very little consequence so long as Mr. Gallatin gained his point of
fixing public attention upon the subject; his aim was to educate his own
party and to plant his own principles deep in popular convictions. After
the adjournment he wrote a book for this purpose called "A Sketch of the
Finances of the United States," which was in fact a text-book, and
answered its purpose admirably. In two hundred pages, with a few tabular
statements appended, he discussed the revenues, expenditures, and debt
of the United States with his usual clearness, and, while avoiding all
apparent party feeling, he freely criticised the financial measures of
the government. The duty of preventing increase of debt, of discharging
the principal as soon as possible, was the foundation of the work;
criticisms of the cases in which the burden had been unnecessarily
increased were interwoven in the statement, which concluded with
suggestions of additional sources of revenue.[35]
Thus already in the first year of his Congressional service Mr. Gallatin
had sketched out and begun to infuse into his party those financial
schemes and theories that were ultimately to be realized when they came
into power. That these ideas, as forming a single complete body of
finance, were essentially new, has already been remarked. In theory Mr.
Hamilton also was in favor of discharging the debt, and originated the
machinery for doing so; that is to say, he originated the sinking fund
machinery, or rather borrowed it from Mr. Pitt, although this financial
juggle has now become, both in England and America, a monument of folly
rather than of wisdom; while a much more effectual step was taken in the
last year of his service, when he recommended the conversion of the six
per cents. into an eight per cent. annuity for twenty-three years, which
was equivalent to an annual appropriation of about $800,000 a year for
the payment of the principal. This, however, was not the real point of
difference between the systems of Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Hamilton. Laying
entirely aside the general proposition that the Hamiltonian Federalists
considered a national debt as in itself a desirable institution, and
conceding that the Federalists would themselves have ultimately reduced
or discharged it, there still remains the fact that the Federalists made
the debt a subordinate, Mr. Gallatin made it a paramount, consideration
in politics. The one believed that if debt was not a positive good, it
was a far smaller evil than the growth of French democracy; the other,
that debt was the most potent source of all political evils and the most
active centre of every social corruption. The Hamiltonian doctrine was
that the United States should be a strong government, ready and able to
maintain its dignity abroad and its authority at home by arms. Mr.
Gallatin maintained that its dignity would protect itself if its
resources were carefully used for self-development, while its domestic
authority should rest only on consent.
Which of these views was correct is quite another matter. Certain it is
that the system so long and ably maintained by Mr. Gallatin was rudely
overthrown by the war of 1812, and overthrew Mr. Gallatin with it.
Equally certain it is that the United States naturally and safely
gravitated back to Mr. Gallatin's system after the war of 1812, and has
consistently followed it to the present time. The debt has been
repeatedly discharged. Neither army nor navy has been increased over the
proportions fixed by Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Jefferson. Commerce protects
itself not by arms nor even by the fear of arms, but by the interests it
creates. America has pursued in fact an American system,--the system of
Mr. Gallatin.
True it also is that this result does not settle the question as between
Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gallatin, for there were special circumstances
which then made the situation exceptional. As has been said, the war of
1812 was a practical demonstration of at least the momentary failure of
Mr. Gallatin's principle, and the failure occurred in dealing with
precisely those difficulties which the Federalists had foreseen and
tried to provide for. The question therefore recurs, whether the
Federalist policy would have resulted better, and this is one of those
inquiries which lose themselves in speculation. There is no answer to so
large a problem.
Congress rose on the 1st June, 1796, and Mr. and Mrs. Gallatin passed
the summer in New York. Meanwhile, the co-partnership in which he had
engaged had resulted in establishing on George's Creek a little
settlement named New Geneva, and here were carried on various kinds of
business, the most important and profitable of which was that of
glass-making, begun during Mr. Gallatin's absence in the spring of 1797.
Leaving his wife in New York, Mr. Gallatin went to New Geneva for a few
weeks in the autumn of 1796.
GALLATIN TO HIS WIFE.
PHILADELPHIA, 26th September, 1796.
... I arrived here last Saturday.... I have received pretty positive and
certain information that Findley will be re-elected unanimously in our
district, my name not being mentioned there, and that I will be
superseded in Washington and Alleghany by Thomas Stokeley. This I have
from Woods's friends, who seem to be equally sure that neither he nor
myself are to be elected. The Republicans despair to be able to carry
me, not, by the by, so much on account of the treaty question as because
I do not reside in the district and have not been this summer in the
western country, and they hesitate whether they will support Edgar or
Brackenridge. At all events, I think I will be gently dropped without
the parade of a resignation. The other party will call it a victory, but
it will do neither me nor our friends any harm. I think, indeed, it will
not be any disadvantage to the Republican interest that my name should
be out of the way, at least for a while....
SHIPPENSBURG, 3d October, 1796.
... The farther I go from you the more I feel how hateful absence is,
and the stronger my resolution is not to be persuaded to continue in
public life. Indeed, we must be settled and give up journeying. This
design gives me but one regret, it is to part you and to part myself
from your family; they are the only beings I will feel sorry to leave
behind, but I will feel the want of them more than I can express....
NEW GENEVA, 12th October, 1796.
... I arrived here last Friday without any accident.... As to politics,
the four or five last newspapers are filled with the most scurrilous and
abusive electioneering pieces for and against myself and Thomas
Stokeley. This has raised the contention so high in the counties of
Alleghany and Washington that my old friends have again taken me up very
warmly, and I came too late to prevent it. There is, however, the
highest probability that I will not be elected. The election took place
yesterday, but we do not know the result. In this and Westmoreland
County James Findlay, who was a great admirer of the treaty, has been
prevailed upon by Addison & Co. to oppose William Findley, whom we have
been supporting, notwithstanding all his weaknesses, because it became a
treaty question, and I expect he must be elected by a majority of two to
one....
NEW GENEVA, 16th October, 1796.
... No, my Hannah, we shall not, so far as it can depend upon
ourselves,--we shall not hereafter put such a distance between us. It is
perfectly uncertain whether I am elected in Congress or not; but if I
am, that shall not prevent the execution of our plans, and I will
undoubtedly resign a seat which in every point of view is perfectly
indifferent to me, and which is certainly prejudicial to my interest if
it does interfere with the happiness of our lives.... Ambition, love of
power, I never felt, and if vanity ever made one of the ingredients
which impelled me to take an active part in public life, it has for many
years altogether vanished away....
NEW GENEVA, November 9, 1796.
... I will not put your patience and good nature to a much longer trial,
and I know you will be glad to hear that this is the last letter I mean
to write you from this place, and that next Tuesday, the 15th inst., is
the day I have fixed for my departure. I have been tolerably industrious
since I have been here, settling accounts, arranging some matters
relative to the concerns of the copartnership, getting some essential
improvements on our farm, getting rid of my tenants, and electioneering
for electors of the President. Our endeavors to induce the people to
turn out on that day have not been as successful as I might have wished.
In this county our ticket got 406 votes, and Adams's had 66. What the
general result will be you will know before I do....
The Presidential election of 1796, which was to decide the succession to
Washington, ended in the choice of John Adams over Thomas Jefferson and
in a very evenly balanced condition of parties. The constitutional
arrangement by which the President was not chosen by the people, but by
electors themselves chosen by Legislatures, makes it impossible to
decide where the popular majority lay; and the rule that the person
having the highest number of electoral votes should be President,
without regard to the intentions of the electors, at once began to throw
discord into the ranks of both parties. John Adams thought with reason
that he had been nearly made the victim of an intrigue to elect Thomas
Pinckney; and Aaron Burr, the Republican leader in the North, as
Jefferson was in the South, with equal reason believed himself to have
been sacrificed as a candidate for the Vice-Presidency by the jealousy
of Virginia. Both these suspicions, deeply rooted in sectional feeling,
bore fruit during the next few years.
Mr. Gallatin, contrary to his expectation, was re-elected to the House
of Representatives by the district which had chosen him two years
before, although his long absences from the western country and his
opposition to the British treaty threatened to destroy his popularity.
After six weeks' absence at New Geneva during the elections, he returned
to Philadelphia to take part in the coming session.
The times were stormy. President Washington, whose personal weight had
thus far to a great extent overawed the opposition, was about to leave
office, and his successor could hope for little personal consideration.
The British treaty and the policy which dictated it had been warmly
resented by France. The government of that country was in a state of
wild confusion, and its acts were regulated by no steadiness of policy
and by little purity of principle. Without actually declaring war, it
insulted our agents and plundered our commerce. Its course was damaging
in the extreme to the opposition party in America; it strengthened and
consolidated the Federalists, and left the Republicans only the
alternative of silence or of apology more fatal than silence. Mr.
Monroe, our minister to France, recalled by President Washington for too
great subservience to French influence, adopted the course of
apologizing for France, and was supported by most of his party. Mr.
Gallatin wisely preferred silence. The economical condition of the
country was equally unsatisfactory. Speculation had exhausted itself and
had broken down. Robert Morris was one of the victims, and Mr. Gallatin
began to despair of recovering his debt. Things were in this situation
when Congress met, and Gallatin, leaving his wife in New York, took his
seat; December 5, 1796.
GALLATIN TO HIS WIFE.
PHILADELPHIA, 14th December, 1796.
... Every day in this city increases the distress for money, and you may
rely upon it that the time is not far when a general and heavy shock
will be felt in all the commercial cities of America. This opinion is
not grounded upon a slight or partial view of the present situation of
affairs. Many will be much injured by it, and frugality is the only
remedy I see to the evil. As to ourselves, I look upon Morris's debt as
being in a very precarious situation. He has told me that he could not
make any payment to me until he had satisfied the judgments against him.
We must do as well as we can, and, although I had rather it was
otherwise, it is not one of those circumstances which will make me lose
a single hour of rest.... As to politics, we are getting to-day upon the
answer to the President's address. The one reported by the committee is
as poor a piece of stuff, as full of adulation and void of taste and
elegance, as anything I ever saw. The return of Greene County did not
come; but Mr. Miles voted for Jefferson and Pinckney, which made the
general vote what you have seen....
