TERMINATION OF JAY'S TREATY--WASHINGTON WITHHOLDS HIS SIGNATURE TO
THE RATIFICATION--EFFORTS TO INTIMIDATE HIM--VIOLENT PROCEEDINGS IN
PHILADELPHIA AND NEW YORK--PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTMEN OF
BOSTON--RIOTOUS PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK--HAMILTON AND OTHERS
STONED--OPPOSITION TO THE TREATY--CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN FAVOR OF
THE TREATY--MOVEMENTS IN PHILADELPHIA--DENUNCIATIONS OF JAY AND THE
TREATY IN THE SOUTHERN STATES--DISUNION THREATENED--WASHINGTON'S
LETTER TO THE SELECTMEN OF BOSTON--WASHINGTON AT MOUNT VERNON--HIS
HASTY RETURN TO THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT--FAUCHET'S LETTER
INTERCEPTED--CONFIDENCE WITHDRAWN FROM RANDOLPH--THE RATIFICATION OF
THE TREATY SIGNED--RANDOLPH AND FAUCHET--RANDOLPH'S VINDICATION OF
HIS CONDUCT--HIS REPENTANCE.
The publication of the contents of the treaty produced a blaze of
excitement throughout the country. The author of the treaty, the
senators who approved of its ratification, and the president, were all
vehemently denounced. Great indignation had already been expressed
because the entire negotiation had been involved in mysterious secrecy;
because the document had not been immediately made public on its
reception by the president; and because the senate deliberated upon it
with closed doors. The partisans of France had used every effort, during
the spring and summer, to excite the people against Great Britain; and
it was evident, from the tone of opposition writers and declaimers, that
no possible adjustment of difficulties with that country, which might
promise a future friendly intercourse between the two nations, would be
satisfactory.[79]
It was asserted that any treaty of amity and commerce with Great Britain
under the circumstances, whatever might be its principles, was a
degrading insult to the American people, a pusillanimous surrender of
their honor, and a covert injury to France. They affected to regard the
compact as an alliance; an abandonment of an ancient ally of the United
States, whose friendship had given them independence, and whose current
victories, at that moment challenging the admiration of the world, still
protected them, for an alliance with the natural enemy of that friend,
and with an enemy of human liberty. They spoke of the court of Great
Britain as the most faithless and corrupt in the world, and denounced
the result of Jay's mission as a surrender of every just claim upon a
rapacious enemy for restitution on account of great wrongs.
These denunciations had great immediate effect. All acknowledged that
the treaty was not as favorable to the United States as the latter had a
right to expect; and "public opinion did receive a considerable shock,"
says Marshall. Men unaffected by the spirit of faction felt some
disappointment on its first appearance; therefore, when exposed to the
public view, continues Marshall, "it found one party prepared for a bold
and intrepid attack, but the other not ready in its defence. An appeal
to the passions, prejudices, and feelings of the nation might
confidently be made by those whose only object was its condemnation;
while reflection, information, and consequently time, were required by
men whose first impressions were not in its favor, but who were not
inclined to yield absolutely to those impressions."
As we have observed, Washington, for a specific purpose, withheld his
signature in ratification of the treaty. The vote of the senate
recommending its ratification, with the stipulation that one article
should be added, suspending so much of another as seemed requisite, and
requesting the president to open without delay further negotiation on
that head, presented serious questions to his mind. He had no precedent
for his guide. Could the senate be considered to have ratified the
treaty before the insertion of the new article? Was the act complete and
final, so as to make it unnecessary to refer it back to that body? Could
the president affix his official seal to an act before it should be
complete? These were important questions, and demanded serious
reflection.
The opponents of the treaty, aware of the cause of the delay in its
ratification, resolved to endeavor to intimidate the president and
prevent his signing it. The most violent demonstrations, by word and
deed, were made against it. On the fourth of July, a great mob assembled
in Philadelphia, and paraded the streets with effigies of Jay and the
ratifying senators. That of Jay bore a pair of scales: one was labelled
"_American Liberty and Independence_;" and the other, which greatly
preponderated, "_British Gold_." From the mouth of the figure proceeded
the words, "_Come up to my price, and I will sell you my country_." The
effigies were committed to the flames amid the most frightful yells and
groans.
Public meetings were assembled all over the country to make formal
protests against the treaty. They were called ostensibly to "deliberate
upon it," but they were frequently tumultuous, and always declamatory. A
large meeting was held in Boston on the tenth of July. The chief actors
there denounced the treaty as not containing one single article
honorable or beneficial to the United States. It was disapproved of by
unanimous vote, and a committee of fifteen, appointed to state
objections, in an address to the president, reported no less than
twenty. They were adopted by the meeting without debate, and were sent
to the president accompanied by a letter from the selectmen of Boston.
