The Life of George Washington, Vol. 5 (of 5)
J >> John Marshall >> The Life of George Washington, Vol. 5 (of 5)Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
"I am satisfied these sentiments can not be otherwise than congenial
to your own. Your aid, therefore, in carrying them into effect would
be flattering and pleasing to me."
This accurate chart of the road he was invited to travel, presented in
itself no impediments which to Mr. Henry appeared insurmountable. By
private considerations alone was he restrained from proceeding in it.
* * * * *
NOTE--No. XIV. _See Page 272._
The course of the war in Europe had brought the two parties into
opposition on a point on which no difference had originally existed
between them, which gave more countenance to the charge that the
advocates of the American government were unfriendly to France than it
could justly claim when first made. Those who in 1793 had supported
the proclamation of neutrality, and the whole system connected with
it, were then, generally speaking, ardent and sincere in their wishes
for the success of the French arms. But as the troops of the republic
subdued Belgium and Holland; as they conquered Italy, and established
the complete influence of France over the monarchy of Spain, this
union of sentiment gradually disappeared. By one party it was
contended that America could feel no interest in seeing Europe
subjected to any one power. That to such a power, the Atlantic would
afford no impassable barriers; and that no form of government was a
security against national ambition. They, therefore, wished this
series of victories to be interrupted; and that the balance of Europe
should not be absolutely overturned. Additional strength was
undoubtedly given to this course of reasoning by the aggressions of
France on the United States.
In the opinion of the opposite party, the triumphs of France were the
triumphs of liberty. In their view every nation which was subdued, was
a nation liberated from oppression. The fears of danger to the United
States from the further aggrandizement of a single power were treated
as chimerical, because that power being a republic must, consequently,
be the friend of republics in every part of the globe, and a stranger
to that lust of domination which was the characteristic passion of
monarchies. Shifting with address the sentiment really avowed by their
opponents, they ridiculed a solicitude for the existence of a balance
of power in Europe, as an opinion that America ought to embark herself
in the crusade of kings against France in order to preserve that
balance.
* * * * *
NOTE--No. XV. _See Page 326._
The following extract from a letter written to General Knox the day
before the termination of his office, exhibits the sentiments with
which he contemplated this event, and with which he viewed the
unceasing calumnies with which his whole administration continued to
be aspersed.
"To the wearied traveller who sees a resting place, and is bending his
body to lean thereon, I now compare myself; but to be suffered to do
_this_ in peace, is too much to be endured by _some_. To misrepresent
my motives; to reprobate my politics; and to weaken the confidence
which has been reposed in my administration;--are objects which can
not be relinquished by those who will be satisfied with nothing short
of a change in our political system. The consolation, however, which
results from conscious rectitude, and the approving voice of my
country unequivocally expressed by its representatives--deprives their
sting of its poison, and places in the same point of view both the
weakness and the malignity of their efforts.
"Although the prospect of retirement is most grateful to my soul, and
I have not a wish to mix again in the great world, or to partake in
its politics, yet I am not without my regrets at parting with (perhaps
never more to meet) the few intimates whom I love. Among these, be
assured you are one."
* * * * *
NOTE--No. XVI. _See Page 329._
In the speech delivered by the President on taking the oaths of
office, after some judicious observations on the constitution of his
country, and on the dangers to which it was exposed, that able
statesman thus spoke of his predecessor.
"Such is the amiable and interesting system of government (and such
are some of the abuses to which it may be exposed) which the people of
America have exhibited, to the admiration and anxiety of the wise and
virtuous of all nations, for eight years, under the administration of
a citizen, who, by a long course of great actions, regulated by
prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, conducting a people
inspired with the same virtues, and animated with the same ardent
patriotism and love of liberty, to independence and peace, to
increasing wealth and unexampled prosperity, has merited the gratitude
of his fellow-citizens, commanded the highest praises of foreign
nations, and secured immortal glory with posterity.
"In that retirement which is his voluntary choice, may he long live to
enjoy the delicious recollection of his services, the gratitude of
mankind, the happy fruits of them to himself and the world, which are
daily increasing, and that splendid prospect of the future fortunes of
his country which is opening from year to year. His name may be still
a rampart, and the knowledge that he lives a bulwark against all open
or secret enemies of his country's peace."
* * * * *
NOTE--No. XVII. _See Page 330._
To testify their love for the person who had for eight years
administered the government of the United States, the merchants of
Philadelphia had prepared a splendid banquet for the day, to which the
general, several officers of rank in the late army, the heads of
departments, foreign ministers, and other persons of distinction were
invited.