* * * * *
After remaining a fortnight in Philadelphia he took leave of absence and
went to New York, where he remained till the 1st January. His eldest
child, James, was born on the 18th December, 1796, a circumstance which
not a little contributed to turn his attention away from politics and to
disgust him with the annoying interruptions of domestic life then
inseparable from a political career. From this time forward his letters
to his wife are chiefly about herself and the child, but here and there
come glimpses of public characters and affairs. Party feeling was now
running extremely high, and Mr. Gallatin was a party leader, thoroughly
convinced of the justice of his views, smarting under bitter and often
brutal attacks, which he never returned in kind, and imbued with the
conviction that the intentions of a large portion of his political
opponents were deeply hostile to the welfare of his country and the
interests of mankind. In his letters to his wife he sometimes expresses
these feelings in a personal form. It will be seen that he felt
strongly; but the worst he said was mildness in comparison to what he
had daily to hear.
So far as his Congressional work was concerned he confined himself
closely to finance, and, although taking a very considerable share in
debate, he avoided as much as possible the discussion of foreign
affairs. His most strenuous efforts were devoted to cutting down the
estimates, preventing an increase, and, if possible, diminishing the
force of the army and navy, and insisting upon the rule of specific
appropriations. He had begun to apply this rule more stringently in the
appropriation bills of the preceding session, and how necessary the
application was is shown by a letter now written by the Secretary of the
Treasury, saying that "it is well known to have been a rule since the
establishment of the government that the appropriations for the military
establishment were considered as general grants of money, liable to be
issued to any of the objects included under that Department." It was
only with considerable difficulty that he carried this year his
restriction of specific appropriations against the resistance of the
Administration party.
[Sidenote: 1797.]
In his efforts this year and in subsequent years to cut down
appropriations for the army, navy, and civil service, he was rarely
successful, and earned much ill-will as an obstructionist. Acting as he
did on a view of the duties of government quite antagonistic to those of
his adversaries, it was inevitable that he should arouse hostile
feeling. Whether his proposed reductions were always wise or not depends
of course on the correctness of his or his opponents' theories; but the
point is of little importance to his character as a leader of
opposition. The duty of an opposition is to compel government to prove
the propriety of its measures, and Mr. Gallatin's incessant watchfulness
gave the party in power a corresponding sense of responsibility.
Mr. Gallatin, too, did his utmost to carry the imposition of a direct
tax, in view of the increasing burden of expenditure and of debt. The
additional annual expense of $1,100,000 to be met in 1800 weighed not
only on his mind but on that of Secretary Wolcott; they agreed that a
direct tax was the best resource, and, unless advocated in principle at
once, would stand no chance of adoption, but on this point they had both
parties against them, and for the present failed.
The session of Congress ended with the 3d March, but a new session was
called to meet on May 13, to consider our relations with France. Of this
new Congress Mr. Madison was not a member, and Mr. Gallatin more and
more assumed the leadership of the party. On questions of foreign policy
he left the debate, for the most part, to others, and confined himself
to limiting the appropriations and resisting all measures which directly
tended to war.
GALLATIN TO HIS WIFE.
11th January, 1797.
... And have you really set aside a mother's partiality and then decided
that our boy was a lovely child? You may rely upon it that _I_ shall not
appeal from your decision, whether impartial or not; but I feel every
day a stronger desire to see him and to judge for myself. Yet I must not
begin to fret, for fear you may catch the infection, and the 5th of
March is not so far distant but what you, with the comfort you receive
from your boy, and I, with my head, though not my heart, full of
politics, may wait at least with resignation if not without
reluctance....
17th January, 1797.
... I pay no visits; I see nobody; I never dine out; I sit up late, and
sleep regularly till nine in the morning; I hardly speak in Congress,
and, when I do, a great deal worse than I used formerly; I neither write
nor think, only read some miscellaneous works; I am in fact good for
nothing when I am not with you....
24th January, 1797.
Most charming nurse of the loveliest and most thoughtful-looking babe of
his age (I mean of the age he lives in), your husband is as worthless as
ever. Instead of writing to you last night, he sat up two hours
examining Judge Symmes's contract for lands on the Miami, which is now
before Congress, and instead of devoting part of this morning to you, he
remained in bed till nine o'clock, as usual, and hardly had he done
breakfast, dressing, etc., when he was obliged to go to Mr. Wolcott,
with whom he has been agreeably employed for more than one hour on the
entertaining subject of direct taxes.... It seems to me that I have just
now mentioned dressing. Yet it is necessary that you should know that I
have not exhibited my new, or rather my only good coat, my new jacket,
and my pair of black silk inexpressibles more than once, to wit, last
Thursday at the President's, where I dined and saw him for the first
time this year. He looked, I thought, more than usually grave, cool, and
reserved. Mrs. W. inquired about you, so that you may suppose yourself
still in the good graces of our most gracious queen, who, by the by,
continues to be a very good-natured and amiable woman. Not so her
husband, in your husband's humble opinion; but that between you and me,
for I hate treason, and you know that it would be less sacrilegious to
carry arms against our country than to refuse singing to the tune of the
best and greatest of men....
31st January, 1797.
... Your husband was not formed for the bustles of a political life in a
stormy season. Conscious of the purity of my motives and (shall I add
when I write to my bosom friend?) conscious of my own strength, I may
resist the tempest with becoming firmness, but happiness dwells not
there. I feel the truth of that observation more forcibly this winter
than ever I did before. I feel disgusted at the mean artifices which
have so long been successfully employed in order to pervert public
opinion, and I anticipate with gloomy apprehension the fatal
consequences to our independence as a nation and to our internal union
which must follow the folly or wickedness of those who have directed
our public measures. Nor are my depressed spirits enlivened by the
pleasures of society; I can relish none at a distance from you, and was
I to continue much longer my present mode of life I would become a
secluded and morose hermit.... Perhaps, however, am I myself to blame,
and a more intense application to business might have contributed to
render this session less tiresome, but ... disgust at the symptoms of
the prevailing influence of prejudice in the public mind have rendered
me far more indolent than usual. The latter part of this session will,
however, give me more employment than its beginning, as many money
questions must necessarily compel me to take an active share....
26th February, 1797.
... I never, I believe, write you anything about our politics and on
what takes place in Congress. But we have had nothing very interesting,
being employed only in the details of administration. And then you see
the substance in the newspapers, though not very correct, as to our
speeches and debates. The little anecdotes I reserve for the happy time
when we shall meet, and in the mean while I am sufficiently engaged in
the scene without spending the moments I correspond with you in thinking
on the dry subject....
GALLATIN TO JAMES NICHOLSON.
PHILADELPHIA, 26th May, 1797.
DEAR SIR,--I received your political letter, and am not surprised at
seeing your irritation upon the perusal of Mr. Adams's speech. I have
felt less because I was not much disappointed. I mean in a pretty long
letter to give you a better idea of our present situation than you can
possibly derive from a view of our debates. These give only the
_apparent_ state of the business, and at this time it is very different
from the real one. For the present, as I have not time to enter into
details, I will only mention that the complexion of affairs is much less
gloomy now than at the beginning of the session, that although the other
party have rather a majority in this Congress, and although from party
pride, and indeed for the sake of supporting their party through the
United States, they may be induced to negative any proposition coming
from us, yet there are but few of that party who do not feel and
acknowledge in conversation the propriety of treating with France upon
the terms we mention. They add, indeed, that it is necessary to obtain
at the same time a compensation for the spoliations upon our trade. Upon
the whole, I believe that we will not adopt a single hostile measure,
and that we will evince such a spirit as will induce Mr. Adams to
negotiate on the very ground we propose. I am of opinion that Wolcott,
Pickering, Wm. Smith, Fisher Ames, and perhaps a few more were disposed
to go to war, and had conceived hopes to overawe us by a clamor of
foreign influence and to carry their own party any lengths they pleased.
They are disappointed in both points, for we have assumed a higher tone
than ever we did before, and their own people will not follow them the
distance they expected....
GALLATIN TO HIS WIFE.
PHILADELPHIA, 14th June, 1797.
... As to our debates, they are tedious beyond measure, and we are
beating and beaten by turns, although, by the by, our defeats are
usually owing to the mistakes of some of our friends, who do not always
perceive the remote consequences of every object which comes under
consideration.... Your papa has not yet answered my last political
letter. I am afraid he thinks me too moderate and believes I am going to
trim. But moderation and firmness have ever been and ever will be my
motto....
PHILADELPHIA, 19th June, 1797.
... I cannot yet form any very accurate opinion as to the time of our
adjournment, although I think it probable that it will be some time next
week. William Smith & Co. wish to detain us as long as they can, from a
hope, which is not altogether groundless, that some of our members will
abandon the field, return to their homes, and leave them an undisputed
majority at the end of the session. My own endeavors and those of most
of our friends are now applied to despatching with as little debate as
possible the most important business which remains to be decided. I
brought a motion to adjourn on next Saturday, but I must modify it to
this day week; whether it will pass is yet uncertain.... I dine next
Thursday at court. Courtland, dining there the other day, heard _her_
majesty, as she was asking the names of the different members of
Congress to Hindman, and being told that of some one of the aristocratic
party, say, 'Ah, that is one of _our_ people.' So that she is Mrs.
President not of the United States, but of a faction.... But it is not
right. Indeed, my beloved, you are infinitely more lovely than politics.
PHILADELPHIA, 21st June, 1797.
... Mr. Gerry is nominated envoy to France instead of Mr. Dana, who has
declined, but it is doubtful whether the aristocratic party in Senate
will appoint him. We are very still just now waiting for European
intelligence. May it bring us the tidings of general peace! But many
doubt it....
23d June, 1797.
... The Senate approved yesterday Mr. Gerry's nomination, with six
dissentient voices, to wit, Sedgwick, Tracy, Reed, Goodhue, Ross, and
Marshall. The real reason of the opposition was that Gerry is a doubtful
character, not British enough; but the ostensible pretence was that he
was so obstinate that he would not make sufficient concessions....
26th June, 1797.
... A vessel has arrived at New York, but we have not yet got the news,
although I am sorry to say that from present appearances it seems to be
the intention of France to prosecute the war against Great Britain. The
aristocrats here give up the point as to that kingdom, and acknowledge
that she is gone beyond recovery. The situation of their bank and
finances and the mutiny of the fleet seem to have worked a rather late
conviction upon their minds. Had they been something less prejudiced in
favor of the perpetual power of that country, ours would be in a better
situation now. I dined at the President.... Blair McClanachan dined
there, and told the President that by G---- he had rather see a world
annihilated than this country united with Great Britain; that there
would not remain a single king in Europe within six months, &c., &c. All
that in the loudest and most decisive tone. It did not look at all like
Presidential conversation....
