Tracy, of Connecticut, replied to the most prominent points of Gallatin's speech. He denied that Vattel gave any such opinion as to slaves, as set forth by Gallatin; and called attention to the fact that the British did not refuse to restore them as booty, but because they were men set free by having joined the British standard, that freedom being the chief inducement held out to them. Other points he commented upon with equal force. He warmed with his theme, and at length became severely personal. The opposition, he said, ask, with an air of triumphant complacency, How is there to be war, if we are not disposed to fight, and Great Britain has no motive for hostilities? "But look at the probable state of things," he continued: "Great Britain is to retain the western posts, and with them, the confidence of the Indians; she makes no compensation for the millions spoliated from our commerce, but adds new millions to our already heavy losses. Would Americans quietly see their government strut, look big, call hard names, repudiate treaties, and then tamely put up with new and aggravated injuries? Whatever might be the case in other parts of the Union, his constituents were not of a temper to dance round a whiskey-pole one day, cursing the government, and to sneak, the next day, into a swamp, on hearing that a military force was marching against them. They knew their rights, and, if the government were unable, or unwilling, to give them protection, they would find other means to secure it. He could not feel thankful to any gentleman for coming all the way from Geneva to accuse Americans of pusillanimity."

This allusion to Gallatin elicited cries of order from many of the opposition, and for awhile the excitement in the house was intense. The chairman decided that Mr. Tracy was in order, and desired him to go on. He disclaimed any intention to be personal, asked pardon for any improprieties of which he might have been guilty in the heat of debate, and excused himself with the plea, that such charges against the American government and people, from such a source, were naturally very offensive.

Fourteen days had now been occupied with this debate, when Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts, whose feebleness of health had kept him away from the house a part of the session, and made him a quiet spectator until now, arose in his place, and addressed the assemblage on the great subject. It was known that he was to speak on that day (twenty-eighth of April), and the house was crowded with an audience eager to hear the orator. He was pale, tottering, hardly able to stand on his feet, when he first arose, but as he became warmed with the subject, his whole being seemed to gather strength every moment, and he delivered a speech which was never forgotten by those who heard it. It was the great speech of the session, exhibiting a wonderful comprehension of human nature and the springs of political action; logic the most profound; the most biting ridicule, and pathetic eloquence. His speech exhibits such a summary, in its allusions, to the scope of the arguments of the opposition, and throws such light upon the growth and state of parties, that we make long extracts from it.

"The suggestion a few days ago," he said, "that the house manifested symptoms of heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge ought to create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to ourselves and the occasion. Let us not effect to deny the existence and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feeling into the debate, when, from the very structure of our own nature, we ought to anticipate the circumstance as a probability; and when we are admonished by the evidence of our senses that it is a fact, how can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhortations to the house, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and no guide respected but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally every passion of man is continually ringing in our ears? Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been unexplored? It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments; and, when that attempt failed, to awaken the sensibility that would require none. Every prejudice and feeling has been summoned to listen to some peculiar style of address; and yet we seem to believe and to consider a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that of unbiassed reason.... It is very unfairly pretended, that the constitutional right of this house is at stake, and to be asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. We hear it said, that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the design to nullify the existence of this assembly, and to make it a cypher in the government; that the president and senate, the numerous meetings in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, and in spite of the clearest convictions of duty and conscience.

"It is necessary to pause here, and inquire whether suggestions of this kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, and pernicious in all their influences. They oppose an obstacle in the path of inquiry, not simply discouraging, but absolutely insurmountable. They will not yield to argument; for, as they were not reasoned up, they can not be reasoned down. They are higher than a Chinese wall in truth's way, and built of materials that are indestructible. While this remains, it is vain to say to this mountain, be thou cast into the sea. For I ask of the men of knowledge of the world, whether they would not hold him for a blockhead, that should hope to prevail in an argument, whose scope and object is to mortify the self-love of the expected proselyte? I ask further, when such attempts have been made, whether they have not failed of success? The indignant heart repels the conviction that is believed to debase it.... Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of supposition, and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have yielded too suddenly to their own alarms for the powers of this house; that the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and passion in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness and simplicity....

"The doctrine has been avowed, that the treaty, though formally ratified by the executive power of both nations, though published as a law for our own by the president's proclamation, is still a mere proposition submitted to this assembly, no way distinguishable, in point of authority or obligation, from a motion for leave to bring in a bill, or any other original act of ordinary legislation. This doctrine, so novel in our country, yet so dear to many precisely for the reason, that in the contention for power, victory is always dear, is obviously repugnant to the very terms, as well as the fair interpretation of our own resolution (Mr. Blount's). We declare, that the treaty-making power is exclusively vested in the president and senate, and not in the house. Need I say that we fly in the face of that resolution, when we pretend that the acts of that power are not valid until we have concurred in them. It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most glaring contradiction, and to claim a share in a power which we at the same time disclaim, as exclusively vested in other departments. What can be more strange than to say, that the compacts of the president and senate with foreign nations are treaties without our agency, and yet, that those compacts want all power and obligation until they are sanctioned by our concurrence. It is not my design, in this place, if at all, to go into a discussion of this part of the subject. I will, at least for the present, take it for granted that this monstrous opinion stands in little need of remark, and, if it does, lies almost out of the reach of refutation."

After discussing the subject of bad faith on the part of the United States, in refusing to execute the treaty, with a clear and comprehensive view of the obligations of nations, Mr. Ames continued:—

"I shall be asked, why a treaty so good in some articles, and so harmless in others, has met with such unrelenting opposition? and how the clamors against it, from New Hampshire to Georgia, can be accounted for? The apprehensions so extensively diffused on its first publication, will be vouched as proof that the treaty is bad, and that the people held it in abhorrence.

