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
The executive then and at least one other branch of the legislature
were Anglican. The judiciary, a department not absolutely
insignificant in a maritime war, was also Anglican. But the executive,
being the organ of intercourse with foreign nations, is considered by
them as essentially the government. This being thought Anglican, its
course being such as to induce the writer to brand it with this odious
epithet, ought it to excite surprise that an editor, the organ of the
French government, made the strictures upon it which are quoted in the
note? Are not those strictures as applicable to the letter now avowed
as to the interpolated sentence?
The 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," was the
assertion of a fact which had taken place, and the commentary
discloses its object not less plainly than did the time at which this
fact was announced to the American government and people.[74] "It will
give rise in the United States," says the editor, "to discussions
which may afford a triumph to the party of good republicans, the
friends of France."
[Footnote 74: It was announced by Mr. Adet in the crisis of
the first contest for the Presidency between Mr. Adams and
Mr. Jefferson.]
The letter, without the aid of the interpolated sentence, could not
fail to cherish this sentiment. It states explicitly an unequivocal
division and a decided hostility between those who administered the
government, and the great body of land holders, who, in this country,
are the people. The first were Anglican and monarchical, the last were
republican, and, in the language of the Moniteur, "the friends of
France." What so certain to produce or continue the rupture of
communication mentioned by the editor as the opinion that this
statement was true? If we could doubt, our doubts are removed by the
declaration that it would produce "discussions in the United States
which may afford a triumph to the party of good republicans, the
friends of France;" and by the declaration of Mr. Adet.
The interpolated sentence then does not vary the import of the letter,
nor change the impression it made in France, and must make on the mind
of the reader.
Were it otherwise, Mr. Jefferson should have directed his reproaches
towards himself for the countenance his silent acquiescence gave to
the opinion that the whole letter was genuine--not towards the great
body of his countrymen who yielded implicit faith to this imposing
testimony.
Could such a letter from such a personage be entirely overlooked by
the biographer of Washington? Having assumed the task of delineating
the character, and detailing the actions and opinions of the great
soldier and statesman of America, an essential part of which was to be
looked for in the difficulties and the opposition he encountered and
overcame, could a transaction which contains such strong intrinsic
evidence of those difficulties and that opposition be passed over in
total silence? These questions were revolved in his mind while engaged
in this part of the work; and the result to which his judgment
conducted him was a conviction that, though he might forbear to make
those strictures on the letter which the relative situation of the
writer and the individual so seriously criminated seemed to invite,
his duty required him to notice it so far as it indicated the violence
of party spirit at the time, the extreme to which it was carried, the
dangers to which it led, and the difficulties which the wise and firm
mind of Washington was doomed to encounter.
The remarks of the French editor were quoted because they have a
strong tendency, especially when connected with subsequent events, to
explain the motives by which the Directory was actuated in its
aggressions on the United States, and to justify the policy of the
Washington administration. These remarks did not grow out of the
interpolated sentence, nor were they confined to it. They apply to the
whole letter. That sentence is not cited, nor is any particular
allusion made to it, in the note which is charged with "exaggerating,
recording, and sanctioning the forgery." How then could Mr. Jefferson
deliberately make the charge?
In the same letter he endeavours to convey the opinion that the harsh
and injurious strictures made to Mazzei were not intended for General
Washington, and that this distinguished individual never applied them
to himself.
The evidence in support of this proposition is not derived from the
person whose opinion Mr. Jefferson undertakes to state. The writer
says,[75] "I do affirm that there never passed a word, written or
verbal, directly or indirectly, between General Washington and myself
on the subject of that letter." If his observations on this point are
to be considered as reasoning rather than assertion, they may be
freely examined.
[Footnote 75: Vol. iv. p. 401.]
At the head of the list of those composing the "Anglican, monarchical,
aristocratical party," the letter places "the executive." "Against us
are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the
legislature, all the officers of government, all who want to be
officers," &c.
The letter speaks in the present tense, and the term "executive" can
describe only the then actual President. Consequently, it designates
General Washington as expressly as if he had been named.
If this positive evidence could be strengthened by auxiliary proof, it
is furnished by the same sentence. "All officers of government, all
who want to be officers," are included in the enumeration of those
composing the party opposed to "the main body of citizens who remained
true to republican principles."
By whom were these Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical officers
selected? By General Washington. To him alone were they indebted for
their appointments. To whom did those "who wanted to be officers" look
for the gratification of their wishes? To the same person. Would every
individual in search of office enlist himself in a party so odious to
"the main body of our citizens," and "the whole landed interest," if
he did not think the road leading directly to that which he sought?
As if willing to keep out of view what can not be explained away, Mr.
Jefferson turns our attention to other passages supposed to be more
equivocal. He insists[76] that the letter saying "that two out of the
three branches of the legislature were against us, was an obvious
exception of him; it being well known that the majorities in the two
branches of the senate and representatives were the very instruments
which carried, in opposition to the old and real republicans, the
measures which were the subjects of condemnation in this letter."
[Footnote 76: Vol. iv. p. 405.]
