POLITICAL ENTANGLEMENTS AND HYSTERIA
1. THE SITUATION PRIOR TO 1798
Party history in New England, as elsewhere throughout the Union,
began with the inauguration of the new government in 1789.[224] Such
differences of opinion concerning matters of public policy as had
previously existed were confined to unorganized groups whose leaders
depended chiefly on the devotion of their personal following to
mould popular opinion. But the setting up of the Federal government
and the fixing of national standards brought to light issues which
challenged fundamental conceptions and interests, and a definite rift
in public sentiment was not long in appearing. By 1793 the main line
of political cleavage was plainly visible. The Federalists, who stood
for the importance of a strong central government, found themselves
confronted with an organized opposition to which in time the terms
Anti-Federalists, Republicans, and Democrats were applied.[225]
In 1793 the war between England and France came into American
politics, providing issues for party controversy for years to come.
The sympathies of the Federalists, who numbered in their ranks the
conservative and aristocratic elements in the population, inclined
strongly toward England; whereas the sympathies of Republicans, who
attracted to their standard the radicals of the country concerned in
the democratization of government, were disposed with equal warmth
toward France.
The promulgation of the Neutrality Proclamation[226] of President
Washington, April 22, 1793, seemed to settle the question of foreign
alliances before the matter had become acute. On the whole, the
response which New England gave to the President’s proclamation was
gratifying. Messages of cordial approval came pouring in from many
quarters.[227] The majority of the people rejoiced in the course of
prudence and foresight which the national government had been led to
pursue.
Still New England was not wholly satisfied. The sentiments of
all her people had not been served. An opposition of respectable
proportions developed. The columns of the public press carried numerous
articles[228] voicing various degrees of hostility to the President’s
cause of neutrality and affording ample evidence that instead of
solidifying the sentiments of the people on the subject of foreign
alliances, the proclamation had the effect of widening the breach
between the political forces of the country.
This aspect of the case was much aggravated by two important
circumstances, one of which developed simultaneously with the
publication of the proclamation of neutrality, and the other came to
light soon after. These two circumstances were the coming of Genet and
the rise of the Democratic Societies.
In no part of the country was the news of the arrival of the French
minister received with less suspicion than in New England.[229]
Republican newspapers were, of course, loud in their exclamations of
satisfaction over the word that came out of the south concerning the
arrival and subsequent activities of the amazing French diplomat, so
young, so ardent, so eloquent, and so absurd. Editors of Federalist
journals, while in no mood to be swept off their feet by the latest
excitement of the hour, yet showed no disposition to cavil or express
distrust.
Such, however, were the exceptional performances of this altogether
exceptional diplomat, who insisted on comporting himself more like a
ruler of the people of this nation than an accredited representative to
their government, that the day of revulsion and deep resentment could
not long be postponed.[230]
The stir created by the activities of Genet, great as it was, soon
was swallowed up in the excitement produced by the sudden emergence
of a new factor in American politics; _viz._, indigenous political
organizations that were secret. Coincident with the arrival of Genet,
and with a view to capitalizing the state of public feeling that
his arrival and reception brought to a head, there sprang up in
various parts of the country a group of organizations devoted to the
propagation of ultra-democratic ideals. These Democratic Societies,
or Clubs, were destined to exert a degree of baneful influence upon
political feeling out of all proportion to their actual number and
weight.[231] Needless to say, the excited state of public feeling,
together with the total unfamiliarity of American citizens with
political agencies of a secret character, were responsible for
this result. The embarrassments under which the French cause in
America momentarily suffered on account of reports concerning the
multiplied atrocities of the Reign of Terror and the swelling tide of
popular resentment because of the indiscretions of Minister Genet,
might induce the judgment that the times were unpropitious for the
development of organizations whose sympathy for the principles of the
French Revolution was notorious.[232] But there was another side to
the situation. The heated public discussions provoked by Madison’s
Commercial Resolutions, Clark’s Non-Intercourse Resolution, and the
appointment of John Jay as Minister Extraordinary to Great Britain,
set free such a torrent of anti-British feeling that the spirit of
republicanism lifted its head with renewed vigor and stimulated a
public sentiment decidedly favorable to the rapid formation and spread
of the new organizations. From the day that the first of these sinister
Societies was established, and its statement of principles blazoned
forth in a multitude of newspapers throughout the country,[233] the
public mind found itself wrought upon by a new species of excitement,
by suggestions of tricks and plots, by appeals to passion and
unreasoning fear, all conspiring to inject into the national spirit an
element of haunting suspicion from which it was not soon to be cleared.
The fact that at least five of these Democratic Societies were located
in New England strongly suggests the immediate concern which the
people of that section were bound to have because of these unexpected
and ominous secret political associations.[234] The creation of the
Boston Society became at once the occasion of virulent opposition and
infuriated comment. Organized in the late fall of 1793[235] under the
innocent title, the Constitutional Club, the principles and alliances
of the organization became quickly known, with the result that the
already agitated waters of local party feeling were disturbed beyond
all previous experience. Citizens whose sympathies were fully with the
conduct of affairs under the Federalist régime were quick to believe
that henceforth they might expect to be threatened, brow-beaten,
and checkmated in a ruthless and scandalous fashion because of the
activities of this pernicious Club.[236] They anticipated an amount of
secret and dastardly political interference on the part of the Club,
because of which the lives of their public officials would be filled
with distraction and the minds of decent men aspiring to public office
would be thrown into a state of disinclination and repugnance.
Nor in this did they prove to be false prophets. Newspaper innuendoes,
sharp and poisonous as deadly arrows, were let fly with abandon;
town meetings were disturbed and the opponents of democracy and
French republicanism put to rout; the public mind was so altered that
Democrats who sought to deprive Federalists of their hold upon the
“Boston Seat” in the legislature were completely successful in their
efforts. In these and similar ways the citizens of Boston were given
tangible proofs of how effective an instrument of political action such
an organization as the Constitutional Club could be.[237]
The address which President Washington delivered before both
houses of Congress, November 19, 1794, wherein he traced a causal
connection between the Democratic Societies and the Whiskey Rebellion,
characterizing the former as “self-created societies” which had
“assumed a tone of condemnation” of measures adopted by the government,
being actuated by “a belief that, by a more formal concert” they would
be able to defeat those measures,[238] proved to be a mortal blow to
these secret organizations, and in New England, as elsewhere throughout
the country, had consequences beyond the disappearance of the Clubs.
Eagerly and with unconcealed joy, Federalist editors and orators seized
upon the President’s denunciation and turned it to immediate political
account.[239] A flood of condemnation and answering vituperation was
instantly released. The champions of Federalism were at pains to
secure publication of the discussions which took place in the national
congress respecting the precise character of the response to be made to
the President’s address, with special reference to his condemnation of
the Democratic Clubs.[240] They were at equal pains, also, to lay hold
of the President’s pregnant phrase, “self-created societies,” and turn
it to account: that phrase should be regarded as a designation equally
applicable to the odious Jacobin Clubs of France.[241] Henceforth
the whole democratic faction might reasonably be expected to work
under cover “to unhinge the whole order of government, and introduce
confusion, so that union, the constitution, the laws, public order and
private right would be all the sport of violence or chance.”[242]
Mortified and discomfited Republican editors made such response as
they could. The members of the Clubs were declared to be independent
citizens who were acting within their rights in so banding together.
They were “proceeding in the paths of patriotic virtue with a composure
and dignity which become men engaged in such important and timely
services”;[243] whereas their opponents were men who hungered for the
loaves and fishes of the government and who shared the secret fear that
they would be discovered or have their plans deranged.[244]
The continual harping of the Federalist press on the phrase
“self-created societies” particularly touched the raw. Was not the
Society of the Cincinnati self-created? And are not many of the members
of that organization war-worn soldiers of the American Republic? In a
state of society in which we see such veterans toiling for their daily
sustenance, while other men, enjoying the hard-earned property of the
former, riot in all the luxuries of life, how can one but exclaim, _O
Tempora! O Mores!_[245] The national congress, moreover, might well be
expected to be engaged in much more serious and timely business than
to be burdening its sessions with discussions respecting the affairs of
private societies.[246]
The hostile attitude that the Federalist clergy took toward the
Democratic Societies gave special irritation to the editors of the
_Independent Chronicle_. Because he ventured in his thanksgiving sermon
of November 20 (1794) to denounce all Constitutional Societies, the
rector of the Episcopal congregation in Boston was held up to ridicule
in the columns of the _Chronicle_ as a “_ci-devant_ lawyer” and “a
certain Episcopalian ‘thumper of the pulpit drum,’” whose pastoral
care many of his substantial members had already renounced because of
his injection of political discussion into the sacred sphere of the
pulpit; while others had given evidence of their disposition to follow
the example of the more courageous members of the flock, “if virulence
is to take the place of religion.”[247] But the Reverend David Osgood,
Medford’s “monk,” on account of his more extended and violent treatment
of the Democratic Societies in his thanksgiving day sermon,[248]
gave much deeper offence. That he should have represented these
organizations as controlled by the same principles as the incendiary
French Jacobin Clubs, and as set to watch the Federal government and
plot its overthrow through the support of pernicious and inveterate
faction, was more than ardent democratic patriots could endure. “A
Friend to the Clergy and an Enemy to Ecclesiastical Presumption,”
together with “A Friend of Decency and Free Inquiry,” sought entrance
to the willing columns of the _Chronicle_ in order to express their
contempt for “a Rev. gentleman” who could lend himself to the peddling
of such illiberal sentiments and could show himself capable of acting
in a manner unbecoming the character of a Christian and a gentleman,
and also in order to draw conclusions derogatory to his reputation as
a scholar.[249] The castigations of “Stentor” were not less caustic.
