RISE OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION
[1787]
The anarchy succeeding the Revolution was as sad as the Revolution
itself had been glorious. The Articles of Confederation furnished
practically no government with which foreign nations could deal; England
still clung to the western posts, contrary to the treaty of peace, with
no power anywhere on this side to do more than protest; the debt of the
confederacy steadily piled up its unpaid interest; the land was flooded
with irredeemable paper money, state and national; the confederacy's
laws and constitution were ignored or trampled upon everywhere; and the
arrogance and self-seeking of the several States surpassed everything
but their own contemptible weakness.
In 1786 Shays' rebellion broke out in Massachusetts. Solid money was
very scarce, and paper all but worthless, yet many debts contracted on a
paper basis were pressed for payment in hard money. The farmers swore
that the incidence of taxes upon them was excessive, and upon the
merchants too light. But the all-powerful grievance was the sudden
change from the distressing monetary injustice during the Revolution,
with the consequent increase of debts, to a rigid enforcement of
debtors' claims afterward. At this period men were imprisoned for debt,
and all prisons were frightful holes, which one would as lief die as
enter. Meetings were held to air the popular griefs, and grew violent.
In August the court-house at Northampton was seized by a body of armed
men and the court prevented from sitting. Similar uprisings occurred at
Worcester, Springfield, and Concord. The leader in these movements was
Daniel Shays, a former captain in the continental army. Governor Bowdoin
finally called for volunteers to put down the rebellion, and placed
General Lincoln in command. After several minor engagements, in which
the insurgents were worsted, the decisive action took place at
Petersham, where, in February, 1787, the rebels were surprised by
Lincoln. A large number were captured, many more fled to their homes,
and the rest withdrew into the neighboring States. Vermont and Rhode
Island alone offered them a peaceful retreat, the other States giving up
the fugitives to Massachusetts.
[Illustration: Crowd watching two men fighting.]
A Scene at Springfield, during Shays' Rebellion, when the
mob attempted to prevent the holding of the Courts of Justice.
The Shays commotion, for a long time shaking one of the stanchest States
in the Confederation, well showed the need of a far stronger central
government than the old had been or could be made. Other influences
concurred to the same conviction. Washington's influence, which took
effect mainly through his inspired letter to the States on leaving the
army, was one of these. National feeling was also furthered by the
spread of two religious sects, the Baptists and the Methodists, up and
down the continent, whose missionary preachers, ignoring State lines and
prejudices, helped to destroy the latter in their hearers.
[1785]
During the Revolution, American Methodism had been an appanage of
England. Wesley had discountenanced our effort at independence, and
when war broke out, all the Methodist preachers left the country, save
Asbury, who secreted himself somewhere in Delaware, waiting for better
days. But in 1784 this zealous body of Christians was organized as an
American affair, its clergy and laity after this displaying loyalty of
the most approved kind.
[Illustration: Portrait.]
John Wesley.
Schemes had been mooted looking to a changed political order. A
proposition for a convention of the States to reform the Confederation
passed the New York Legislature in July, 1782, under the influence of
Alexander Hamilton; another passed that of Massachusetts, July, 1785,
urged by Governor Bowdoin; but because of too great love for state
independence and too little appreciation as yet of the serious nature of
the crisis, both motions failed of effect.
The idea of reform which found most favor, the only one which at first
had any chance of getting itself realized, was that of giving Congress
simply the additional power of regulating commerce. Even so moderate a
proposal as this had many enemies, especially in the South. Greatly to
her credit therefore as a Southern State, the purpose of amending the
old Articles in the direction indicated was first taken up in earnest by
Virginia. Her Legislature, soon after opening session in October, 1785,
listened to memorials from Norfolk, Suffolk, Portsmouth, and Alexandria,
upon the gloomy prospects of American trade, which led to a general
debate upon the subject. In this, Mr. Madison, by a speech far exceeding
in ability any other that was made, began that extended and memorable
career of efforts for enlarged function in our central government which
has earned him the title of the Father of the Constitution.
The result of this discussion was a bill directing the Virginia
delegation in Congress to propose amendment to the constitution giving
to Congress the needed additional power. The enemies of the bill,
however, succeeded in so modifying it by limiting the proposed grant of
power to a period of thirteen years, that Madison and its other abettors
turned against it and voted to lay it on the table.
There was in existence at this very time a joint commission
representing Virginia and Maryland, which had been raised for the
purpose of determining what jurisdiction each of the two States had over
the Potomac and in Chesapeake Bay. Madison was one of the Virginia
commissioners. A meeting had been held on March 17, 1785, at which the
commissioners agreed in their report to transcend their instructions and
to recommend to the two States uniform monetary and commercial
regulations entire, including common export and import duties. They thus
reported, adding the still further recommendation that commissioners to
work out the details of such a plan be appointed each year till it
should be completed. The Maryland Legislature adopted the report, adding
the proposition that Delaware and Pennsylvania also should be invited to
enter the system and to send commissioners.
When the commissioners' report, with Maryland's action thereon, came
before the Virginia Legislature, Madison moved, as a substitute for the
mutilated bill which had been tabled previously, that the invitation to
take part in the commission go to all the States. The motion passed by a
large majority.
[1786]
Thus originated the Annapolis Convention of 1786. Nine States appointed
delegates; all but Connecticut, Maryland, and the two Carolinas; but of
the nine only Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York
actually sent them. As the powers granted the commissioners presupposed
a deputation from each of the States, those present, after mature
deliberation, deemed it inadvisable to proceed, drawing up instead an
urgent address to the States to take "speedy measures" for another,
fuller, convention to meet on the second Monday of May, 1787, for the
same purposes as had occasioned this one. Such was the mode in which the
memorable Federal Convention came about. Its seat was Philadelphia.
[1787]
The second Monday of May, 1787, which should have witnessed the opening,
was the 14th, but on that day too few deputies had assembled. So late as
the 25th only nine States were represented. They, however, effected an
organization on the 25th and chose officers. On the 28th eleven States
were present, so that on the next day business began in earnest.
Governor Randolph read and expounded the Virginia plan for a new
government, and Charles Pinckney the South Carolina plan. Both of these
were referred to a committee of the whole to sit next day.
This Virginia plan was substantially the work of Madison, and was the
earliest sketch of the present Constitution of the United States. With
the Pinckney plan, it was worked over, debated, and amended in the
committee of the whole, until June 13th, on which day the committee rose
and reported to the Convention nineteen resolutions based almost wholly
upon the Virginia plan. These were the text for all the subsequent
doings of the Convention.
The so-called New Jersey plan was brought forward on June 15th, the gist
of it being a recurrence to the foolish idea of merely repairing the
Confederation that then was. Its strength, which was slight, consisted
in its accord with the letter of the credentials which the delegates had
brought. It was, however, emphatically rejected, the Convention
stretching instructions, ignoring the old government, and proceeding to
build from the foundations. On July 24th and 26th the resolutions, now
increased to twenty-three, were put in the hands of a committee of
detail to be reported back in the form of a constitution. They
reappeared in this shape on August 6th, and this new document was
henceforth the basis of discussion. On September 8th a new committee was
appointed to revise style and arrangement, and brought in its work
September 13th, after which additions and changes were few. The
Constitution received signature September 17th.