Only a few of the stable inhabitants of Boston appear to have been
concerned in this matter, and the wealthy merchants and some other rich
men who attended the meeting, and whose fears were excited by the
leaders of the opposition, were made mere tools of on the occasion.
A meeting for a similar purpose was held in front of the city-hall, in
Wall street, New York, on the eighteenth of July, pursuant to a call of
an anonymous handbill. There the opposition gathered in great numbers,
and there also was a large number of the friends of the treaty, who
succeeded at first in electing a chairman. They were then about to
adjourn to some more convenient place, when Brockholst Livingston, Mr.
Jay's brother-in-law, and a leader of the opposition, urged the meeting
to proceed instantly, as the president might ratify the treaty at any
moment. Indeed, the whole Livingston family, with the eminent chancellor
at their head, were now in the ranks of the opposition, and exerted a
powerful influence. "With more than thoughtless effrontery," says Doctor
Francis, "they fanned the embers of discontent."
Hamilton, Rufus King, and other speakers, occupied the balcony of the
city-hall. The former, with sweet and persuasive tones, had uttered
conciliatory words, and spoken in favor of adjournment, when the
meeting became a good deal disturbed by conflicting sentiments and
stormy passions. Just then an excited party of the opposition, who had
held a meeting at the Bowling Green, with William L. Smith, a son-in-law
of Vice-President Adams, as chairman, and who had burned a copy of the
treaty in front of the government house, marched up Broadway, with the
American and French flags unfurled, and joined the meeting. The
turbulence of the assembly was greatly increased by this addition; and
while Hamilton and King "were addressing the people in accents of
friendship, peace, and reconciliation, they were treated in return with
a shower of stones, levelled at their persons, by the exasperated mob
gathered in front of the city-hall."[80]
"These are hard arguments," said Hamilton, who was hit a glancing blow
upon the forehead by one of the stones. A question was finally taken on
a motion to leave the decision on the treaty to the president and
senate, when both sides claimed a majority. Then some person, utterly
ignoring the presence of a chairman, moved the appointment of a
committee of fifteen, to report to another meeting (to be held two days
afterward) objections to the treaty. He read a list of names of
gentlemen that should form that committee, and, at the close of
clamorous shouts, he declared them duly appointed by the vote. The
meeting finally broke up in great confusion. The adjourned meeting was
attended by only the opponents of the treaty; and Brockholst Livingston,
chairman of the committee of fifteen, reported twenty-eight condemnatory
resolutions, which were adopted by unanimous vote.
"These resolutions," says Hildreth, "while expressing great confidence
in the president's wisdom, patriotism, and independence, were equally
confident that his 'own good sense' must induce him to reject the
treaty, as 'invading the constitution and legislative authority of the
country; as abandoning important and well-founded claims against the
British government; as imposing unjust and impolitic restraints on
commerce; as injurious to agriculture; as conceding, without an
equivalent, important advantages to Great Britain; as hostile and
ungrateful to France; as committing our peace with that great republic;
as unequal toward America in every respect; as hazarding her internal
peace and prosperity; and as derogatory from her sovereignty and
independence."[81]
On the very next day (July 22), the New York Chamber of Commerce,
representing the commercial interests of that city, adopted resolutions
diametrically opposed to those offered by Livingston. These set forth
that the treaty contained as many features of reciprocity as, under the
circumstances, might be expected; that the arrangements respecting
British debts were honest and expedient; and that the agreement
concerning the surrender of the western posts and for compensation for
spoliations, and their prevention in future, were wise and beneficial.
If the treaty had been rejected, they said, war with all its attendant
calamities would have ensued, and they were satisfied with what had been
done.
On the twenty-fourth of July a similar meeting was held in Philadelphia.
Among the leaders who denounced the treaty by speech and acts were
Chief-Justice M'Kean, Alexander J. Dallas (the secretary of the
commonwealth), General Muhlenburg (late speaker of the house of
representatives), and John Swanwick (representative elect in Congress).
A committee of fifteen was appointed by the meeting to convey the
sentiments of the assemblage to the president, who was then at Mount
Vernon, in the form of a memorial. That instrument was read twice and
agreed to without debate. The treaty was then thrown to the
populace--consisting chiefly, as Wolcott said in a letter to the
president, of "the ignorant and violent classes"--who placed it upon a
pole, and, proceeding to the house of the British minister, burned it in
the street in front of it. They performed a like ceremony in front of
the dwelling of the British consul, and also of Mr. Bingham, an
influential federalist, with loud huzzas, yells, and groans.
