em, damn ‘em, damn ‘em, you
see that an elective government will not do.’ He also tells me that Mr.
Adams, in a late conversation,said,’ Republicanism must be disgraced,
‘Sir.’ The Chevalier Yrujo called on him at Braintree, and conversing on
French affairs, and Yrujo expressing his belief of their stability, in
opposition to Mr. Adamses, the latter lifting up and shaking his finger
at him, said, ‘I’ll tell you what, the French republic will not last
three months.’ This I had from Yrujo.
Harper, lately in a large company, was saying that the best thing the
friends of the French could do, was to pray for the restoration of
their monarch. ‘Then,’ says a by-stander, ‘the best thing we could do,
I suppose, would be to pray for the establishment of a monarch in the
United States.’ ‘Qur people,’ says Harper, ‘are not yet ripe for it, but
it is the best thing we can come to, and we shall come to it.’ Something
like this was said in presence of Findlay. He now denies it in the
public papers, though it can be proved by several members.
December the 27th. Tench Coxe tells me, that a little before Hamilton
went out of office, or just as he was going out, taking with him his
last conversation, and among other things, on the subject of their
differences, ‘For my part,’ says he, ‘I avow myself a monarchist; I have
no objection to a trial being made of this thing of a republic, but,’
&c.
January the 5th, 1798. I receive a very remarkable fact indeed, in
our history, from Baldwin and Skinner. Before the establishment of our
present government, a very extensive combination had taken place in New
York and the eastern States, among that description of people who were
partly monarchical in principle, or frightened with Shays’s rebellion
and the impotence of the old Congress. Delegates in different places had
actually had consultations on the subject of seizing on the powers of
a government, and establishing them by force; had corresponded with
one another, and had sent a deputy to General Washington to solicit his
co-operation. He refused to join them. The new convention was in the
mean time proposed by Virginia and appointed. These people believed it
impossible the States should ever agree on a government, as this must
include the impost and all the other powers which the States had, a
thousand times, refused to the general authority. They therefore let the
proposed convention go on, not doubting its failure, and confiding
that on its failure would be a still more favorable moment for their
enterprise. They therefore wished it to fail, and especially, when
Hamilton, their leader, brought forward his plan of government, failed
entirely in carrying it, and retired in disgust from the convention.
His associates then took every method to prevent any form of government
being agreed to. But the well-intentioned never ceased trying, first one
thing, then another, till they could get something agreed to. The final
passage and adoption of the constitution completely defeated the
views of the combination, and saved us from an attempt to establish a
government over us by force. This fact throws a blaze of light on the
conduct of several members from New York and the eastern States in the
convention of Annapolis, and the grand convention. At that of Annapolis,
several eastern members most vehemently opposed Madison’s proposition
for a more general convention, with more general powers. They wished
things to get more and more into confusion, to justify the violent
measure they proposed. The idea of establishing a government by
reasoning and agreement, they publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project,
visionary and unexampled.
February the 6th, 1798. Mr. Baldwin tells me, that in a conversation
yesterday with Goodhue, on the state of our affairs, Goodhue said, ‘I’ll
tell you what, I have made up my mind on this subject; I would rather
the old ship should go down than not’; (meaning the Union of the
States.) Mr. Hillhouse coming up, ‘Well,’ says Mr. Baldwin, ‘I’ll tell
my old friend Hillhouse what you say ‘; and he told him. ‘Well,’ says
Goodhue, ‘I repeat, that I would rather the old ship should go down,
if we are to be always kept pumping so.’ ‘Mr. Hillhouse,’ says Baldwin,
‘you remember when we were learning logic together at school, there was
the case categorical and the case hypothetical. Mr. Goodhue stated it to
me first as the case categorical. I am glad to see that he now changes
it to the case hypothetical, by adding, ‘if we are always to be kept
pumping so.’ Baldwin went on then to remind Goodhue what an advocate he
had been for our tonnage duty, wanting to make it one dollar instead
of fifty cents; and how impatiently he bore the delays of Congress
in proceeding to retaliate on Great Britain before Mr. Madison’s
propositions came on. Goodhue acknowledged that his opinions had changed
since that.