28th June, 1797.
... Mr. Monroe arrived last night.... I spent two hours with him, during
which he gave us (Jefferson and Burr, who is also in town) much
interesting information, chiefly in relation to his own conduct and to
that of the Administration respecting himself and France. It appears
that he was desirous, as soon as the treaty had been concluded by Jay,
that it should be communicated to him, in order that he might lay it
with candor and at once before the Committee of Public Safety; and he
apprehends that if that mode had been adopted, France, under the then
circumstances, would have been satisfied, would have accepted some
verbal explanations, and would not have taken any further steps about
it.[36] But he never got the treaty until it appeared in the newspapers
in August, 1795 (it was signed in November, 1794). The French government
received it, of course, indirectly and without any previous preparations
having been made to soften them. Yet did Mr. Monroe, unsupported by the
Administration here, without having any but irritating letters to show,
for seven months stop their proceedings, giving thereby full time to our
Administration to send powers or any conciliatory propositions which
might promote an accommodation. But the precious time was lost, and
worse than lost; and it is indeed doubtful whether for a certain length
of time it will be possible to make _any_ accommodation. The time they
chose to recall Monroe was when from his correspondence they had reason
to believe that he had succeeded in allaying the resentment of the
French. Then, thinking they had nothing to fear from France, and that
they had used Monroe so as to obtain every service that he could render,
they recalled him, with the double view of giving to another person the
merit of terminating the differences and of throwing upon him (Monroe)
the blame of any that had existed before. They were, however, deceived
as to the fact, for, in spite of his honest endeavors, as soon as the
final vote of the House of Representatives in favor of the treaty was
known in France (and long before the letters of recall had reached that
country) the die was cast. Upon the whole, I am happy to tell you that
from my conversation with Monroe, from his manner and everything about
him (things which are more easily felt than expressed), I have the
strongest impression upon my mind that he is possessed of integrity
superior to all the attacks of malignity, and that he had conducted with
irreproachable honor and the most dignified sense of duty. Sorry am I to
be obliged to add that I am also pretty well convinced that the American
Administration have acted with a degree of meanness only exceeded by
their folly, and that they have degraded the American name throughout
Europe. If you want more politics, read Bache, where you will find a
letter from Thomas Paine. I have marked it with his name.... The second
mutiny on board the British fleet still subsists, and is considered as
being of very serious nature. Adams says that England is done over, and
I am told that France will not make peace with that country, but mean to
land there.
30th June, 1797.
... We give to-morrow a splendid dinner to Monroe at Oeller's hotel, in
order to testify our approbation of his conduct and our opinion of his
integrity. Jefferson, Judge McKean, the governor, and about fifty
members of Congress will be there; for which I expect the
Administration, Porcupine & Co. will soundly abuse us....
* * * * *
Congress adjourned on July 10, and Gallatin at once went to New Geneva
with his wife.
On the 20th November he was again in Philadelphia, writing to his wife
at her father's in New York.
PHILADELPHIA, 1st December, 1797.
... Do you not admire our unanimity and good nature? Yet it is difficult
to say whether it is the calm that follows or that which precedes a
storm. On the subject of the address, it seems to have been agreed on
all hands that something general and inoffensive was the best answer
that could be given to the wise speech of our President. He was highly
delighted to find that we were so polite, and in return treated us with
cake and wine when we carried him the answer....
19th December, 1797.
[Sidenote: 1798.]
... Our Speaker has made Harper chairman of several committees, amongst
others of that of Ways and Means, and he is as great a bungler as ever I
knew, very good-hearted, and not deficient in talents, exclusively of
that of speaking, which he certainly possesses to a high degree; but his
vanity destroys him. Dana is the most eloquent man in Congress. Sewall
is the first man of that party; but, upon the whole, I think this
Congress weaker than the last or any former one. The other party have a
small majority, and our members do not attend well as usual. Add to that
that we are extremely deficient on our side in speakers. Swanwick is
sick and quite cast down. I do not believe from his statement, which he
has published, that he will be able to pay above twelve shillings in the
pound. It is extremely unfortunate for us that he and B. McClanachan
have been chosen by our party. Yet, notwithstanding all that, I think
that unless the French government shall treat our commissioners very
ill, this session will pass on quietly and without much mischief being
done. We will attack the mint and the whole establishment of foreign
ministers, and will push them extremely close on both points. Even if we
do not succeed in destroying those useless expenses, we may check the
increase of the evil. I have read Fauchet's pamphlet on the subject of
our dispute with France. There is but one copy, which is in the hands of
Administration, and I only could obtain a reading in the House. It is
candid, argumentative, well written, and not in the least tainted with
the fashionable French declamation. After a pretty full refutation of
Pickering's arguments on many points, blaming, however, the Directory in
many things, he strongly advises a reconciliation....
PHILADELPHIA, 2d January, 1798.
... "According to custom, I have been monstrously lazy ever since I have
been here, have seen nobody, not even ... Mr. Jefferson, to whom I owe a
visit this fortnight past. I mean, however, within a short time to make
a powerful effort and to pay half a dozen of visits in one morning....
My greatest leisure time is while Congress sits, for we have nothing of
any real importance before us....
11th January, 1798.
... You wonder at our doing nothing, but you must know that, generally
speaking, our government always fails by doing or attempting to do and
to govern too much, and that things never go better than when we are
doing very little. Upon the whole, we remain in suspense in relation to
the most important subject that can attract our attention, the success
of our negotiation with France, and till we know its fate we will not, I
believe, enter into any business with much spirit.
19th January, 1798.
... Our situation grows critical; it will require great firmness to
prevent this country being involved in a war should our negotiations
with France meet with great delay or any serious interruption. We must
expect to be branded with the usual epithets of Jacobins and tools of
foreign influence. We must have fortitude enough to despise the
calumnies of the war-faction and to do our duty, notwithstanding the
situation in which we have been dragged by the weakness and party spirit
of our Administration and by the haughtiness of France. We must preserve
self-dignity, not suffer our country to be debased, and yet preserve our
Constitution and our fellow-citizens from the fatal effects of war. The
task is difficult, and will be impracticable unless we are supported by
the body of the American people. You know that I am not deficient in
political fortitude, and I feel therefore perfectly disposed to do my
duty to its full extent and under every possible circumstance. We have
made a violent attack upon our foreign intercourse, as it relates to the
increase of ministers abroad, of ministerial influence, &c., and we have
made it violent because it is of importance that we should begin to
assume that high tone which we must necessarily support in case of worse
news from France, and because there is no other way to make any
important impression upon public opinion....
30th January, 1798.
Indeed I am to blame. I should have written to you two days earlier, and
it is no sufficient justification that I have been interrupted every
moment I had set aside to converse with you. My mind has, it is true,
been uncommonly taken up and agitated by the question now before
Congress. The ground is so extensive, the views and principles of the
two parties so fully displayed in the debate, so much yet remains to be
said and ideas upon that subject crowd so much upon my mind, that I
think it important to speak again, and feel afraid that it will not be
in my power to do justice to my own feelings and to the cause in which
we are engaged. The subject has the same effect upon many others; it
keeps Nicholas and Dr. Jones almost in a fever, and it has actually made
Brent very sick. It is not that we expect at present to carry the
question; it stands so much on party grounds that we cannot expect at
once to break upon their well-organized phalanx; but we must lay the
foundation in the minds of the disinterested and moderate part of their
own side of the House of a change as to the general policy of our
affairs. We must show to the President and his counsellors that we
understand fully their principles, and we must publish and expose to the
people of America the true grounds upon which both parties act in and
out of Congress....
3d February, 1798.
... Although I had intended not to write till to-morrow, when I will
have time to converse more amply with you, yet having a few minutes to
spare this morning I thought you would be glad to hear something of
myself and of our Congressional dispute which has interrupted our
debates on the foreign ministers. As to myself, I am very well and feel
in pretty good spirits. I have been so long used to personal abuse from
party that I hardly knew I had lately received any till your letter
informed me that you had felt on the occasion; but, upon the whole, that
circumstance cannot make me unhappy. We have a new acquisition in our
family, Mr. and Mrs. Law (she was, you know, Miss Custis), both very
agreeable, and I feel quite rejoiced that there should be some female in
our circle in order to soften our manners; indeed, the dispute between
Griswold and Lyon shows you what asperity has taken place between
members of Congress. The facts you now know from the accounts in the
papers, the report of the committee, and Lyon's defence in this
morning's Aurora. I must only add that there is but little delicacy in
the usual conversation of most Connecticut gentlemen; that they have
contracted a habit of saying very hard things, and that considering Lyon
as a low-life fellow they were under no restraint in regard to him. No
man can blame Lyon for having resented the insult. All must agree in
reprobating the mode he selected to show his resentment, and the place
where the act was committed. As two-thirds are necessary to expel, he
will not, I believe, be expelled, but probably be reprimanded at the bar
by the Speaker....
* * * * *
The once famous affair of Lyon and Griswold is narrated in every history
or memoir that deals with the time, and the facts are given at large in
the Annals of Congress. Mr. Gallatin's comment on Connecticut manners is
supported by ample evidence, among which the contemporaneous remarks of
the Duc de Rochefoucauld-Liancourt may be consulted with advantage,
himself one of the very few thorough gentlemen in feeling who have ever
criticised America. General Samuel Smith, of Maryland, whose evidence
may be supposed impartial, since his party character was at this time
not strongly marked, told the story of Griswold and Lyon to the
committee; after narrating a bantering conversation which had been going
on in the rear of the House between Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, Roger
Griswold, of Connecticut, the Speaker (Dayton, of New Jersey), and
others, General Smith continued:
"Mr. Griswold had removed outside of the bar to where Mr. Lyon stood. At
this time, having left my seat with intention to leave the House, I
leaned on the bar next to Mr. Lyon and fronting Mr. Griswold. Mr. Lyon
having observed (still directing himself to the Speaker) that could he
have the same opportunity of explanation that he had in his own
district, he did not doubt he could change the opinion of the people in
Connecticut. Mr. Griswold then said, 'If you, Mr. Lyon, should go into
Connecticut, you could not change the opinion of the meanest hostler in
the State.' To which Mr. Lyon then said, 'That may be your opinion, but
I think differently, and if I was to go into Connecticut, I am sure I
could produce the effect I have mentioned.' Mr. Griswold then said,
'Colonel Lyon, when you go into Connecticut you had better take with you
the wooden sword that was attached to you at the camp at ----.' On which
Mr. Lyon spit in Mr. Griswold's face, who coolly took his handkerchief
out of his pocket and wiped his face."