"I am not embarrassed to find an answer to this insinuation. Certainly a foresight of its pernicious operation could not have created all the fears that were felt or effected: the alarm spread faster than the publication of the treaty; there were more critics than readers. Besides, as the subject was examined, those fears have subsided. The movements of passion are quicker than those of the understanding: we are to search for the causes of first impressions, not in the articles of this obnoxious and misrepresented instrument, but in the state of the public feeling.

"The fervor of the Revolutionary war had not entirely cooled, nor its controversies ceased, before the sensibility of our citizens was quickened with a tenfold vivacity, by a new and extraordinary subject of irritation. One of the two great nations of Europe underwent a change which has attracted all our wonder, and interested all our sympathy. Whatever they did, the zeal of many went with them, and often went to excess. These impression met with much to inflame, and nothing to restrain them. In our newspapers, in our feasts, and some of our elections, enthusiasm was admitted a merit, a test of patriotism; and that made it contagious. In the opinion of party, we could not love or hate enough. I dare say, in spite of all the obloquy it may provoke, we were extravagant in both. It is my right to avow, that passions so impetuous, enthusiasm so wild, could not subsist without disturbing the sober exercise of reason, without putting at risk the peace and precious interests of our country. They were hazarded. It will not exhaust the little breath I have left, to say how much, nor by whom, or by what means they were rescued from the sacrifice. Shall I be called upon to offer my proofs? They are here. They are everywhere. No one has forgotten the proceedings of 1794. No one has forgotten the capture of our vessels, and the imminent danger of war. The nation thirsted, not only for reparation, but vengeance. Suffering such wrongs, and agitated by such resentments, was it in the power of any words of compact, or could any parchment, with its seals, prevail at once to tranquillize the people? It was impossible. Treaties in England are seldom popular, and least of all, when the stipulations of amity succeed to the bitterness of hatred. Even the best treaty, though nothing be refused, will choke resentment, but not satisfy it. Every treaty is as sure to disappoint extravagant expectations, as to disarm extravagant passions; of the latter, hatred is one that takes no bribes; they who are animated by a spirit of revenge, will not be quieted by the possibility of profit.

"Why do they complain that the West Indies are not laid open? Why do they lament that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies? Why do they pretend, that if they reject this, and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit—more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious? Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy, that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe, and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of France. 'No treaty,' exclaim others, 'should be made with a monarch or a despot; there will be no naval security while those sea-robbers prevail on the ocean; their den must be destroyed; that nation must be extirpated.'

"I like this, sir, because it is sincerity. With feelings such as these we do not pant for treaties. Such passions seek nothing, and will be content with nothing, but the destruction of their object. If a treaty left King George his island it would not answer, not if he stipulated to pay rent for it. It has been said, the world ought to rejoice if Great Britain was sunk in the sea; if, where there are now men, and wealth, and laws, and liberty, there were no more than a sandbank, for the sea-monsters to fatten on—a space for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict.

"I object nothing to the good sense or humanity of all this. I yield the point that this is a proof that the age of reason is in progress. Let it be philanthropy, let it be patriotism, if you will; but it is no indication that any treaty would be approved. The difficulty is not to overcome the objections to the terms; it is to restrain the repugnance to any stipulations of amity with the party.

"Having alluded to the rival of Great Britain, I am not unwilling to explain myself. I effect no concealment, and I have practised none. While those two great nations agitate all Europe with their quarrels, they will both equally endeavor to create an influence in America; each will exert all its arts to range its strength on its own side. How is this to be effected? Our government is a democratical republic; it will not be disposed to pursue a system of politics, in submission to either France or England, in opposition to the general wishes of the citizens; and if Congress should adopt such measures, they would not be pursued long, nor with much success. From the nature of our government, popularity is the instrument of foreign influence. Without it, all is labor and disappointment. With that auxiliary, foreign intrigue finds agents, not only volunteers, but competitors for employment, and anything like reluctance is understood to be a crime. Has Britain this means of influence? Certainly not. If her gold could buy adherents, their becoming such would deprive them of all political power and importance. They would not wield popularity as a weapon, but would fall under it. Britain has no influence, and, for reasons just given, can have none. She has enough; and God forbid she ever should have more. France, possessed of popular enthusiasm, of party attachments, has had, and still has, too much influence on our politics. Any foreign influence is too much, and ought to be destroyed. I detest the man, and disdain the spirit, that can bend to a mean subserviency to the views of any nation. It is enough to be American; that character comprehends our duties, and ought to engross our attachments.

"But I would not be misunderstood. I would not break the alliance with France. I would not have the connection between the two countries even a cold one. It should be cordial and sincere; but I would banish that influence, which, by acting on the passions of the citizens, may acquire a power over the government."

The speaker then drew a picture of the national disgrace, in the eyes of the world, that would be caused by a breach of national faith; and he appealed with inexpressible power to the hearts and understandings of the members, on this all-important consideration. He probed, with keen and searching precision, the Jesuitical position assumed by the house, in disclaiming any participation in the treaty-making power, and yet claiming the right to decide upon the merits of a treaty, and to defeat its execution. He then dwelt upon the evils that would accrue, in the form of a loss to the mercantile community, of five millions of dollars promised in payment for spoliations; and the renewal of Indian wars on the frontier, if the western posts should not be given up.