In the rotundo in which it was given, an elegant compliment was
prepared for the _principal guest_, which is thus described in the
papers of the day.
"Upon entering the area the general was conducted to his seat. On a
signal given, music played Washington's march, and a scene which
represented simple objects in the rear of the principal seat was drawn
up, and discovered emblematical painting.
"The principal was a female figure large as life, representing
America, seated on an elevation composed of sixteen marble steps. At
her left side, stood the federal shield and eagle, and at her feet,
lay the cornucopia; in her right hand, she held the Indian calumet of
peace supporting the cap of liberty: in the perspective appeared the
temple of fame; and on her left hand, an altar dedicated to public
gratitude, upon which incense was burning. In her left hand she held a
scroll inscribed valedictory; and at the foot of the altar lay a
plumed helmet and sword, from which a figure of General Washington,
large as life, appeared, retiring down the steps, pointing with his
right hand to the emblems of power which he had resigned, and with his
left to a beautiful landscape representing Mount Vernon, in front of
which oxen were seen harnessed to the plough. Over the general
appeared a _Genius_ placing a wreath of laurels on his head."
* * * * *
NOTE--No. XVIII. _See Page 348._
_(All footnotes on pages covered by Note No. XVIII are
references to the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson.)_
A letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Mazzei, an Italian who had passed
some time in the United States, was published in Florence, and
republished in the Moniteur, with some severe strictures on the
conduct of the United States, and a remark "that the French government
had testified its resentment by breaking off communication with an
ungrateful and faithless ally until she shall return to a more just
and benevolent conduct. No doubt," adds the editor, "it will give rise
in the United States to discussions which may afford a triumph to the
party of good republicans, the friends of France.
"Some writers, in disapprobation of this wise and necessary measure of
the Directory, maintain that, in the United States, the French have
for partisans only certain demagogues who aim to overthrow the
existing government. But their impudent falsehoods convince no one,
and prove only, what is too evident, that they use the liberty of the
press to serve the enemies of France."
Mr. Jefferson, in his correspondence,[59] has animadverted on the
preceding note with such extreme bitterness, as to impose on its
author the necessity of entering into some explanations. Censure from
a gentleman who has long maintained an unexampled ascendency over
public opinion, can not be entirely disregarded.
[Footnote 59: Vol. iv. p. 402.]
The offence consists in the reference to the letter written by him to
Mr. Mazzei, which was published in Florence, and republished in Paris
by the editor of the Moniteur, then the official paper of the
Directory. In this letter, Mr. Jefferson says, a paragraph was
interpolated which makes him charge his own country with ingratitude
and injustice to France.
By the word "country," Mr. Jefferson is understood to allude to the
government, not to the people of America.
This letter, containing the sentence now alleged to be interpolated,
was published throughout the United States in the summer of 1797. It
became immediately, as may well be supposed, the subject of universal
conversation. The writer, and the individual to whom it particularly
alludes, filled too large a space in the public mind for such a paper
not to excite general attention and deep interest. It did excite both.
Had it been fabricated, Mr. Jefferson, it was supposed, could not have
permitted it to remain uncontradicted. It came in a form too
authentic, the matter it contained affected his own reputation and
that of the illustrious individual who is its principal subject, too
vitally to permit the imputation to remain unnoticed. It would not, it
could not have remained unnoticed, if untrue. Yet its genuineness was
never questioned by Mr. Jefferson, or by any of his numerous friends.
Not even to General Washington, as is now avowed, was it ever denied.
Had it been denied to him, his strong sense of justice and of right
would have compelled him to relieve the reputation of the supposed
writer from a charge of such serious import.
It was, of course, universally received as a genuine letter. An open
avowal of it could not have added to the general conviction.
The letter having this irresistible claim on the general confidence,
no one part of it was entitled to less credit than every other. The
interpolation of a particular sentence was neither suggested nor
suspected. The whole was published in Europe and republished in
America as the letter of Mr. Jefferson, with his name subscribed. The
genuineness of no part of it was ever called into question. How then
could the public or any individual have ventured to select a
particular sentence, and to say--this is spurious?
Had it been suggested by Mr. Jefferson or his confidential friends
that the letter was in general his, but that one sentence was
fabricated, there is not perhaps an individual in the United States
who would have pointed to that which censured the conduct of our
government towards France, as the fabricated sentence. That which
placed the then chief magistrate at the head of the "Anglican,
monarchical, and aristocratical party which had sprung up," would have
been much more probably selected. This conjecture is hazarded because,
at the date of the letter,[60] Mr. Jefferson shared the confidence of
General Washington, and was on terms of intimate professed friendship
with him; while his censures of the conduct of the United States
towards France were open and unreserved. The sentence there said to be
interpolated would, if really written by him, have involved no
imputation on his sincerity,--would have consisted perfectly with his
general declarations. These declarations were so notorious, especially
after the mission of Mr. Jay to Great Britain, and the reception of
the treaty negotiated by him, that there was perhaps not an individual
in the United States, at all conversant with public affairs, to whom
they were unknown. Without reference to other proofs, sufficient
evidence of this fact is furnished by that portion of his
correspondence which has been selected for publication. Some examples
will be quoted.
