The Life of John Marshall (Volume 2 of 4). Beveridge Albert Jeremiah
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу The Life of John Marshall (Volume 2 of 4) - Beveridge Albert Jeremiah страница 19

СКАЧАТЬ provision, which, formerly, had never occurred to anybody.

      Thus, by the Treaty of 1794, we yielded everything and gained little not already ours. But we secured peace; we were saved from war. That supreme end was worth the sacrifice and that, alone, justified it. It more than demonstrated the wisdom of the Jay Treaty.

      While the Senate was considering the bitter terms which Great Britain, with unsheathed sword, had forced upon us, Senator Stephen T. Mason of Virginia, in violation of the Senate rules, gave a copy of the treaty to the press.322 Instantly the whole land shook with a tornado of passionate protest.323 From one end of the country to the other, public meetings were held. Boston led off.324 Washington was smothered with violent petitions that poured in upon him from every quarter praying, demanding, that he withhold his assent.325 As in the struggle for the Constitution and in the violent attacks on Neutrality, so now the strongest advocates of the Jay Treaty were the commercial interests. "The common opinion among men of business of all descriptions is," declares Hamilton, "that a disagreement would greatly shock and stagnate pecuniary plans and operations in general."326

      The printing presses belched pamphlets and lampoons, scurrilous, inflammatory, even indecent. An example of these was a Boston screed. This classic of vituperation, connecting the treaty with the financial measures of Washington's Administration, represented the Federalist leaders as servants of the Devil; Independence, after the death of his first wife, Virtue, married a foul creature, Vice, and finally himself expired in convulsions, leaving Speculation, Bribery, and Corruption as the base offspring of his second marriage.327

      Everywhere Jay was burned in effigy. Hamilton was stoned in New York when he tried to speak to the mob; and with the blood pouring down his face went, with the few who were willing to listen to him, to the safety of a hall.328 Even Washington's granite resolution was shaken. Only once in our history have the American people so scourged a great public servant.329 He was no statesman, raged the Republicans; everybody knew that he had been a failure as a soldier, they said; and now, having trampled on the Constitution and betrayed America, let him be impeached, screamed the infuriated opposition.330 Seldom has any measure of our Government awakened such convulsions of popular feeling as did the Jay Treaty, which, surrendering our righteous and immediate demands, yet saved our future. Marshall, watching it all, prepared to defend the popularly abhorred compact; and thus he was to become its leading defender in the South.

      When, finally, Washington reluctantly approved its ratification by the Senate,331 many of his friends deserted him.332 "The trouble and perplexities … have worn away my mind," wrote the abused and distracted President.333 Mercer County, Kentucky, denounced Senator Humphrey Marshall for voting for ratification and demanded a constitutional amendment empowering State Legislatures to recall Senators at will.334 The Legislature of Virginia actually passed a resolution for an amendment of the National Constitution to make the House of Representatives a part of the treaty-making power.335 The Lexington, Kentucky, resolutions branded the treaty as "shameful to the American name."336 It was reported that at a dinner in Virginia this toast was drunk: "A speedy death to General Washington."337 Orators exhausted invective; poets wrote in the ink of gall.338

      Jefferson, in harmony, of course, with the public temper, was against the treaty. "So general a burst of dissatisfaction," he declared, "never before appeared against any transaction… The whole body of the people … have taken a greater interest in this transaction than they were ever known to do in any other."339 The Republican chieftain carefully observed the effect of the popular commotion on his own and the opposite party. "It has in my opinion completely demolished the monarchical party here340 [Virginia]." Jefferson thought the treaty itself so bad that it nearly turned him against all treaties. "I am not satisfied," said he, "we should not be better without treaties with any nation. But I am satisfied we should be better without such as this."341

      The deadliest charge against the treaty was the now familiar one of "unconstitutionality." Many urged that the President had no power to begin negotiations without the assent of the Senate;342 and all opponents agreed that it flagrantly violated the Constitution in several respects, especially in regulating trade, to do which was the exclusive province of Congress.343 Once more, avowed the Jeffersonians, it was the National Government which had brought upon America this disgrace. "Not one in a thousand would have resisted Great Britain … in the beginning of the Revolution" if the vile conduct of Washington had been foreseen; and it was plain, at this late day, that "either the Federal or State governments must fall" – so wrote Republican pamphleteers, so spoke Republican orators.344