The Federal Convention of 1787 was the most remarkable gathering in all
our national history thus far. Sixty-five delegates were elected, but as
ten never attended, fifty-five properly made up the body. Even these
were at no time all present together. From July 5th to August 13th New
York was not represented. Rhode Island was not represented at all.
Washington was President; Franklin, aged eighty-one, the oldest member;
Gillman, of New Hampshire, aged twenty-five, the youngest. Each State
sent its best available talent, so that the foremost figures then in
American political life were present, the chief exceptions being John
Adams, Jefferson--both abroad at the time--Samuel Adams, not favorable
to the Convention, John Jay, and Patrick Henry. Eight of the members had
signed the great Declaration, six the Articles of Confederation, seven
the Annapolis appeal of 1786. Washington and a good half dozen others
had been conspicuous military leaders in the Revolution. Five had been
or still were governors of their respective States. Nearly all had held
important offices of one sort or another. Forty of the fifty-five had
been in Congress, a large proportion of them coming to the Convention
directly from the congressional session just ended in New York.
It is interesting to note how high many from this Constituent Assembly
rose after the adoption of the paper which they had indited. Washington
and Madison became Presidents, Gerry Vice-President, Langdon senator and
President of the Senate, with duty officially to notify him who was
already First in War that the nation had made him also First in Peace.
Langdon was candidate for Vice-President in 1809. Randolph was the
earliest United States Attorney-General, Hamilton earliest Secretary of
the Treasury, M'Henry third Secretary of War, succeeding General Knox.
Dayton was a representative from New Jersey in the IId, IIId, IVth, and
Vth Congresses, being Speaker during the last, then senator in the VIth,
VIIth, and VIIIth. Ellsworth and Johnson were Connecticut's first pair
of senators, Johnson passing in 1791 to the presidency of Columbia
College, Ellsworth to the national chief-justiceship to succeed Jay.
Rutledge was one of the first associate justices of the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, in July, 1795, Washington nominated him for chief justice,
and he actually presided over the Supreme Court at its term in that
year; but, for his ill-mannered denunciation of Jay's treaty, the Senate
declined to confirm him. Wilson and Patterson also each held the
position of associate justice on the supreme bench of the nation.
Rufus King, after the adoption of the Constitution, removed to New York.
He was a senator from that State between 1789 and 1795, and again
between 1813 and 1826; and Minister to England from 1796 to 1803, and
again after 1826 till his failing health compelled his resignation. He
was the federalist candidate for Vice-President in 1804 and 1808, and
for President in 1816. Sherman of Connecticut, Gillman of New Hampshire,
and Baldwin of Georgia, went into the House of Representatives and were
promoted thence to the Senate. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, Gouverneur
Morris, now again of New York, Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, William
Patterson of New Jersey, Richard Bassett of Delaware, Alexander Martin
and Blount of North Carolina, Charles Pinckney and Butler of South
Carolina, and Colonel Few of Georgia, all became senators. Madison,
Gerry, Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania, Carroll of Maryland, and Spaight and
Williamson of North Carolina, all wrought well in the House, but did not
reach the Senate. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was nominated for the
Presidency in 1800, on the ticket with John Adams, again in 1804, and
still again in 1808.
Jared Ingersoll was the federalist candidate for Vice-President in 1812,
on the ticket with De Witt Clinton, against Madison and Gerry. Yates
rose to be Chief Justice of the State of New York, Lansing to be its
Chancellor. Gerry and Strong of Massachusetts, Patterson of New Jersey,
Bassett of Delaware, Spaight and Davie of North Carolina, and Charles
Pinckney of South Carolina, became Governors of their States, as did
Alexander Martin, of North Carolina, a second time.
Having received final revision and signature, the Constitution was
transmitted, with a commendatory letter from Washington, to the old
Congress. Suggestions were added relating to the mode of launching it.
Congress was requested to lay the new Great Charter before the States,
and, so soon as it should have been ratified by nine of them, to fix the
date for the election by these of presidential electors, the day for the
latter to cast their votes, and the time and place for commencing
proceedings under the revised constitution. Congress complied. The
debates of the Convention, only more hot, attended ratification, which
was carried in several States only by narrow majorities.
[1788-1790]
Delaware was the first to ratify, December 7, 1787. Pennsylvania and New
Jersey soon followed, the one on the 12th of the same month, the other
on the 18th. Delaware and New Jersey voted unanimously; Pennsylvania
ratified by a vote of forty-six to twenty-three. During the first month
of the new year, 1788, Georgia and Connecticut ratified, on the 2d and
9th respectively. New Hampshire next took up the question, but adjourned
her convention to await the action of Massachusetts. In this great State
the people were divided almost equally. Of the western counties the
entire population that had sympathized or sided with Shays was bitter
against the Constitution. The larger centres and in general the eastern
part of the State favored it. The vote was had on February 6th, and
showed a majority of only 19 out of 355 in favor of the Constitution.
[Illustration: Parade with a float shaped as a ship carrying a banner
"Hamilton."]
Celebrating the Adoption of the Constitution in New York.
The good work still remained but half done. It was a crisis.
Accordingly, early in this year, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay published
their weighty articles, since collected in the immortal volume known as
"The Federalist." These discussions seemed to have much effect. Maryland
ratified on April 28th, and South Carolina on May 23d. New Hampshire
fell into line, the necessary ninth State to ratify, June 21st. Thus the
Constitution became binding, yet it was still painfully uncertain what
the action of Virginia and New York would be. In both States the
Constitution was opposed by many of the most influential men, and after
a long and heated canvass adoption occurred in Virginia by a majority of
only ten in a vote of 168; in New York by the narrow majority of two.
Even now North Carolina and Rhode Island remained aloof. The former, not
liking the prospect of isolation, came into the Union November 21, 1789,
after the new government had been some time at work. Rhode Island, owing
to her peculiar history in the matter of religious liberty, which she
feared a closer union would jeopardize, as well as to the strength of
the paper-money fanaticism within her borders, was more obdurate. The
chief difficulty here was to get the legislature to call a convention.
The New York Packet of February 20, 1790, in a letter from Rhode Island,
tells how this was accomplished. Among the anti-adoptionists in the
senate was a rural clergyman who, prompted by his conscience, or, as one
account runs, by exhortation and the offer of a conveyance by an
influential member of the adoption party, was, when Sunday came, absent
upon his sacred work. The occasion was seized for a ballot. The senate
was a tie, but the Governor threw the casting vote for a convention.
This was called as soon as possible, and on May 29, 1790, Rhode Island,
too, at the eleventh hour, made the National Constitution her own. Not
only had a MORE PERFECT UNION been formed at last, but it included all
the Old Thirteen States.