[Footnote 60: April, 1796.]
In a letter of the 27th of April, 1795,[61] he says, "I sincerely
congratulate you on the great prosperities of our two first allies,
the French and the Dutch.[62] If I could but see them now at peace
with the rest of their continent, I should have little doubt of dining
with Pichegru in London next autumn; for I believe I should be tempted
to leave my clover for a while, to go and hail the dawn of
republicanism in that island."
[Footnote 61: Vol. iii. p. 313.]
[Footnote 62: Holland, it will be remembered, had been
conquered by Pichegru.]
In a letter of September 21st, 1795,[63] after speaking of the
discussions in the papers concerning the treaty, and alluding to the
efforts made to give it effect as the boldest act of Hamilton and Jay
to undermine the government, he says, "a bolder party stroke was never
struck. For it certainly is an attempt by a party who find they have
lost their majority in one branch of the legislature, to make a law by
the aid of the other branch and of the executive, under colour of a
treaty, which shall bind up the hands of the adverse branch from ever
restraining the commerce of their patron nation."
[Footnote 63: Vol. iii. p. 316.]
On the 30th of November, 1795,[64] he says, "I join with you in
thinking the treaty an execrable thing." "I trust the popular branch
of the legislature will disapprove of it, and thus rid us of this
infamous act, which is really nothing more than an alliance between
England and the Anglo men of this country, against the legislature and
people of the United States."
[Footnote 64: Vol. iii. p. 317.]
On the 21st of December, 1795,[65] speaking of a contemporary member
of the cabinet, he says, "The fact is that he has generally given his
principles to the one party and his practice to the other, the oyster
to one, and the shell to the other. Unfortunately, the shell was
generally the lot of his friends, the French and Republicans, and the
oyster of their antagonists."
[Footnote 65: Vol. iii. p. 319.]
On the 21st of March, 1796,[66] he says, "The British treaty has been
formally at length laid before congress. All America is a tiptoe to
see what the house of representatives will decide on it." Speaking of
the right of the legislature to determine whether it shall go into
effect or not, and of the vast importance of the determination, he
adds, "It is fortunate that the first decision is to be made in a case
so palpably atrocious as to have been predetermined by all America."
[Footnote 66: Vol. iii. p. 323.]
On the 27th of the same month he says,[67] "If you decide in favour of
your right to refuse co-operation, I should wonder on what occasion it
is to be used, if not in one, where the rights, the interest, the
honour and faith of our nation are so grossly sacrificed; where a
faction has entered into a conspiracy with the enemies of their
country to chain down the legislature at the feet of both; where the
whole mass of your constituents have condemned the 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 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.'"
[Footnote 67: Vol. iii. p. 324.]
On the 12th of June, 1796,[68] he says, "Congress have risen. You will
have seen by their proceedings what I 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."
[Footnote 68: Vol. iii. p. 328.]
On the 22d of January, 1797,[69] he says, "I sincerely deplore the
situation of our affairs with France. War with them and consequent
alliance with Great Britain will completely compass the object of the
executive council from the commencement of the war between France and
England; taken up by some of them from that moment; by others more
latterly."
[Footnote 69: Vol. iii. p. 347.]
On the 17th of June, 1797,[70] he says, "I have always hoped that the
popularity of the late President being once withdrawn from active
effect, the natural feelings of the people towards liberty would
restore the equilibrium between the executive and legislative
departments which had been destroyed by the superior weight and effect
of that popularity; and that their natural feelings of moral
obligation would discountenance the unnatural predilection of the
executive in favour of Great Britain. But, unfortunately, the
preceding measures had already alienated the nation who were the
object of them, and the reaction has on the minds of our citizens an
effect which supplies that of the Washington popularity.
[Footnote 70: Vol. iii. p. 347]
"P.S. Since writing the above we have received a report that the
French Directory has proposed a declaration of war against the United
States to the Council of Ancients, who have rejected it. Thus we see
two nations who love one another affectionately, brought by the ill
temper of their executive administrations to the very brink of a
necessity to imbrue their hands in the blood of each other."