"On this theme," he said, "my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words for them, if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal, I would swell my voice to such a note of remonstrance, it should reach every log-house beyond the mountains. I would say to the inhabitants, wake from your false security—your cruel dangers; your more cruel apprehensions are soon to be torn open again. In the daytime your path through the woods will be ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You are a father—the blood of your sons shall fatten your cornfields. You are a mother—the war-whoop shall waken the sleep of the cradle.

"On this subject you need not expect any deception on your feelings. It is a spectacle of horror which can not be overdrawn. If you have nature in your hearts, they will speak a language, compared with which, all I have said, or can say, will be poor and frigid.... By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires—we bind the victims. This day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans our decision will make—to the wretches that will be roasted at the stake—to our country—and I do not deem it too serious to say, to conscience and to God. We are answerable; and if duty be anything more than a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bugbear, we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country....

"The idea of war has been treated as a bugbear. This levity is, at least, unseasonable, and, most of all, unbecoming some who resort to it. Who has forgotten the philippics of 1794? The cry then was, reparation—no envoy—no treaty—no tedious delays. Now, it seems, the passion subsides, or, at least, the hurry to satisfy it. Great Britain, they say, will not wage war upon us.

"In 1794, it was urged by those who now say, no war, that if we built frigates, or resisted the piracies of Algiers, we could not expect peace. Now they give excellent comfort truly. Great Britain has seized our vessels and cargoes to the amount of millions; she holds the posts; she interrupts our trade, say they, as a neutral nation; and these gentlemen, formerly so fierce for redress, assure us, in terms of the sweetest consolation, Great Britain will bear all this patiently. But let me ask the late champions of our rights, will our nation bear it? Let others exult because the aggressor will let our wrongs sleep for ever. Will it add, it is my duty to ask, to the patience and quiet of our citizens, to see their rights abandoned? Will not the disappointment of their hopes, so long patronized by the government, now in the crisis of their being realized, convert all their passions into fury and despair?...

"Look again at this state of things. On the seacoast, vast losses uncompensated; on the frontier, Indian war and actual encroachment on our territory; everywhere discontent; resentments tenfold more fierce because they will be more impotent and humbled; national discord and abasement. The disputes of the old treaty of 1783, being left to rankle, will revive the almost extinguished animosities of that period. Wars in all countries, and most of all in such as are free, arise from the impetuosity of the public feelings. The despotism of Turkey is often obliged by clamor to unsheathe the sword. War might, perhaps, be delayed, but could not be prevented. The causes of it would remain, would be aggravated, would be multiplied, and soon become intolerable. More captures, more impressments would swell the list of our wrongs, and the current of our rage. I make no calculation of the arts of those whose employment it has been, on former occasions, to fan the fire; I say nothing of the foreign money and emissaries that might foment the spirit of hostility, because this state of things will naturally run to violence. With less than their former exertion they would be successful.

"Will our government be able to temper and restrain the turbulence of such a crisis? The government, alas! will be in no capacity to govern. A divided people, and divided councils! Shall we cherish the spirit of peace, or show the energies of war? Shall we make our adversary afraid of our strength, or dispose him, by the measures of resentment and broken faith, to respect our rights? Do gentlemen rely on the state of peace because both nations will be more disposed to keep it? because injuries and insults still harder to endure, will be mutually offered?...

"Is there anything in the prospect of the interior state of the country, to encourage us to aggravate the dangers of a war? Would not the shock of that evil produce another, and shake down the feeble and then unbraced structure of our government? Is this a chimera? Is it going off the ground of matter of fact to say, the rejection of the appropriation proceeds upon the doctrine of a civil war of the departments? Two branches have ratified a treaty, and we are going to set it aside. How is this disorder in the machine to be rectified? While it exists its movements must stop; and when we talk of a remedy, is that any other than the formidable one of a revolutionary interposition of the people? And is this, in the judgment even of my opposers, to execute, to preserve the constitution, and the public order? Is this the state of hazard, if not of convulsion, which they can have the courage to contemplate and to praise; or beyond which their penetration can reach and see the issue? They seem to believe, and they act as if they believed, that our union, our peace, our liberty, are invulnerable and immortal; as if our happy state was not to be disturbed by our dissentions, and that we are not capable of falling from it by our unworthiness. Some of them have, no doubt, better nerves and better discernment than mine. They can see the bright aspects and happy consequences of all this array of horrors. They can see intestine discords, our government disorganized, our wrongs aggravated, multiplied, and un-redressed, peace with dishonor, or war without justice, union, or resources, in 'the calm lights of mild philosophy....'

"Let me cheer the mind, weary, no doubt, and ready to despond on this prospect, by presenting another which it is in our power to realize. Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its continuance, without some respect for the measures which, many will say, produced, and all will confess, have preserved it? Will he not feel some dread that a change of system will reverse the scene? The well-grounded fears of our citizens, in 1794, were removed by the treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have been considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity? The great interest and the general desire of our people was to enjoy the advantages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords Americans that inestimable security. The cause of our disputes are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation after the end of the European war. This was gaining everything. This, alone, would justify the engagements of the government. For, when the fiery vapors of war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentrated in this one, that we might escape the desolation of the storm. This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded, at the same time, the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it the vivid colors will grow pale; it will be a baleful meteor, portending tempest and war.

"Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to this appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and some will think, too rapid. The field for exertion is fruitful and vast; and if peace and good government should be preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not so pleasing as the proofs of their industry, as the instruments of their future success. The rewards of exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every hour becoming capital. The vast crop of our neutrality is all seed-wheat, and is sown again, to swell, almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of prosperity. In this progress what seems to be fiction is found to fall short of experience.... When I come to the moment of deciding the vote, I start back with dread from the edge of the pit into which we are plunging. In my view, even the minutes I have spent in expostulation, have their value, because they protract the crisis, and the short period in which alone we may resolve to escape it.

"I have thus been led by my feelings to speak more at length than I had intended. Yet I have, perhaps, as little personal interest in the event as any one here. There is, I believe, no member who will not think his chance to be a witness of the consequences greater than mine. If, however, the vote should pass to reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the public disorders, to make 'confusion worse confounded,' even I, slender and almost broken as my hold upon life is, may outlive the government and constitution of my country."

With this touching peroration Mr. Ames closed his remarkable speech, and sat down. For a brief moment there was perfect silence in the house. "Judge Iredell and I happened to sit together," wrote Vice-President Adams, describing the scene. "Our feelings beat in unison. 'My God! how great he is,' says Iredell; 'how great he has been!'—'Noble!' said I. After some time Iredell breaks out, 'Bless my stars! I never heard anything so great since I was born.'—'Divine!' said I; and thus we went on with our interjections, not to say tears, to the end. Tears enough were shed. Not a dry eye, I believe, in the house, except some of the jackasses who had occasioned the necessity of the oratory. These attempted to laugh, but their visages 'grinned horribly ghastly smiles.' They smiled like Foulon's son-in-law when they made him kiss his father's dead and bleeding hand. Perhaps the speech may not read as well. The situation of the man excited compassion, and interested all hearts in his favor. The ladies wished his soul had a better body."[96]

The vote was about to be taken, immediately after the conclusion of Ames's speech, when the opposition, alarmed on account of the effect it had probably produced, carried an adjournment. There was a little speaking upon the subject the next day, but no one dared to attempt an answer to Ames's words, or assail his positions. The vote stood forty-nine to forty-nine, when General Muhlenburg, chairman of the committee of the whole, decided the matter by casting his vote for the resolution. It was reported to the house on the thirteenth of May, and, after some delay, the resolution, unamended, declaring that it was expedient to pass laws necessary for carrying the treaty into effect, was adopted, fifty-one to forty-eight, the northern members voting for and the southern against it.

FOOTNOTES:

[91] Life of Washington.

[92] He referred to Livingston, the author of the resolutions before the house, who was one of the leaders of the populace in New York when Hamilton and King were stoned, while speaking in favor of the treaty, at a public meeting.

[93] The following is a copy of Washington's message to the house of representatives on the thirtieth of March, 1796, assigning his reasons for not complying with their resolution of the twenty-fourth:—

"With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution of the twenty-fourth instant, requiring me to lay before your house a copy of the instructions to the minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with the king of Great Britain, together with a correspondence and other documents relative to that treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed.

"In deliberating upon this subject, it was impossible to lose sight of the principle, which some have avowed in its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the consequences which must flow from the admission of that principle.

"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information which the constitution has enjoined upon the president as a duty to give, or which could be required of him by either house of Congress as a right; and with truth I affirm that it has been, as it will continue to be while I have the honor to preside in the government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof, so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the United States, and my sense of the obligation it imposes to 'preserve, protect, and defend the constitution,' will permit.

"The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy; and, even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions, which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the president, with the advice and consent of the senate; the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the house of representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent.

"It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the house of representatives, except that of an impeachment, which the resolution has not expressed. I repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any information which the duty of my situation will permit, or the public good shall require, to be disclosed; and, in fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great Britain were laid before the senate when the treaty itself was communicated for their consideration and advice.

"The course which the debate has taken on the resolution of the house, leads to some observations on the mode of making treaties under the constitution of the United States.

"Having been a member of the general convention, and knowing the principles on which the constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject; and, from the first establishment of the government to this moment, my conduct has exemplified that opinion—that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and that every treaty, so made and promulgated, thenceforward became the law of the land. It is thus that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations; and, in all the treaties made with them, we have declared, and they have believed, that when ratified by the president, with the advice and consent of the senate, they became obligatory. In this construction of the constitution, every house of representatives has heretofore acquiesced; and, until the present time, not a doubt or suspicion has appeared, to my knowledge, that this construction was not the true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced; for, till now, without controverting the obligations of such treaties, they have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect.

"There is also reason to believe that this construction agrees with the opinions entertained by the state conventions, when they were deliberating on the constitution; especially by those who objected to it because there was not required, in commercial treaties, the consent of two thirds of the whole number of the members of the senate, instead of two thirds of the senators present; and because, in treaties respecting territorial and certain other rights and claims, the concurrence of three fourths of the whole number of both houses respectively was not made necessary.

"It is a fact decided by the general convention, and universally understood, that the constitution of the United States was the result of a spirit of amity and mutual concession.

"And it is well known that, under this influence, the smaller states were admitted to an equal representation in the senate with the larger states, and that this branch of the government was invested with great powers; for on the equal participation of those powers the sovereignty and political safety of the smaller states were deemed essentially to depend.

"If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the constitution itself, be necessary to ascertain the point under consideration, they may be found in the journals of the general convention, which I have deposited in the office of the department of state. In those journals it will appear that a proposition was made, 'that no treaty should be binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law,' and that the proposition was explicitly rejected.