PART SECOND
THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
PERIOD I.
THE UNITED STATES AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
1789-1814
CHAPTER I.
THE NEW GOVERNMENT
Notified on July 2, 1788, that nine States had voted approval of the
Constitution, Congress, on September 13th, set the first Wednesday in
January, 1789, for the choice of electors, the first in February for
their ballot, and the first in March for putting the new government in
motion. The first Wednesday in March, 1789, happening to fall on the
4th, this date has since remained as the initial one for presidencies
and congresses. The First Congress had no quorum in either branch on
March 4th, and did not complete its organization till April 6th.
Washington was inaugurated on April 30th, in New York, where the First
Congress, proceeding to execute the Constitution, held its entire first
session. Its second session was in Philadelphia, the seat of Congress
thence till the second session of the VIth Congress, 1800, since which
time Congress has always met in Washington.
The inauguration of our first President was an imposing event. As the
hero moved from his house on Franklin Square, through Pearl Street to
Broad, and through Broad to Federal Hall, corner of Wall Street, people
thronged every sidewalk, door-way, window, and roof along the entire
line of march. About him on the platform after his arrival stood John
Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Baron Steuben, Generals St. Clair and Knox,
Roger Sherman, and Chancellor Livingston. Washington advanced to the
rail, placed his hand upon his breast, and, bowing low, said audibly, as
the Chancellor in his robes solemnly recited the words, "I swear, so
help me God," reverently kissing the Bible as if to add solemnity to his
oath. "It is done," cried the Chancellor; "long live George Washington,
President of the United States!" The great crowd repeated the cry. It
was echoed outside in the city, off into the country, far north, far
south, till the entire land took up that watchword, which his own
generation has passed on to ours and to all that shall come, Long live
George Washington!
Let us study for a moment the habitat of the people over which the new
Chief Magistrate was called to bear sway. By the census of 1790, the
population of the thirteen States and of the territory belonging to the
Union numbered 3,929,214. It resided almost wholly on the Atlantic coast
from Maine to Florida. Not more than five per cent of it was west of the
mountains. The line of inner settlement, now farther, now nearer, ran at
an average distance from the coast of two hundred and fifty-five miles.
The coast land of Massachusetts, southern New England, and New York was
the most densely covered. The Hudson Valley was well peopled as far as
Albany. Farms and hamlets were to be met all the way from New York
across New Jersey to the Delaware, and far up the Delaware Valley
westward from that river. Maine, still belonging to Massachusetts, had
few settlements except upon her coast and a little way inland along her
great rivers. Vermont, not yet a State and claimed by both New Hampshire
and New York, was well filled up, as was all New Hampshire but the
extreme north.
The westward movement of population took mainly four routes, the Mohawk
and Ontario, the Upper Potomac, the Southwestern Virginia, and the
Western Georgia. The Mohawk Valley was settled, and pioneers had taken
up much land on Lake Ontario and near the rivers and lakes tributary to
it. Elmira and Binghamton had been begun. Pennsylvania settlers had
pressed westward more or less thickly to the lower elevations of the
Alleghanies, while beyond, in the Pittsburgh regions, they were even
more numerous. What is now West Virginia had squatters here and there.
Virginian pioneers had also betaken themselves southwestward to the head
of the Tennessee. North and South Carolina were inhabited as far west as
the mountains, though the population was not dense. In Northern
Kentucky, along the Ohio, lay considerable settlements, and in
Tennessee, where Nashville now is, there was another centre of
civilization. In the Northwest Territory, Detroit, Vincennes, Kaskaskia,
Prairie du Chien, Mackinac, and Green River were outposts, at each of
which a few white men might have been found.
The following table shows pretty nearly the population of the several
States about the
end of the Revolution:
New Hampshire 102,000
Massachusetts 330,000
Rhode Island [1783] 51,869 [2,342 of them negroes,
464 mulattoes, 525 Indians.]
Connecticut [1782] 208,870
New York [1786] 215,283
New Jersey[1785] 138,934 [10,500 of them negroes.]
Pennsylvania 330,000
Delaware 37,000
Maryland 250,000 [80,000 of them negroes.]
Virginia 532,000 [280,000 of them negroes.]
North Carolina 224,000 [60,000 of them negroes.]
South Carolina 188,000 [80,000 of them negroes.]
Georgia [rough estimate] 80,000 [20,000 of them negroes.]
Another table exhibits approximately the number of houses in the
principal cities of the country in 1785-86. It was customary then in
estimating population to allow seven persons to each house. This
multiplier is probably too large rather than too small.
Population, multiplying
Houses. number of houses by seven.
Portsmouth, N. H 450 3,150
Newburyport 510 3,570
Salem, Mass 730 5,210
Boston 2,200 15,400
Providence 560 3,920
Newport 790 5,530
Hartford 300 2,100
New Haven 400 2,800
New York 3,340 23,380
Albany and suburbs 550 3,850
Trenton 180 1,260
Philadelphia and suburbs 4,500 31,500
Wilmington 400 2,800
Baltimore 1,950 13,650
Annapolis 260 1,820
Frederick, Md. 400 2,800
Alexandria 300 2,100
Richmond 310 2,170
Petersburg 280 1,960
Williamsburg 230 1,610
Charleston 1,540 10,780
Savannah 200 1,400
The first New York City Directory appeared in 1786. It had eight hundred
and forty-six names, not going above Roosevelt and Cherry Streets on
the East side, or Dey Street on the West. There were then in the city
three Dutch Reformed churches, four Presbyterian, three Episcopal, two
German Lutheran, and one congregation each belonging to the Catholics,
Friends, Baptists, Moravians, and Jews. In 1789 the Methodists had two
churches, and the Friends two new Meetings. The houses in the city were
generally of brick, with tile roofs, mostly English in style, but a few
Dutch. The old Fort, where the provincial governors had resided, still
stood in the Battery. The City Hall was a brick structure, three stories
high, with wings, fronting on Broad Street. Want of good water greatly
inconvenienced the citizens, as there was no aqueduct yet, and wells
were few. Most houses supplied themselves by casks from a pump on what
is now Pearl Street, this being replenished from a pond a mile north of
the then city limits. New York commanded the trade of nearly all
Connecticut, half New Jersey, and all Western Massachusetts, besides
that of New York State itself. In short it did the importing for
one-sixth of the population of the Union. Pennsylvania and Maryland made
the best flour. In the manufacture of iron, paper, and cabinet ware,
Pennsylvania led all the States.
Over this rapidly growing portion of the human race in its widely
separated homes there was at last a central government worthy the name.
The old Articles of Confederation had been no fundamental law, not a
foundation but a homely botch-work of superstructure, resembling more a
treaty between several States than a ground-law for one. In the new
Constitution a genuine foundation was laid, the Government now holding
direct and immediate relations with each subject of every State, and
citizens of States being at the same time citizens of the United States.