At the South, equally hostile feelings toward the treaty and its friends
were manifested. John Rutledge, then chief justice of South Carolina,
denounced the treaty in violent language at a public meeting. He said it
was destitute of a single article that could be approved, and reproached
Jay with being either a knave or a fool--with corruption or
stupidity--in having signed it. The stanch old patriot, Christopher
Gadsden, denounced it in terms equally decisive; and Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney, at the close of a violent harangue, moved to request the
president to take steps to have Jay impeached. "If he had not made this
public exposure of his conduct and principles," said Pinckney, "he might
one day have been brought forward, among others, as a candidate for our
highest office: but the general and deserved contempt which his
negotiations have brought both his talents and principles into, would
for ever, he trusted, secure his fellow-citizens from the dangerous and
unwise use which such a man would have made of the powers vested in a
president."
The meeting appointed a committee of fifteen to report their sentiments
at another gathering. It was done on the twenty-second of July. The
report contained severe criticisms upon the several articles of the
treaty, and recommended a memorial to the president, asking him not to
ratify it. Meanwhile the populace trailed a British flag through the
streets, and then burned it at the door of the British consul.
While these meetings were occurring in the principal cities, the
opposition press all over the country was alive with the subject, and
its denunciations were sometimes so violent that it was difficult to
find words strong enough to express them. The Democratic Societies,
vivified by the excitement, were also active with a sort of galvanic
life. One of these in South Carolina resolved, "That we pledge ourselves
to our brethren of the republican societies throughout the Union, as far
as the ability and individual influence of a numerous society can be
made to extend, that we will promote every constitutional mode to bring
John Jay to trial and to justice. He shall not escape, if guilty, that
punishment which will at once wipe off the temporary stain laid upon us,
and be a warning to traitors hereafter how they sport with the
interests and feelings of their fellow-citizens. He was instructed, or
he was not: if he was, we will drop the curtain; if not, and he acted of
and from himself, we shall lament the want of a GUILLOTINE."
The Pendleton Society of the same state declared their "abhorrence and
detestation of a treaty which gives the English government more power
over us as states than it claimed over us as colonists--a treaty,
involving in it pusillanimity, stupidity, ingratitude, and treachery."
In Virginia, the grand panacea for all political evils of the federal
government, DISUNION, was again presented. The following specimen of the
prescription, taken from a Virginia newspaper, will suffice as an
example:--
"Notice is hereby given, that in case the treaty entered into by
that damned arch-traitor, John Jay, with the British tyrant should
be ratified, a petition will be presented to the next general
assembly of Virginia at their next session, praying that the said
state may recede from the Union, and be under the government of one
hundred thousand free and independent Virginians.
"P. S. As it is the wish of the people of the said state to enter
into a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, with any other
state or states of the present Union who are averse to returning
again under the galling yoke of Great Britain, the printers of the
(at present) United States are requested to publish the above
notification.--_Richmond, July 31, 1795_."
Even at that early period of the republic, neither newspaper editors,
nor political combinations, nor gatherings of clamorous assemblies,
could make any sensible impression on the real strength of the Union.
Nor did these individual or public demonstrations move Washington from
his steady march in the line of duty, or in his allegiance to what he
discerned to be truth and justice. On his way to his home on the
Potomac, he was overtaken at Baltimore, on the eighteenth of July, by
the committee from Boston, bearing to him the proceedings of the great
public meeting there on the subject of the treaty. He immediately sent
the papers back to Mr. Randolph, the secretary of state, with a request
that he would confer upon the subject with the other two secretaries and
the attorney-general, and transmit the opinion of the cabinet to him as
early as possible. The whole affair, he had no doubt, was intended to
place him "in an embarrassed situation." The cabinet members, after
consultation, wrote out replies to the Boston authorities in accordance
with their views, and sent them to the president. He weighed them
carefully, and on the twenty-eighth of July he addressed the following
letter to the selectmen of Boston:--[82]
"In every act of my administration I have sought the happiness of
my fellow-citizens. My system for the attainment of this object has
uniformly been to overlook all personal, local, and partial
considerations; to contemplate the United States as one great
whole; to consider that sudden impressions, when erroneous, would
yield to candid reflection; and to consult only the substantial and
permanent interests of our country.
"Nor have I departed from this line of conduct, on the occasion
which has produced the resolutions contained in your letter of the
thirteenth instant.
"With a predilection for my own judgment, I have weighed with
attention every argument which has at any time been brought into
view. But the constitution is the guide, which I never can abandon.