"As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the assent of the house of representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty; as the treaty with Great Britain exhibits, in itself, all the objects requiring legislative provision, and on these the papers called for can throw no light; and as it is essential to the due administration of the government that the boundaries fixed by the constitution between the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with your request. GEORGE WASHINGTON."

[94] Earnest petitions from these had been sent in to Congress, representing that the property of merchants of the United States, to the amount of five millions of dollars, had been taken from them by the subjects of Great Britain, for which they wanted restitution, and, for that purpose, prayed for measures to execute the provisions of the treaty.

[95] History of the United States, second series, i, 603.

[96] Letter to Mrs. Adams, April 30, 1796.



CHAPTER XXXIII.

JEFFERSON'S APPREHENSIONS CONCERNING JAY'S TREATY—HIS OPINION OF GALLATIN—OF THE TREATY-MAKING POWER—HIS LETTER TO MAZZEI—ITS EFFECTS—DISCLOSURE OF A CONFIDENTIAL PAPER—JEFFERSON DISCLAIMS ANY PARTICIPATION IN THE ACT—HIS LETTER TO WASHINGTON, AND THE REPLY—UNGENEROUS ATTACKS ON WASHINGTON'S CHARACTER—PROVISION FOR CARRYING THE TREATY INTO EFFECT—DIPLOMATIC CHANGES—WASHINGTON AT MOUNT VERNON—EFFORTS TO PROCURE THE LIBERATION OF LAFAYETTE—WASHINGTON'S LETTER TO THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY—WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS—ITS AUTHORSHIP.

According to the prediction of Vice-President Adams, the British treaty, after having been "mauled and abused," was "acquiesced in." "The treaty will go into operation, and be supported by a great majority of the people," wrote Jay on the first of May; "a majority comprising the greater part of the men most distinguished by talents, worth, and weight."[97]

But there were many honest men—men who loved their country, were jealous of its honor, and ready to make personal sacrifices, if necessary, for the commonwealth—who regarded the triumph of the government party, on this occasion, as a public calamity. Among these was Mr. Jefferson, who, from his retirement at Monticello, sent forth, now and then, the thunderbolts of his wrath against political opponents and their measures. He had watched the progress of the treaty in every stage of the ordeal to which it was subjected in Congress, and occasionally gave his views to his friends. He was deeply enamored of Gallatin, and with acute perception, as time demonstrated, he foresaw the value of the young Genevese to his adopted country. "If Mr. Gallatin," he said, in a letter to Madison on the sixth of March, concerning the operations of the treasury, "would undertake to reduce this chaos to order, present us with a clear view of our finances, and put them into a form as simple as they will admit, he will merit immortal honor."

After Gallatin's speech on the treaty, Mr. Jefferson again wrote to Madison, saying, "It is worthy to be printed at the end of the Federalist, as the only rational commentary on the part of the constitution to which it relates." In reference to the power of the house of representatives, in the matter of treaties, Mr. Jefferson remarked in the same letter, "I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. If you decide in favor of your right to refuse your co-operation in any case of treaty, I wonder on what occasion it is to be used, if not in one where the rights, the interest, the honor, and faith of our nation are so grossly sacrificed; when a faction has entered into a conspiracy with the enemies of their country, to chain down the legislature at the feet of both; when the whole mass of your constituents have condemned this work in the most unequivocal manner, and are looking to you as their last hope to save them from the effects of the avarice and corruption of the first agent, the revolutionary machinations of others, and the incomprehensible acquiescence of the only honest man [the president] who has assented to it. I wish that his honesty and his political errors may not furnish a second occasion to exclaim—'curse on his virtues, they have undone his country.'"[98]

On the twenty-fourth of April, in a letter to his friend, Philip Mazzei,[99] then in Florence—a letter which afterward drew down upon the author the most severe comments—he said, "The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is, to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the form, of the British government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talent. Against us are the executive; the judiciary; two out of three branches of the legislature; all the officers of the government; all who want to be officers; all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty; British merchants, and Americans trading on British capital; speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model. It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies; men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained, only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve it; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great, as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors."[100]

A little later, when the government had triumphed in the matter of the treaty, and the public acquiesced, Mr. Jefferson wrote to Monroe, in Paris; "You will have seen, by their proceedings, the truth of what I have always observed to you, that one man outweighs them all in influence over the people, who have supported his judgment against their own, and that of their representatives. Republicanism must lie on its oars, resign the vessel to its pilot, and themselves to the course he thinks best for them." In this manner the professedly retired statesman, deceived by demagogues, taking Bache's abusive and unscrupulous "Aurora" as his compass in current politics, and with his judgment sadly warped by his prejudices, he threw out, in various directions, ungenerous insinuations against Washington, who, at that moment, was confiding implicitly in Jefferson's integrity, justice, sincerity, and personal friendship. He would not allow himself to be even suspicious of any duplicity or dishonor on the part of his late secretary, even when that gentleman himself supposed Washington had reason to suspect him.

In Bache's "Aurora," on the ninth of June, were disclosed, by an anonymous writer, a series of questions submitted by Washington, in strict confidence, to the cabinet in 1793, concerning the reception of Genet, and the force of the treaty with France. These were published with the evident design to prejudice the executive in the public mind. This startled Jefferson, and he thought it necessary to put in an immediate disclaimer of all participation in the matter. He wrote to Washington on the nineteenth of June, saying, in reference to the document, "It having been confided to but few hands, makes it truly wonderful how it should have got there. I can not be satisfied as to my own part, till I relieve my mind by declaring—and I attest everything sacred and honorable to the declaration—that it has got them, neither through me nor the paper confided to me. This has never been from under my own lock and key, or out of my own hands. No mortal ever knew from me that these questions had been proposed." Mr. Jefferson then expressed his belief, that one who had been their mutual friend "thought it worth while to sow tares" between the president and himself, and denounced him as an "intriguer, dirtily employed in sifting the conversations of his table, where, alone, he could hear him."[101] The person here alluded to was General Henry Lee, of Virginia, who had lately become attached to the federal party, and incurred the political enmity of Jefferson.

