TOP

On the eighth of December, 1795, Washington read his seventh annual address to the assembled Congress. It contained a gratifying summary of the events of the year in which his government and country were concerned. He had the pleasure of informing them officially of the “termination of the long, expensive, and distressing war,” in which the army had been engaged with the Indians of the Northwest Territory, by the treaty made by Wayne at Grenville, to which we have already alluded. That treaty was doubtless more easily consummated, after Wayne's victories, because of the knowledge that the western posts were about to be given up to the United States. By that treaty, a tract of twenty-five thousand square miles was ceded to the United States, lying in one body east of a defined line, and including the eastern and southern part of the present state of Ohio. They also ceded sixteen detached portions of territory in the region westward of that line, most of them two miles square, but several of them much larger. These included the sites of some of our most flourishing villages and cities in the West. As an equivalent for these cessions, the Indians were to receive goods to the amount of twenty thousand dollars in presents, and an annual allowance of articles to the value of nine thousand, five hundred dollars, to be distributed proportionately among the tribes who were parties to the treaty.

“At the exchange of prisoners which took place on this occasion,” (conclusion of the treaty,) says Hildreth, “many affecting incidents occurred. The war as against Kentucky had lasted for almost twenty years, during which period a large number of white people had been carried into captivity. Wives and husbands, parents and children, who had been separated for years, were now restored to each other. Many of the younger captives had quite forgotten their native language, and some of them absolutely refused to leave the savage connections, into whose families they had been taken by adoption.”[89]

The Indian relations on the southwestern frontier were not so satisfactory. Former treaties had been confirmed, and there were signs of permanent peace; but the reckless violence of some of the white settlers, in perpetrating bloody outrages upon the Indians, kept that section of the Union in a state of great inquietude.

In his message, the president announced amicable relations with the new emperor of Morocco, who in a letter had certified his recognition of a treaty made with his father. “With peculiar satisfaction I add,” said Washington, “that information has been received from an agent deputed on our part to Algiers, importing that the terms of a treaty with the dey and regency of that country had been adjusted, in such a manner as to authorize the expectation of a speedy peace, and the restoration of our unfortunate fellow-citizens from a grievous captivity.”

We have already observed the appointment of Colonel Humphreys as the agent to Algiers alluded to. He was then diplomatic agent of the United States at Lisbon. He came home for the special purpose of making arrangements for his negotiation, and returned to Lisbon deputed to purchase a peace of the Barbary powers. From Lisbon, Humphreys proceeded to Paris to confer with Mr. Monroe, and to solicit the mediation of the French government, leaving discretionary powers with Mr. Donaldson, who had accompanied him as consul to Tunis and Tripoli; to conclude a peace upon the best terms to be obtained, when a favorable opportunity should occur. On the fifth of September, 1795, Donaldson signed a treaty, by which, in consideration of the release of the American captives and a guaranty of peace in the future, it was agreed to pay to the dey of Algiers the sum of seven hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars, besides an annual tribute in stores, which, at their real value, amounted to about forty-eight thousand dollars. Besides these sums, a biennial present of nine or ten thousand dollars was required, and twenty thousand more on the appointment of a consul.

The president also announced that Mr. Pinckney, who had been sent on a special mission to Spain concerning the navigation of the Mississippi river, had been successful, the stipulation being that it should be free to both parties throughout its entire length. He believed this would lead the way to the settlement of “a foundation of lasting harmony with a power whose friendship the United States had uniformly and sincerely desired to cultivate.”

The treaty which had caused so much commotion throughout the Union was alluded to in a manner almost as if incidental. “Though not before officially disclosed to the house of representatives,” the president said, “you, gentlemen, are all apprized that a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation has been negotiated with Great Britain, and that the senate have advised and consented to its ratification upon a condition which excepts part of one article. Agreeably thereto, and to the best judgment I was able to form of the public interest, after full and mature deliberation, I have added my sanction. The result on the part of his Britannic majesty is unknown. When received, the subject will without delay be placed before Congress.”

In contemplation of the general relations of the United States, the president said: “While many of the nations of Europe, with their American dependencies, have been involved in a contest unusually bloody, exhausting, and calamitous, in which the evils of foreign war have been aggravated by domestic convulsion and insurrection, in which many of the arts most useful to society have been exposed to discouragement and decay; in which scarcity of subsistence has embittered other sufferings; while even the anticipations of a return of the blessings of peace and repose are alloyed by the sense of heavy and accumulating burdens, which press upon all the departments of industry, and threaten to clog the future springs of government, our favored country, happy in a striking contrast, has enjoyed general tranquillity—a tranquillity the more satisfactory because maintained at the expense of no duty. Faithful to ourselves, we have violated no obligation to others. Our agriculture, commerce, and manufactures prosper beyond example, the molestations of our trade (to prevent a continuance of which, however, very pointed remonstrances have been made) being overbalanced by the aggregate benefit which derives from a neutral position. Our population advances with a celerity which, exceeding the most sanguine calculations, proportionally augments our strength and resources, and guaranties our future security. Every part of the Union displays indications of rapid and various improvement; and with burdens so light as scarcely to be perceived, with resources fully adequate to our present exigencies, with governments founded on the genuine principles of rational liberty, and with mild and wholesome laws, is it too much to say that our country exhibits a spectacle of national happiness never surpassed, if ever before equalled.”