The red-hot anathemas of the Reverend Parson Osgood, whining preacher
of politics that he was, had no other effect than to singe and sear
the reputation of their author. “On the Constitutional Society their
influence has been as small as though they had been issued in the form
of a BULL from the Chancery of the Pope.”[250]
Thus were protracted for a time the frantic efforts of Democratic
editors and scribblers to repair the damage which “the clownish Bishop
of Medford”[251] and his clerical confederates were supposed to have
effected.[252] But the main injury had by no means come from that
quarter. Such was the veneration for the name and person of the great
Washington throughout New England that few men had the hardihood to
launch their resentment and abuse against him; yet it was his hand,
and none other, that wrote the word _Ichabod_ across the brow of
these secret political associations. From the day that his address
reproaching them was made, their doom was sealed. That doom might
tarry for a season, but it could not long be averted. The apologists
and defenders of these organizations which the presidential censure
had made odious, might fiercely exert themselves to show how innocent
they were of the offences charged and how unimpaired in usefulness they
remained after the thrust had been made. This was but whistling to keep
up their courage. The prestige of the Societies had been effectually
destroyed by the President’s denunciation; in a surprisingly short time
these ambitious and troublemaking organizations sank into desuetude and
were lost to view.
The deep impression they had made upon the public mind was, however,
much less readily effaced. That impression resolved itself into a
memory most unpleasant and disturbing. For us the significance of
these organizations is found chiefly in the fact that, appearing at a
time when the two great opposing political parties were developing,
and having vehemently espoused the cause of France in a rabidly
democratic spirit, they consequently added enormously to the passion
and the suspicion of the day. To the Federalists they were dangerous
intruders, groups of unprincipled demagogues organized for unpatriotic
purposes, working in the dark, ashamed to stoop at nothing in the way
of duplicity and subterfuge, of deception and intrigue, if by any means
the vicious designs of their hearts could be furthered. Thus they not
only helped to make the strife of parties vituperative and bitter; in
addition they made familiar to the thought of a great body of citizens
in America the idea that the intrigues of secret organizations must
needs be reckoned with as one of the constant perils of the times.
Henceforth it would be easier to fill the public mind with uneasiness
and gloomy forebodings on account of the supposed presence of hidden
hostile forces working beneath the surface of the nation’s life. Should
inexperienced and unsuspecting souls profess their incredulity, the
appeal to the example of the Democratic Societies might be expected to
go far toward dissolving all indifference and trusting unconcern.[253]
To trace in detail the increasingly bitter party strife in New England
would not only call for the canvassing of material already well
known, but would lead us far afield from the special object of this
investigation. Only the main features of the case need to be noted.
The temporary check the Democrats suffered on account of the
suppression of the secret political clubs was soon removed by the wave
of anti-British sentiment that swept the country upon the publication
of the treaty which John Jay negotiated between Great Britain and the
United States, late in the autumn of 1794.[254]
The truth is, nothing less than a howl of rage went up from the throats
of the people of the United States, and the voices of the men of New
England were by no means lost in the chorus.[255] Nothing that could
have been said to inflame the blind and passionate anger of the people
was omitted. The United States, it was asserted, had been resolved back
into the colonies of Great Britain.[256] The Senate had bargained away
the blood-bought privileges of the people for less than the proverbial
mess of pottage. It had signed the death-warrant of the country’s
trade and entailed beggary on its inhabitants and their posterity
forever.[257] The people’s cause had been most perfidiously betrayed.
The trading class, whose pecuniary interests would be jeopardized if
England were to be left free to prey upon our commerce, especially if
the way should remain open for the two countries to drift into actual
war, might show itself disposed to make a choice of the lesser of two
evils and accept the treaty; but the great mass of the people were
indignantly hostile, it must be added, to the point of unreason.[258]
The promulgation of the treaty by Washington, February 29, 1796, as
the law of the land, had the effect of bringing to a close a period of
agitation which deeply affected the national life.[259] For one thing,
the violence of party spirit had been so augmented that henceforth
there were to be no limits to which men would not go in the expression
of their antipathies and prejudices. Even the great Washington had
not been able to escape the venom of the tongue of the partisan in
the controversy which had raged over the treaty.[260] A condition of
the public mind which not only permitted but supported the burning in
effigy of its public servants; which consented to brutal campaigns of
newspaper calumniation, so unrestrained and indecent that the reader
looks back upon them with shame; to the circulation of incendiary
handbills and scurrilous pamphlets; to participation in lawless
gatherings in which riotous utterances of the most violent character
were freely made and disgraceful actions taken[261]—this could not
possibly make for a wholesome discipline of the passions of the
people.[262]
For another thing, the spirit of devotion to the cause of France
had been greatly refreshed and quickened by the agitation over the
treaty. From the moment that information concerning the nature of the
treaty began to circulate, the cry of “British faction” was taken up
by the Democrats and used with telling effect. That the treaty was
an infamous instrument arranged for no other purpose than to injure
the French cause was generally believed.[263] From beginning to end,
Democrats could find nothing in the treaty which had not been directly
inspired by hostility to France. Apart from the damage that would
ensue to American commerce, the treaty would work for the elevation of
monarchical and the undoing of republican principles.[264] Once again
George the Third had become the master of the citizens of America, and
thus the great accomplishments of the American Revolution had been
made to count for nought. British gold had succeeded in effecting the
betrayal of the republican cause in this country, and thus had worked
itself into a strategic position where it could more easily strangle
the life out of the spirit of republicanism in Europe, now so sorely
beset in France.[265]
One other by-product of the agitation that arose over the treaty
has been dwelt upon at length in another connection, but it should
be adverted to briefly here. It was inevitable that a discussion so
vital, so heated, and so protracted as that of which we have just been
taking account, should draw into it those guardians of morals and
mentors of public spirit in New England, the Federalist clergy.[266]
The disturbance of the public mind over the treaty had been marked
by two features full of grave import in the clerical view: vicious
attacks upon the officers and measures of the existing government, and
a reinvigorated crying-up of French political and religious notions.
The offices of government were all, or nearly all, in the hands of
Federalists. This being the case, their occupants were doomed to be the
chief targets of resentment and villification by men who found such a
measure of government as Jay’s Treaty obnoxious in the extreme. But if
officers of government were to be pilloried in the stocks of public
slander and abuse, how then was the government itself to command the
respect and obedience of its citizens? The Federalist clergy of New
England saw the pathway of duty shining clear: they must hold up the
hands of government at any hazard. Hence it happened that the outcry
against “political preaching” grew rapidly in volume from 1795 on.[267]
As for the renewed zeal of the Democrats in the interests of French
revolutionary ideals, that found a special point of interest and
concern for the Federalist clergy in the prominence which the rapid
growth of republicanism secured for Thomas Jefferson. An ardent
friend of the French Revolution, a lover of French philosophy, the
enemy of religious intolerance, in personal faith a deist—were not
these sufficient to damn the man as an unbeliever and an atheist in
the eyes of New England clergymen, to whom the faintest breath of
rationalism was abhorrent and the very notion of toleration suspect?
Accordingly the New England clergy launched a fierce attack upon him as
the arch-apostle of the cause of irreligion and free-thought.[268] In
language carefully guarded, his name usually being omitted, Jefferson
was pointed out as the leader of the hosts of infidelity whose
object was the extermination of the institutions of religion and the
inauguration of an era wherein every man should think and do that which
was right in his own eyes.[269]
FOOTNOTES:
[224] Robinson, _Jeffersonian Democracy in New England_, p. i;
Channing, _History of the United States_, vol. iv, p. 150.