But did these measures obtain the force of laws by the mere act of the
senate and house of representatives? Did not the President assent to
them? If he did, how could the expression "two out of three branches
of the legislature" be an obvious exception of him? But the letter
speaks of the then existing legislature. "Against us _are_ two out of
three branches of the legislature." The fact is notorious that the
house of representatives was, at the date of the letter, opposed to
the administration. Mr. Jefferson himself gives us this information.
In September, 1795,[77] he terms the effort to carry the treaty with
Great Britain into effect, "an attempt of 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 the executive under colour of a
treaty," &c. Mr. Jefferson then has deprived himself of this
explanation. He could not have intended to exclude the President by
the phrase "two out of three branches of the legislature."
[Footnote 77: Vol. iii. p. 316.]
The same letter contains also the following expression,[78] "Mr.
Pickering quotes the passage in the letter of the men who were Samsons
in the field and Solomons in the council, but who had their heads
shorn by the harlot England." "Now this expression also was perfectly
understood by General Washington. He knew that I meant it for the
Cincinnati generally; and that from what had passed between us at the
commencement of that institution, I could not mean to include him."
[Footnote 78: Vol. iv. p. 404.]
In the letter to Mazzei these words obviously designate distinguished
individuals, not whole classes of men, many of whom were unknown. "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 addition to this apparent allusion to individuals, it may be asked,
could Mr. Jefferson mean to say that every officer engaged in the war
of our revolution (for almost every one of them was a member of the
Cincinnati) was an apostate who had gone over to the heresies he was
describing? Could he mean to say that all those who had passed their
prime of manhood in the field fighting the battles of American
independence, and of republicanism against England, had become
apostates from the cause to which their lives had been devoted, and
the vile instruments of the power it was their pride and boast to have
overthrown? That they were in a body following their ancient chief in
a course directly opposite to that glorious career by which they had
elevated their country to its high rank among the nations of the
earth?
There is other evidence that he could not have intended to fix this
foul stigma on the officers of the revolution. They were far from
being united in support of the administration. In Virginia certainly,
a large number, perhaps a majority of the Cincinnati were opposed to
it. Two[79] of them in congress at the time, and were among the most
zealous supporters of Mr. Jefferson, and of that system of measures
which he termed republican. The very letter under discussion contains
an assertion incompatible with this construction of these terms. "The
whole landed interest is republican." At the date of this letter there
were few if any members of the Cincinnati in the south who were not
also land holders. In the southern region generally, the army of our
revolution was officered by land holders and their sons.
[Footnote 79: Colonels Cabell and Par.]
But if the writer of the letter could have intended to designate the
members of the Cincinnati as "Samsons in the field," could he also
have alluded to them as "Solomons in council?" Were the brave and
hardy men who passed their youth, not in college, not in study, but
under arms, suddenly converted, all of them, into "Solomons in
council?" That some of them were entitled to this appellation is
acknowledged with pride and pleasure, but as a class, it could not fit
them. It is difficult to treat the proposition seriously.
It is impossible for the intelligent reader to concur with Mr.
Jefferson in the conclusion he draws from these premises, when he
says,[80] "General Washington then understanding perfectly what and
whom I meant to designate in both phrases, and that they could not
have any application or view to himself, could find in neither any
cause of offence to himself."
[Footnote 80: Vol. iv. p. 406.]
But were it otherwise, had Mr. Jefferson been as successful in the
opinion of others as he would seem to be in his own, in proving that
the phrases on which he reasons do not comprehend General Washington,
what would be gained? Would it follow that the word "executive" did
not mean the President, or that it excluded General Washington who was
President when the letter was written, and had been President during
the whole time while the laws were enacted, and the measures carried
into execution, which he so harshly criminates? If the word
"executive" must mean him, does it palliate the injury to be assured
that the writer did not class him among "Samsons in the field" or
"Solomons in council?"
It is matter of some surprise to find a letter written so late as
June, 1824, on the political paragraph contained in the letter to
Mazzei, the following averment.[81] "In this information there was not
one word which would not then have been or would not now be approved
by every republican in the United States, looking back to those
times."
[Footnote 81: Vol. iv. p. 402.]
In June, 1834, then, twenty-eight years after this extraordinary
letter was written, and twenty-three years after its principal object
had ceased to thwart the policy, or be an obstacle to the ambition of
any man, Mr. Jefferson could deliberately, and on full consideration
permit himself to make this assertion, and thus in effect to repeat
the charge that General Washington belonged to an "Anglican,
monarchical, and aristocratical party whose _avowed_ object was to
draw over us the substance as they had already done the forms of the
British government,"--and this too while the venerated object of the
charge was the chief magistrate of this great republic, acting under
the obligation of a solemn oath "faithfully to execute the office of
President of the United States, and to the best of his ability to
preserve, protect, and defend the constitution!"
This unpleasant subject is dismissed. If the grave be a sanctuary
entitled to respect, many of the intelligent and estimable friends of
Mr. Jefferson may perhaps regret that he neither respected it himself,
nor recollected that it is a sanctuary from which poisoned arrows
ought never to be shot at the dead or the living.
END OF VOLUME V.