It has assigned to the president the power of making treaties, with
the advice and consent of the senate. It was doubtless supposed
that these two branches of government would combine, without
passion, and with the best means of information, those facts and
principles upon which the success of our foreign relations will
always depend; that they ought not to substitute for their own
conviction the opinions of others, or to seek truth through any
channel but that of a temperate and well-informed investigation.
"Under this persuasion, I have resolved on the manner of executing
the duty before me. To the high responsibility attached to it I
freely submit; and you, gentlemen, are at liberty to make these
sentiments known as the grounds of my procedure. While I feel the
most lively gratitude for the many instances of approbation from my
country, I can no otherwise deserve it than by obeying the dictates
of my conscience."
To these noble sentiments Washington firmly adhered, and they were the
basis of his replies to all similar communications. Before this letter
was sent, Washington received many private and public letters on the
subject, as well as newspaper accounts of meetings all over the country.
He perceived that a crisis had arrived, when he must act promptly and
energetically, in accordance with his convictions of right. He saw that
the excitement throughout the Union was becoming formidable, and he
resolved to return to Philadelphia immediately, summon his cabinet, and
propose to ratify the treaty without delay--notwithstanding such return
would be to him a great personal sacrifice. "Whilst I am in office," he
said to Randolph in his letter announcing his determination to return,
"I shall never suffer private convenience to interfere with what I
conceive to be my official duty." This was one of the great maxims of
his life.
"I view the opposition," he said, "which the treaty is receiving from
the meetings in different parts of the Union, in a very serious light;
not because there is more weight in any of the objections which are made
to it than was foreseen at first, for there is none in some of them, and
gross misrepresentations in others; nor as it respects myself
personally, for this shall have no influence on my conduct, plainly
perceiving, and I am accordingly preparing my mind for it, the obloquy
which disappointment and malice are collecting to heap upon me. But I am
alarmed at the effect it may have on, and the advantage the French
government may be disposed to make of, the spirit which is at work to
cherish a belief in them that the treaty is calculated to favor Great
Britain at their expense. Whether they believe or disbelieve these
tales, the effect it will have upon the nation will be nearly the same;
for, whilst they are at war with that power, or so long as the
animosity between the two nations exists, it will, no matter at whose
expense, be their policy, and it is to be feared will be their conduct,
to prevent us from being on good terms with Great Britain, or her from
deriving any advantages from our trade, which they can hinder, however
much we may be benefitted thereby ourselves. To what length this policy
and interest may carry them is problematical; but when they see the
people of this country divided, and such a violent opposition given to
the measures of their own government pretendedly in their favor, it may
be extremely embarrassing, to say no more of it.
"To sum the whole up in a few words, I have never, since I have been in
the administration of the government, seen a crisis, which in my
judgment has been so pregnant with interesting events, nor one from
which more is to be apprehended, whether viewed on one side or the
other. From New York there is, and I am told will further be, a counter
current; but how formidable it may appear I know not. If the same does
not take place at Boston and other towns, it will afford but too strong
evidence that the opposition is in a manner universal, and would make
the ratification a very serious business indeed. But, as it respects the
French, even counter resolutions would, for the reasons I have already
mentioned, do little more than weaken in a small degree the effect the
other side would have."
Two days afterward (the thirty-first of July) he wrote to Mr. Randolph,
informing him that he should not set out for Philadelphia until he
should receive answers to some letters, and then said:--
"To be wise and temperate, as well as firm, the present crisis most
eminently calls for. There is too much reason to believe, from the
pains which have been taken, before, at, and since the advice of
the senate respecting the treaty, that the prejudices against it
are more extensive than is generally imagined. This I have lately
understood to be the case in this quarter, from men who are of no
party, but well disposed to the present administration. How should
it be otherwise, when no stone has been left unturned that could
impress on the minds of the people the most arrant
misrepresentation of facts; that their rights have not only been
_neglected_, but absolutely _sold_; that there are no reciprocal
advantages in the treaty; that the benefits are all on the side of
Great Britain; and, what seems to have had more weight with them
than all the rest and to have been most pressed, that the treaty is
made with the design to oppress the French, in open violation of
our treaty with that nation, and contrary, too, to every principle
of gratitude and sound policy? In time, when passion shall have
yielded to sober reason, the current may possibly turn; but, in the
meanwhile, this government, in relation to France and England, may
be compared to a ship between the rocks of Scylla and Charybdis. If
the treaty is ratified, the partisans of the French, or rather of
war and confusion, will excite them to hostile measures, or at
least to unfriendly sentiments; if it is not, there is no
foreseeing all the consequences which may follow as it respects
Great Britain.
"It is not to be inferred from hence that I am disposed to quit the
ground I have taken, unless circumstances more imperious than have
yet come to my knowledge should compel it; for there is but one
straight course, and that is, to seek truth and pursue it steadily.