[225] The term “Anti-Federalist” was born out of the struggle which
developed over the adoption of the national constitution. The term
“Republican” was one of the by-products of the discussion which arose
in this country, from 1792 on, over French revolutionary ideals. _Cf._
Johnston, _American Political History_, pt. i, p. 207.
[226] _American State Papers: Foreign Relations_, vol. i, p. 140.
[227] The issues of the _Columbian Centinel_ for 1793 abound in
addresses of this character.
[228] _Cf._ for example, the issues of the _Connecticut Courant_ for
July 29, Aug. 5 and 26, 1793, and of the _Independent Chronicle_ for
May 7, 16 and 23, 1793. _Cf._ Channing, _History of the United States_,
vol. iv, p. 128.
[229] The _Connecticut Courant_ of May 13, 1793, contains the first
announcements of Genet’s arrival which that paper made. Subsequent
issues are fairly well occupied with accounts of Genet’s arrival in
Philadelphia, the unconfirmed expressions of cordiality and heated
enthusiasm which he encountered there, the congratulatory address which
the citizens of that place presented him, Genet’s response, _etc._ In
the issue of August 12 mention is made of the Frenchman’s arrival in
New York. Thus far not the slightest trace of a suspecting attitude of
mind is discoverable.
[230] The issues of the _Connecticut Courant_ for August 19 and 26,
and November 11, 1793, contain articles that admirably illustrate the
rising temper of the New England Federalists as they contemplated
Genet’s absurdities and improprieties.
[231] Luetscher, in his _Early Political Machinery in the United
States_, p. 33, asserts that not more than twenty-four separate
organizations of this character were formed within the two years which
followed their first appearance. These were fairly well distributed
throughout the Union. One was in Maine, one in Massachusetts (Boston),
three in Vermont, two in New York, one in New Jersey, five in
Pennsylvania, one in Delaware, one in Maryland, two in Virginia, one in
North Carolina, four in South Carolina, and two in Kentucky.
[232] McMaster, _A History of the People of the United States_, vol.
ii, pp. 175 _et seq._
[233] Hazen, _Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution_,
pp. 189 _et seq._
[234] Robinson, _Jeffersonian Democracy in New England_, p. 10,
for significant comments upon the effect of the establishment of
the Democratic Societies on general political interest. The vote
was appreciably increased and elections were more hotly contested
on account of the emergence of the Clubs. _Cf._ also _New England
Magazine_, January, 1890, p. 488.
[235] Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, p. 75; _Wolcott
Papers_, vol. vii, 5, letter of Jedediah Morse to Oliver Wolcott.
The _Independent Chronicle_ of Jan. 16, 1794, contains the Rules and
Regulations and the Declaration of this Society.
[236] _Massachusetts Mercury_, Nov. 29, 1793. _Cf._ _Works of Fisher
Ames_, vol. ii, pp. 146 _et seq._
[237] Jedediah Morse did not fail to observe the appearance of the
Boston organization nor to divine its character and general scope of
action. In a letter to Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury, and
Morse’s intimate friend, a letter written close to the date of the
organization of the Constitutional Club, Morse wrote optimistically but
seriously of the situation:
“Charlestown, Dec. 16th, 1793
... The body of the people repose great confidence in the Wisdom of
the President—of Congress, & of the heads of Departments. May they
have Wisdom to direct them! The President’s speech meets with much
approbation—It is worthy of himself—We have some _grumbletonians_
among us—who, when the French are victorious, speak loud &
saucy—but when they meet with a check—sing small.—They form a
sort of political Thermometer, by whh we can pretty accurately
determine, what is, _in their opinion_, the state of French
politics.—The French _cause_ has no enemies here,—their conduct
has many.—There are some who undistinguishly [_sic_] & unboundedly
approve both—& most bitterly denounce, as _Aristocrats_, all who
do not think as they do.—This party, whh is not numerous—nor as
respectable as it is numerous—are about forming a Democratic
Club—whh I think they call “the Massts. Constitutional Society”—I
don’t know their design, but suppose they consider themselves as
_guardians_ of the _Rights of Man_—& overseers of the President,
Congress, & you gentlemen in the several principal departments of
State—to see that you don’t infringe upon the Constitution.—They
don’t like, nor see through your borrowing so much money of
Holland—They are very suspicious about all money matters....
Your friend,
Jed^h Morse.”
_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 5.
[238] _Annals of Congress_, vol. iv, p. 787.
[239] The President’s address was printed in full in leading New
England journals. _Cf._ for example, _Columbian Centinel_, Nov. 29,
1794; _Independent Chronicle_, Dec. 1, 1794; _Connecticut Courant_,
Dec. 1, 1794.
[240] _Columbian Centinel_, Dec. 6, 10, 1794; _Connecticut Courant_,
Dec. 8, 24, 1794.
[241] _Columbian Centinel_, Dec. 13, 1794.
[242] _Ibid._, Dec. 20, 1794.
[243] _Independent Chronicle_, Sept. 18, 1794. _Cf._ also issues of
this paper for Sept. 1, 4, 8, and 15, Dec. 4, 8, and 15, 1794.
[244] _Ibid._, Aug. 25, 1794.
[245] _Ibid._, Dec. 8, 1794.
[246] _Independent Chronicle_, Dec. 11, 1794.
[247] _Ibid._, Nov. 27, 1794.
[248] _Cf. supra_, pp. 89 _et seq._
[249] _Cf._ _Independent Chronicle_, Dec. 22, 25, and 29, 1794; Jan. 8
and 15, 1795.
[250] _Ibid._, Jan. 12, 1795.
[251] _Ibid._, Jan. 15, 1795.
[252] A more detached and better balanced judgment of the importance
of the part played by the clergy in the suppression of the Democratic
Societies is that recorded by William Bentley: “When I consider the
rash zeal with which the clergy have embarked in the controversy
respecting Constitution & Clubs, I could not help thinking of a place
in this Town, called Curtis’ folly. The good man attempting to descend
a steep place, thought it best to take off one pair of his oxen &
tackle them behind. But while the other cattle drove down hill, they
drew the others down hill backwards & broke their necks. Had the French
clergy continued with the people & meliorated their tempers they would
have served them & the nobility.” (_Diary_, vol. ii, p. 130.)
[253] That a certain depth of impression was made upon the mind of
Jedediah Morse by the agitation that developed over these secret
organizations will appear from the following letter which he wrote to
Oliver Wolcott, late in 1794. It is quite true that the letter shows no
trace of apprehension as respects the future; but the man’s interest
had been keenly solicited and the future was to have suggestions and
appeals of its own.
“Charlestown, Dec. 17th, 1794
My dear Sir:
I take the liberty to enclose you Mr. Osgood’s Thanksgiving sermon,
with whh I think you will be pleased. It will evince that the
sentiments of the clergy this way (for so far as I am acquainted
he (Mr. Osgood) speaks the sentiments of nine out of ten of the
clergy) agree with those of the President, Senate, & house of
Representatives, in respect to the Self-created Societies. The
Thanksgiving sermons in Boston & its vicinity, with only two or
three exceptions, all breathed the same spirit—though their manner
was not so particular & pointed as Mr. Osgood’s. His sermon is now
the general topic of conversation—it has grievously offended the
Jacobins.—Poor fellows! they seem to be attacked on all sides. They
must I think feel it to be a truth—that “there is no peace for
the wicked.”—They still make a noise—but it is like the groans of
despair.
I could wish, if you think it proper, that the sermon might,
in a suitable way, be put into the hands of our _most worthy
President_, with this remark accompanying it, that the clergy in
this Commonwealth generally approve of the same sentiments. I wish
it because it may possibly add to his satisfaction—& will certainly
to our honor in his view....
Your friend,
Jed^h Morse.
To Oliver Wolcott, Comptroller of the U. S. Treas^y.
Philadelphia, Pa.”
_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 9. The explicit proof that the mind of
this man, whose personality is of large importance for the purpose
in hand, received permanent impressions from the activities of the
Democratic Societies, on account of which he found it not difficult to
conceive of like secret combinations a few years later, is found in
his references to the political clubs in his Fast Day sermon of May 9,
1798, p. 24. _Cf._ also “Note F,” p. 67, of his _Thanksgiving Sermon_
of Nov. 29, 1798.
[254] An interesting coincidence appears in this connection. The treaty
was actually concluded on the very day that President Washington made
his address dealing with the uprising in western Pennsylvania (November
19, 1794). It was not submitted to the Senate, however, until June 8 of
the following year. On June 24, 1795, it was recommended by that body
for ratification, with a special reservation as to the twelfth article.