February the 15th, 1798. I dined this day with Mr. Adams, (the
President.) The company was large. After dinner I was sitting next to
him, and our conversation was first on the enormous price of labor,*
house rent, and other things. We both concurred in ascribing it
chiefly to the flood of bank paper now afloat, and in condemning those
institutions. We then got on the constitution; and in the course of our
conversation he said, that no republic could ever last which had not a
Senate, and a Senate deeply and strongly rooted, strong enough to bear
up against all popular storms and passions; that he thought our
Senate as well constituted as it could have been, being chosen by the
legislatures; for if these could not support them, he did not know what
could do it; that perhaps it might have been as well for them to
be chosen by the State at large, as that would insure a choice of
distinguished men, since none but such could be known to a whole people;
that the only fault in our Senate was, that it was not durable enough;
that hitherto, it had behaved very well; however, he was afraid they
would give way in the end. That as to trusting to a popular assembly for
the preservation of our liberties, it was the merest chimera imaginable;
they never had any rule of decision but their own will; that he would
as lieve be again in the hands of our old committees of safety, who made
the law and executed it at the same time; that it had been observed by
some writer (I forget whom he named), that anarchy did more mischief in
one night, than tyranny in an age; and that in modern times we might say
with truth, that, in France, anarchy had done more harm in one night,
than all the despotism of their Kings had ever done in twenty or thirty
years. The point in which he views our Senate, as the colossus of the
constitution, serves as a key to the politics of the Senate, who are
two thirds of them in his sentiments, and accounts for the bold line of
conduct they pursue.
* He observed, that eight or ten years ago he gave only
fifty dollars to a common laborer for his farm, finding him
food and lodging. Now he gives one hundred and fifty
dollars, and even two hundred dollars to one.
March the 1st. Mr. Tazewell tells me, that when the appropriations for
the British treaty were on the carpet, and very uncertain in the lower
House, there being at that time a number of bills in the hands of
committees of the Senate, none reported, and the Senate idle for want
of them, he, in his place, called on the committees to report, and
particularly on Mr. King, who was of most of them. King said that it was
true the committees kept back their reports, waiting the event of
the question about appropriation: that if that was not carried, they
considered legislation as at an end; that they might as well break up
and consider the Union as dissolved. Tazewell expressed his astonishment
at these ideas, and called on King to know if he had misapprehended him.
King rose again and repeated the same words. The next day, Cabot took
an occasion in debate, and so awkward a one as to show it was a thing
agreed to be done, to repeat the same sentiments in stronger terms, and
carried further, by declaring a determination on their side to break up
and dissolve the government.
March the 11th. In conversation with Baldwin and Brown of Kentucky,
Brown says that in a private company once, consisting of Hamilton, King,
Madison, himself, and some one else making a fifth, speaking of the
‘federal government’; ‘Oh!’ says Hamilton, ‘say the federal monarchy;
let us call things by their right names, for a monarchy it is.’
Baldwin mentions at table the following fact. When the bank bill was
under discussion in the House of Representatives, Judge Wilson came in,
and was standing by Baldwin. Baldwin reminded him of the following fact
which passed in the grand convention. Among the enumerated powers given
to Congress, was one to erect corporations. It was on debate struck
out. Several particular powers were then proposed. Among others, Robert
Morris proposed to give Congress a power to establish a national bank.
Gouverneur Morris opposed it, observing that it was extremely doubtful
whether the constitution they were framing could ever be passed at all
by the people of America; that to give it its best chance, however, they
should make it as palatable as possible and put nothing into it not
very essential, which might raise up enemies; that his colleague (Robert
Morris) well knew that ‘a bank’ was, in their State (Pennsylvania)
the very watch-word of party; that a bank had been the great bone of
contention between the two parties of the State, from the establishment
of their constitution, having been erected, put down, and erected again,
as either party preponderated; that therefore, to insert this power,
would instantly enlist against the whole instrument, the whole of the
anti-bank party in Pennsylvania. Whereupon it was rejected, as was every
other special power, except that of giving copyrights to authors, and
patents to inventors; the general power of incorporating being whittled
down to this shred. Wilson agreed to the fact.