"But these things are mentioned to show that a close investigation
of the subject is more than ever necessary, and that they are
strong evidences of the necessity of the most circumspect conduct
in carrying the determination of government into effect, with
prudence as it respects our own people, and with every exertion to
produce a change for the better from Great Britain."
Randolph, at Washington's request, had made a rough draft of a memorial,
intended to meet all objections to the treaty. This had been sent to
Mount Vernon, and in reference to it the president said:--
"The memorial seems well designed to answer the end proposed; and
by the time it is revised and new-dressed, you will probably
(either in the resolutions, which are or will be handed to me, or
in the newspaper publications, which you promised to be attentive
to) have seen all the objections against the treaty which have any
real force in them, and which may be fit subjects for
representation in the memorial, or in the instructions, or both.
"But how much longer the presentation of the memorial can be
delayed without exciting unpleasant sensations here, or involving
serious evils elsewhere, you, who are at the scene of information
and action, can decide better than I. In a matter, however, so
interesting and pregnant with consequences as this treaty, there
ought to be no precipitation; but, on the contrary, every step
should be explored before it is taken, and every word weighed
before it is uttered or delivered in writing."
Washington arrived at Philadelphia on the eleventh of August. His return
was hastened by a mysterious letter from Colonel Pickering, the
secretary of war, dated the thirty-first of July. "On the subject of the
treaty," he said, "I confess I feel extreme solicitude, and for a
_special reason_, which can be communicated to you only in person. I
entreat, therefore, that you will return with all convenient speed to
the seat of government. In the meantime, for the reason above referred
to, I pray you to decide on no important political measure, in whatever
form it may be presented to you. Mr. Wolcott and I (Mr. Bradford
concurring) waited on Mr. Randolph, and urged his writing to request
your return. He wrote in our presence, but we concluded a letter from
one of us also expedient."
On the day after his arrival, the president called a cabinet meeting.
Mr. Pickering had already explained the mysterious hints in his letter,
by handing to Washington some papers which had excited suspicions
concerning Secretary Randolph's conduct. When the cabinet had convened,
the president submitted the question, "What shall be done with the
treaty?" Randolph not only insisted upon the repeal of the provision
order already alluded to, as a preliminary to ratification, but took the
ground that the treaty ought not to be ratified at all, pending the war
with Great Britain and France. The other members of the cabinet were in
favor of immediate ratification, with a strong memorial against the
provision order. In this opinion Washington coincided, and on the
eighteenth the ratification was signed by the president. Randolph was
directed to complete the memorial which he had commenced, and also
instructions for further negotiations.
Washington's feelings had been deeply moved by the papers which
Pickering placed in his hands. The chief of these was a despatch of M.
Fauchet, the French minister, to his government, late in the autumn of
1794, and which had been intercepted. In that despatch, Fauchet gave a
sketch of the rise of parties in the United States, in substantial
accordance with Jefferson's views, and then he commented freely upon the
Whiskey Insurrection in western Pennsylvania, then drawing to a close.
Echoing the sentiments of the democratic leaders, Fauchet, professing to
have his information from Randolph, declared that the insurrection grew
out of political hostility to Hamilton. It was Hamilton's intention, he
said, in enforcing the excise, "to mislead the president into unpopular
courses, and to introduce absolute power under pretext of giving energy
to the government."
In his further comments, the minister, in deprecation of the conduct of
professed republicans, and the general co-operation with the president
in putting down the insurrection, said: "Of the governors whose duty it
was to appear at the head of the requisitions, the governor of
Pennsylvania alone [Mifflin] enjoyed the name of republican. His
opinions of the secretary of the treasury, and of his systems, were
known to be unfavorable. The secretary of this state [Dallas] possessed
great influence in the popular society of Philadelphia, which in its
turn influenced those of other states; of course he merited attention.
It appears that these men, with others unknown to me, were balancing to
decide on their party. Two or three days before the proclamation was
published, and of course before the cabinet had resolved on its
measures, Mr. Randolph came to me with an air of great eagerness, and
made to me the overtures of which I have given an account in my No.
6.[83]
"Thus, with some thousands of dollars, the republic could have decided on
civil war or on peace! Thus the consciences of the pretended patriots of
America already have their prices! What will be the old age of this
government, if it is thus already decrepit?"