Some days afterwards, while Lyon was sitting at his desk just before the
House was called to order, Griswold walked across the House and beat him
over the head and shoulders "with all his force" with "a large yellow
hickory cane." Lyon disengaged himself from his desk, got hold of the
Congressional tongs, and attempted to try their power on the head of the
Connecticut member, whereupon Mr. Griswold closed with him and they both
rolled on the floor, various members pulling them apart by the legs,
while the Speaker, justly indignant, cried, "What! take hold of a man by
the legs! that is no way to take hold of him!" Being, however, pulled
apart by this irregular process, they went on to endanger the personal
safety of members by striking at each other with sticks in the lobbies
and about the House at intervals through the day, until at last Mr. H.
G. Otis succeeded in procuring the intervention of the House to compel a
suspension of hostilities. Lyon, though a very rough specimen of
democracy, was by no means a contemptible man, and, politics aside,
showed energy and character in his subsequent career. Mr. Griswold was
one of the ablest and most prominent members of the Federal party, and
also one of the most violent in his political orthodoxy then and
afterwards.
GALLATIN TO HIS WIFE.
8th February, 1798.
... We are still hunting the Lyon, and it is indeed the most unpleasant
and unprofitable business that ever a respectable representative body
did pursue. Enough on that subject, for I hear too much of it every
day.... I am good for nothing without you. I think and I smoke and I
fret and I sleep and I eat, but that is really the sum total of the
enjoyments both of my body and soul. I walk not, I visit not, I read
not, and, you know, alas, I write not....
13th February, 1798.
... Are you as tired of modern Congressional debates as I am? I suspect
you wish your husband had no share in them, and was in New York instead
of attending the farcical exhibition which has taken place here this
last week; and indeed my beloved Hannah is not mistaken. I feel as I
always do when absent from her, more anxious to be with her than about
anything else; but in addition to that general feeling I am really
disgusted at the turn of public debates, and if nothing but such
subjects was to attract our attention it must be the desire of every man
of sense to be out of such a body. The affectation of delicacy, the
horror expressed against illiberal imputations and vulgar language in
the mouth of an Otis or a Brooks, were sufficiently ridiculous; but when
I saw the most modest, the most decent, the most delicate man, I will
not say in Congress, but that I ever met in private conversation, when I
saw Mr. Nicholas alone dare to extenuate the indecency of the act
committed by Lyon, and when I saw at the same time Colonel Parker,
tremblingly alive to the least indelicate and vulgar expression of the
Vermonteer, vote in favor of his expulsion, I thought the business went
beyond forbearance, and the whole of the proceeding to be nothing more
than an affected cant of pretended delicacy or the offspring of bitter
party spirit. And after all that, the question recurs, When shall I go
and visit New York? Alas, my love, I do not know it. I am bound here the
slave of my constituents and the slave of my political friends. We do
not know which day may bring the most important business before us.
Every vote is important, and our side of the House is so extremely weak
in speakers and in men of business that it is expected that at least
Nicholas and myself must stay, and at all events be ready to give our
support on the floor to those measures upon which the political
salvation of the Union may perhaps eventually depend. I feel it,
therefore, a matter of duty now to stay....
23d February, 1798.
... Do you want to know the fashionable news of the day? The President
of the United States has written, in answer to the managers of the ball
in honor of G. Washington's birthday, that he took the earliest
opportunity of informing them that he _declined_ going. The court is in
a prodigious uproar about that important event. The ministers and their
wives do not know how to act upon the occasion; the friends of the old
court say it is dreadful, a monstrous insult to the late President; the
officers and office-seekers try to apologize for Mr. Adams by insisting
that he feels conscientious scruples against going to places of that
description, but it is proven against him that he used to go when
Vice-President. How they will finally settle it I do not know; but to
come to my own share of the business. A most powerful battery was opened
against me to induce me to go to the said ball; it would be remarked; it
would look well; it would show that we democrats, and I specially, felt
no reluctance in showing my respect to the person of Mr. Washington, but
that our objections to levees and to birthday balls applied only to its
being a Presidential, anti-republican establishment, and that we were
only afraid of its being made a precedent; and then it would mortify Mr.
Adams and please Mr. Washington. All those arguments will appear very
weak to you when on paper, but they were urged by a fine lady, by Mrs.
Law, and when supported by her handsome black eyes they appeared very
formidable. Yet I resisted and came off conqueror, although I was, as a
reward, to lead her in the room, to dance with her, &c.; all which, by
the by, were additional reasons for my staying at home. Our club have
given me great credit for my firmness, and we have agreed that two or
three of us who are accustomed to go to these places, Langdon, Brent,
&c., will go this time to please the Law family....
27th February, 1798.
... We are pretty quiet at present; G. and L. business at an end. The
other party found that L. could not be expelled, on account of the
assault committed on him, and the question as to his first misbehavior
was already decided in the negative. They concluded, therefore, not to
expel G., and we generally joined them on the same principle upon which
we had acted in respect to L., and we then proposed to reprimand both;
but their anxiety to shelter G. from any kind of censure induced them to
reject that proposal--48 to 47--through the means of the previous
question....
2d March, 1798.
... I spoke yesterday three hours and a quarter on the foreign
intercourse bill, and my friends, who want the speech to be circulated,
mean to have it printed in pamphlets, and have laid upon me the heavy
tax of writing it. I wish you were here to assist me and correct. Alas,
I wish you upon every possible account....
6th March, 1798.
... The task imposed upon me by my friends to write my speech, of which
they are going to print two thousand copies, leaves me no time to
converse with you. I had rather speak forty than write one speech. I
have received your letter, and will expect you anxiously; the roads are
very deep, but the weather delightful.... You will receive by this day's
post the papers containing the French intended decree. It will, I am
afraid, put us in a still more critical situation. They behave still
worse than I was afraid from their haughtiness they would. May God save
us from a war! Adieu....
13th March, 1798.
... I feel now as desirous that you should not be on the road during
this boisterous, damp weather as I was anxious last week to see you
arrived.... I cannot form any conjecture of the plans of our statesmen;
they have got a majority, and if they are unanimous among themselves
they may do what they please. So far as I can judge and hear, it seems
that the other despatches of our commissioners at Paris will not be
communicated to us, under the plea that they contain details which might
injure their personal safety there; but it is whispered that the true
reason is because their contents might injure the party, either because
they declare that their powers were not sufficient, or because they
intimate that France has no objection to treat with the United States,
but has some personal objections to the individuals appointed for that
purpose. This last reason, if true, appears to me a very bad plea on the
part of France, who have nothing to do, that I can see, with the
personal character or politics of the envoys our government may think
fit to appoint. But it is perhaps apprehended by our Administration that
a knowledge of the fact would injure their own character here by
evincing a want of sincerity or of wisdom. I rather think, although it
is extremely doubtful, that the arming merchantmen will not take place;
but it is probable that the frigates will be armed and a dozen of
vessels that may carry from fourteen to twenty guns be purchased, and
both placed in the hands of the President to act as convoys and to
protect the coast (by coast I mean not only our harbors, but to the
extent of one or two hundred miles off) against the privateers, who may
be expected to come on a spring cruise to take British goods in our
vessels. All this will be very expensive, of little real utility, and
may involve us still deeper. It seems to me that it would be wiser to
wait at all events, to bear with the loss of a few more captures, and to
see whether peace will not be concluded this spring between France and
England, an event which to me appears highly probable, and if it does
not, what will be the result of the intended invasion. May God preserve
to us the blessings of peace, and may they soon be restored to all the
European nations!...
GALLATIN TO MARIA NICHOLSON.
PHILADELPHIA, 10th July, 1798.
... I see the prosecutions of printers are going on. I do not admire
much the manner in which the new editor of the Time-Piece conducts his
paper. Cool discussion and fair statements of facts are the only proper
modes of conveying truth and disseminating sound principles. Let squibs
and virulent paragraphs be the exclusive privilege of Fenno, Porcupine &
Co., and let those papers which really are intended to support
Republicanism unite candor and moderation to unconquerable firmness.
Pieces may be written in an animated style without offending decency.
This is the more necessary at a time when the period of persecution is
beginning, and at this peculiar crisis prudence might enforce what
propriety at all times should dictate....
* * * * *
The Time-Piece was a newspaper originally edited by Freneau, the poet,
who soon associated Matthew L. Davis in the direction. After a few
months of editorship, Freneau seems to have retired, and in March, 1798,
Davis became the sole responsible editor. The Time-Piece was
short-lived, and expired about six weeks after Mr. Gallatin's letter was
written.
The speech on Foreign Intercourse, made on the 1st March, 1798, was that
in which Mr. Gallatin rose to a freer and more rhetorical treatment of
his subject than had yet been his custom. The motion was to cut off the
appropriations for our ministers in Berlin and Holland, which would have
limited our diplomatic service to Great Britain, France, and Spain. Mr.