Hitherto the central power could act on individuals only through States.
Now, by its own marshals, aided if need were by its army, it could
itself arrest and by its own courts try and condemn any transgressor of
its laws.
But if the State relinquished the technical sovereignty which it had
before, it did not sink to the level of an administrative division, but
increased rather in all the elements of real dignity and stability. Over
certain subjects the new constitution gave the States supreme, absolute,
and uncontrollable power. The range of this supreme state prerogative
is, in fact, wider on the whole than that of national. For national
action there must be demonstrable constitutional warrant, for that of
States this is not necessary. In more technical phrase: to the United
States what is not granted is denied, to the State what is not denied is
granted. It is a perpetual reminder of original state sovereignty, that
no State can without its consent be deprived of its equal suffrage in
the Senate. Each State also must have at least one representative.
States cannot be sued by private persons or corporations. Even upon
subjects constitutionally reserved for national law, if Congress has not
legislated state statute is valid.
Precisely as its advocates had prophesied, this revised order worked
well, bringing a blessed new feeling of security. On commerce and
business it conferred immense benefits, which rapidly became
disseminated through all classes of the population. The sense and
appearance of unity and consequent strength which the land had enjoyed
in the early days of the Revolution came back in greater completeness,
and was most gratifying to all. There was still a rankling hatred toward
England, and men hostile to central government on other grounds were
reconciled to it as the sole condition of successful commercial or naval
competition with that country.
The consequence was a wide-spread change of public feeling in reference
to the Constitution very soon after its adoption. Bitterest hostility
turned to praise that was often fulsome, reducing to insignificance an
opposition that had probably comprised a popular majority during the
very months of ratification. Many shifted their ground merely to be on
the popular side. With multitudes Washington's influence had more weight
than any argument.
The Constitution's unfortunate elasticity of interpretation also for the
time worked well. People who had fought it saw how their cherished views
could after all be based upon it. All parties soon began, therefore, to
swear by the Constitution as their political Bible. The fathers of the
immortal paper were exalted into demigods. Fidelity to the Constitution
came to be pre-eminently the watchword of those till now against its
adoption. They in fact shouted this cry louder than the Federalists, who
had never regarded it a perfect instrument of government. It came to
pass ere long that nothing would blast a public measure so instantly or
so completely as the cry of its unconstitutionality.
[Illustration: Map of the Continental United States.]
Map Showing the Progressive Acquisitions of Territory by the United States
Few can form any idea of the herculean work performed by the First
Congress in setting up and starting our present governmental machinery.
The debt which we owe the public men of that time is measureless. With
such care and wisdom did they proceed, that little done by them has
required alteration, the departments having run on decade after decade
till now essentially in their original grooves. The Senate formed itself
into its three classes, so that one-third of its members, and never more
than this, should retire at a time. Four executive departments were
created, those of State, the Treasury, War, and the
Attorney-Generalship. The first occupants were, respectively, Jefferson,
Hamilton, Knox, and Randolph.
Of the present departments of government the post-office alone has come
down from colonial times, Benjamin Franklin having been general
superintendent thereof under the British Government. He was re-appointed
by the second Continental Congress, in July, 1775. The First Congress
under the Constitution erected a general post-office, but its head
attained the dignity of a regular cabinet officer not till about 1830,
and then only by custom. To begin with, in fact, there was strictly no
cabinet in the modern sense. Washington's habit was to consult his
ministers separately.
Under the Articles of Confederation there had been a treasury board of
several commissioners, and a superintendent of finance. The new
arrangement, making one man responsible, was a great improvement. A law
was passed forbidding the Secretary of the Treasury to be concerned in
trade or commerce, that is, to be a merchant. The late A. T. Stewart,
appointed by President Grant to the office, was rejected as ineligible
under this law. Yet no department of our Government has had a finer
record than the Treasury.
Not only had the First Congress to vote revenue, but to make provision
for the collection of this. Revenue districts had to be mapped out, the
proper officers appointed, and light-houses, buoys, and public piers
arranged for along the whole coast. Salaries were to be fixed, and a
multitude of questions relating to the interpretation and application of
the Constitution to be solved by patient deliberation. The United States
Mint was erected, and our so felicitous monetary system, based upon the
decimal principle along with the binary, established in place of the
desperate monetary chaos prevailing before. Hitherto there were four
sorts of colonial money of account all differing from sterling, while
Mexican dollars and numberless other forms of foreign money were in
actual circulation.
The noblest part of all this work was the organization of the federal
judiciary, through an act drawn up with extraordinary ability by Oliver
Ellsworth of Connecticut. A Chief Justice--the first one was John
Jay--and five associates were to constitute the Supreme Court. District
courts were ordained, one per State and one each for Kentucky and Maine,
not yet States; also three circuit courts, the eastern, the middle, and
the southern; and the jurisdiction of each grade was accurately fixed.
As yet there were no special circuit judges, nor, excepting the
temporary ones of 1801, were there till some eighty years later. Clerks,
marshals, and district-attorneys were part of this first arrangement.
Originally the Attorney-General was little but an honorary officer. He
kept his practice, had no public income but his fees, and resided where
he pleased.
As his title implies, the Secretary of War was to have charge of all the
nation's means of offence and defence, there being until April 30, 1796,
no separate secretary for the navy. We had indeed in 1789 little use for
such a functionary, not a war-vessel then remaining in Government's
possession. In 1784 our formidable navy consisted of a single ship, the
Alliance, but the following year Congress ordered her sold.
The senators most active in the creations just reviewed were Langdon,
King, and Robert Morris, besides Ellsworth. In the House, Madison outdid
all others in toil as in ability, though worthily seconded by
distinguished men like Fisher Ames, Gerry, Clymer, Fitzsimmons,
Boudinot, and Smith. The three Connecticut representatives, Sherman,
Trumbull, and Wadsworth, made up perhaps the ablest state delegation in
the body.
CHAPTER II.
FEDERALISM AND ANTI-FEDERALISM
[1790]
Early in the life of our Constitution two parties rose, which, under
various names, have continued ever since. During the strife for and
against adoption, those favoring this had been styled Federalists, and
their opponents, Anti-Federalists. After adoption--no one any longer
really antagonizing the Constitution--the two words little by little
shifted their meaning, a man being dubbed Federalist or Anti-Federalist
according to his preference for strong national government or for strong
state governments. The Federalist Party gave birth to the Whig Party,
and this to the modern Republican Party. The Anti-Federalists came to be
called "Republicans," then "Democratic-Republicans," then simply
"Democrats."
The central plank of the federalist platform was vigorous single
nationality. In aid of this the Federalists wished a considerable army
and navy, so that the United States might be capable of ample
self-defence against all foes abroad or at home. Partly as a means to
this, partly to build up national feeling, unity, self-respect, and due
respect for the nation abroad, they sought to erect our national credit,
which had fallen so low, and to plant it on a solid and permanent basis.