After speaking of Hamilton's financial schemes as the instrument of
making "of a whole nation a stock-jobbing, speculating, and selfish
people," and asserting that "riches alone here fix consideration, and,
as no one likes to be despised, they are universally sought after," he
makes some exceptions among the leading republicans by name, and
continues:--
"As soon as it was decided that the French republic purchased no men to
do their duty, there were to be seen individuals, about whose conduct
the government could at least form uneasy conjectures, giving themselves
up with scandalous ostentation to its views, and ever seconding its
declarations. The popular societies [democratic] soon emitted
resolutions stamped with the same spirit, which, although they may not
have been prompted by love of order, might nevertheless have been
omitted, or uttered with less solemnity. Then were seen, coming from the
very men whom we have been accustomed to regard as having little
friendship for the treasurer, harangues without end, in order to give a
new direction to the public mind."
This despatch had been intercepted at sea, found its way to the British
cabinet, and was forwarded to Mr. Hammond, the British minister at
Philadelphia. He placed it in the hands of Mr. Wolcott, the secretary of
the treasury, for he ascribed the delay in the ratification of the
treaty to Randolph's influence. It was translated by Mr. Pickering, and
he, as we have seen, submitted it to the president on his arrival at the
seat of government. Washington revolved it in his mind with great
concern; but other matters of greater moment demanding his immediate
attention after his arrival, he postponed all action upon it until the
question of ratifying the treaty should be settled. On the day after the
signing of that instrument, the president, in the presence of all the
cabinet officers, handed the intercepted despatch to Mr. Randolph, with
a request that he should read it and make such explanations as he might
think fit.
This was the first intimation Mr. Randolph had of the existence of such
a letter. He perused it carefully without perceptible emotion, and with
equal composure he commented upon each paragraph in order. He declared
that he had never asked for, nor received, any money from the French
minister for himself or others, and had never made any improper
communications to Fauchet of the measures of the government. He said
that he wished more leisure to examine the letter, and he proposed to
put further observations in writing. He complained, perhaps justly, of
the president's manner in bringing the subject to his notice, without
any private intimation of such intention; and he added, that in
consideration of the treatment he had received, he could not think of
remaining in office a moment longer.
On the same day Randolph tendered his resignation to the president. In
his letter accompanying it, he said, "Your confidence in me, sir, has
been unlimited, and, I can truly affirm, unabused. My sensations, then,
can not be concealed, when I find that confidence so suddenly withdrawn,
without a word or distant hint being previously dropped to me. This,
sir, as I mentioned in your room, is a situation in which I can not hold
my present office, and therefore I hereby resign it.
"It will not, however, be concluded from hence that I mean to relinquish
the inquiry. No, sir--very far from it. I will also meet any inquiry;
and to prepare for it, if I learn there is a chance of overtaking Mr.
Fauchet before he sails, I will go to him immediately.[84]
"I have to beg the favor of you to permit me to be furnished with a
copy of the letter, and I will prepare an answer to it; which I perceive
that I can not do with the few hasty memoranda which I took with my
pencil. I am satisfied, sir, that you will acknowledge one piece of
justice to be due on this occasion, which is, that until an inquiry can
be made, the affair shall continue in secrecy under your injunction.
For, after pledging myself for a more specific investigation of all the
suggestions, I here most solemnly deny that any overture came from me,
which was to produce money to me or any others for me; and that in any
manner, directly or indirectly, was a shilling ever received by me; nor
was it ever contemplated by me that one shilling should be applied by
Mr. Fauchet to any purpose relative to the insurrection."
On the following day, Washington wrote to Mr. Randolph: "Whilst you are
in pursuit of means to remove the strong suspicions arising from this
letter, no disclosure of its contents will be made by me, and I will
enjoin the same on the public officers who are acquainted with the
purport of it, unless something will appear to render an explanation
necessary on the part of the government, and of which I will be the
judge." He afterward said, "No man would rejoice more than I, to find
that the suspicions which have resulted from the intercepted letter were
unequivocally and honorably removed."
A message from Randolph reached Fauchet before he was ready to embark,
and the minister wrote to the late secretary, a declaration, denying
that the latter had ever indicated a willingness to receive money for
his own use, and also affirming that, in his letter to his government,
he did not say anything derogatory to Mr. Randolph's character. With
this declaration from the retiring French minister, and a reliance upon
the general tenor of his conduct while in the cabinet, Randolph
proceeded to prepare his vindication, at the same time publicly boasting
to his friends, with a vindictive spirit, that he would bring things to
view which would affect Washington more than anything which had yet
appeared. Among other things which he proposed to do, in order to damage
the reputation of Washington, was, to undertake to show, by the
president's own letter to him on the twenty-second of July, that he
(Washington) was opposed to the treaty which he had now so eagerly
signed; and that the intercepted despatch had been communicated to
Washington as part of a scheme concocted between the British minister
and the cabinet officers to insure the ratification of the treaty, to
drive Randolph from office, and to crush the republican party in the
United States.