This letter drew from Washington a most noble reply. On the sixth of July he wrote: "If I had entertained any suspicions before, that the queries, which have been published in Bache's paper, proceeded from you, the assurances you have given of the contrary would have removed them; but the truth is, I harbored none. I am at no loss to conjecture from what source they flowed, through what channel they were conveyed, and for what purpose they and similar publications appear. They were known to be in the hands of Mr. Parker in the early part of the last session of Congress. They were shown about by Mr. Giles during the session, and they made their public exhibition about the close of it.

"Perceiving and, probably, hearing, that no abuse in the gazettes would induce me to take notice of anonymous publications against me, those who were disposed to do me such friendly offices, have embraced, without restraint, every opportunity to weaken the confidence of the people; and, by having the whole game in their hands, they have not scrupled to publish things that do not, as well as those which do exist, and to mutilate the latter, so as to make them subserve the purposes which they have in view.

"As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank, candid, or friendly, to conceal, that your conduct has been represented as derogating from that opinion I had conceived you entertained of me; that, to your particular friends and connections you have described, and they have denounced, me as a person under a dangerous influence; and that, if I would listen more to some other opinions, all would be well. My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered anything in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicion in my mind of his insincerity; that, if he would retrace my public conduct while he was in the administration, abundant proofs would occur to him, that truth and right decisions were the sole objects of my pursuit; that there were as many instances, within his own knowledge, of my having decided against, as in favor, of the opinions of the persons evidently alluded to; and, moreover, that I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures of any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them."

This portion of Washington's letter must have been felt by Mr. Jefferson as a severe rebuke of his real insincerity, in throwing out precisely such insinuations as Washington here alludes to. Washington continued:—

"To this I may say, and very truly, that, until within the last year or two, I had no conception that parties would, or even could, go the length I have been witness to; nor did I really believe, until lately, that it was within the bounds of probability, hardly within those of possibility, that, while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, independent, as far as our obligations and justice would permit, of every nation of the earth, and wished, by steering a steady course, to preserve this country from the horrors of a desolating war, I should be accused of being the enemy of one nation, and subject to the influence of another; and, to prove it, that every act of my administration would be tortured, and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of these be made, by giving one side only of a subject, and that, too, in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter, or even to a common pickpocket. But enough of this, I have already gone further in the expression of my feelings than I intended."[102]

When Congress had disposed of the treaty by voting appropriations for the purpose of executing it, nothing remained to complete the business but the appointment of the several officers to carry out its provisions. These were immediately made. David Howell, of Rhode Island, was made commissioner for ascertaining the true river St. Croix; Messrs. Fitzsimons and Innes (the latter soon succeeded by Mr. Sitgreaves) were appointed commissioners on the subject of British debts; and Messrs. Gore and Pinckney commissioners for settling claims for British spoliations.

Some diplomatic changes were made at about this time; Rufus King was appointed minister to England, in place of Thomas Pinckney, who wished to return home; Colonel Humphreys was appointed minister to Spain, in place of Mr. Carmichael, deceased; John Quincy Adams, son of the vice-president, left the Hague, to which he had been accredited, and succeeded Humphreys at Lisbon; and Mr. Murray took Adam's place in Holland. The president was authorized to appoint two or more agents, one to reside in Great Britain, the others at such points as the executive might choose, to investigate and report concerning all impressments of American seamen by British cruisers.

The interesting session of Congress during which Jay's treaty had been the chief topic of debate, was now drawing to a close, and Washington looked to the brief period of repose from public duties, at Mount Vernon, that would succeed the legislative turmoil, with the greatest pleasure. That moment of release came on the first day of June, when the Congress adjourned.

The president's thoughts now turned toward his long-tried friends, and the sweet enjoyments of private life toward which he was hastening. Among the former, the Marquis de Lafayette held a prominent place in his heart. He was yet a prisoner in a far-off dungeon, and his family in exile. Feeble was the arm of any man to give him liberty, especially one stretched toward him from the new republic beyond the sea. Yet Washington left no means untried to liberate his friend. Compelled by circumstances and state policy to be cautious, he was, nevertheless, persevering in his efforts. He well knew that his formal interposition in behalf of the illustrious captive would be unavailing. But he employed the American ministers at European courts in expressing, on every convenient opportunity, unofficially, the interest which the president took in the fate of his friend, and to use every fair means in their power to obtain his release.

While Lafayette was in the hands of the Prussian authorities, James Marshall was sent to Berlin as a special and confidential agent to solicit his discharge. Before Marshall's arrival, Lafayette had been delivered by the king of Prussia into the hands of the emperor of Germany. Mr. Pinckney, the United States minister in London, was then instructed to indicate the wishes of the president concerning the prisoner, to the Austrian minister in England, and to solicit the powerful mediation of the British cabinet. These efforts failed, and Washington, disdaining to make further application to the deputies of sovereignty, whose petty tyranny was proverbial, determined to go to the fountain-head of power in the dominion where his friend was suffering, and, on the fifteenth of May, he wrote as follows to the emperor of Germany:—

"It will readily occur to your majesty, that occasions may sometimes exist, on which official considerations would constrain the chief of a nation to be silent and passive in relation even to objects which affect his sensibility, and claim his interposition as a man. Finding myself precisely in this situation at present, I take the liberty of writing this private letter to your majesty, being persuaded that my motives will also be my apology for it.