As still further advancing these ends they proposed so to enforce regard
for the national authority and laws and obedience to them, that within
its sphere the nation should be absolutely and beyond question paramount
to the State.
In many who cherished them these noble purposes were accompanied by a
certain aristocratic feeling and manner, a carelessness of popular
opinion, an inclination to model governmental polity and administration
after the English, and an impatience with what was good in our native
American ideas and ways, which, however natural, were unfortunate and
unreasonable. Puffed up with pride at its victory in carrying the
Constitution against the opposition of the ignorant masses, this party
developed a haughtiness and a lack of republican spirit amounting in
some cases to deficient patriotism.
The early Federalists were of two widely different stripes. There were
among them Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Jay; and there were the
interested and practical advocates of the same, made up of business men
and the wealthy and leisurely classes, who, without intending to be
selfish, were governed in political sympathy and action mainly by their
own interests.
The greatest early Anti-Federalists were Jefferson, Madison, and
Randolph, all of whom had been ardent for the Constitution. The party as
a whole, indeed, not only acquiesced in the re-creation of the general
Government, but was devotedly friendly to the new order. But while
Republicans admitted that a measure of governmental centralization was
indispensable, they prized the individual State as still the main pillar
of our political fabric, and were hence jealous of all increased
function at the centre. It became more and more their theory that the
States, rather than the individuals of the national body politic, had
been the parties to the Constitution, so making this to be a compact
like the old Articles, and the government under it a confederacy as
before 1789.
Another issue divided the parties, that between the strict and the more
free interpretation of the Constitution--between the close
constructionists and the liberal constructionists. The question dividing
them was this: In matters relating to the powers of the general
Government, ought any unclear utterance of the Constitution to be so
explained as to enlarge those powers, or so as to confine them to the
narrowest possible sphere? Each of the two tendencies in construction
has in turn brought violence to our fundamental law, but the sentiment
of nationality and the logic of events have favored liberality rather
than narrowness in interpreting the parchment. When in charge of the
government, even strict constructionists have not been able to carry out
their theory. Thus Jefferson, to purchase Louisiana, was obliged, from
his point of view, to transcend constitutional warrant; and Madison, who
at first opposed such an institution as unconstitutional, ended by
approving the law which chartered the Second United States Bank.
The Federalists used to argue that Article I, Section VIII., the part of
the Constitution upon which debate chiefly raged, could not have been
intended as an exhaustive statement of congressional powers. The
Government would be unable to exist, they urged, to say nothing of
defending itself and accomplishing its work, unless permitted to do more
than the eighteen things there enumerated. They further insisted that
plain utterances of the Constitution presuppose the exercise by Congress
of powers not specifically enumerated, explicitly authorizing that body
to make all laws necessary for executing the enumerated powers "and all
other powers vested in the Government of the United States or in any
department or officer thereof."
In reply the Anti-Federalists made much of the titles "United States,"
"Federal," and the like, in universal use. They appealed to concessions
as to the nature of our system made by statesmen of known national
sympathies. Such concessions were plentiful then and much later. Even
Webster in his immortal reply to Hayne calls ours a government of
"strictly limited," even of "enumerated, specified, and particularized"
powers. Two historical facts told powerfully for the anti-federalist
theory. One was that the government previous to 1789 was unquestionably
a league of States; the other was that many voted for the present
Constitution supposing it to be a mere revision of the old. Had the
reverse been commonly believed, adoption would have been more than
doubtful.
CHAPTER III.
DOMESTIC QUESTIONS OF WASHINGTON'S ADMINISTRATIONS
[1790-1791]
I. Tariff.--Upon declaring their independence the United States threw
open their ports, inviting trade from all nations. During the Revolution
foreign commerce had become an important interest, and at its close the
inclination of all, the more so from memory of England's accursed
navigation acts, would have been to leave it untrammelled. Several
motives, however, induced resort to a restrictive policy which,
beginning with 1789, and for years expected to be temporary, has been
pursued with little deviation ever since. Of course the Government
needed revenue, and the readiest means of securing this was a tax on
imports. Rates were made low, averaging until 1808 only 11-1/4 per cent.
As a consequence the revenues were large.
The movers of this first tariff, especially Hamilton, also wished by
means of it to make the central Government felt as a positive power
throughout the land. It had this effect. All custom-houses passed to the
United States, and United States officers appeared at every port, having
an authority, in its kind, paramount to that of state functionaries.
A stronger consideration still was to retaliate against England. In
spite of America's political independence the old country was determined
to retain for her merchant marine its former monopoly here. Orders in
council practically limited all the commerce of England and her
remaining colonies with this country to English ships, although, from
the relations of the two lands and the nature of their productions, our
chief foreign trade must still be with England. There was no way to meet
this selfish policy but to show that it was a game which we too could
play.
Besides, however we behaved toward the mother-land, we needed to be
prepared for war, because it was evident that George III. and his
ministers had only too good a will to reduce us again to subjection if
opportunity offered. Should we, by taxing imports, become independent in
the production of war material, a fresh struggle for life would be much
more hopeful than if we continued dependent upon foreign lands for
military supplies.
II. Funding the Debt.--In the first years after they had set up their
new constitution the people of this country staggered under a terrible
financial load. Besides the current expenses of Government, there were:
1, the federal debt due abroad, over thirteen million dollars, including
arrears; 2, the federal debt held at home, about forty-two and one-half
million; 3, the state revolutionary debts, aggregating nearly
twenty-five million. Each of these sums was largely made up of unpaid
interest.
The foreign debt Congress unanimously determined to pay in full. In
respect to the domestic federal debt two opinions prevailed. Hamilton
was for liquidating this also to the last copper. But these securities
had mostly changed hands since issue, so that dollar for dollar payment
would not advantage original holders but only speculators. As soon as
Hamilton's recommendation became public this class of paper rose from
about fifteen cents per dollar to fifty cents, and enterprising New York
firms hurried their couriers, relay horses, and swift packets to remote
parts of the Union to buy it up. Madison, supported by a strong party,
proposed, therefore, to pay only original debtors at par, allowing
secondary holders barely the highest market value previous to the
opening of the question in Congress. He was overruled, however, and this
part of the debt, too, was ordered paid according to its literal terms.
Even the motion that the United States should assume and discharge the
state debts finally prevailed, though against most violent and resolute
opposition. This came especially from Virginia, who had gone far in the
payment of her own war debt, and thought it unjust to have to help the
delinquent States. Her objection was strengthened by the fact that most
of the debt was owned in the North. The victory was secured by what is
now termed a "deal," northern votes being promised in favor of a
southern location for the national capital, in return for enough
southern votes to pass the bill assuming state debts.
These gigantic measures had origin in the mind of Hamilton. To many they
appeared and appear today like a grand government job. But they worked
well, laying the foundation of our national credit. Interest arrears and
back installments of the foreign debt were to be paid at once with the
proceeds of a fresh loan, supplemented by income from customs and
tonnage. The remaining debt was to be refunded. Federal stocks shot up
in value, moneyed interests became attached to the Government, and the
nation began to be looked to as a more reliable bulwark of sound finance
than any of the States.