_Cf._ Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book of American History_, p.
244. The promulgation of the treaty came later, as will appear. For
comment on the popular resentment which the public announcement of
the provisions of the treaty stirred up, _cf._ McMaster, _A History
of the People of the United States_, vol. ii, pp. 212 _et seq._ For
contemporary newspaper reports of the situation, _cf._ the _Independent
Chronicle_, July 9, 13, 16, 23 and 27, 1795. For pertinent observations
by Jedediah Morse regarding the apprehensions which the vehement
popular disapproval of the treaty awakened in his mind, _cf._ _Wolcott
Papers_, vol. viii, 11.
[255] William Bentley, whose Democratic leanings must not be
overlooked, delivered himself in characteristic fashion: “The public
indignation is roused, & the papers begin to talk of lost liberties....
The Secrecy under which this business has been covered has served to
exasperate the public mind, upon the discovery.... The bells tolled
on the 4 of July instead of ringing, & a mournful silence prevailed
through the City. In this Town the men who hold securities under the
government are sufficiently influential against the disquiets & angry
expressions of more dependent people.” (_Diary_, vol. ii, p. 146.)
[256] _Independent Chronicle_, July 16, 1795.
[257] _Cf._ reprint of the handbill circulated at Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, in the _Independent Chronicle_ of July 20, 1795.
[258] _Cf._ extracts from the speech of Fisher Ames in the House of
Representatives, April 28, 1796. Quoted by Channing, _History of the
United States_, vol. iv, pp. 145 _et seq._
[259] As a matter of fact, as far as Congress was concerned, the
discussion over the treaty was continued for some time to come, because
of the measures that were necessary to be taken to put the treaty into
effect. _Cf._ Bassett, _The Federalist System_, p. 134. The country,
however, showed a disposition to accept the treaty as inevitable when
the President’s signature was finally affixed.
[260] McMaster, _A History of the People of the United States_, vol.
ii, pp. 248 _et seq._ _Cf._ _Works of Fisher Ames_, vol. i, p. 161.
[261] Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, pp. 153 _et seq._
[262] Travelers from abroad who were in the country at this time
remarked the extreme virulence of public and private discussion. De La
Rochefoucault-Liancourt, _Travels through the United States of North
America_, vol. ii, pp. 231 _et seq._ _Cf. ibid._, pp. 75 _et seq._,
256, 359, 381; vol. iii, pp. 23, 33 _et seq._, 74 _et seq._, 156, 163
_et seq._, 250, 274, 366 _et seq._ _Cf._ Weld, _Travels through the
States of North America ... during the years 1795, 1796, and 1797_,
p. 62. Writing specifically of the excited state of the public mind
in February, 1796, the latter observer of our national life said: “It
is scarcely possible for a dozen Americans to sit together without
quarrelling about politics, and the British treaty, which had just been
ratified, now gave rise to a long and acrimonious debate. The farmers
were of one opinion, and gabbled away for a long time; the lawyers
and the judge were of another, and in turns they rose to answer their
opponents with all the power of rhetoric they possessed. Neither party
could say anything to change the sentiments of the other one; the noisy
contest lasted till late at night, when getting heartily tired they
withdrew, not to their respective chambers, but to the general one
that held five or six beds, and in which they laid down in pairs. Here
the conversation was again revived, and pursued with as much noise as
below, till at last sleep closed their eyes, and happily their mouths
at the same time....” (_Ibid._, pp. 58 _et seq._) Such unfavorable
reflections are not to be dismissed as representing prejudiced views of
the case. A habit of intolerance toward political opponents and of all
men who shared contrary opinions, had become one of the characteristics
of the times. The agitation over the treaty went far toward fixing
this habit. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which came a little later,
were the result of an unrestrained freedom of discussion scarcely more
perceptible when they were passed in 1798 than at the time of the heat
produced by the treaty.
[263] Gibbs, _Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and
John Adams_, vol. i, p. 226, Oliver Ellsworth’s letter to Oliver
Wolcott. Ellsworth reports that the “argument and explanation [of the
treaty], that ‘’tis a damned thing made to plague the French,’ has by
repetition, lost its power.” This could have been true only in a local
sense.
[264] _Cf._ McMaster, _A History of the People of the United States_,
vol. ii, pp. 227 _et seq._, for an ample discussion of this view of the
situation.
[265] That this fierce indictment of “British faction” and appeal to
republican sentiment was by no means without practical effect, is shown
in the result of the general election of 1796. The outcome of that
election gave ground for great encouragement to the Democrats; for
while their hero and idol, Thomas Jefferson, was not summoned to the
presidency, none the less, to the deep chagrin of the Federalists, his
opponent, John Adams, received his commission to succeed Washington
on the basis of a majority in the electoral college of only three
votes. There could be no question that a spirit of confident and
undaunted republicanism was abroad in the land, and the good ship
Federalism was destined to encounter foul weather. The state contest
held in Massachusetts that same year was even more ominous. After a
campaign marked by great vigor on the part of the Federalists, in an
effort to rally popular support to their candidate, Increase Sumner,
it developed that Samuel Adams, whose enemies had stressed the charge
that he desired to enjoy a life tenure of the gubernatorial office,
was reelected by a handsome Democratic majority of 5,000 votes. _Cf._
Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, p. 161. Jedediah Morse
showed himself to be a fairly astute prognosticator in connection with
this election. He is found writing Wolcott, in October, 1795, to the
effect that he is conscious of the fact that a severe storm is brewing.
It is his conviction that the storm has been gathering for some time
and is now about to burst forth. “Disorganizers” have been behind the
opposition to the treaty. They have worked subterraneanly, trying to
keep opposition alive. _Cf._ _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 14.
[266] _Cf. supra_, p. 93.
[267] As early as the winter of 1795 William Bentley made the disgusted
comment: “The Clergy are now the Tools of the Federalists.” _Diary_,
vol. ii, p. 129. Commencing with the participation of the clergy in the
discussion over the treaty, Democrat newspapers like the _Independent
Chronicle_ began to administer mild rebukes to the clergy for the
unwisdom of their conduct in favoring the British. _Cf._ the issue of
the _Chronicle_ for July 20, 1795, for one of the earliest utterances
of this sort. The spirit of resentment grew apace. Three years later
this spirit of moderation had been fully discarded, and the clergy
were being lashed unmercifully for their folly. For typical outbursts
of this character, _cf._ the _Independent Chronicle_ of Dec. 3, 1798.
Jedediah Morse paid tribute to the political concern and service of the
clergy in a letter to Wolcott, written Dec. 23, 1796: “Very few of ye
Clergy of my acquaintance seem disposed to pray for the success of the
French, since they have so insidiously and wickedly interferred in the
management of our political affairs, & I apprehend the complexion of
the thanksgiving sermons throughout N Engd. this year, are different
from those of the last, in respect to this particular. I can speak of
more than one with authority.” (_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 20.)
[268] Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, p. 121.
[269] Pamphleteers and newspaper writers were much more explicit.
_The Pretensions of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency Examined: and
the Charges against John Adams Refuted_, was one of the well known
political pamphlets of the day. According to Gibbs, in his _Memoirs
of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams_, vol. i, p. 379,
it was prepared by Oliver Wolcott and William Smith, the latter of
South Carolina. It marshalled the reasons why Jefferson should not
be elected to the presidency. Among these “reasons” the charge of
a close alliance between Jefferson and the men of the country who
were notoriously interested in the cause of irreligion was boldly
affirmed. _Cf._ page 36 _et seq._ This pamphlet was published in
1796. Later the charge of impiety was lodged against Jefferson with
great frequency. Typical utterances of this nature may be found in
the _Library of American Literature_, vol. iv, pp. 249–251: “The
Imported French Philosophy” (from “The Lay Preacher” of Joseph Dennie).
This disquisition was much quoted in the newspapers of the day. From
the position that the leaders of the Democrats were irreligious, it
was easy for the Federalists to glide over to the position that the
spirit of infidelity, believed to be spreading far and wide through
the country, was consciously and deliberately backed by the restless
and unscrupulous elements which, in the view of the Federalists,
formed the opposition. _The Connecticut Courant_ of January 19, 1795,
reflects this attitude. “The French”, it is asserted, “are mad in
their pursuit of every phantom which disordered intellects can image.