Mr. Hunter of South Carolina, who lodges with Rutledge, [* J. Rutledge,
junior] tells me, that Rutledge was explaining to him the plan they
proposed to pursue as to war measures, when Otis came in. Rutledge
addressed Otis. ‘Now, Sir,’ says he, ‘you must come forward with
something liberal for the southern States, fortify their harbors and
build galleys, in order to obtain their concurrence.’ Otis said, ‘We
insist on convoys for our European trade, and _guarda-costas_, on which
condition alone, we will give them galleys and fortifications.’ Rutledge
observed, that in the event of war, McHenry and Pickering must go out;
Wolcott, he thought, might remain, but the others were incapable of
conducting a war. Otis said the eastern people would never abandon
Pickering; he must be retained; McHenry might go. They considered
together whether General Pinckney would accept the office of
Secretary of War. They apprehended he would not. It was agreed in this
conversation, that Sewall had more the ear of the President than any
other person.
March the 12th. When the bill for appropriations was before the
Senate, Anderson moved to strike out a clause recognising (by way
of appropriation) the appointment of a committee by the House of
Representatives, to sit during their recess to collect evidence on
Blount’s case, denying they had power, but by a law, to authorize a
committee to sit during recess. Tracy advocated the motion, and said,
‘We may as well speak out. The committee was appointed by the House of
Representatives, to take care of the British minister, to take care of
the Spanish minister, to take care of the Secretary of State, in short,
to take care of the President of the United States. They were afraid
the President and Secretary of State would not perform the office of
collecting evidence faithfully; that there would be collusion, &c.
Therefore, the House appointed a committee of their own. We shall have
them next sending a committee to Europe to make a treaty, &c. Suppose
that the House of Representatives should resolve, that after the
adjournment of Congress, they should continue to sit as a committee of
the whole House during the whole recess.’ This shows how the appointment
of that committee has been viewed by the President’s friends.
April the 5th. Doctor Rush tells me he had it from Mrs. Adams, that
not a scrip of a pen has passed between the late and present President,
since he came into office.
April the 13th. New instructions of the British government to their
armed ships now appear, which clearly infringe their treaty with us,
by authorizing them to take our vessels carrying produce of the French
colonies from those colonies to Europe, and to lake vessels bound to
a blockaded port. See them in Brown’s paper, of April the 18th, in due
form.
The President has sent a government brig to France, probably to carry
despatches. He has chosen as the bearer of these, one Humphreys, the son
of a ship-carpenter, ignorant, under age, not speaking a word of French,
most abusive of that nation; whose only merit is, the having mobbed and
beaten Bache on board the frigate built here, for which he was indicted
and punished by fine.
April the 25th. At a dinner given by the bar to the federal judges,
Chase and Peters, present about twenty-four lawyers, and William
Tilghman in the chair, this toast was given; ‘Our _King_ in old
England.’ Observe the double entendre on the word King. Du Ponceau,
who was one of the bar present, told this to Tench Coxe, who told me
in presence of H. Tazewell. Dallas was at the dinner; so was Colonel
Charles Sims of Alexandria, who is here on a law-suit vs. General
Irving.
May the 3rd. The President some time ago appointed Steele, of Virginia,
a commissioner to the Indians, and recently Secretary of the Mississippi
Territory. Steele was a Counsellor of Virginia, and was voted out by the
Assembly because he turned tory. He then offered for Congress, and was
rejected by the people. Then offered for the Senate of Virginia, and was
rejected. The President has also appointed Joseph Hopkinson commissioner
to make a treaty with the Oneida Indians. He is a youth of about
twenty-two or twenty-three, and has no other claims to such an
appointment than extreme toryism, and the having made a poor song to the
tune of the President’s March.
October the 13th, 1798. Littlepage, who has been on one or two missions
from Poland to Spain, said that when Gardoqui returned from America,
he settled with his court an account of secret service money, of six
hundred thousand dollars. _Ex relatione_ Colonel Monroe.