"In common with the people of this country, I retain a strong and cordial sense of the services rendered to them by the Marquis de Lafayette; and my friendship for him has been constant and sincere. It is natural, therefore, that I should sympathize with him and his family in their misfortunes, and endeavor to mitigate the calamities which they experience; among which, his present confinement is not the least distressing.

"I forbear to enlarge on this delicate subject. Permit me only to submit to your majesty's consideration, whether his long imprisonment, and the confiscation of his estates, and the indigence and dispersion of his family, and the painful anxieties incident to all these circumstances, do not form an assemblage of sufferings which recommend him to the mediation of humanity? Allow me, sir, on this occasion to be its organ, and to entreat that he may be permitted to come to this country, on such conditions, and under such restrictions, as your majesty may think it expedient to prescribe.

"As it is a maxim with me not to ask what, under similar circumstances, I would not grant, your majesty will do me the justice to believe, that this request appears to me to correspond with those great principles of magnanimity and wisdom which form the basis of sound policy and durable glory.

"May the Almighty and Merciful Sovereign of the universe keep your majesty under his protection and guidance."

This letter was transmitted to Mr. Pinckney, and by him sent to the emperor, through his minister in Great Britain. "How far it operated," says Marshall, "in mitigating immediately the rigor of Lafayette's confinement, or in obtaining his liberation, remains unascertained."

Washington left Philadelphia for Mount Vernon on the thirteenth of June, accompanied by his family, and remained there about two months. During that retirement he made his final arrangements for leaving public life for ever at the close of his term of office, which would occur in March following. We have observed his great reluctance to consent to a second nomination for the chief-magistracy of the republic. The best interests of the commonwealth seemed to require the sacrifice on his part, and it was given, but with a full determination not to yield again, unless there appeared greater danger hovering over his beloved country, which his instrumentality might avert. To this determination he had adhered; and it was always with inexpressible satisfaction that he looked forward to the day when his public labors should cease. But, for cogent reasons, he never made this declaration publicly, until within the last few months of his second administration. His confidential friends well knew his determination, however, and the people generally suspected it. "Those who dreaded a change of system," says Marshall, "in changing the person of the chief-magistrate, manifested an earnest desire to avoid this hazard, by being permitted once more to offer to the public choice a person, who, amidst all the fierce conflicts of party, still remained the object of public veneration." But his resolution was fixed. The safety of the nation did not, at that time, seem to require him to remain at its head, notwithstanding there were many and great perils besetting it; and while he was at Mount Vernon he completed the final draft of a "Farewell Address to the people of the United States," to be published in time for them to choose his successor at the appointed season.

That address had been the subject of deep and anxious thought; and, at the special request of the president, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, and perhaps others, had given him suggestions in writing, topical and verbal. These he took with him to Mount Vernon, and in the quiet of his library he arranged the address in proper form, using the suggestions of Madison and Hamilton very freely. In the form in which it finally appeared, it remains the noblest production of Washington's mind and heart; and has been pronounced by Alison, the eminent British historian, unequalled by any composition of uninspired wisdom. It is a political legacy which not only the countrymen of Washington, but the inhabitants of the civilized world ought to value as one of the most precious gifts ever bestowed by man upon his race. It is permeated with the immortal spirit of a true MAN, a true PATRIOT, and a true CHRISTIAN.[103]

FOOTNOTES:

[97] Letter to Lord Grenville.

[98] Jefferson's Memoirs and Correspondence, iii., 330.

[99] Mazzei was an Italian, who came to Virginia just before the War for Independence commenced, bringing with him about a dozen experienced grape culturists of his own country, for the purpose of attempting that business in America, and the manufacture of wine. He formed a stock company, of whom Mr. Jefferson was one, and a considerable sum was raised for the undertaking. An estate adjoining Mr. Jefferson's was purchased for the experiment, but the scheme failed. Mazzei went to Europe as an agent of some kind for the state of Virginia, leaving his family in America, and did not return. His wife died, and Mazzei wrote to Mr. Jefferson for legal evidence of her death, and other important information. In his reply, the strong language concerning political affairs in America, which we have quoted, was incidentally used in the conclusion. Mazzei was an ardent republican. He translated that portion of the letter into Italian, and without asking Jefferson's permission to do so, published it in a Florentine journal. It was republished in the French journals, translated into English, and, about a year after it was written, it appeared in the American federal newspapers, with, it was alleged, many errors and interpolations. It placed Jefferson in an unpleasant dilemma, yet he had such faith in Washington's confidence in him, that he conceived that that great and good man would not construe any portion of his remarks as aimed at the president, and, by the advice of his friends, he kept silent, neither avowing or disavowing the letter as his. It became the subject of fierce attacks for a long time, even through the canvass in 1800, which resulted in the election of Mr. Jefferson to the presidency of the United States.