Having set themselves free from all human control, they would gladly
scale the ramparts of heaven, and dethrone ALMIGHTY JEHOVAH. Our own
Democrats would do just so, _if they dare_.” _Cf._ also the issue of
the _Courant_ for January 5, the same year, for a characterization
of the program of the Democrats as “a crazy system of Anti-Christian
politics.” The offence given to the Democrats by such accusations was
great. No man, perhaps, stated the stinging resentment which they felt
better than Benjamin Franklin Bache in his _Aurora_ of August 15, 1798:
“No part of the perfidy of the faction, the insidious monarchical
faction, which dishonors our country, and endangers our future peace,
is so bare faced as their perpetual railing about a party acting in
concert with France—a party of _democrats_ and _Jacobins_—a party of
_disorganizers_ and _atheists_—a party inimical to our independence!
What is the plain intent of these impudent and ignorant railings? It is
to impose upon the ignorant, to collect and concentre in our focus all
the _vice_, _pride_, _superstition_, _avarice_, and _ambition_ in the
United States, in order to weigh down by the union of such a phalanx
of iniquity, all that is virtuous and free in the nation.” Abraham
Bishop, whose repudiation of the Federalist charge that Jefferson was
to be the High Priest of Infidelity was particularly vehement, saw in
this cry that an alliance had been made between the forces of democracy
and the forces of infidelity, the evidences of a shameless hypocrisy
that stripped its makers of all right to be styled Christians. The
cry that infidelity abounded meant nothing more nor less than that
new electioneering methods were being employed. _Oration Delivered in
Wallingford on the 11th of March, 1801_ ... by Abraham Bishop, pp. 36,
37.
2. THE SITUATION FROM 1798 TO 1800
Very few of the events in our national affairs which link together the
history of the last decade of the eighteenth century are significant
for our purpose. Having sought to discover the chief occasions for the
apprehension and distress which weighed upon the minds of the citizens
of New England, we may now proceed to focus attention exclusively
upon the last three years of the century, within which developed that
special disturbance of the public mind with which we are primarily
concerned.
And first let it be said, we are approaching a period of as intense
strain and nervous excitability as this nation in all its history has
known. When Thomas Jefferson, in November, 1796, wrote Edward Rutledge
of his deep personal satisfaction that he had escaped the presidency,
he may have been influenced by unworthy but certainly not by imaginary
constraints. “The newspapers,” so his letter runs, “will permit me to
plant my corn, peas, &c., in hills or drills as I please ... while our
Eastern friend will be struggling with the storm which is gathering
over us; perhaps be shipwrecked in it. This is certainly not a moment
to covet the helm.”[270] Never has a defeated candidate for the
presidency had more solid grounds for the justification of his fears,
or shall we say, his hopes? The severe strain of domestic strife was
about to be enormously augmented by a series of untoward and alarming
events in the field of foreign relations, certain of which must receive
our particular attention.
The complete change in the character of the relations between the
United States and France is for us a matter of the first importance.
The publication of the treaty negotiated between the United States
and Great Britain by Jay produced definitive results as respects the
attitude of France. With some reason that instrument was interpreted
as inimical to the interests of the latter country, and the government
and people of this nation were not long left in doubt of the fact.[271]
By the employment toward her former ally of a policy of coercion,
of which two chief instruments were the destruction of American
commerce upon the high seas and the overbearing and insolent conduct
of diplomatic negotiations, France speedily addressed herself to the
task of attempting to gain by pressure what she conceived she had lost
in the way of prestige and material advantage. The result was, to
the discomfiture and disgrace of the Democrats in particular and to
the alarm of the country in general, that the United States was made
aware of the fact that its government was being driven into a corner
from which, as far as a human mind could foresee, the only avenue of
honorable escape would be recourse to arms.
The damage which American commerce sustained at the hands of French
privateers is rendered appreciable when the following circumstances are
taken into account. Within the year following the publication of the
extraordinary decrees against the commerce of neutral nations, which
the French Directory promulgated, beginning with June, 1796, something
over three hundred American vessels had been captured. The crippling
blow to American commerce was by no means the sole consideration in the
case. In numerous instances the crews of captured vessels were treated
in such an outrageous and brutal manner as to inflame and gall the
American spirit beyond endurance. On account of abuses which American
shipping and commerce had suffered previously, by virtue of methods
adopted by England and France to gain control of the seas, the strain
imposed upon the nation had been severe; but now that a sweeping and
utterly ruthless policy of commerce-destruction had been inaugurated by
the French, forbearance was no longer possible. In his maiden speech in
the national congress, Harrison Gray Otis, Massachusetts’ gifted young
representative, put the case with dramatic eloquence:
If any man doubted of the pernicious measures of the French
nation, and of the actual state of our commerce, let him inquire
of the ruined and unfortunate merchant, harassed with prosecutions
on account of revenue, which he so long and patiently toiled to
support. If any doubted of its effects upon agriculture, let him
inquire of the farmer whose produce is falling and will be exposed
to perish in his barns. Where ... are your sailors? Listen to the
passing gale of the ocean, and you will hear their groans issuing
from French prison-ships.[272]
It was not to be expected that a deeply injured people, to whose just
sense of wrong and indignation the youthful Federalist orator had given
such exact expression, could long be restrained from acts of reprisal
and war.
To the sense of injustice was added the burden of fear. The idea began
to take possession of the minds of leaders of thought in America that
France had darker and more terrible purposes in her councils than the
blighting of American commerce in retaliation for the treaty-alliance
which had recently been concluded with Great Britain; she sought _war_,
war which would supply to her the opportunity to visit upon this nation
the same overwhelming disasters which her armies had heaped upon the
nations of Europe. The French, it was believed, were busy with schemes
for employing the world in their favor and were drunk with the vision
of universal dominion.[273] The true explanation of French violence
and arrogance was to be sought in her aims at universal empire.[274]
Her ravenous appetite could not be satisfied; she had resolved to
make of the United States another mouthful.[275] What reason had the
citizens of this country to claim exemption from the general deluge?
Having fastened the chains of slavery upon nation after nation in
Europe, the generals of France were now planning fresh triumphs; with
our armies of the Mississippi and Ohio, of the Chesapeake and Delaware,
her forces would contest the field on American soil.[276] Had not her
geographers already partitioned the country according to the new system
of government which would here be imposed?[277] Did not her agents
and spies fill the land, constantly exerting themselves to thwart
the purposes of the American government and to render fruitless its
policies of administration?[278]
Such fears may not be brushed aside as silly and chimerical, in view
of the steady stream of information which came across the Atlantic,
announcing the downfall of one nation after another as the result of
French intrigue and the prowess of French arms.[279] Besides, there was
probably not a solitary Federalist leader in the United States who did
not believe that French ministers and agents were in secret league
with influential representatives of the Democratic party.
The bullying treatment which the French Directory accorded the
ministers and envoys of this nation added much to the heat as well as
to the dark suspicions which characterized public feeling in America.
A government which boldly assumed to treat with impudent indifference
and coldness one accredited minister of the United States, while at the
same time it lavished the most extravagant expressions of friendship
upon another whose disappointed executive had reluctantly summoned him
home,[280] was obviously pursuing a course so high-handed and insolent
as to stir the last dormant impulse of national honor. But the hot
flame of public indignation which burst forth in this country when it
became known that its Minister Plenipotentiary, Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney, after months of painful embarrassment and hazard, marked by
neglect, evasions, and threats of arrest, was returning home, defeated
in purpose, was as nothing to the lava-like stream of infuriated anger
which swept through the land when it became known how treacherously the
three envoys of the national government, Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry,
had been used.
By common consent the publication of the X.Y.Z. despatches, early
in April, 1798, put the top sheaf upon a long series of intolerable
actions which this nation had suffered at the hands of the government
of France. Like a flash it was made clear that not mere whimsicality
and offended hauteur were at the bottom of the unsatisfactory
dealings which our ministers had had with the French: we had sent
our ambassadors to negotiate with men who knew how to add bribery
to threats. Though the government of France might seek to save its
face on the pretext that the mysterious French emissaries had acted
without proper warrant, yet back of the negotiators was Talleyrand,
and back of Talleyrand the Directory. The revulsion of feeling in the
United States was complete. All innocent delusions were shattered;
all veils torn away. What the French government desired in its
negotiations was not political sympathy, not commercial cooperation,
not a fraternal alliance between two sister republics in order that the
flame of liberty might not perish from the earth; what it desired was
_money_—money for the pockets of the Directory and its tools, “for the
purpose of making the customary distribution in diplomatic affairs,”
money for the public treasury that the Directory might find itself in a
position to give a “softening turn” to certain irritating statements of
which President Adams had delivered himself in his message to the Fifth
Congress.[281]
The passion for war with France became the one passion of the hour.