      Again Hamilton brought into action the artillery of his astounding intellect. In a series of public letters under the signature of "Camillus," he vindicated every feature of the treaty, evading nothing, conceding nothing. These papers were his last great constructive work. In numbers three, six, thirty-seven, and thirty-eight of "Camillus," he expounded the Constitution on the treaty-making power; demonstrated the exclusive right of the President to negotiate, and, with the Senate, to conclude, treaties; and proved, not only that the House should not be consulted, but that it is bound by the Constitution itself to pass all laws necessary to carry treaties into effect.345

      Fearless, indeed, and void of political ambition were those who dared to face the tempest. "The cry against the Treaty is like that against a mad-dog," wrote Washington from Mount Vernon.346 Particularly was this true of Virginia, where it raged ungovernably.347 A meeting of Richmond citizens "have outdone all that has gone before them" in the resolutions passed,348 bitterly complained Washington. Virginians, testified Jefferson, "were never more unanimous. 4. or 5. individuals of Richmond, distinguished however, by their talents as by their devotion to all the sacred acts of the government, & the town of Alexandria constitute the whole support of that instrument [Jay Treaty] here."349 These four or five devoted ones, said Jefferson, were "Marshall, Carrington, Harvey, Bushrod Washington, Doctor Stewart."350 But, as we are now to see, Marshall made up in boldness and ability what the Virginia friends of the Administration lacked in numbers.

      CHAPTER IV

      WASHINGTON'S DEFENDER

      His [Marshall's] lax, lounging manners have made him popular. (Jefferson.)

      Having a high opinion of General Marshall's honor, prudence, and judgment, consult him. (Washington.)

      The man [Washington] who is the source of all the misfortunes of our country is no longer possessed of the power to multiply evils on the United States. (The Aurora on Washington's retirement from the Presidency.)

      Jefferson СКАЧАТЬ



<p>322</p>

Marshall, ii, 362-64.

<p>323</p>

Ib., 366.

<p>324</p>

The Boston men, it appears, had not even read the treaty, as was the case with other meetings which adopted resolutions of protest. (Marshall, ii, 365 et seq.) Thereupon the Boston satirists lampooned the hasty denunciators of the treaty as follows: —

"I've never read it, but I say 'tis bad.If it goes down, I'll bet my ears and eyes,It will the people all unpopularize;Boobies may hear it read ere they decide,I move it quickly be unratified."

On Dr. Jarvis's speech at Faneuil Hall against the Jay Treaty; Loring: Hundred Boston Orators, 232. The Republicans were equally sarcastic: "I say the treaty is a good one … for I do not think about it… What did we choose the Senate for … but to think for us… Let the people remember that it is their sacred right to submit and obey; and that all those who would persuade them that they have a right to think and speak on the sublime, mysterious, and to them incomprehensible affairs of government are factious Democrats and outrageous Jacobins." (Essay on Jacobinical Thinkers: American Remembrancer, i, 141.)

<p>325</p>

See Marshall's vivid description of the popular reception of the treaty; Marshall, ii, 365-66.

<p>326</p>

Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795; Works: Lodge, x, 103.

<p>327</p>

"An Emetic for Aristocrats… Also a History of the Life and Death of Independence; Boston, 1795." Copies of such attacks were scattered broadcast – "Emissaries flew through the country spreading alarm and discontent." (Camillus, no. 1; Works: Lodge, v, 189-99.)

<p>328</p>

McMaster, ii, 213-20; Gibbs, i, 207; and Hildreth, iv, 548.

<p>329</p>

Present-day detraction of our public men is gentle reproof contrasted with the savagery with which Washington was, thenceforth, assailed.

<p>330</p>

Marshall, ii, 370. Of the innumerable accounts of the abuse of Washington, Weld may be cited as the most moderate. After testifying to Washington's unpopularity this acute traveler says: "It is the spirit of dissatisfaction which forms a leading trait in the character of the Americans as a people, which produces this malevolence [against Washington]; if their public affairs were regulated by a person sent from heaven, I firmly believe his acts, instead of meeting with universal approbation, would by many be considered as deceitful and flagitious." (Weld, i, 108-09.)