[Illustration: Portrait.]
Alexander Hamilton.
From a painting by John Trumbull in the Trumbull Gallery at Yale College.
III. The Excise.--Unexpectedly productive as the tariff had proved,
public income still fell short of what these vast operations required.
Direct taxation or a higher tariff being out of the question, Hamilton
proposed, and Congress voted, an excise on spirits, from nine to
twenty-five cents a gallon if from grain, from eleven to thirty if from
imported material, as molasses. Excise was a hated form of tax, and this
measure awakened great opposition in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
and New England, and most of all in Pennsylvania, in whose western
counties distilling was the staple industry.
Here, far from the seats of power, even the state government had
asserted itself little. The general Government was defied. A meeting in
Washington County voted to regard as an enemy any person taking office
under the excise law. September 6, 1791, a revenue officer was tarred
and feathered. Other such cases followed. Secret societies were formed
to oppose the law. Whippings and even murders resulted. At last there
was a veritable reign of terror. The President proceeded slowly but with
firmness, accounting this a good opportunity vividly to reveal to the
people the might of the new Government. Militia and volunteers were
called out, who arrived in the rebellious districts in November, 1794.
Happily, their presence sufficed. The opposition faded away before them,
not a shot being fired on either side.
[Illustration: Several men working with a large still.]
Illicit Distillers warned of the Approach of Revenue Officers.
IV. The Bank.--The Secretary of the Treasury pleaded for a United States
Bank as not only profitable to Government but indispensable to the
proper administration of the national finances. Congress acquiesced, yet
with so violent hostility on the part of many that before approving the
Charter Act Washington required the written opinions of his official
advisers. Jefferson powerfully opposed such an institution as
unconstitutional, his acute argument being the arsenal whence close
constructionists have gotten their weapons ever since. Randolph sided
with Jefferson, Knox with Hamilton. The President at last signed,
agreeing with Hamilton in the view that Congress, being the agent of a
sovereignty, is not, within any sphere of action constitutionally open
to it, shut up to specific or enumerated modes of attaining its ends,
but has choice among all those that nations customarily use. The Supreme
Court has proceeded on this doctrine ever since. The bank proved vastly
advantageous. Three-fourths of every private subscription to its stock
had to be in government paper, which raised this to par, while it
naturally became the interest of all stockholders to maintain and
increase the stability and credit of the Government.
CHAPTER IV.
RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND
[1793]
In 1789 France adopted a constitution. Provoked at this, the friends of
absolute monarchy withdrew from France, and incited the other powers of
Europe to interpose in effort to restore to Louis XVI. his lost power.
The result was that Louis lost his head as well as his power, and that
France became a republic. War with all Europe followed, which elevated
that matchless military genius, Napoleon Bonaparte, first to the head of
France's armies, then to her throne, to be toppled thence in 1814,
partly by his own indiscretions, partly by the forces combined against
him.
From the beginning to the end of this revolutionary period abroad,
European politics determined American politics, home as well as foreign,
causing dangerous embarrassment and complications. War having in
February, 1793, been declared by England and France against each other,
what attitude the United States should assume toward each became a
pressing question. Washington's proclamation of neutrality, April 22,
1793, in effect, though not so meant, annulled our treaty of 1778 with
France, which bound us to certain armed services to that monarchy in
case of a rupture between her and England. Washington's paper alleged
that "the duty and interests of the United States" required
impartiality, and assumed "to declare the disposition of the United
States to observe" this.
"The proclamation," wrote Jefferson, "was in truth a most unfortunate
error. It wounds the popular feelings by a seeming indifference to the
cause of liberty. And it seems to violate the form and spirit of the
Constitution by making the executive magistrate the organ of the
'disposition' 'the duty' and 'the interest' of the nation in relation to
war and peace--subjects appropriated to other departments of the
Government."
"On one side," says Mr. Rives, in his "Life of Madison," "the people saw
a power which had but lately carried war and desolation, fire and sword,
through their own country, and, since the peace, had not ceased to act
toward them in the old spirit of unkindness, jealousy, arrogance, and
injustice; on the other an ally who had rendered them the most generous
assistance in war, had evinced the most cordial dispositions for a
liberal and mutually beneficial intercourse in peace, and was now set
upon by an unholy league of the monarchical powers of Europe, to
overwhelm and destroy her, for her desire to establish institutions
congenial to those of America."
The more sagacious opponents of the administration believed true policy
as well as true honesty to demand rigid and pronounced adherence to the
letter of the French treaty. They were convinced from the outset that
France would vanquish her enemies, and that close alliance with her was
the sure and the only sure way to coerce either Great Britain to justice
or Spain to a reasonable attitude touching the navigation of the
Mississippi; while by offending France, they argued, we should be forced
to wrestle single-handed with England first, then with victorious
France, meantime securing no concession whatever from Spain.
This was a shrewd forecast of the actual event. The Federalists,
destitute of idealism, proved to have been overawed by the prestige of
England and to have underestimated the might which freedom would impart
to the French people. After Napoleon's great campaign of 1796-97, Pitt
seeks peace, which the French Directory feels able to decline. In 1802
the Peace of Amiens is actually concluded, upon terms dictated by
France. Had we been still in France's friendship, the two republics
might have compelled England's abandonment of that course which evoked
the war of 1812. As it was, ignored by England, to whom, as detailed
below, we cringed in consenting to Jay's treaty, we were left to
encounter the French navy alone, escaping open and serious war with
France only by a readiness to negotiate which all but compromised our
dignity. The Mississippi we had at last to open with money.
The federalist leaning toward Great Britain probably did not, to so
great an extent as was then alleged and widely believed, spring from
monarchical feeling. It was due rather to old memories, as pleasant as
they were tenacious, that would not be dissociated from England; to the
individualistic tendencies of republicanism, alarming to many; and to
conservative habits of political thinking, the dread of innovation and
of theory. The returned Tories had indeed all become Federalists, which
fact, with many others, lent to this attitude the appearance of
deficient patriotism, of sycophancy toward our old foe and persecutor.
Great Britain had refused to surrender the western posts according to
the peace treaty of 1783, unjustly pleading in excuse the treatment of
loyalists by our States. Not only the presence but the active influence
of the garrisons at these posts encouraged Indian hostilities. England
had also seized French goods in American (neutral) vessels, though in
passage to the United States, and treated as belligerent all American
ships plying between France and her West Indian colonies, on the ground
that this commerce had been opened to them only by the pressure of war.
The English naval officers were instructed to regard bread-stuffs as
contraband if bound for France, even though owned by neutrals and in
neutral ships; such cargoes, however, to be paid for by England, or
released on bonds being given to land them elsewhere than in France. In
this practice England followed France's example, except that she
actually paid for the cargoes, while France only promised.
[Illustration: Portrait.]
John Jay.
