Albert Gallatin
vote of 63 to 27.
There was now a truce of a few days. In the meanwhile the country was
agitated to an extent which, if words mean anything, really threatened
an attempt at dissolution of the Union, if not civil war itself. The
objections on the part of the Republicans were to the treaty as a whole.
Their sympathies were with France in her struggle for liberty and
democratic institutions and against England, and their real and proper
ground of antipathy to the instrument lay in its concession of the right
of capture of French property in American vessels, whilst the treaty
with France forbade her to seize British property in American vessels.
The objections in detail had been formulated at the Boston public
meeting the year before. The commercial cities were disturbed by the
interference with the carrying trade; the entire coast, by the search of
vessels and the impressment of seamen; the agricultural regions, by the
closing of the outlet for their surplus product; the upland districts,
by the stoppage of the export of timber. But the country was without a
navy, was ill prepared for war, and the security of the frontier was
involved in the restoration of the posts still held by the British.
The political situation was uncertain if not absolutely menacing. The
threats of disunion were by no means vague. The Pendleton Society in
Virginia had passed secession resolutions, and a similar disposition
appeared in other States. While the treaty was condemned in the United
States, British statesmen were not of one opinion as to the advantages
they had gained by Grenville's diplomacy. Jay's desire, expressed to
Randolph, "to manage so that in case of wars our people should be united
and those of England divided," was not wholly disappointed. And there is
on record the expression of Lord Sheffield, when he heard of the rupture
in 1812, "We have now a complete opportunity of getting rid of that most
impolitic treaty of 1794, when Lord Grenville was so perfectly duped by
Jay."[4] Washington's ratification of the treaty went far to correct the
hasty judgment of the people, and to reconcile them to it as a choice of
evils. Supported by this modified tone of public opinion, the
Federalists determined to press the necessary appropriation bills for
carrying the treaties into effect. Besides the Jay treaty there were
also before the House the Wayne treaty with the Indians, the Pinckney
treaty with Spain, and the treaty with Algiers. With these three the
House was entirely content, and the country was impatient for their
immediate operation. Wayne's treaty satisfied the inhabitants on the
frontier. The settlers along the Ohio, among whom was Gallatin's
constituency, were eager to avail themselves of the privileges granted
by that of Pinckney, which was a triumph of diplomacy; and all America,
while ready to beard the British lion, seems to have been in terror of
the Dey of Algiers. Mr. Sedgwick offered a resolution providing for the
execution of the four treaties. Mr. Gallatin insisted on and received a
separate consideration of each. That with Great Britain was reserved
till the rest were disposed of. It was taken up on April 14. Mr. Madison
opened the debate. He objected to the treaty as wanting in real
reciprocity; 2d, in insufficiency of its provisions as to the rights of
neutrals; 3d, because of its commercial restrictions. Other Republican
leaders followed, making strong points of the position in which the
treaty placed the United States with regard to France, to whom it was
bound by a treaty of commercial alliance, which was a part of the
contract of aid in the Revolutionary War; and also of the possible
injustice which would befall American claimants in the British courts of
admiralty.
The Federalists clung to their ground, defended the treaty as the best
attainable, and held up as the alternative a war, for which the refusal
of the Republicans to support the military establishment and build up a
navy left the country unprepared. In justice to Jay, his significant
words to Randolph, while doubtful of success in his negotiation, should
be remembered: "Let us hope for the best and prepare for the worst." To
the red flag which the Federalists held up, Mr. Gallatin replied,
accepting the consequences of war if it should come, and gave voice to
the extreme dissatisfaction of the Virginia radicals with Jay and the
negotiation. He charged that the cry of war and threats of a
dissolution of the government were designed for an impression on the
timidity of the House. "It was through the fear of being involved in a
war that the negotiation with Great Britain had originated; under the
impression of fear the treaty had been negotiated and signed; a fear of
the same danger, that of war, had promoted its ratification; and now
every imaginary mischief which could alarm our fears was conjured up in
order to deprive us of that discretion which this House thought they had
a right to exercise, and in order to force us to carry the treaty into
effect." He insisted on the important principle that 'free ships make
free goods,' and complained of its abandonment by the negotiators.