Gallatin began by proving, against the Federalist arguments, that the
House might lawfully refuse appropriations, and then proceeded to attack
the whole system of diplomatic connections and commercial treaties,
asking whether, as a matter of fact, we had derived any commercial
advantages from the commercial treaties we had made, and entering into
an eloquent discussion of the dangers attending increase of executive
patronage and influence. "What has become of the Cortes of Spain? Of the
States-General of France? Of the Diets of Denmark? Everywhere we find
the executive in the possession of legislative, of absolute powers. The
glimmerings of liberty which for a moment shone in Europe were owing to
the decay of the feudal system." To Mr. Bayard, who had argued that the
executive was the weakest branch of the government and most in danger of
encroachment, he replied: "To such doctrines avowed on this floor, to
such systems as the plan of government which the late Secretary of the
Treasury (Mr. Hamilton) proposed in the convention, may perhaps be
ascribed that belief in a part of the community, the belief, which was
yesterday represented as highly criminal, that there exists in America a
monarchico-aristocratic faction who would wish to impose upon us the
substance of the British government. I have allowed myself to make this
last observation only in reply to the gentleman who read the paper I
alluded to.[37] It is painful to recriminate; I wish denunciations to be
avoided, and I am not in the habit of ascribing improper motives to
gentlemen on the other side of the question. Never shall I erect myself
into a high-priest of the Constitution, assuming the keys of political
salvation and damning without mercy whosoever differs with me in
opinion. But what tone is assumed to us by some gentlemen on this floor?
If we complain of the prodigality of a branch of the Administration or
wish to control it by refusing to appropriate all the money which is
asked, we are stigmatized as disorganizers; if we oppose the growth of
systems of taxation, we are charged with a design of subverting the
Constitution and of making a revolution; if we attempt to check the
extension of our political connections with European nations, we are
branded with the epithet of Jacobins. Revolutions and Jacobinism do not
flow from that line of policy we wish to see adopted. They belong, they
exclusively belong to the system we resist; they are its last stage, the
last page in the book of the history of governments under its
influence."
The speech, which was in effect a vigorous and eloquent defence of Mr.
Jefferson's Mazzei letter, although that letter was barely mentioned in
its course, is probably the best ever made on the opposition side in the
Federalist days, and ranks with that of Fisher Ames on the British
treaty, as representing the highest point respectively attained by the
representative orators of the two parties. Doubtless Mr. Gallatin saw
reason in his maturer age to modify his opinions of commercial treaties,
for a large part of the twelve best years of his life was subsequently
passed in negotiations for commercial treaties with England, France, and
the Netherlands; possibly, too, he modified his hostility to diplomatic
connections with Europe, for bitter experience taught him that too
little diplomatic connection might produce worse evils than too much;
but he never overcame his jealousy of executive power, and never doubted
the propriety of his course in 1798. Whether the time is to come when
Mr. Gallatin's views in regard to the diplomatic service will be
universally adopted may remain a matter for dispute; the essential point
to be remembered is that in 1798 the majority in Congress made a
deliberate and persistent attempt to place extraordinary powers in the
hands of the President, with a view to the possible necessity for the
use of such powers in case of domestic difficulties then fully expected
to occur. The extreme Federalists hoped that a timely exercise of force
on their side might decide the contest permanently in their favor. They
were probably mistaken, for, as their correspondence shows,[38] there
never was a time when the political formulas of Hamilton, George Cabot,
Fisher Ames, Gouverneur Morris, and Rufus Griswold could have been
applied even in New England with a chance of success; but it is none the
less certain that a small knot of such men, with no resources other than
their own energy and will, practically created the Constitution,
administered the government under it for ten years, and at last very
nearly overthrew it rather than surrender their power. Fisher Ames, one
of their ablest chiefs, thought in 1806 that there were hardly five
hundred who fully shared his opinions.[39] It was against the
theoretical doctrines and ulterior aims of this political school that
Mr. Gallatin was now waging active war.
The difficulties with France were on the point of a tremendous
explosion, but he avoided so far as possible every public reference to
the subject. As a native of Geneva he had no reason to love France.
Unfortunately, the distinction between Geneva and France was not one to
which his opponents or the public were likely to pay attention; to them
he was essentially a Frenchman, and he could not expect to be heard with
patience. Nevertheless, he was not absolutely silent. As the conduct of
the French Directory pushed our government nearer and nearer to war, he
recognized the fact and accepted it, but urged that if war was necessary
the House should at least avow the fact, and not be drawn into it by the
pretence that it already existed by the act of France. On the 27th
March, Mr. Gallatin spoke on a resolution then before the House in
committee, "that under existing circumstances it is not expedient for
the United States to resort to war against the French republic," and
after recapitulating the steps of both governments and the last decree
of France, he said, "I differ in opinion from the gentleman last up (Mr.
Sewall, of Massachusetts) that this is a declaration of war. I allow it
would be justifiable cause for war for this country, and that on this
account it is necessary to agree to or reject the present proposition,
in order to determine the ground intended to be taken. For, though there
may be justifiable cause for war, if it is not our interest to go to war
the resolution will be adopted.... The conduct of France must tend to
destroy that influence which gentlemen have so often complained of as
existing in this country. Indeed, I am convinced that at the
commencement of her revolution there was a great enthusiasm amongst our
citizens in favor of her cause, which naturally arose from their having
been engaged in a similar contest; but I believe these feelings have
been greatly diminished by her late conduct towards this country. I
think, therefore, that whether we engage in war or remain in a state of
peace, much need not be apprehended from the influence of France in our
councils."
A few days afterwards, on the 3d April, the President sent to Congress
the famous X.Y.Z. despatches, which set the country in a flame, and for
a time swept away all effective resistance to the war policy. These
despatches were discussed by the House in secret session, and there are
no letters or memoranda of Mr. Gallatin which reflect his feelings in
regard to them. His policy, however, is clearly foreshadowed by his
course before, as it was consistently carried out by his course after,
the excitement. Believing, as he did, that America had nothing to fear
but foreign war, he preferred enduring almost any injuries rather than
resort to that measure. His conviction that war was the most dangerous
possible course which the United States could adopt was founded on sound
reason, and was in reality shared by a vast majority of his
fellow-citizens, who were divided in principle rather by the question
whether war could be avoided and whether resistance was not the means
best calculated to prevent it. He took clear ground on this subject in
a speech made on April 19 in the discussion on war measures:
"The committee is told by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Harper)
that if we do not resist, France will go on step by step in her course
of aggressions against this country. This is mere matter of speculation.
It is possible France may go on in this way. If she goes on to make war
upon us, then let our vessels be used in their full power. Let us not,
however, act on speculative grounds, but examine our present situation,
and, if better than war, let us keep it. The committee has been told
that this doctrine is a doctrine of submission. The gentleman calls war
by the name of resistance, and they give the appellation of abject
submission to a continuance of forbearance under our present losses and
captures. I affix a different idea to the word submission. I would call
it submission to purchase peace with money. I would call it submission
to accept of ignominious terms of peace. I would call it submission to
make any acknowledgments unworthy of an independent country. I would
call it submission to give up by treaty any right which we possess. I
would call it submission to recognize by treaty any claim contrary to
the laws of nations. But there is a great difference between
surrendering by treaty our rights and independence as a nation, and
saying, 'We have met with captures and losses from the present European
war; but, as it is coming to a close, it is not our interest to enter
into it, but rather to go on as we have done.' This I think would be a
wise course, and extremely different from a state of submission."
For these remarks Mr. Gallatin was violently assailed, the Speaker
(Dayton) leading the attack. Perhaps the sting lay, however, not so much
in what the Speaker called its "tame and submissive language," as in its
implied suggestion that Mr. Jay's treaty, not a merely passive attitude
of protest, was the real act of submission. Whether his policy was
correct or not is a matter of judgment in regard to which enough has
already been said; but there would seem to have been nothing in his
language or in his sentiments that justified the savageness with which
he was assailed. In truth, after the X.Y.Z. storm burst, Gallatin was
left to bear its brunt alone in Congress, and the forbearance which he
exercised in regard to personalities was not imitated by his opponents;
Mr. R. G. Harper, then of South Carolina, Mr. H. G. Otis, of
Massachusetts, and Speaker Dayton, to say nothing of the Connecticut
gentlemen, were as much attached to this kind of political warfare as
Mr. Gallatin was averse to it, and, the majority having now fairly
settled to their side, they could afford to resort freely to the weapons
of majorities everywhere. There was, too, some excuse for the violence
of their attacks, for Mr. Gallatin exhibited very extraordinary powers
during the remainder of this excessively difficult session. Party
feeling never ran so high; he stood exposed to its full force, and by
his incessant activity in opposition concentrated all its energy upon
himself, until to break him down became a very desirable object, for,
though always outvoted on war measures, his influence was still very
troublesome to the Administration. On the 5th April of this year,
Secretary Wolcott wrote to Hamilton: "The management of the Treasury
becomes more and more difficult. The Legislature will not pass laws in
gross. Their appropriations are minute; Gallatin, to whom they yield, is
evidently intending to break down this Department by charging it with an
impracticable detail."[40] Three weeks later, on the 26th April, Mr.
Jefferson wrote from Washington to Mr. Madison: "The provisional army of
20,000 men will meet some difficulty. It would surely be rejected if our
members were all here. Giles, Clopton, Cabell, and Nicholas have gone,
and Clay goes to-morrow.... Parker has completely gone over to the war
party. In this state of things they will carry what they please. One of
the war party, in a fit of unguarded passion, declared some time ago
they would pass a citizen bill, an alien bill, and a sedition bill;
accordingly, some days ago Coit laid a motion on the table of the House
of Representatives for modifying the citizen law. Their threats pointed
at Gallatin, and it is believed they will endeavor to reach him by this
bill."[41] The citizen's bill broke down so far as it was aimed at Mr.
Gallatin, the Constitution standing in the way; but the feeling behind
it was so strong that a serious attempt was made to amend the
Constitution itself. Long afterwards Mr. Gallatin recurred to this
scheme in a letter to Samuel Breck, dated 20th June, 1843.[42] He said,
in reply to an inquiry made by Mr. Breck, "I believe the 'black cockade'
of 1798 to have been worn exclusively by members of the Federal party,
but certainly not by all of them. Many did object to such external
badge; to what extent it was adopted I really cannot say, as I have but
a general and vague recollection of that slight incident. In some other
respects my impaired memory is more retentive, and I have not forgotten
acts of kindness. Your mention of Mr. Hare reminds me, and I do
recollect with feelings of gratitude, that his father was the principal
agent in arresting in Pennsylvania an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, proposed and adopted by the New England States, which
was personally directed against me. And I may add that, notwithstanding
the heat of party feelings, I was always treated with personal kindness
and consideration by Mr. Hare's father and by his connections,--the
Willing, Bingham, and Powell families. It is well known that I think the
general policy of the Federal party at that time to have been erroneous;
but independent of this, which is a matter of opinion, it certainly
became intoxicated. The black cockade was a petty act of folly that did
not originate with the leaders; but they committed a series of blunders
sufficient alone to have given the ascendency to their opponents, and
which at this time appears almost incredible."