On the 14th of February, 1799,[71] he says, "The President has
appointed, and the senate approved, Rufus King, to enter into a treaty
of commerce with the Russians, at London, and William Smith (Phocion)
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to go to
Constantinople to make one with the Turks. So that as soon as there is
a coalition of Turks, Russians, and English against France, we seize
that moment to countenance it as openly as we dare, by treaties which
we never had with them before. All this helps to fill up the measure
of provocation towards France, and to get from them a declaration of
war which we are afraid to be the first in making."
[Footnote 71: Vol. iii. p. 418.]
If these sentiments, in perfect coincidence with the pretensions of
France, and censuring the neutral course of the American government,
were openly avowed by Mr. Jefferson; if, when they appeared embodied
in a letter addressed to a correspondent in Europe, and republished
throughout the United States, they remained, even after becoming the
topic of universal interest and universal excitement, totally
uncontradicted, who could suspect that any one sentence, particularly
that avowing a sentiment so often expressed by the writer, had been
interpolated?
Yet Mr. Jefferson, unmindful of these circumstances, after some
acrimonious remarks on Colonel Pickering, has said,[72] "and even
Judge Marshall makes history descend from its dignity, and the ermine
from its sanctity, to exaggerate, to record, and to sanction this
forgery."
[Footnote 72: Vol. iv. p. 402.]
The note itself will best demonstrate the inaccuracy of this
commentary. To this text an appeal is fearlessly made.
This unmerited invective is followed by an accusation not less
extraordinary. It is made a cause of crimination that the author has
copied the remark of the Parisian editor, instead of the letter
itself.
To remove this reproach, he will now insert the letter, not as
published in Europe, and transferred from the French to the American
papers, but as preserved and avowed by Mr. Jefferson, and given to the
world by his grandson. It is in these words.
"Monticello, April 24th, 1796.[73]
"My Dear Friend,
"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 it has already done the forms 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 talents. 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 capitals,
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 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 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 labours 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 labours.
"I will forward the testimonials, &c."
[Footnote 73: Vol. iii. p. 327.]
The reader is requested to pause, to reflect on the state of things at
the date of this letter, and to ask himself if its inevitable tendency
be not to strengthen the impression in the Directory of France which
had influenced its conduct towards the United States?--If it be not in
the same spirit with the interpolated sentence, carried to a greater
extreme, and calculated to produce the same effect?--If the editor who
made the interpolation might not reasonably suppose that he was only
applying expressly to France a sentiment already indicated in terms
too plain to be misunderstood?
France and Great Britain were then waging deadly war against each
other. In this mortal conflict, each sought to strengthen herself, or
weaken her adversary by any influence to be acquired over foreign
powers--by obtaining allies when allies were attainable, or securing
neutrality where co-operation was not to be expected. The temper with
which the American people contemplated this awful spectacle can not be
forgotten. The war of our revolution, in which France fought by the
side of America against Great Britain, was fresh in their
recollection. Her unexamined professions of republicanism enlisted all
their affections in her favour, and all their antipathies against the
monarchs with whom she was contending. Feelings which were believed to
be virtuous, and which certainly wore the imposing garb of patriotism,
impelled them with almost irresistible force against that wise
neutrality which the executive government had laboured to preserve,
and had persisted in preserving with wonderful and unexampled
firmness. France might, not unreasonably, indulge the hope that our
government would be forced out of its neutral course, and be compelled
to enter into the war as her ally. The letter to Mazzei could scarcely
fail to encourage this hope.
The suggestion had been repeatedly made, and France not only
countenanced but acted on it, that the American people were ready to
take part with her, and were with difficulty restrained by their
government. That the government had fallen into the hands of an
English party who were the more closely attached to their favourite
nation, because they were unfriendly to republicanism, and sought to
assimilate the government of the United States to that of England.
Partiality to England was ingratitude to France. Monarchical
propensities were of course anti-republican, and led to a system of
policy separating the United States from republican France, and
connecting them with her monarchical enemies.
These sentiments were expressed in the interpolated sentence; and are
intimated in terms perhaps more offensive, certainly not to be
mistaken, in the letter as avowed.
Review its language.
"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 it has already done the
forms of the British government."
Could this party have been friendly--must it not have been hostile to
France? It was not only monarchical and aristocratical,--it was
Anglican also. Consequently it was anti-Gallican. But it did not
comprehend the mass of the people. "The main body of our citizens,
however," continues the letter, "remain true to their republican
principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great
mass of talents." Who then composed this odious Anglican, monarchical,
aristocratical party? The letter informs us: "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 capitals, speculators, and holders in the banks and public
funds."