In a reply to this attack upon Jay, whose whole life was a refutation of
the charge of personal or moral timidity, Mr. Tracy passed the limits of
parliamentary courtesy. "The people," he said, "where he was most
acquainted, whatever might be the character of other parts of the Union,
were not of the stamp to cry hosannah to-day and crucify to-morrow; they
will not dance around a whiskey pole to-day and curse their government,
and upon hearing of a military force sneak into a swamp. No," said he,
"my immediate constituents, whom I very well know, understand their
rights and will defend them, and if they find the government will not
protect them, they will attempt at least to protect themselves;" and he
concluded, "I cannot be thankful to that gentleman for coming all the
way from Geneva to give Americans a character for pusillanimity." He
held it madness to suppose that if the treaty were defeated war could be
avoided. Called to order, he said that he might have been too personal,
and asked pardon of the gentleman and of the House.
The brilliant crown of the debate was the impassioned speech of Fisher
Ames, the impression of which upon the House and the crowded gallery is
one of the traditions of American oratory. The scene, as it has been
handed down to us, resembles, in all save its close, that which
Parliament presented when Chatham made his last and dying appeal. Like
the great earl, Ames rose pale and trembling from illness to address a
House angry and divided. Defending himself and the Federal party against
the charge of being in English interest, he said, "Britain has no
influence, and 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 ever 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." Considering the probable influence on the Indian tribes of
the rejection of the treaty, he said, "By rejecting the Posts we light
the savage fires, we bind the victims.... I can fancy that I listen to
the yells of savage vengeance and shrieks of torture. Already they seem
to sigh in the west wind,--already they mingle with every echo from the
mountains." His closing words again bring Chatham to mind. "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 rise 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." This appeal, supported by the petitions and
letters which poured in upon the House, left no doubt of the result. An
adjournment was carried, but the speech was decisive. The next day,
April 29, it was resolved to be expedient to make the necessary
appropriations to carry the treaty into effect. The vote stood 49 ayes
to 49 nays, and was decided in the affirmative by Muhlenberg, who was in
the chair. But the House would not be satisfied without an expression of
condemnation of the instrument. On April 30 it was resolved that in the
opinion of the House the treaty was objectionable.
While Mr. Gallatin in this debate rose to the highest rank of
statesmanship, he showed an equal mastery of other important subjects
which engaged the attention of the House during the session. He was
earnest for the protection of the frontier, but had no good opinion of
the Indians. "Twelve years had passed," he said, "since the peace of
1783; ever since that time he had lived on the frontier of Pennsylvania.
Not a year of this period had passed, whether at war or peace, that some
murders had not been committed by the Indians, and yet not an act of
invasion or provocation by the inhabitants." In the matter of
impressment of American seamen, he urged the lodging of sufficient power
in the executive. Men had been impressed, and he held it to be the duty
of the House to take notice of it by war or negotiation. In the
establishment of land offices for the sale of the western lands he
brought to bear upon legislation his practical experience. He urged that
the tracts for sale be divided, and distinctions be made between large
purchasers and actual settlers--proposing that the large tracts be
sold at the seat of government, and the small on the territory itself.
He instanced the fact that in 1792 all the land west of the Ohio was
disposed of at 1_s_. 6_d_. the acre, and a week afterwards was resold at
$1.50, so that the money which should have gone into the treasury went
to the pockets of speculators. He also suggested that the proceeds of
the sales should be a fund to pay the public debt, and that the public
stock should always be received at its value in payment for land; a plan
by which the land would be brought directly to the payment of the debt,
as foreigners would gladly exchange the money obligations of the
government for land. On the question of taxation he declared himself in
favor of direct taxes, and held that a tax on houses and lands could be
levied without difficulty. He would satisfy the people that it was to
pay off the public debt, which he held to be a public curse. He
supported the excise duty on stills under regulations which would avoid
the watching of persons and houses and inspection by officers, and
proposed that licenses be granted for the time applied for.
The military establishment he opposed in every way, attacked the
principle on which it was based, and fought every appropriation in
detail, from the pay of a major-general to the cost of uniforms for the
private soldiers. He was not afraid of the army, he said, but did not
think that it was necessary for the support of the government or
dangerous to the liberties of the people; moreover, it cost six hundred
thousand dollars a year, which was a sum of consequence in the condition
of the finances.
The navy found no more favor in his eyes. He denied that fleets were
necessary to protect commerce. He challenged its friends to show, from
the history of any nation in Europe as from our own, that commerce and
the navy had gone hand in hand. There was no nation except Great
Britain, he said, whose navy had any connection with commerce. Navies