Mr. Gallatin made no blunders. He led his party into no untenable
positions. He offered no merely factious or dilatory opposition. Beaten
at one point he turned to another, accepting the last decision as final
and contesting the next step with equal energy. The Federalists, on
their part, gave him incessant occupation. Feeling that the country was
with them and that for once there was no hindrance to their giving to
government all the "energy" it required in order to accord with their
theories, the Administration party in the Legislature, without waiting
even for a request from the President, proceeded to enact bill after
bill into law, conferring enlarged or doubtful powers on the Executive.
Two of these, the most famous, are mentioned in Mr. Jefferson's letter
above quoted,--the alien and sedition laws.
There were in fact two alien laws: one relating to alien enemies, which
was permanent in its nature and applied only during periods of declared
foreign war; the other relating to alien friends, and limited in
operation to two years. This last was the subject of hot opposition and
almost hotter advocacy. As enacted, it empowered the President, without
process of law, to order out of the country any alien whatever whom "he
shall judge dangerous" or "shall have reasonable grounds to suspect" to
be dangerous to the public peace and safety; and in case of disobedience
to the order the alien "shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for
a term not exceeding three years" and be denied the right to become a
citizen.
The sedition law, as enacted, was also limited to two years, and expired
on the 3d March, 1801. Its first section was calculated to annoy Mr.
Gallatin, who had always maintained, in opposition to his opponents,
that the famous Pittsburg resolutions of 1792 were not illegal, however
ill-advised. These resolutions had been flung in his face during every
exciting debate since he had entered Congress. The sedition law enacted,
first, that any persons who "shall unlawfully combine with intent to
oppose" any measure of government, or to impede the operation of any
law, or to prevent any officer from doing his duty, or who shall attempt
to procure any unlawful combination, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and punished by fine and imprisonment. Whether the Pittsburg meeting
came within the terms of this law was, however, a matter of mere
personal interest, about which Mr. Gallatin did not trouble himself, but
devoted all his labor to the second section of the bill.
This was certainly vulnerable enough. It enacted that "if any person
shall write, print, utter, or publish," or aid in so doing, any scandal
against the government, or either House, or the President, with intent
to defame, or to excite hatred or unlawful combinations against the
laws, he shall be punished by fine and imprisonment.
The alien law came first under consideration, and Mr. Gallatin took the
ground that under the Constitution Congress had no power to restrain the
residence of alien friends, this power being among those reserved to the
States; and after arguing this point he turned to the clause in the
Constitution which debarred Congress from prohibiting "the emigration
_or_ importation of such persons as any of the States shall think proper
to admit," and maintained that this provision, so far as it related to
immigrants, would be defeated by the law, which gave the President the
right to remove such persons even though the States might admit them.
His third position was that the law suspended the right of habeas corpus
guaranteed by the Constitution except in cases of rebellion and
insurrection, and that it violated the clause that "no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
The friends of the bill, Sewall and Otis, of Massachusetts, Bayard, of
Delaware, and Dana, of Connecticut, replied to the constitutional
objections by deriving the authority of Congress from the power to
regulate commerce; from that to lay and collect taxes, to provide for
the common defence and general welfare; and ultimately from the
essential right of every government to protect itself. Mr. Gallatin made
a rejoinder on each of these heads, and reinforced his own arguments by
attacking the alleged necessity of the measure and dwelling on the
conflict it tended to excite between the general and the State
governments. In the debate that followed, Mr. Harper adverted to the
plot which he asserted to exist, and of which he intimated that the
opposition to this bill was a part, aiming at the betrayal of the
country to a French invading army. To this insinuation Mr. Gallatin
replied with an exhibition of warmth quite unusual with him; he turned
sharply upon Mr. Harper with the question, "Might I not, if I chose to
preserve as little regard to decency as that gentleman, charge him at
once with a wilful intention to break the Constitution and an actual
violation of the oath he has taken to support it?" Mr. Harper's retort
shows the spirit of the majority, of which he was now the acknowledged
leader. He neither apologized nor disavowed: "When a gentleman, who is
generally so very cool, should all at once assume such a tone of passion
as to forget all decorum of language, it would seem as if the
observation had been properly applied to that gentleman." Obviously Mr.
Gallatin was driven to the wall; the majority had no idea of sparing him
if he laid himself open to their attacks, and indeed, at this moment, to
crush Mr. Gallatin would have been to crush almost the last remnant of
parliamentary opposition. Mr. Jefferson has himself described the
situation at this time in language which, if somewhat exaggerated, is,
as regards Mr. Gallatin, essentially exact.[43] "The Federalists'
usurpations and violations of the Constitution at that period, and their
majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so
daring, that, after combating their aggressions inch by inch without
being able in the least to check their career, the Republican leaders
thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts
there, go home, get into their respective Legislatures, embody whatever
of resistance they could be formed into, and, if ineffectual, to perish
there as in the last ditch. All therefore retired, leaving Mr. Gallatin
alone in the House of Representatives and myself in the Senate, where I
then presided as Vice-President.... No one who was not a witness to the
scenes of that gloomy period can form any idea of the afflicting
persecutions and personal indignities we had to brook." Then it was that
the Federalist majority, on the 18th May, 1798, amended the standing
rules by providing that no member should speak more than once on any
question, either in the House or in committee of the whole, an amendment
intended to silence Mr. Gallatin. He laughed at it, and, the House very
soon becoming convinced of its uselessness, the rule was repealed.
The alien bill passed, after a warm but a short debate, by a vote of 46
to 40, and on the 5th July, ten days before the session closed, the
sedition bill came down from the Senate. As the bill then stood, it
contained a clause enacting that "if any person shall, by writing,
printing, or speaking, threaten" an officer of the government "with any
damage to his character, person, or estate," he shall be deemed guilty
of a high misdemeanor and be punished by fine and imprisonment.
Edward Livingston immediately moved that the bill be rejected. In
opposition to this motion, and in order to prove the necessity of such
extravagant legislation, Mr. Allen, of Connecticut, made an elaborate
speech, which is still entertaining and instructive reading. He
arraigned the newspapers, and asserted that they showed the existence of
a dangerous combination to overturn the government; to this combination
Mr. Edward Livingston was a party, as shown by an extract from his
speech on the alien bill; the New York Time-Piece was one of its organs,
as shown by a tirade against the President; the Aurora, of Philadelphia,
as another organ, "the great engine of all these treasonable
combinations." These quotations now read tamely, and it requires a
considerable exercise of the imagination to understand how America could
ever have had a society to which such writings should have seemed
dangerous. Mr. Harper himself, the author of "The Plot," was obliged to
concede that he did not give much weight to the newspapers; in his eyes
Mr. Edward Livingston was the real offender, and speeches made in that
House were the real objects which the bill aimed to suppress. Mr.
Livingston had in fact announced that the people would oppose and the
States would not submit to the alien act, and added, in imitation of
Lord Chatham's famous declaration, "They ought not to acquiesce, and I
pray to God they never may." The debate went on in this style, with
criminations and recriminations, until Mr. Gallatin rose. He took the
ground--the only ground indeed which he could take in the present stage
of the bill--that necessity alone could warrant its passage; that the
proof of that necessity must be furnished by its supporters; that the
proof thus far furnished was by no means sufficient; that the newspaper
paragraphs cited by Mr. Allen were not of a nature to require such a
measure of coercion; that the expressions used by members in debate
could not be reached by the bill; that the bill itself as it then stood
was in part useless, in part dependent on the proof of necessity, and
had best be rejected.
The House, by a vote of 47 to 36, refused to reject the bill, but when,
a few days afterwards, they entered on the discussion of its sections,
even Mr. Harper took the lead in advocating considerable amendments. By
his assistance and that of Mr. Bayard the bill was remodelled, and
especially a clause was inserted allowing evidence of the truth to be
given in justification of the matter contained in the libel, and another
giving to the jury the right to determine the law and the fact. On the
bill as thus amended one day of final debate took place, closed on the
part of the opposition by Mr. Gallatin, and by Mr. Harper on behalf of
the majority.
Mr. Gallatin's speech as reported is quite short, and mostly devoted to
the constitutionality of the measure. He first answered Mr. Otis, who
had argued that Congress had the power to punish libel, because the men
who framed the Constitution were familiar with the common law and had
given the judiciary a common-law jurisdiction, and that this power was
not taken away by the amendment to the Constitution securing the freedom
of speech and of the press. The argument indeed answered itself to a
great degree, for if the Federal courts had this common law
jurisdiction, why enact this measure which had no other object than to
confer it on them? But the courts had no such jurisdiction, and Congress
had no power to give it, because it was conceded that no such power was
specifically given, and yet the Constitution and the laws hitherto made
in pursuance thereof had actually specified the offences for which
Congress might define the punishment. They must therefore fall back on
the "necessary and proper" clause; but, as this was to be used only to
carry the specific powers into effect, it could not apply here: "they
must show which of those constitutional powers it was which could not be
carried into effect unless this law was passed;" and finally the
amendment which secured the liberty of speech and of the press had been
proposed and adopted precisely to guard against an apprehended
perversion of this "necessary and proper" clause. This outline was
filled up with concise argument, and comparatively little was said on
the merits of the bill, although it was pointed out that the mere
expression of an opinion was made punishable by it, and how could the
truth of an opinion be proven by evidence? The writing of a paper which
might be adjudged a libel was punishable, even though not communicated
to any one, and this was the rule under which Sidney suffered. In
Pennsylvania the marshal would summon the juries, and the marshal was
the President's creature. To this and the other arguments in opposition
Mr. Harper replied, and the bill then passed by a vote of 44 to 41. A
week later Congress rose.
So much has already been said of this memorable session that it would
utterly exhaust the patience of readers to give any completer sketch of
Mr. Gallatin's activity in legislation on other subjects. His share in
measures of finance and in opposition to the abrogation of the French
treaties, as well as to the other war measures, may be passed over; but
one word must be said on another point.