Only abandoned men, men whose desire for “disorganization” was the one
yearning of their hearts, were unresponsive to the spirit of militant
patriotism which swayed the people’s will:[282] such at least was the
confident and boastful view of Federalist leaders, and for once they
were able to gauge accurately the depth and power of the currents of
popular sympathy. That hour had passed when men could say, as Jefferson
had but a brief day before President Adams turned over to Congress the
astounding despatches, “The scales of peace & war are very nearly in
equilibrio.”[283] The heavy weight of the despatches had sent the bowl
of war to the bottom with a resounding thud.
So it seemed at the moment; and yet, though there has seldom been an
hour in our national history when all purely factional counsels were
more effectually hushed and when the war fever mounted higher, an
amazing period of uncertainty and of conflicting impulses and passions
immediately set in.
Addresses and memorials to the President came pouring in, pledging
to the government the full confidence of its citizens and unswerving
loyalty and support. Volunteer military companies sprang into existence
in every quarter over night. War vessels were purchased, or their
construction provided for, by public subscription and presented to the
government. The white cockade, new emblem of an aroused public spirit,
generally appeared. The fierce slogan, “Millions for defence, but not
one cent for tribute!” and the tuneful strains of “Hail Columbia” and
“Adams and Liberty” went ringing through the land. Within a brief
period of little more than three months, Congress passed no less than
twenty acts for the strengthening of the national defence.[284]
This was one side of the matter; there was another, as events soon
made clear. The President, it appeared, was not at one with the more
ardent leaders in his own political camp, whose resolution for war
was unbounded; he exhibited an attitude of indifference to the whole
notion of open war with France that became increasingly manifest as the
weeks went by. The President would temporize; he would try to avoid the
crisis by sending new commissioners to France to reestablish friendly
relations. Against such a policy many of his advisers protested
furiously. Besides, the problem of supplying the army with leaders
who should serve with Washington had resulted in an unseemly struggle
as to whether this or that patriot should stand next to the great
hero of Mount Vernon. The President’s policy of conciliation took on
the appearance of shameless procrastination;[285] the imbroglios of
the Federalist leaders aroused public suspicion, and invited to the
garnished hearth the spirits of confusion and clamor.
Those evil spirits, however, which most effectively coöperated to
make the last state worse than the first came as the result of the
extraordinarily stupid and blundering measures which the Federalists
adopted to curb the activities of resident aliens and the abuse of free
speech. Beginning with the Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798, there
followed in quick succession three other repressive measures, the Act
Concerning Aliens of June 25, the Act Respecting Alien Enemies of July
6, and the Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United
States (the Sedition Act) of July 14.[286] The purpose of these famous
acts has already been indicated; the impulse out of which they grew
is not so easily determined. Was it that the heads of the national
government really anticipated danger on account of the presence of a
multitude of foreigners and the unlicensed freedom of action and public
utterance which thus far had been allowed?[287] Was it that the memory
of more than four years of biting satire and vicious calumny which
the opposition had visited upon the heads of Federalist leaders had
filled the latter with longings for revenge? Or was it that, conscious
of their undisputed control of national affairs and carried away by
the sense of their power, the Federalist leaders proposed to show how
strong and effective a centralized government could become? No single
alternative, doubtless, suggests the full truth. No matter; the effect
which these measures produced is, with us, the main point, and to that
we turn.
No milder word than _maddening_ will adequately describe the effect of
these measures. All the old wounds were opened, all the old antipathies
aggravated. Editors and pamphleteers, statesmen and demagogues, tore at
each others’ throats as they had never done before and have never done
since. A veritable “reign of terror” filled the land.[288] Insult and
violence were everywhere. Mobs tore down liberty-poles which Federalist
hands had erected and put in their place other poles bearing symbols of
defiance to “British faction” and tyrannous Federal government; or the
action was reversed, with Federalist mobs tearing down the standards
of the opposition. White cockades were snatched from the hats of men
who supported the government, and once more the black cockade blossomed
forth. Toasts were drunk over tavern bars and on public occasions to
the confusion of the British Eagle or the Gallic Cock; to the health
and prosperity of the Federal government or to the downfall of tyrants;
to the alien and sedition laws, with the fervent wish that “like the
sword of Eden [they] may point everywhere to guard our country against
intrigue from without and faction from within”;[289] or to “freedom of
speech, trial by jury, and liberty of the press,”[290] according as the
adherents of one faction or the other were assembled for patriotic or
convivial purposes. Raucous and ribald outbreaks of party feeling burst
out in the theaters to the interruption of performances, the confusion
of performers, and the breaking of not a few heads. Such was the
lighter and more ludicrous aspect of affairs.
But beneath this effervescence honest and whole-hearted antagonism to
the odious legislation surged in countless breasts. In the power of an
anger which scorned all frivolous and tawdry action, men declared their
deep and irrevocable opposition to such measures of government. That
respectable and well-meaning aliens, from lack either of inclination or
opportunity to become citizens, should be expelled from the country, or
remaining here should become the targets of suspicion and the victims
of political oppression; that opposition to government must henceforth
wear a muzzle, with a heavy bludgeon meanwhile held menacingly over its
head; that the damage done by favored partisan scribblers was not to be
repaired by answering opponents; and all this under the guise of laws
which, whatever their intention, operated to the enormous disadvantage
of one of the two great political bodies of the day—these were things
not to be endured by men to whom liberty was the very breath of life.
The actual amount of personal injury inflicted by the operation of
the alien and sedition laws was not enormous, though certainly not
negligible. A considerable body of aliens fled the country, either
during the period when the alien laws were pending or immediately
after they went into effect.[291] Probably something more than a
score of individuals were arrested under the sedition law, less than
half of whom were compelled to stand trial.[292] But once again
popular judgment was based upon qualitative rather than quantitative
grounds. The popular sense of personal liberty had been outraged by
these acts.[293] The Federalist leaders by their precipitate and
inconsiderate action had very much overshot the mark and were about
to bring their house tumbling down about their heads. As for the
opposition, those of its leaders whose highest political interest
was party advantage lived to bless the day when, blinded by hysteria
or lust of power, the Federalist party made the alien and sedition
acts the law of the land. Six months after these unsavory measures
were passed, discerning Democrats were able to rejoice that this body
of legislation was operating as a powerful sedative to quiet the
inflammation which that “God-send” to the Federalists, the X.Y.Z.
despatches, had incited.[294] By their own blunder in party strategy
the Federalists had alienated the sympathies of the people and given to
the ground-swell of republican principles a tremendous impetus which
carried them to a speedy triumph.
Once again our special interest must be allowed to center upon
a secondary element in the situation, _i. e._, the over-wrought
tension of nerves because of which the most fantastic and unlikely of
happenings seemed wholly within the circle of reason and probability.
The circumstances which have just been considered were, in the main,
upon the surface. As such they were capable of being evaluated and
weighed. But who was to say that they were not attended by subterranean
influences and designs? Affairs everywhere, be it remembered, were
moving with incredible swiftness. In every quarter the beleaguered
forces of conservatism found themselves surrounded and hemmed in by
radical elements which manifested a spirit of militancy and a resolute
will to conquer. With the European situation to lend strong emphasis
to the suggestion of sinister tendencies and secret combinations, it
cannot be thought extraordinary that here in America, where traditional
opinions and institutions were as certainly being undermined, the
conviction should take root that beneath all this commotion over
foreign and domestic policies secret forces must be at work, perfecting
organizations, promoting conspiracies, and ready at any hour to leap
forth into the light to throttle government and order.
There is, of course, no desire to make it appear that apprehensions
concerning hidden designs and movements were generally shared by the
citizens of the United States. There was then, as there has always
been, a very large body of citizens whose faith in the stability and
high destiny of the nation made them immune to such fears; calm and
philosophic souls who were equally unmoved by the rant of the demagogue
or the distracted mood of the self-deceived alarmist. Their sympathy
for and their faith in the democratic tendencies of the age inhibited
every impulse to despair. But there were also other men, as has been
the case in every deeply agitated generation, who were fully persuaded
that they were able to catch deeper tones than their neighbors, to whom
the gift had been given to read the signs of the times more accurately
than their fellows. For them the conclusion was inescapable that no
postulate which did not leave room for secret combinations was adequate
to explain the peculiar cast of events in the United States at the end
of the eighteenth century. To dismiss the case of such men with the
casual judgment that they were temperamentally susceptible to such
impressions, is to rule out of account the extraordinary character of
the age to which they belonged. Apropos of this observation, the two
following items are deserving of notice.