The paragraph in Washington's letter on which Randolph intended to base
this charge was as follows: "My opinion respecting the treaty is the
same now that it was; namely, not favorable to it, but that it is better
to ratify it in the manner the senate have advised, and with the
reservation already mentioned, than to suffer matters to remain as they
are, unsettled." The letter from which this is copied was on file in the
office of the secretary of state; and Randolph, with evidences of a
strangely bitter feeling toward Washington, applied to him for a copy of
it, that he might publish it in his vindication. "You must be sensible,
sir," he said, "that I am inevitably driven to the discussion of many
confidential and delicate points. I could, with safety, immediately
appeal to the people of the United States, who can be of no party. But I
shall wait for your answer to this letter, so far as it respects the
paper desired, before I forward to you my general letter, which is
delayed for no other cause. I shall also rely that any supposed error in
the general letter in regard to facts will be made known to me, that I
may correct it if necessary, and that you will consent to the whole
affair, howsoever confidential and delicate, being exhibited to the
world. At the same time, I prescribe to myself the condition not to
mingle anything which I do not seriously conceive to belong to the
subject."
Utterly mistaking the character of Washington, and ungenerously
presuming that the president would withhold his consent to the
publication of the letter referred to, Randolph published in the
_Philadelphia Gazette_, two days after he wrote to Washington, the
paragraph in his application which has just been quoted, and with it a
note to the editor, saying, "The letter from which the enclosed is an
extract relates principally to the requisition of a particular paper.
My only view at present is to show to my fellow-citizens what is the
state of my vindication."
Washington was then at Mount Vernon, and the letter, an extract from
which was published, could not have reached him when that paragraph was
made public. It passed Washington while on his way to Philadelphia, and
he did not receive it until the twentieth of October, twelve days after
it was written. On the following day, Washington, with a perfect
consciousness of his own rectitude at all times and under all
circumstances, and with a noble generosity to which his assailant showed
himself a stranger, wrote to him as follows:--
"It is not difficult, from the tenor of your letter, to perceive what
your objects are. But, that you may have no cause to complain of the
withholding of any paper, however private and confidential, which you
shall think necessary in a case of so serious a nature, I have directed
that you should have the inspection of my letter of the twenty-second of
July, agreeably to your request; and you are at full liberty to publish
without reserve _any_ and _every_ private and confidential letter I ever
wrote to you; nay, more--every word I ever uttered to you, or in your
hearing, from whence you can derive any advantage in your vindication. I
grant this permission, inasmuch as the extract alluded to manifestly
tends to impress on the public mind an opinion that something has passed
between us, which you should disclose with reluctance, from motives of
delicacy with respect to me."
In reference to Randolph's proposition to submit his vindication to the
inspection of Washington, the latter remarked, "As you are no longer an
officer of the government, and propose to submit your vindication to the
public, it is not my desire, nor is it my intention, to receive it
otherwise than through the medium of the press. Facts you can not
mistake, and, if they are fairly and candidly stated, they will invite
no comments."
In December the pamphlet appeared, entitled, "A Vindication of Mr.
Randolph's Resignation," in which was a narrative of the principal
events which we have just been considering, the correspondence between
the president and Randolph, the whole of Fauchet's letter, and
Randolph's remarks. "From the nature of the circumstances," says Sparks,
"Mr. Randolph had a difficult task to perform, as he was obliged to
prove a negative, and to explain vague expressions and insinuations
connected with his name in Fauchet's letter." The statements which he
made in proof of his innocence were not such as to produce entire
conviction. "He moreover," continues Sparks, "allowed himself to be
betrayed into a warmth of temper and bitterness of feeling not
altogether favorable to his candor. After all that has been made known,
the particulars of his conversations with Fauchet and his designs are
still matters of conjecture."
In after life, Mr. Randolph deeply regretted the course that he pursued
toward Washington at this time. In a letter to Judge Bushrod Washington,
written in the summer of 1810, he said: "I do not retain the smallest
degree of that feeling which roused me fifteen years ago against some
individuals. For the world contains no treasure, deception, or charm,
which can seduce me from the consolation of being in a state of good
will towards all mankind; and I should not be mortified to ask pardon of
any man with whom I have been at variance, for any injury which I may
have done him. If I could now present myself before your venerated
uncle, it would be my pride to confess my contrition, that I suffered my
irritation, let the cause be what it might, to use some of those
expressions respecting him, which, at this moment of my indifference to
the ideas of the world, I wish to recall, as being inconsistent with my
subsequent conviction."[85]
It was thus with all the assaults ever made upon the character of
Washington. They always failed to injure it in the slightest degree; and
the sharpest and best-tempered shafts of malignity fell blunted and
harmless from the invulnerable shield of his spotless integrity.