January, 1799. In a conversation between Doctor Ewen and the President,
the former said one of his sons was an aristocrat, the other a democrat.
The President asked if it were not the youngest who was the democrat.
‘Yes,’ said Ewen. ‘Well,’ said the President, ‘a boy of fifteen who
is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a
democrat at twenty.’ Ewen told Hurt, and Hurt told me.
January the 14th. Logan tells me that in his conversation with Pickering
on his arrival, the latter abused Gerry very much; said he was a traitor
to his country, and had deserted the post to which he was appointed;
that the French temporized at first with Pinckney, but found him too
much of a man for their purpose. Logan observing, that, notwithstanding
the pacific declarations of France, it might still be well to keep up.
the military ardor of our citizens, and to have the militia in good
order: ‘The militia,’ said Pickering, ‘the militia never did any good to
this country, except in the single affair of Bunker’s Hill; that we must
have a standing army of fifty thousand men, which being stationed in
different parts of the continent, might serve as rallying points for the
militia, and so render them of some service.’ In his conversation with
Mr. Adams, Logan mentioned the willingness of the French to treat with
Gerry. ‘And do you know why,’ said Mr. Adams. ‘Why, Sir?’ said
Logan. ‘Because,’ said Mr. Adams, ‘they know him to have been an
anti-federalist, against the constitution.’
January the 2nd, 1800. Information from Tench Coxe. Mr. Liston had sent
two letters to the Governor of Canada by one Sweezy. He had sent copies
of them, together with a third, (original) by one Cribs. Sweezy was
arrested (being an old horse-thief), and his papers examined. T. Coxe
had a sight of them. As soon as a rumor got out that there were letters
of Mr. Liston disclosed, but no particulars yet mentioned, Mr. Liston
suspecting that Cribs had betrayed him, thought it best to bring all
his three letters, and lay them before Pickering, Secretary of State.
Pickering thought them all very innocent. In his office they were seen
by Mr. Hodgen of New Jersey, commissary of military stores, and the
intimate friend of Pickering. It happens that there is some land
partnership between Pickering, Hodgen, and Coxe, so that the latter is
freely and intimately visited by Hodgen, who, moreover, speaks freely
with him on political subjects. They were talking the news of the day,
when Mr. Coxe observed that these intercepted letters of Liston were
serious things; (nothing being yet out but a general rumor.) Hodgen
asked which he thought the most serious. Coxe said the second; (for he
knew yet of no other.) Hodgen said he thought little of any of them, but
that the third was the most exceptionable. This struck Coxe, who, not
betraying his ignorance of a third letter, asked generally what part of
that he alluded to. Hodgen said to that wherein he assured the Governor
of Canada, that if the French invaded Canada, an army would be marched
from these States to his assistance. After this it became known that it
was Sweezy who was arrested, and not Cribs; so that Mr. Liston had made
an unnecessary disclosure of his third letter to Mr. Pickering, who,
however, keeps his secret for him. In the beginning of the conversation
between Hodgen and Coxe, Coxe happened to name Sweezy as the bearer of
the letters. ‘That ‘s not his name,’ says Hodgen, (for he did not know
that two of the letters had been sent by Sweezy also) ‘his name is
Cribs.’ This put Coxe on his guard, and set him to fishing for the new
matter.
January the 10th. Doctor Rush tells me, that he had it from Samuel
Lyman, that during the X. Y. Z. Congress, the federal members held the
largest caucus they have ever had, at which he was present, and the
question was proposed and debated, whether they should declare war
against France, and determined in the negative. Lyman was against it. He
tells me, that Mr. Adams told him, that when he came on in the fall to
Trenton, he was there surrounded constantly by the opponents of the late
mission to France. That Hamilton pressing him to delay it, said, ‘Why,
Sir, by Christmas, Louis the XVIII. will be seated on his throne.’ Mr.
A. ‘By whom?’ H. ‘By the coalition.’ Mr. A. ‘Ah! then farewell to the
independence of Europe. If a coalition, moved by the finger of England,
is to give a government to France, there is an end to the independence
of every country.’