Some time previous to the celebration of the national fast of 1798,
three anonymous letters were flung into President Adams’ house,
announcing a plot to burn the city of Philadelphia on the day of
the approaching fast. Convinced that the matter was of moment, the
President made the contents of the letters publicly known. As a
result, many people of the city packed their most valuable belongings
and prepared to make a quick departure in the event that the threats
made should come to fulfilment.[295] Was this a mere “artifice to
agitate the popular mind,” the work of “war men” who were restless and
impatient for an immediate declaration of hostilities against France?
Quite possibly. Such, at least, was the private opinion of Thomas
Jefferson.[296] But who was to _know_? The true lay of the land was not
easily to be discovered in the midst of an age when, in the language of
a contemporary, “all the passions of the human heart are in a ferment,
and every rational being from the throne to the cottage is agitated by
the picturesque circumstances of the day.”[297]
Alexander Hamilton left among his manuscripts certain comments which he
had made upon the character and import of the French Revolution. Before
we turn to consider the European Illuminati and the outcry against
its alleged presence in the United States, we may, by perusing this
document, throw a little added light upon the gnawings of anxiety and
fear which were felt at the time by very rational gentlemen in America.
Facts, numerous and unequivocal, demonstrate that the present AERA
is among the most extraordinary which have occurred in the history
of human affairs. Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually
gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion,
morality and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian
revelation, for which natural religion was offered as a substitute.
The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being
and attributes of God, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine
of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained
and cherished.
In proportion as success has appeared to attend the plan, a bolder
project has been unfolded. The very existence of a Deity has been
questioned and in some instances denied. The duty of piety has been
ridiculed, the perishable nature of man asserted, and his hopes
bounded to the short span of his earthly state. DEATH has been
proclaimed an ETERNAL SLEEP; “the dogma of the _immortality_ of the
soul a _cheat_, invented to torment the living for the benefit
of the dead.” Irreligion, no longer confined to the closets of
conceited sophists, nor to the haunts of wealthy riot, has more or
less displayed its hideous front among all classes....
A league has at length been cemented between the apostles and
disciples of irreligion and anarchy. Religion and government have
both been stigmatized as abuses; as unwarrantable restraints upon
the freedom of man; as causes of the corruption of his nature,
intrinsically good; as sources of an artificial and false morality
which tyrannically robs him of the enjoyments for which his
passions fit him, and as clogs upon his progress to the perfection
for which he is destined....
The practical development of this pernicious system has been seen
in France. It has served as an engine to subvert all her ancient
institutions, civil and religious, with all the checks that served
to mitigate the rigor of authority; it has hurried her headlong
through a rapid succession of dreadful revolutions, which have
laid waste property, made havoc among the arts, overthrown cities,
desolated provinces, unpeopled regions, crimsoned her soil with
blood, and deluged it in crime, poverty, and wretchedness; and all
this as yet for no better purpose than to erect on the ruins of
former things a despotism unlimited and uncontrolled; leaving to
a deluded, an abused, a plundered, a scourged, and an oppressed
people, not even the shadow of liberty to console them for a long
train of substantial misfortunes, or bitter suffering.
This horrid system seemed awhile to threaten the subversion of
civilized society and the introduction of general disorder among
mankind. And though the frightful evils which have been its first
and only fruits have given a check to its progress, it is to be
feared that the poison has spread too widely and penetrated too
deeply to be as yet eradicated. Its activity has indeed been
suspended, but the elements remain, concocting for new eruptions as
occasion shall permit. It is greatly to be apprehended that mankind
is not near the end of the misfortunes which it is calculated to
produce, and that it still portends a long train of convulsion,
revolution, carnage, devastation, and misery.
Symptoms of the too great prevalence of this system in the United
States are alarmingly visible. It was by its influence that efforts
were made to embark this country in a common cause with France in
the early period of the present war; to induce our government to
sanction and promote her odious principles and views with the blood
and treasure of our citizens. It is by its influence that every
succeeding revolution has been approved or excused; all the horrors
that have been committed justified or extenuated; that even the
last usurpation, which contradicts all the ostensible principles
of the Revolution, has been regarded with complacency, and the
despotic constitution engendered by it slyly held up as a model not
unworthy of our imitation.
In the progress of this system, impiety and infidelity have
advanced with gigantic strides. Prodigious crimes heretofore
unknown among us are seen....[298]
FOOTNOTES:
[270] _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, vol. vii, pp. 93 _et seq._ In
similar strain, Jefferson wrote Adams a day later, offering his best
wishes for his administration, but with the thought of the impending
“storm” still well fixed in his mind. _Cf. ibid._, pp. 95 _et seq._
_Cf._ Jefferson’s letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, _ibid._, pp. 113 _et
seq._
[271] The following clause in the treaty seemed to afford ample
protection to the rights of France: “Nothing in this treaty contained
shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and existing
public treaties with other sovereigns or states.” (_United States
Statutes at Large_, vol. viii, p. 128: Article XXV of the treaty.) But
France was unable to blind her eyes to the practical consideration
that her European enemy, Great Britain, and an American government,
suspicious of if not positively antagonistic to French influence, were
to be the interpreters of the treaty.
[272] _Annals of Congress_, vol. vii, p. 103.
[273] Gibbs, _Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John
Adams_, vol. i, p. 416, letter of Uriah Tracy to Oliver Wolcott.
[274] _Works of Fisher Ames_, vol. i. pp. 232 _et seq._, Ames’ letter
to Timothy Pickering.
[275] _Cf._ _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, vol. vii, pp. 127
_et seq._, letter of Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney. Even Jefferson’s
steadfast faith and loyalty to France was momentarily put to rout.
[276] _Cf._ Morison, _The Life and Letters of Harrison Gray Otis_,
vol. i, p. 69, letter of Otis to Gen. William Heath. This letter was
published in full in the _Massachusetts Mercury_ of April 17, 1798.
[277] Morison, _The Life and Letters of Harrison Gray Otis_, vol. i, p.
69.
[278] _The Works of John Adams_, vol. viii, pp. 615, 620. President
Adams was fully persuaded that French notions of domination
“comprehended all America, both _north_ and _south_”. (_Ibid._) _Cf._
also _Annals of Congress_, vol. vii, p. 1147, speech of Otis on Foreign
Intercourse; _American Historical Association Report for 1896_, p. 807,
Higginson’s letter to Pickering.
[279] One of the pamphlets of the day, frequently referred to, much
quoted in the newspapers, and evidently much read, bore the horrific
title: _The Cannibals’ Progress; or the Dreadful Horrors of French
Invasion, as displayed by the Republican Officers and Soldiers, in
their Perfidy, rapacity, ferociousness & brutality, exercised towards
the Innocent inhabitants of Germany. Translated from the German, by
Anthony Aufrer(e), Esq._ ... _The Connecticut Courant_, in announcing a
new edition of this work as just off the press, offered the following
description of its character: “This work contains a circumstantial
account of the excesses committed by the French Army in Suabia. At the
present moment, when our country is in danger of being overrun by the
same nation, our people ought to be prepared for those things, which
they must expect, in case such an event should happen. The pamphlet
should be owned by every man, and read in every family. They will
there find, from an authentic source, that the consequences of being
conquered by France, or even subjected to their government, are more
dreadful than the heart of man can conceive. Murder, robbery, burning
of towns, and the violation of female chastity, in forms too dreadful
to relate, in instances too numerous to be counted, are among them.
Five thousand copies of this work were sold in Philadelphia in a few
days, and another edition of ten thousand is now in the press in that
city.” _Cf._ the issue of the _Courant_ for July 2, 1798. Another book
of horrors which deserves mention in this connection, although it came
to public attention in America a little later, was the following: _The
History of the Destruction of the Helvetic Union and Liberty_. By J.
Mallet Du Pan. This work was first printed in England in 1798, and
the following March was reprinted in Boston. A sentence or two taken
from the author’s preface will convey a fair notion of its nature:
“In the Helvetic History, every Government may read its own destiny,
and learn its duty. If there be yet one that flatters itself that
its existence is reconcilable with that of the French Republic, let
it study this dreadful monument of their friendship. Here every man
may see how much weight treaties, alliances, benefactions, rights
of neutrality, and even submission itself, retain in the scales of
that Directory, who hunt justice from the earth, and whose sanguinary
rapacity seeks plunder and spreads ruin alike on the Nile as on the
Rhine, in Republican Congresses as well as in the heart of Monarchies.”