In March of this year, 1798, a bill for the erection of a government in
the Mississippi Territory being before the House, Mr. Thacher, of
Massachusetts, moved an amendment that would have excluded slavery
forever from all the then existing territory west of Georgia. This
amendment was strongly supported by Mr. Gallatin, on the ground that, if
it were rejected, Congress really established slavery in that country
for all time, but he found only ten members in the House to support Mr.
Thacher and himself.
The session of 1798 closed on the 16th July, and Mr. Gallatin returned
with his wife to New Geneva. Hard as his position was in public life, it
was becoming yet more alarming in his private affairs. The joint-stock
company which he had formed, and in which all his available capital was
invested, had been obliged to act independently, owing to his long
absences, and had been largely controlled by a Genevese named
Bourdillon, a man of ability, but more fond of speculation than Mr.
Gallatin ever could have been. He had adopted a system of buying and
selling on credit, which he carried further than Mr. Gallatin approved,
and the company had also entered into the manufacture of glass, an
undertaking which promised well, but which required a considerable
expenditure of borrowed money at the outset. Meanwhile, the country was
still suffering from the collapse of speculation. Robert Morris was
quite bankrupt, and Gallatin could recover neither land nor money. Among
the Gallatin papers is an autograph which tells its own story in this
relation:
* * * * *
DEAR SIR,--Asking you to come here is not inviting you as I wish to a
pleasant place, but, as I want an opportunity of conversing with you a
few minutes, I hope you will give me a call as soon as your convenience
will permit.
I am your obedient servant,
ROBERT MORRIS.
Monday morning, 10th Dec., 1798. Hon'ble ALBERT GALLATIN.
* * * * *
This note is endorsed in Mr. Gallatin's hand, "Written from city gaol."
To anxiety in connection with his private affairs was added a certain
degree of embarrassment arising from his political situation as
representative of a district which was not his residence, and to which
he was almost a total stranger. It is an extraordinary proof of his
importance to his party that he should have been three times re-elected
to Congress over all local opposition. This year he went so far as to
decline a re-election, and in June sent early notice of his intention to
Judge Brackenridge, in order that he might take advantage of it if he
chose; but Mr. Brackenridge absolutely rejected all idea of coming
forward, and united with others in urging Mr. Gallatin to remain. No
steps were taken to provide a new candidate, and when, late in
September, a letter was at last received from Mr. Gallatin containing
the bare consent to serve if re-elected, the season was already so far
advanced that a new candidate could hardly have been put in the field.
In spite of his private interests and of what was more important still,
the wishes of his wife, who was cruelly situated during these long
separations, Mr. Gallatin was in a manner compelled to remain in public
life. Beyond a doubt all his true interests lay there, and he knew it,
yet these complications, resulting from the theories of his boyhood and
their conflict with all the facts of his character, continued to
embarrass his situation during his whole public career.
A few weeks at New Geneva were all the vacation he could obtain, and
these in the turmoil of an election. The war fever against France had
been employed by the Federalists to strengthen the hands of government,
and no one now denies that the Federalists carried this process too
far; the alien and sedition laws were unwise; the greatest of all the
Federalists, next to Washington, John Marshall, of Virginia, did not
hesitate to avow this opinion at the time, though at the risk of being
ruled out of the party by his New England allies; but a more curious
example of Federalist temper is furnished by the constitutional
amendment proposed by Massachusetts:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
In the House of Representatives, June 28, 1798.
... It is the wish and opinion of this Legislature that any amendment
which may be agreed upon should exclude at all events from a seat in
either branch of Congress any person who shall not have been actually
naturalized at the time of making this amendment, and have been admitted
a citizen of the United States fourteen years at least at the time of
such election.
* * * * *
This amendment was universally understood to be aimed at Mr. Gallatin,
yet it is not easy to see how its supporters could have expected its
adoption unless they looked forward to a development of party power as a
result of the war fever, and a substantial eradication of the
Republicans, such as would leave no bounds to their own sway. On the
other hand, the Republicans were not behindhand in their acts of
defence. They believed, not without ground,[44] that the Federalists
aimed at a war with France and an alliance with England for the purpose
of creating an army and navy to be used to check the spread of democracy
in America; already the army had been voted and Hamilton had been made
its commander, in fact if not in name. A collision between the two
parties was imminent, and Virginia prepared for it on her side as the
Federalists were doing on theirs. She armed her militia and made ready
to seize the government arsenals. Her Legislature and that of Kentucky
took in advance the ground that was to sustain their acts, and Mr.
Madison himself drew the famous nullification resolves of Virginia, in
which he declared that Virginia was "in duty bound to interpose for
arresting the progress of the evil," and did "hereby declare" the alien
and sedition laws "unconstitutional _and not law, but utterly null,
void, and of no force or effect_." It is true that the words italicized
were struck out by the Legislature; but the principle remained. What Mr.
Gallatin thought of these measures nowhere appears, but there is among
his papers a copy of the Virginia resolutions as adopted, which was
endorsed by him at a much later period: "Moved by Taylor, of Caroline.
Mr. Madison was not member of Legislature at that session. At the
ensuing session he drew the report justifying the resolutions as well as
he could." Mr. Madison continued all his life to justify these
resolutions "as well as he could," but the only justification they were
susceptible of receiving was one of history and not of law. They formed
a foundation for revolution, if revolution proved unavoidable.
The session of 1798-99 opened in the midst of a highly-excited political
feeling. The two parties were face to face, and the Union was in the
utmost peril; all that was needed to insure collision was war with
France, for in that case the repressive measures adopted or contemplated
by the Hamiltonian Federalists must have been put in force, and both
parties were well aware what would result. Meanwhile, Mr. Gallatin,
aided only by John Nicholas, of Virginia, carried on the opposition as
he best could. Cautious as ever, he rarely risked himself in a position
he could not maintain, and his boldest sallies were apt to be made in
order to cover the retreat of less cautious friends, like Edward
Livingston, who were perpetually quitting the lines to fight in advance
of their leader. How Mr. Gallatin was then regarded by his party is best
seen in the letters of Curtius, which had a great vogue during this
winter and were reprinted in Bache's paper, afterwards the Aurora. Their
author, John Thompson, was looked upon as a most brilliant young man,
and, since his age was but twenty-three, it is probable that he might
have one day worked through the stilted and artificial style and thought
of this early production and developed into something ripe and strong,
although it must be confessed that the reader who now runs his eye over
these pages of ponderous invective addressed to John Marshall is
strongly inclined to smile at the expressions as well as at the thought.
At all events, they serve to show how Mr. Gallatin was regarded by at
least one young Virginian of unusual promise, whose language was an echo
of party feeling, however florid in expression.
"Mr. Gallatin has been persecuted with all the detestable rancor of envy
and malice. The accuracy of his information, the extent of his
knowledge, the perspicuity of his style, the moderation of his temper,
and the irresistible energy of his reasoning powers render him the
ablest advocate that ever appeared in the cause of truth and liberty.
Patient and persevering, temperate and firm, no error escapes his
vigilance, no calumny provokes his passions. To expose the blunders and
absurdities of his adversaries is the only revenge which he will
condescend to take for their insolent invectives. Serene in the midst of
clamors, he exhibits the arguments of his opponents in their genuine
colors, he divests them of the tinsel of declamation and the cobwebs of
sophistry, he detects the most plausible errors, he exposes the most
latent absurdities, he holds the mirror up to folly, and reasons upon
every subject with the readiness of intuition and the certainty of
demonstration. Elevated above the intrigues of parties and the
weaknesses of the passions, he is never transported into any excess by
the zeal of his friends or the virulence of his enemies. His object is
the happiness of the people; his means, economy, liberty, and peace; his
guide, the Constitution. The sympathies which fascinate the heart and
mislead the understanding have never allured him from the arduous
pursuit of truth through her most intricate mazes. Never animated by the
impetuous and turbulent feelings which agitate popular assemblies, he
preserves in the midst of contending factions that coolness of temper
and that accuracy of thought which philosophy has hitherto claimed as
the peculiar attribute of her closest meditations. He unites to the
energy of eloquence and the confidence of integrity the precision of
mathematics, the method of logic, and the treasures of experience. His
opponents slander him and admire him; they assail him with ignorant
impertinence and pitiless malice, and yet they feel that he is the
darling of philosophy, the apostle of truth, and the favorite votary of
liberty.... The men who are supported by a foreign faction have the
effrontery to vilify him because he is a foreigner.... This foreigner
has defended the Constitution against the attacks of native Americans,
and has displayed a noble ardor in the defence of his adopted country."...
Critical as the situation was, and trying to the temper and courage of a
party leader, it had nevertheless some conspicuous advantages for
Gallatin. He had nothing to gain by deserting his post and retiring to
the safe shelter of a State Legislature. The nullification of an Act of
Congress had no fascinations for him. Like other foreign-born citizens,
in this respect like Mr. Hamilton himself, Gallatin felt the force of
his larger allegiance to the Union more strongly than men like Jefferson
and Madison, Fisher Ames or Roger Griswold, whose heartiest attachments
were to their States, and who were never quite at their ease except on
the soil and in the society of their birthplace. Gallatin was equally at
home in Virginia, in Pennsylvania, and in New York. It is curious to
observe that even in argument he rarely attempted to entrench himself
behind States' rights without a perceptible betrayal of discomfort and a
still more evident want of success. His triumphs must necessarily be
those of a national leader upon national ground, and these triumphs were
helped rather than hurt by that defection among his friends which left
him to sustain the contest alone. There was no one to control his
freedom of action, and there was little danger that his party would
refuse to follow where he led, when they had no other leader. Moreover,
even in that day, when party feeling ran higher than ever since, there
was no such party tyranny as grew up afterwards in American politics.
During the six turbulent years of Gallatin's Congressional service there
were but two meetings of his party associates in Congress called to
deliberate on their political action: the first was after the House had
asserted its abstract right to decide on the propriety of making
appropriations necessary to carry a treaty into effect, whether such
appropriations should be made with respect to the British treaty; the
other was in this year, 1798, to decide upon the course to be pursued
after the hostile and scandalous conduct of the French Directory. On
both occasions the party was divided, and the minority were left to vote
as they pleased without being considered as abandoning their party
principles.[45] Under such circumstances an honest man might belong to a
party, and a leader might remain an honest man; his action was not
impeded by the dictation of a caucus, and his personal authority and
influence were irresistible.