<p>331</p>

Washington almost determined to withhold ratification. (Marshall, ii, 362.) The treaty was signed November 19, 1794; received by the President, March 7, 1795; submitted to the Senate June 8, 1795; ratified by the Senate June 24; and signed by Washington August 12, 1795. (Ib., 360, 361, 368.)

<p>332</p>

"Washington now defies the whole Sovereign that made him what he is – and can unmake him again. Better his hand had been cut off when his glory was at its height before he blasted all his Laurels!" (Dr. Nathaniel Ames's Diary, Aug. 14, 1795; Dedham (Mass.) Historical Register, vii, 33.) Of Washington's reply to the address of the merchants and traders of Philadelphia "An Old Soldier of '76," wrote: "Has adulation … so bewildered his senses, that relinquishing even common decency, he tells 408 merchants and traders of Philadelphia that they are more immediately concerned than any other class of his fellow citizens?" (American Remembrancer, ii, 280-81.)

<p>333</p>

Washington to Jay, May 8, 1796; Writings: Ford, xiii, 189.

<p>334</p>

American Remembrancer, ii, 265.

<p>335</p>

Journal, H.D. (1795), 54-55; and see Anderson, 43.

<p>336</p>

American Remembrancer, ii, 269.

<p>337</p>

Ames to Gore, Jan. 10, 1795; Works: Ames, i, 161.

<p>338</p> "This treaty in one page confines,The sad result of base designs;The wretched purchase here beholdOf Traitors – who their country sold.Here, in their proper shape and mien,Fraud, perjury, and guilt are seen."(Freneau, iii, 133.)
<p>339</p>

Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, 187-88.

<p>340</p>

Ib.

<p>341</p>

Jefferson to Tazewell, Sept. 13, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, 191. The Jay Treaty and Neutrality must be considered together, if the temper of the times is to be understood. "If our neutrality be still preserved, it will be due to the President alone," writes the younger Adams from Europe. "Nothing but his weight of character and reputation, combined with his firmness and political intrepidity could have stood against the torrent that is still tumbling with a fury that resounds even across the Atlantic… If his system of administration now prevails, ten years more will place the United States among the most powerful and opulent nations on earth… Now, when a powerful party at home and a mighty influence from abroad, are joining all their forces to assail his reputation, and his character I think it my duty as an American to avow my sentiments." (J. Q. Adams to Bourne, Dec. 24, 1795; Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 467.)

<p>342</p>

Charles Pinckney's Speech; American Remembrancer, i, 7.

<p>343</p>

Marshall, ii, 378. The Republicans insisted that the assent of the House of Representatives is necessary to the ratification of any treaty that affects commerce, requires appropriation of money, or where any act of Congress whatever may be necessary to carry a treaty into effect. (Ib.; and see Livingston's resolutions and debate; Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1795, 426; 628.)

<p>344</p>

"Priestly's Emigration," printed in Cobbett, i, 196, quoting "Agricola."

<p>345</p>

"Camillus"; Works: Lodge, v and vi. It is impossible to give a satisfactory condensation of these monumental papers. Struck off in haste and under greatest pressure, they equal if not surpass Hamilton's "First Report on the Public Credit," his "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States," or his "Report on Manufactures." As an intellectual performance, the "Letters of Camillus" come near being Hamilton's masterpiece.

<p>346</p>

Washington to Hamilton, July 29, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, 76.

<p>347</p>

The whole country was against the treaty on general grounds; but Virginia was especially hostile because of the sore question of runaway slaves and the British debts.

<p>348</p>

Washington to Randolph, Aug. 4, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, footnote to 86. See Resolutions, which were comparatively mild; American Remembrancer, i, 133-34; and see Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, of July 30, and Aug. 6, 1795.

<p>349</p>

Jefferson to Coxe, Sept. 10, 1795; Works: Ford, vii, 29.

<p>350</p>

Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795; ib., 27.