Like _The Cannibals’ Progress_, this work was much quoted in the
newspapers and caught the sympathetic eye of many clergyman, Jedediah
Morse among the number. July 29, 1799, Chauncey Goodrich, of Hartford,
Connecticut, wrote Oliver Wolcott to the effect that “the facts ... in
Du Pan, Robinson, Barruel, have got into every farm house; they wont
go out, till the stories of the indian tomahawk & war dances around
their prisoners do.” (_Wolcott Papers_, vol. v, 77.) Nathaniel Ames did
not think highly of the veracity of _The Cannibals’ Progress_, yet he
paid tribute to its influence in the following fashion: “July 31, 1798.
Judge Metcalf with his cockade on came down to see Gen. Washington
expecting to get a Commission to fight the French & infatuated at
the slanders of the Progress of the Cannibals that the French skin
Americans, to make boots for their Army, &c.” (_Dedham Historical
Register_, vol. ix: Diary of Ames, p. 24.)
[280] Channing, _History of the United States_, vol. iv, pp. 176
_et seq._, gives a brief but entertaining account of the political
jockeying on the part of our government which lay back of Monroe’s
recall and the despatch of Pinckney to France.
[281] Gibbs, _Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John
Adams_, vol. ii, pp. 15 _et seq._ _Cf._ McMaster, _History of the
People of the United States_, vol. ii, pp. 368 _et seq._
[282] _Cf._ _Works of Fisher Ames_, vol. i, p. 225, letter of Ames
to H. G. Otis. Ames’ comment on the discomfiture of the Democrats
was characteristically vigorous: “The late communications [_i. e._,
the X. Y. Z. despatches] have only smothered their rage; it is now a
coal-pit, lately it was an open fire. Thacher would say, the effect of
the despatches is only like a sermon in hell to awaken conscience in
those whose day of probation is over, to sharpen pangs which cannot be
soothed by hope.”
[283] _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, vol. vii, p. 228, Jefferson’s
letter to Edmund Pendleton.
[284] The elation of Jedediah Morse over the turn affairs seemed to
be taking was great. Under date of May 21, 1798, he wrote Wolcott,
dilating on “the wonderful and happy change in the public mind.
Opposition is shrinking into its proper insignificance, stripped of the
support of its deluded _honest_ friends. I now feel it is an honour to
be an American.” (_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 23.)
[285] Jedediah Morse was far from comfortable over the unwillingness
of the President to proceed with vigor in handling affairs with
France. An ill-concealed vein of impatience is discoverable in the
following letter which he wrote to Wolcott, under date of July 13,
1798: “He [Washington] will unite all _honest_ men among us. It
gladdens the hearts of some at least, to my knowledge, of our deluded,
warm democrats. They say, ‘Washington is a good man—an American, & we
will rally round his standard!’ ... The rising & unexpected spread of
the American spirit has dispelled all gloom from my mind, respecting
our country. I rejoyce at the crisis, because I believe, the issue
will be, the _extinction of French influence among us_, & if this can
be effected, treasure & even blood, will not be spilt in vain.—The
government is strengthening every day, by the confidence and assertions
of the people.—We are waiting with almost impatience to _have war
declared agt. France_, that we may distinguish more decidedly between
friends & foes among ourselves. I believe there is energy enough in
government to silence, & if necessary _exterminate its obstinate &
dangerous enemies_.” (_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 27.) Eleven months
later Morse expressed to Wolcott his grave fears on account of the
disposition of the national government to reciprocate the “pacific
overtures of the French govt.” (_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 24.) It
is not French _arms_, but their “principles” which he holds in dread.
(_Cf. ibid._) Back of the fire-eating spirit of this New England
clergyman was a genuine moral and religious concern.
[286] The texts of these various acts may be found in _United States
Statutes at Large_, vol. i, pp. 566–569, 570–572, 577–578, 596–597. The
Naturalization Act extended from five to nineteen years the period of
residence necessary for aliens who wished to become naturalized; that
is to say, fourteen years of residence, to be followed by an additional
five years of residence after the declaration of intention to become a
citizen had been filed. It is obvious that this measure was intended
to defeat the process by which the Democrats had been absorbing the
foreign vote. The Act Concerning Aliens empowered the President “to
order all such aliens as he should judge dangerous to the peace and
safety of the United States, or should have reasonable grounds to
suspect were concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations
against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the
United States within such a time as should be expressed in such order.”
Penalties in the form of heavy imprisonment and the withdrawal of the
opportunity to become citizens were attached. The Act Respecting Alien
Enemies gave the president power when the country was in a state of war
to cause the subjects of the nation at war with the United States “to
be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.” The
Sedition Act, not only in point of time but in sinister significance
as well, stood at the apex of this body of legislation. It provided
that fines and imprisonments were to be imposed upon men who were found
guilty of unlawfully combining or conspiring for opposition to measures
of government, or for impeding the operation of any law in the United
States, or for intimidating an officer in the performance of his duty.
The penalty was to be a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and
imprisonment not exceeding five years. Penalties were also provided
for publishing false, scandalous, and malicious writings against the
government.
[287] At the time the country numbered among its population a very
large number of aliens. French refugees from the West Indies, to the
number of perhaps 25,000, were here. _Cf._ _Report of the American
Historical Association for 1912_: “The Enforcement of the Alien and
Sedition Laws,” by F. M. Anderson, p. 116. England, also, had her quota
of citizens here, not a few of whom were fugitives from justice, and
some of whom, like William Cobbett and J. Thomson Callender (_cf._
McMaster, _History of the People of the United States_, vol. ii, p.
338), either drew the fire of the advocates of French principles
or busied themselves in the affairs of government on this side of
the ocean. The amount of scurrilous abuse, aimed at the heads of
government, which issued from the public press had become appalling.
No innuendoes were too indelicate, no personalities too coarse, no
slanders too malicious, no epithets too vile to be of service in the
general campaign of villification. The prostitution of the public press
in America has never been more abject than it was at the close of the
eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. (Duniway,
_The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts_, pp. 143,
144.) Unfortunately, Federalists compromised their position and
scandalized their cause by writing as scurrilous and libelous articles
as their enemies; but the agencies of administration were in their
hands, and, as the Democrats charged, their offences were not noticed.
[288] Morison, _The Life and Letters of Harrison Cray Otis_, vol. i,
pp. 106 _et seq._ Morison’s treatment of this tempestuous period is
characterized by keen discrimination and fine balance. It is one of
the most satisfying as well as one of the most vivid accounts of the
situation to be found.
[289] _Connecticut Courant_, July 8, 1799.
[290] _Independent Chronicle_, Dec. 3, 1798.
[291] _Report of the American Historical Association for 1912_: “The
Enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Laws,” by F. M. Anderson, pp. 115
_et seq._ _Cf._ _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, vol. vii, pp. 256
_et seq._, 262, letters of Monroe to Jefferson.
[292] Anderson, who appears to have made a painstaking examination
of the available records, states his conclusions thus: “I have made
a special effort to discover every possible instance and to avoid
confusing Federal and State cases. There appears to have been about
24 or 25 persons arrested. At least 15, and probably several more,
were indicted. Only 10, or possibly 11, cases came to trial. In 10 the
accused were pronounced guilty. The eleventh case may have been an
acquittal, but the report of it is entirely unconfirmed.” (_Report of
the American Historical Association for 1912_, p. 120. _Cf._ Bassett,
_The Federalist System_, p. 264.) An important phase of the judicial
aspects of the situation, as respects the forming of public opinion,
was the widespread publication in the newspapers of the charges made
to grand juries by Federal judges who exerted themselves to defend
the alien and sedition laws, and whose utterances received caustic
criticism at the hands of Democrat writers.
[293] Duniway, _The Development of Freedom of the Press in
Massachusetts_, pp. 145, 146.
[294] _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, vol. vii, pp. 331 _et seq._,
Jefferson’s letter to Elbridge Gerry.
[295] The report of this episode may be found in the _Connecticut
Courant_ of May 14, 1798. _Cf._ _The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_,
vol. vii, pp. 252 _et seq._, Jefferson’s letter to Madison.
[296] _Ibid._
[297] _An Answer to Alexander Hamilton’s Letter, Concerning the Public
Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United
States_, New York, 1800, p. 3. In this connection it may be noted
that as ardent and hopeful a Democrat as Nathaniel Ames seriously
contemplated the outbreak of civil war in the United States as the
result of the tense party situation near the end of 1798. _Cf._ _Dedham
Historical Register_, Diary of Ames, vol. ix, p. 63.
[298] _The Works of Alexander Hamilton_, vol. vii, pp. 374–377:
Fragment on the French Revolution. The Fragment is undated. It could
not have been written later than 1804, of course. There are some
slight traces that it was compiled at the time the excitement over the
Illuminati was prevalent in America.