If the discipline and unanimity of his own party were in his favor, on
the other hand the strength of his opponents was more apparent than
real. In the face of a foreign war the Federalists were in equal peril
whether they advanced or whether they receded. The Hamiltonian
Federalists were ardent for war, for an army, and for coercive measures
against domestic opposition;[46] the moderate Federalists, probably a
large majority of the party with the President at their head, would have
been glad to recede with credit. Under these circumstances Mr. Gallatin
adopted the only safe and sensible line of conduct open to him; leaving
the field of foreign relations entirely alone, and abandoning every
attempt to stand between the exasperated majority and the corrupt French
Directory, he turned his attention exclusively to domestic affairs, to
the necessity for economy, to the alien and sedition laws, and to
Executive encroachments. Within these limits he was ready and able to
carry on a vigorous and effective campaign, and accordingly he
reappeared at the opening of the session of 1798-99 with as little hope
of a majority as ever, but determined to maintain his position and to
assert his strength. At the very outset this determination brought him
sharply in contact with his old antagonist, Harper, of South Carolina,
in debate on the principle of "Logan's Act," by which it was made a high
misdemeanor for any man to carry on "directly or indirectly any verbal
or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government" or
its officers with intent to influence its measures in any dispute with
the United States. Dr. Logan, of Philadelphia, had constituted himself a
negotiator with the French nation, and his conduct gave rise to the
Act. Mr. Gallatin opposed the resolution which directed a committee to
report such a bill, and he concluded a speech by threatening retaliation
on those who imputed motives to him and his party after the manner which
Mr. Harper greatly affected:
"I should have been glad to have avoided any insinuations of party
motives; but if motions are laid upon the table to bring about again and
again declamations such as have been heard, full of the grossest
insinuations, all I can say is that I shall be ready to repel them. If
it is the intention of gentlemen constantly to make it appear we are a
divided people, I am not willing to stand mute as a mark to be shot at.
I shall attack them in my turn as to their motives and principles; I
will carry war into their own territory and oppose them on their own
ground."
Mr. Harper responded to this challenge with a defiance that carried an
innuendo with it, the meaning of which, whether public or private in its
direction, was not and is not obvious:
"Whom does the gentleman expect to frighten by this menace? Let me
remind him, before he begins, of an old proverb on which he will do well
seriously to reflect: 'A man living in a glass house should never throw
stones at his neighbors.' The gentleman's own habitation is exceedingly
brittle. A small pebble will be sufficient to demolish it. Let him
therefore beware how he rashly provokes a retort."
And Mr. Harper followed up this defiance by charging Mr. Gallatin
himself with gross offences on the score of personality and
insinuations. To this Mr. Gallatin at once replied, and his reply is
characteristic:
"Notwithstanding what the gentleman from South Carolina has insinuated
to the contrary, I believe it will be allowed that the manner in which I
argue upon any proposition is as unexceptionable as that of any other
member. It is not my custom to depart from a question under discussion;
still less have I done it, and that times without number, as that
gentleman has done, for the purpose of introducing declamation on the
conduct and motives, not of one man, but of all who differ from him in
opinion with respect to his favorite measures. By 'offensive war' I did
not mean personal attack, but a retaliation of that kind of attack which
the gentleman from South Carolina himself made. If that member thinks
proper to misrepresent the motives of the party opposed to him, I will
myself retaliate, not by personality nor by vague assertions, but by
bringing forth facts to show the true motives of the party to which that
gentleman belongs. As to the personal attacks which he says I have made
upon him. What are they? That I charged that gentleman two years ago
with not understanding the subject of revenue. Is this personality?
Certainly not. How could I resist an argument on the subject of revenue,
made by that gentleman, better than by showing that he does not
understand the subject, if that is true? And I think, indeed, the
gentleman ought to be obliged to me for having told him so; because it
led him to attend to the subject, and I believe he understands it much
better now than he did then. Unconscious as I am of having made any
personal attack upon the gentleman from South Carolina, I shall not be
deterred on a proper occasion from carrying into effect that kind of
offensive war I alluded to, from that investigation of the true motives
of that gentleman's party, by any threats of personal retaliation,
especially from that gentleman. Of whatever materials my house may be
composed, it is at least proof against any pebble which that gentleman
may cast against it. I believe that both my private and political
character, when compared with that of that member, are not in much
danger of being hurt by any insinuations coming from that quarter."
This was perhaps the sharpest thrust that Mr. Gallatin ever allowed
himself to make in debate, and its full force could only be appreciated
on the spot, where both men were best known.
[Sidenote: 1799.]
During the session he resumed his attacks on the navy, which it was
proposed to augment by building six seventy-fours. The President in his
speech and the committee in their report had dwelt upon the effect of
the naval force already created, in reducing the dangers of capture and
the rates of insurance. Mr. Gallatin criticised this argument at some
length, and then proceeded to impress the necessity of economy,
fortifying himself by a statement which showed that the expense of the
permanent establishment, as it now stood, exceeded the revenue by half a
million dollars, to which it was proposed to add the cost of a navy. In
a second and more elaborate speech, a few days later, he returned to
the general question of the advantages of a navy and the unsoundness of
the proposition that commerce required one for its protection, or that
the commerce of any European state had in fact been protected by her
ships of war. England alone had required a naval force for reasons which
did not exist in the United States. Commerce depended on wealth and
industry, not on a navy; the expense of a naval establishment bore with
disproportionate weight on domestic industry. "We have had no navy, no
protection to our commerce. During the course of the present war we have
been plundered by both parties in a most shameful manner.... Yet year
after year our exports and imports have increased in value." He then
discussed the question of increasing the national burdens for the
purpose of creating a navy. Mr. Harper had taken the ground that this
increase was not to be feared; that the national means increased more
rapidly than the national burdens; that we paid less taxes than other
nations and could bear an increase of them. "I am not surprised," said
Mr. Gallatin, "that we should at this time pay less taxes than Great
Britain, Holland, and France; but paying what we do at present, if we
follow their steps, as we are now proposing to do, by building a navy
and increasing our debt, it cannot be doubted that before our system has
been as long in existence as theirs have been we shall pay as much as
they do. What do we pay now? To the general government ten millions of
dollars. How much do we pay to the State governments? How much for
poor-rates, county taxes, &c.? Suppose these do not exceed two millions
of dollars; that will make twelve millions of dollars to be paid by four
millions of white people,--about three dollars a head annually. I do not
think this is a very low tax." And he closed by recurring to his
favorite proposition that the effect of a navy would be merely to draw
us into the political movement of Europe. "I know not," said he,
"whether I have heretofore been indulging myself in a visionary dream,
but I had conceived, when contemplating the situation of America, that
our distance from the European world might have prevented our being
involved in the mischievous politics of Europe, and that we might have
lived in peace without armies and navies and without being deeply
involved in debt. It is true in this dream I had conceived it would have
been our object to have become a happy and not a powerful nation, or at
least no way powerful except for self-defence."
The navy having been provided for, the House fell into a dispute on the
reference of certain petitions against the alien and sedition laws.
Matthew Lyon, the member from Vermont, had been, during the summer,
prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned under the sedition law. There was
great vehemence of feeling on both sides regarding this law, and the
majority in the House were unwilling even to hear it discussed. Mr.
Gallatin took the occasion to disavow all idea of encouraging resistance
to it. "I do not expect the alien law to be repealed, though I have
hopes that the sedition law may be repealed; and though I do not believe
the alien law to be supported by the Constitution, yet I wish the people
to submit to it. So far from desiring to inflame the public opinion on
account of it or anything else, I would endeavor to calm the minds of
the people, because I know that whenever anarchy shall be produced in
any part of the country it will ruin the cause which I wish to support,
and tend only to give additional power to the Executive department of
the government, which, in my opinion, already possesses too much." A few
days afterwards occurred the curious scene mentioned by Mr. Jefferson in
his letter of 26th February, 1799, to Mr. Madison: "Yesterday witnessed
a scandalous scene in the House of Representatives. It was the day for
taking up the report of their committee against the alien and sedition
laws, &c. They held a caucus and determined that not a word should be
spoken on their side in answer to anything which should be said on the
other. Gallatin took up the alien and Nicholas the sedition law; but
after a little while of common silence they began to enter into loud
conversations, laugh, cough, &c., so that for the last hour of these
gentlemen's speaking they must have had the lungs of a vendue master to
have been heard. Livingston, however, attempted to speak. But after a
few sentences the Speaker called him to order and told him what he was
saying was not to the question. It was impossible to proceed. The
question was taken and carried in favor of the report, fifty-two to
forty-eight; the real strength of the two parties is fifty-six to
fifty. But two of the latter have not attended this session."
These two speeches of Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Nicholas were published in
pamphlet form and widely circulated. That of Mr. Gallatin was devoted to
answering the report of the committee, and followed closely the
arguments of that paper; he urged that the doctrine of constructive
powers, on which Congress rested its belief of the necessity and
propriety of this Act, "substituted in that clause of the Constitution a
supposed usefulness or propriety for the necessity expressed and
contemplated by the instrument, and would, in fact destroy every
limitation of the powers of Congress. It will follow that instead of
being bound by any positive rule laid down by their charter, the
discretion of Congress, a discretion to be governed by suspicions,
alarms, popular clamor, private ambition, and by the views of
fluctuating factions, will justify any measure they may choose to
adopt." There was no good answer to this objection, and none has ever
been made, but nevertheless it is quite clear that Congress alone can
decide upon the necessity and propriety of any Act intended to carry its
powers into effect, and that there exists no force in the government
which can control its decision. The "necessary and proper" clause,
dangerous as it was and is, did not become less dangerous by the defeat
of the Federalists and their expulsion from power. The time came when
Mr. Gallatin and his present opponents stood in positions precisely
reversed, and when he was compelled by the force of circumstances to ask
for powers quite as dangerous as those he was now arguing against.
Congress granted them, and he exercised them, greatly against his will
and amid the denunciations of his Federalist enemies. The logic of
events not infrequently proved, in Mr. Gallatin's experience, more
effective than all his theoretical opinions.