From a painting by S. F. B. Morse in the Yale College Collection.
[1795]
Worst of all, Britain claimed and acted upon the right to press into her
naval service British-born seamen found anywhere outside the territory
of a foreign State, halting our ships on the high seas for this purpose,
often leaving them half-manned, and sometimes recklessly and cruelly
impressing native-born Americans--an outrageous policy which ended in
the war of 1812. The ignorance and injustice of the English admiralty
courts aggravated most of these abuses.
Genet's proceedings, spoken of in the next chapter, which partly public
sentiment, partly lack of army and navy, made it impossible for our
Government to prevent, enraged Great Britain to the verge of war. After
the British orders in council of November 6, 1793, intended to destroy
all neutral commerce with the French colonies, and Congress's
counter-stroke of an embargo the following March, war was positively
imminent. The President resolved to send Jay to England as envoy
extraordinary, to make one more effort for an understanding.
The treaty negotiated by this gentleman, and ratified June 24, 1795
(excepting Article XII., on the French West India trade), was doubtless
the most favorable that could have been secured under the circumstances;
yet it satisfied no one and was humiliating in the extreme. The western
posts were indeed to be vacated by June 1, 1796, though without
indemnity for the past, but a British right of search and impressment
was implicitly recognized, the French West Indian trade not rendered
secure, and arbitrary liberty accorded to Great Britain in defining
contraband. Opposition to ratification was bitter and nearly universal.
The friends of France were jubilant. Jay was burned in effigy,
Washington himself attacked. The utmost that Hamilton in his powerful
"Letters of Camillus" could show was that the treaty seemed preferable
to war. Plainly we had then little to hope and much to fear from war
with Great Britain, yet even vast numbers of Federalists denounced the
pact as a base surrender to the nation's ancient tyrant, and wished an
appeal to arms.
Fisher Ames's eloquence decided the House for the treaty. An invalid,
with but a span of life before him, he spoke as from the tomb. "There
is, I believe," so ran his peroration, "no member who will not think his
chance to be a witness of the consequences (should the treaty fail of
ratification) greater than mine. If, however, the vote should pass to
reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the public disorders,
to make confusion worse confounded, even I, slender and almost broken as
my hold on life is, may outlive the Government and Constitution of my
country!"
It was the most delicate crisis of Washington's presidency, and no
other American then alive, being in his place, could have passed through
it successfully. After the fury gradually subsided, men for a long time
acquiesced rather than believed in the step which had been taken. In the
end the treaty proved solidly advantageous, rather through
circumstances, however, than by its intrinsic excellence.
CHAPTER V.
RELATIONS WITH THE FRENCH REPUBLIC
[1793]
At its beginning all Americans hailed the Revolution in France with
joy, but its terrible excesses, when they appeared, produced here the
same effect as in England, of alienating everyone conservatively
inclined. This included the mass of the Federalist party. On the
contrary, most of the Republicans, now more numerous, now less,
actuated partly by true insight into the struggle, and partly by the
magic of the words "revolution" and "republic," favored the
revolutionists with a devotion which even the Reign of Terror in France
scarcely shook. It was in consequence of this attitude on its part that
the party came to be dubbed "democratic-republican" instead of
"republican," the compound title itself giving way after about 1810 to
simple "democratic."
[Illustration: Portrait.]
John Adams
From a copy by Jane Stuart, about 1874, of a painting by her father,
Gilbert Stuart, about 1800--in possession of Henry Adams.
Hostility to England, the memory of France's aid to us in our hour of
need, the doctrine of "the rights of man," then so much in vogue, the
known sympathies of Jefferson and Madison, who were already popular,
and, alas, a mean wish to hamper the administration, all helped to swell
the ranks of those who swung their hats for France. A far deeper motive
with the more thoughtful was the belief that neutrality violated our
treaty of 1778 with France, a conclusion at present beyond question.
Politically our policy may have been wise, morally it was wrong.
The administration, at least its honored head, was doubtless innocent of
any intentional injustice; and it could certainly urge a great deal in
justification of its course. The form and the aims of the French
Government had changed since the treaty originated, involving a state of
things which that instrument had not contemplated. France herself
defied international law and compact, revolutionizing and incorporating
Holland and Geneva, and assaulting our commerce. And war with England
then threatened our ruin. Yet the pleading of these considerations in
that so trying hour, even had they been wholly pertinent, could not but
seem to Frenchmen treason to the cause of liberty. As to many
Federalists, trucklers to England, such a charge would have been true.
France was not slow to reciprocate in the matter of grievances. In fact,
so early as May, 1793, before the proclamation of neutrality could have
been heard of in that country, orders had been issued there, wholly
repugnant to the treaty (which had ordained that neutral ships could
carry what goods they pleased--free ships, free goods), to capture and
condemn English merchandise on American vessels. Provisions owned by
Americans and en route to England were also to be forfeited as
contraband. Even the most reasonable French officials seemed bent on
treating our country as a dependency of France.
We see this in the actions of Genet, the first envoy to America from the
French constitutional monarchy, accredited hither by a ministry of
high-minded Republicans while Louis XVI. still sat upon his throne.
Genet arrived in Charleston in 1793, before our neutrality had been
proclaimed. Immediately, before presenting his credentials to our
Government, he set about fitting out privateers, manning them with
Americans, and sending them to prey upon British ships, some of which
they captured in American waters. All this was in utter derogation of
the treaty, which only guaranteed shelter to bona fide French vessels.
Under a law of the French National Convention, Genet assumed to erect
the French consulates in this country into so many admiralty courts for
the trial of British prizes. We could not have allowed this without
decidedly violating international law at least in spirit. He also
devised and partly arranged expeditions of Americans, to start, one from
Georgia to invade Florida, another from Kentucky to capture New Orleans,
both as means of weakening Spain, which up to this time and for several
years later was France's foe.
[1795]
But Genet's worst gall came out in his conduct toward Washington. Him he
insulted, challenging his motives and his authority for his acts and
threatening to appeal from him to the people. He tried to bully and
browbeat the whole cabinet as if they had been so many boys. So
ludicrous did he make himself by such useless bluster, that his friends,
at first numerous and many of them influential, gave him the cold
shoulder, and the ardor for France greatly cooled. At length Washington
effected his removal, the more easily, it would seem, as he was not
radical enough for the Jacobins, who had now succeeded to the helm in
France. The officious Frenchman did not return to his own country, but
settled down in New York, marrying a daughter of Governor Clinton. He
was succeeded by Adet.
[Illustration: Portrait.]
George Clinton.
From a painting by Ezra Ames.
Upon learning that the United States had ratified Jay's treaty, France
went insane with rage. A declaration of war by us could not have angered
her more. Adet was called home and the alliance with America declared at
an end. Barras dismissed Mr. Monroe, our minister, in a contemptuous
speech, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, sent as Monroe's successor, was
not only not received but ordered from the land. New and worse decrees
went forth against American commerce. Our ships were confiscated for
carrying English goods though not contraband. Arbitrary and unheard-of
tests of neutrality were trumped up, wholly contrary to the treaty,
which indeed was now denounced. American sailors found serving, though
compelled, on British armed vessels, were to be condemned as pirates.