FOOTNOTES:
[79] At a civic feast in Philadelphia, on the first of May, which was
attended by a great number of American citizens, to celebrate the recent
victories of France, the subjoined toasts were given. The managers of
the feast sent the following invitation to President Washington:--
"SIR: The subscribers, a committee in behalf of a number of
American, French, and Dutch citizens, request the honor of your
company to a civic festival, to be given on Friday, the seventeenth
of April, appointed to celebrate the late victories of the French
republic, and the emancipation of Holland." The feast was postponed
until the first of May. Washington did not attend; but the occasion
was honored by the presence of the French minister and consul, and
the consul of Holland. The following are the toasts:--
"1. The republic of France, whose triumphs have made this day a
jubilee; may she destroy the race of kings, and may their broken
sceptres and crowns, like the bones and teeth of the mammoth, be
the only evidence that such monsters ever infested the earth.
"2. The republic of France; may the shores of Great Britain soon
hail the tri-colored standard, and the people rend the air with
shouts of 'Long live the republic!'
"3. The republic of France; may her navy clear the ocean of
pirates, that the common high way of nations may no longer, like
the highways of Great Britain, be a receptacle for robbers.
"4. The republic of France; may all free nations learn of her to
transfer their attachment from men to principles, and from
individuals to the people.
"5. The republic of France; may her example, in the abolition of
titles and splendor, be a lesson to all republics to destroy those
leavens of corruption.
"6. The republic of Holland; may the flame of liberty which they
have rekindled never be permitted to expire for want of vigilance
and energy.
"7. The republic of Holland; may her two sisters, the republics of
France and America, form with her an invincible triumvirate in the
cause of liberty.
"8. The republic of Holland; may she again give birth to a Van
Tromp and a De Ruyter, who shall make the satellites of George
tremble at their approach, and seek their safety in flight.
"9 The republic of Holland; may that fortitude which sustained her
in the dire conflict with Philip the Second, and the success that
crowned her struggles, be multiplied upon her in the hour of her
regeneration.
"10. The republic of Holland; may that government which they are
about establishing have neither the balances of aristocracy nor the
checks of monarchy.
"11. The republic of America; may the sentiment that impelled her
to resist a British tyrant's will, and the energy which rendered it
effectual, prompt her to repel usurpation in whatever shape it may
assail her.
"12. The republic of America; may the aristocracy of wealth,
founded upon the virtues, the toils, and the blood of her
Revolutionary armies, soon vanish, and, like the baseless fabric of
a vision, leave not a wreck behind.
"13. The republic of America; may her government have public good
for its object, and be purged of the dregs of sophisticated
republicanism.
"14. The republic of America; may the alliance formed between her
and France acquire vigor with age, and that man be branded as the
enemy of liberty who shall endeavor to weaken or unhinge it.
"15. The republic of America; may her administration have virtue
enough to defy the ordeal of patriotic societies, and patriotism
enough to cherish instead of denouncing them."
[80] _Old and New York_, by J. W. Francis, M. D., LL.D. "Edward
Livingston," says Doctor Francis, (afterwards so celebrated for his
Louisiana Code,) "was, I am informed, one of the violent numbers by whom
the stones were thrown."
[81] History of the United States, Second Series, i, 550.
[82] The names of the selectmen who addressed him were Ezekiel Price,
Thomas Walley, William Boardman, Ebenezer Seaver, Thomas Crafts, Thomas
Edwards, William Little, William Scollay, and Jesse Putnam.
[83] In "No. 6," written, it is supposed, some time in August, Fauchet,
alluding to the breaking out of the Whiskey Insurrection, said: "Scarce
was the commotion known when the secretary of state [Mr. Randolph] came
to my house. All his countenance was grief. He requested of me a private
conversation. 'It is all over,' he said to me; 'a civil war is about to
ravage our unhappy country. Four men, by their talents, their influence,
their energy, may save it. But--debtors of English merchants--they will
be deprived of their liberty if they take the smallest step. Could you
lend them instantaneous funds sufficient to shelter them from English
persecution?' This inquiry astonished me. It was impossible for me to
make a satisfactory answer. You know my want of power and my defect of
pecuniary means. I shall draw myself from the affair by some
common-place remarks, and by throwing myself on the pure and
disinterested principles of the republic."
[84] Fauchet had been superseded by M. Adet, and had gone to New York to
embark for France, when this difficulty occurred.
[85] Marshall's _Life of Washington_, ii. Appendix, Note xx.