I have before me a caricature, published as a frontispiece to Robert G. Harper's "Observations on the Dispute between the United States and France," printed in 1798, in which is represented Mr. Jefferson on bended knee before an altar, on which is a flame, fed by papers bearing the names of Age of Reason, Godwin, Aurora, Chronicle, J. J. Rousseau, Voltaire, Ruins of Volney, Helvetius, &c. On the short shaft is inscribed, "ALTAR TO GALLIC DESPOTISM." It is entwined by a serpent, who seems to be the instrument of the devil, whose horned head is seen rising behind the platform of the altar, upon which lies sacks for consumption, marked, American spoliations, Dutch restitution, Sardinia, Flanders, Venice, Spain, Plunder, &c. Over the flame on the altar hovers an angry American eagle, gazed upon by the all-seeing eye. The eagle has just snatched from the hand of Mr. Jefferson a scroll, on which is written Constitution and Independence, U. S. A., that he was about to commit to the flames. From his other hand is falling another scroll, inscribed, To Mazzei. The composition is entitled, "THE PROVIDENTIAL DETECTION."

[100] Jefferson's Memoirs and Correspondence, iii., 333.

[101] Jefferson's Memoirs and Correspondence, iii., 336.

[102] Sparks's "Life and Writings of Washington," xi., 137. In a note to this letter, Mr. Sparks says: "No correspondence, after this date, between Washington and Jefferson appears in the letter-books, except a brief note the month following, upon an unimportant matter. It has been reported and believed, that letters and papers, supposed to have passed between them, or to relate to their intercourse with each other at subsequent dates, were secretly withdrawn from the archives of Mount Vernon, after the death of the former."

Washington's unlimited confidence in Mr. Jefferson's sincerity appears to have been finally shaken. In a letter to John Nicholson, in March, 1798, he said, "Nothing short of the evidence you have adduced, corroborative of intimations which I had received long before through another channel, could have shaken my belief in the sincerity of a friendship which I had conceived was possessed for me by the person to whom you allude."

[103] The following is a copy of Washington's "Farewell Address." It was first published in the "Philadelphia Advertiser," in September, 1796. It occupied, in manuscript, thirty-two pages of quarto letter-paper, sewed together as a book.

"FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:—The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

"I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

"The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

"I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

"The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and, every day, the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

"In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not infrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and the guaranty of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation, and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection and the adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

"Here, perhaps I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which can not end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments, which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motives to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

"The unity of Government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union, to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

"For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here, every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.

"The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort; and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as ONE NATION. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

"While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in Union, all the parties combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments; which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which, opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

"These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the UNION as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue of the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as a matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, northern and southern, Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresentations: they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head: they have seen in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic states, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the MISSISSIPPI: they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the UNION by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens?

"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts, can be an adequate substitute: they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is, the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominions.

"Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty, is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which, in different ages and countries, has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party, are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of a popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warning, it should consume.

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding, in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern: some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be, in any particular, wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can, at any time, yield.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice; and let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeeds, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

"Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding, likewise, the accumulations of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential you should practically bear in mind, that toward the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassments inseparable from the selection of the proper object (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, that might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation, which indulges toward another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some decree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity, or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts, through passion, what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

"So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the allusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads, also, to concessions to the favorite Nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, toward a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

"Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she most be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand on foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my own opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

"In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigues, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

"In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my Proclamation of the twenty-second of April, 1793, is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

"The considerations, which respects the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary, on this occasion, to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity toward other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflection and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

"Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error: I am, nevertheless, too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

"GEORGE WASHINGTON. "UNITED STATES, "September 17, 1796."

There has been some discussion, within a few years past, concerning the authorship of Washington's Farewell Address, it having been claimed for General Hamilton, because a draught of it, varying but little in form and substance from the document under that title which we have given in the preceding pages, was found, in Hamilton's handwriting, among his papers, soon after his death in 1804.

The subject has been thoroughly examined by Horace Binney, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a volume of two hundred and fifty pages, published in the autumn of 1859. After a most searching analysis of every fact bearing upon the subject to be found in the writings of Washington, Madison, Hamilton, and others, he arrives at an inevitable conclusion, which he gives in the following words:—

"Washington was, undoubtedly, the original designer of the Farewell Address; and not merely by general or indefinite intimations, but by the suggestion of perfectly definite subjects, of an end or object, and of a general outline, the same which the paper now exhibits. His outline did not appear so distinctly in his own plan, because the subjects were not so arranged in it as to show that they were all comprehended within a regular and proportional figure; but when they came to be so arranged in the present Address, the scope of the whole design is seen to be contained within the limits he intended, and to fill them. The subjects were traced by him with adequate precision, though without due connection, with little expansion, and with little declared bearing of the parts upon each other, or toward a common centre; but they may now be followed with ease in their proper relations and bearing in the finished paper, such only excepted as he gave his final consent and approbation to exclude.

"In the most common and prevalent sense of the word among literary men, this may not, perhaps, be called authorship; but in the primary etymological sense—the quality of imparting growth or increase—there can be no doubt that it is so. By derivation from himself, the Farewell Address speaks the very mind of Washington. The fundamental thoughts and principles were his; but he was not the composer or writer of the paper.

"Hamilton was, in the prevalent literary sense, the composer and writer of the paper. The occasional adoption of Washington's language does not materially take from the justice of this attribution. The new plan, the different form, proceeded from Hamilton. He was the author of it. He put together the thoughts of Washington in a new order, and with a new bearing; and while, as often as he could, he used the words of Washington, his own language was the general vehicle, both of his own thoughts, and for the expansion and combination of Washington's thoughts. Hamilton developed the thoughts of Washington, and corroborated them—included several cognate subjects, and added many effective thoughts from his own mind, and united all into one chain by the links of his masculine logic.