[1797]
These brutal measures, coupled with Napoleon's increasing power, begot
in America the belief, even among Republicans, that France's struggle
was no longer for liberty but for conquest. The insolence of the French
Government waxed insufferable. President Adams, to a special session of
the Vth Congress, on May 19, 1797, announced the insult to the nation in
the person of Pinckney, and urged preparation for war. A goodly loan, a
direct tax, and a provisional army, Washington again leader, were
readily voted. Our Navy Department was created at this time. The navy
was increased, and several captures were made of French vessels guilty
of outrage. Adams, however, to make a last overture for peace,
despatched John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry to the aid of Pinckney, the
three to knock once more at France's doors for a becoming admission. In
vain. The only effect was a new chapter of French mendacity and
insolence, furthering America's wish and preparations for war.
Napoleon's recent Italian victories, terrifying Europe, had puffed up
France with pride. Talleyrand assumed to arraign us as criminals, and
what was worse, pressed us, through his agents, to buy his country's
forgiveness with gold. "You must pay money," our envoys were told, and
"a good deal of it, too."
[Illustration: Portrait.]
John Marshall.
All this was duly made known at Philadelphia, and the President assured
Congress that no terms were obtainable from France "compatible with the
safety, honor, and general interest of the nation." The opposition
thought this an exaggeration, and called for the despatches, expecting
refusal or abridgment. The President sent every word.
[Illustration: Portrait.]
Elbridge Gerry
Confusion seized the Republicans. Federalists were again in the
ascendant, the VIth Congress being much more strongly federalist than
the Vth. For once proud, reserved John Adams was popular, and
anti-French feeling irresistible. "Millions for defence but not a cent
for tribute," echoed through the land. Hosts of Republicans went over to
the administration side. Patriotism became a passion. Each night at the
theatre rose a universal call for the "President's March" [Footnote: The
music was that of our "Hail Columbia."] and "Yankee Doodle," the
audience rising, cheering, swinging hats and canes, and roaring
"encore." The black cockade, American, on all hands supplanted the
tricolor cockade worn by the "Gallomaniacs;" and bands of "Associated
Youth," organizing in every town and city, deluged the President with
patriotic addresses.
Seeing that we could not be bullied and that the friends of France here
were Americans first; ashamed, on their publication, of the indignities
which he had offered our envoys, and after all not wishing war with what
he saw to be potentially another naval power like England, the sly
Talleyrand neatly receded from his arrogant demands, and expressed a
desire to negotiate.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DECLINE OF THE FEDERALIST PARTY
[1797]
The heat of the nation's wrath evoked by this conflict with France
betrayed the Federalists in Congress into some pieces of tyrannical
legislation. These were especially directed against refugees from
France, lest they should attempt to reenact here the bloody drama just
played out there. Combinations were alleged, without proof, to exist
between American and French democrats, dangerous to the stability of
this Government.
A new naturalization act was passed, requiring of an immigrant, as
prerequisite to citizenship, fourteen years of residence instead of the
five heretofore sufficient. Next came three alien acts, empowering the
President, at his discretion, without trial or even a statement of his
reasons, to banish foreigners from the land; any who should return
unbidden being liable to imprisonment for three years, and cut off from
the possibility of citizenship forever. A "sedition act" followed, to
fine in the sum of $5,000 each and to imprison for five years any
persons stirring up sedition, combining to oppose governmental measures,
resisting United States law, or putting forth "any false, scandalous, or
malicious writings" against Congress, the President, or the Government.
To President Adams's credit, he was no abettor of these hateful decrees,
and did little to enforce them. The sedition law, however, did not rest
with him for execution, and was applied right and left. Evidently its
champions were swayed largely by political motives. Matthew Lyon, a
fiery Republican member of Congress from Vermont, had, in an address to
his constituents, charged the President with avarice and with "thirst
for ridiculous pomp and foolish adulation," He was convicted of
sedition, fined $1,000, and sentenced to four months in prison. This
impoverished him, as well as took him from his place in Congress for
most of a session. Adams refused pardon, but in 1840 Congress paid back
the fine to Lyon's heirs.
It is now admitted that these measures were unconstitutional, as
invading freedom of speech and of the press, and assigning to the
Federal Judiciary a common-law jurisdiction in criminal matters. But
they were also highly unwise, subjecting the Federalist Party to the
odium of fearing free speech, of declining a discussion of its policy,
and of hating foreigners. The least opposition to the party in power, or
criticism of its official chiefs, became criminal, under the head of
"opposing" the Government. A joke or a caricature might send its author
to jail as "seditious." It was surely a travesty upon liberty when a man
could be arrested for expressing the wish, as a salute was fired, that
the wadding might hit John Adams behind. Even libels upon government, if
it is to be genuinely free, must be ignored--a principle now acted upon
by all constitutional States.
But the Federalists were blind to considerations like these. As Schouler
well remarks: "A sort of photophobia afflicted statesmen, who, allowing
little for the good sense and spirit of Americans, or our geographical
disconnection with France, were crazed with the fear that this Union
might be, like Venice, made over to some European potentate, or chained
in the same galley with Switzerland or Holland, to do the Directory's
bidding. That, besides this unfounded fear, operated the desire of
ultra-Federalists to take revenge upon those presses which had assailed
the British treaty and other pet measures, and abused Federal leaders;
and the determination to entrench themselves in authority by forcibly
disbanding an opposition party which attracted a readier support at the
polls from the oppressed of other countries, no candid writer can at
this day question."
[1798]
It was next the turn of the Republicans to blunder. In November, 1798,
the Kentucky Legislature passed a series of resolutions, drawn up by
John Breckenridge upon a sketch by Jefferson, in effect declaring the
alien and sedition acts not law, but altogether void and of no force. In
December the Virginia Legislature put forth a similar series by Madison,
milder in tone and more cautiously expressed, denouncing those acts as
"palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution." A year after
their first utterance, the Kentucky law-makers further "resolved that
the several States who formed (the Constitution), being sovereign and
independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction;
and that a nullification by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized
acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."
Virginia again declared it a State's right "to interpose" in such cases.
These resolutions were intended to stir reflection and influence
opinion, and, if possible, elicit a concurrent request to Congress from
the various States to repeal the obnoxious acts. They do not hint at the
use of force. Their execration of the hated laws is none too strong, and
their argument as a whole is masterly and unanswerable. But at least
those of Kentucky suggest, if they do not contain, a doctrine respecting
the Constitution which is untenable and baneful, in kernel the same that
threatened secession in Jackson's time and brought it in Buchanan's. The
State, as such, is not a party to the Constitution. Still less is the
Legislature. Nor is either, but the Supreme Court, the judge whether in
any case the fundamental law has been infringed.