With such a picture before them, a picture faithful and true in form and coloring, how pitiful must have appeared to the wise, and thoughtful, and generous, those miserable party feuds and personal animosities which disturbed the peace of the commonwealth—mere loathsome cobwebs, spun by selfishness, across a piece of gorgeous tapestry—spots upon the sun of a glorious national career!

Foreseeing the heats of party strife in the national legislature, the president, after commending to their consideration several important objects, counselled temperate discussion, “and mutual forbearance where there may be a difference of opinion.” This advice, always timely, was especially apposite at that time.

The senate gave a cordial response to the message; but the opposition being in the majority in the lower house, a clause in the response reported by a committee appointed to prepare it, in which was expressed “undiminished confidence” in the president, was objected to. The opposition also desired to strike out from the senate's address the expression of a belief that the president's foreign policy was an “enlightened, firm, and persevering endeavor to preserve peace, freedom, and prosperity.” Some members affirmed that their confidence in the president had been very much diminished by “a late transaction” (signing the ratification of Jay's treaty); and that they believed such was the case among the people at large. The address of the representatives was finally, after much debate, recommitted, and the objectionable clause was modified so as to read thus: “In contemplating that spectacle of national happiness which our country exhibits, and of which you, sir, have been pleased to make an interesting summary, permit us to acknowledge and declare the very great share which your zealous and faithful services have contributed to it, and to express the affectionate attachment which we feel for your character.”

Already the legislatures of the different states had taken action on the treaty. Governor Shelby, in his message to the legislature of Kentucky, assailed it as containing stipulations that were unconstitutional. The lower house agreed with him, but the senate would not concur. The Virginia house of delegates approved of the action of their senators in voting against the treaty, and rejected a resolution declaring undiminished confidence in the president. The Maryland legislature denounced the assaults on the president, and declared their “unabated reliance on his integrity, judgment, and patriotism.” The Pennsylvania senate took similar action; and the legislature of New Hampshire denounced the seditious declaimers against the treaty and the administration. North Carolina would not stand by Virginia in her action; but the South Carolina legislature declared the treaty “highly injurious to the general interests of the United States.” The matter was not acted upon by the senate, however, and the subject was not again taken up. The legislature of Delaware approved of the treaty; while Governor Samuel Adams, in his address to the general court of Massachusetts, spoke of the treaty as “pregnant with evil.” The Massachusetts senate considered any action on the subject as an interference with the powers delegated to the general government; while the house, by a decided vote, suggested that “respectful submission on the part of the people to the constituted authorities,” was “the surest means of enjoying and perpetuating the invaluable blessings of our free and representative government.” Rhode Island approved of the action of the senate and the chief magistrate; and in New York, as well as in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, a proposition made by resolutions in the Virginia legislature, that the constitution of the United States should be so amended as to admit the house of representatives to a share in the treaty-making power, and otherwise abridging the powers of the government, was rejected or laid on the table.

The tardiness of the British government in the performance of its acts of justice toward the United States, and the present apparent hesitation in ratifying the treaty, perplexed Washington; for this seeming unfriendliness was used as a weapon by the opposition. Accordingly, toward the close of the year, he attempted to remind that government of its duty, in an unofficial way, through Gouverneur Morris, who, having been succeeded by Mr. Monroe as minister to the French republic, was now in England, and on quite intimate terms with Lord Grenville and other ministers, and members of the privy council. In a letter to Morris, on the twenty-second of December, after giving at much length a narrative of the causes of complaint against the British government, Washington said:—

Fortified by such conscious rectitude, Washington was well prepared to meet whatever action the supreme legislature of his country might take concerning the great question at issue.

We have already observed the cordial reception of Mr. Monroe by the French government, and the decree of the National Convention that the respective flags of the American and French republics should be united and suspended in their hall, as a token of eternal friendship between the two nations. Mr. Monroe, it will be remembered, reciprocated this generous feeling, by presenting to the Assembly the flag of the United States. When, afterward, Mr. Adet came to America as the successor of Fauchet, the French minister, he bore a letter from the Committee of Safety to the Congress, and the banner of the French republic for the government of the United States. He arrived in the summer of 1795, when the whole country was in a ferment respecting the treaty with Great Britain; and partly on that account, but chiefly because he supposed his communication on the subject of the flag must be made to the Congress direct, he did not announce to the president that complimentary portion of his mission until late in December. Adet had then been made aware that the presentation of the colors to the government must be made through the president only; and as that presentation would be an occasion for rejoicing, because of a friendly feeling between the two nations, Washington appointed the first of January, 1796—“a day of general joy and congratulation”—as the time when he would receive the token of amity.

1796

The colors of France were presented to the president for his country, together with the letter of the French Committee of Safety to the Congress, at Washington's residence, in the presence of a large number of distinguished characters. Adet, in a speech on the occasion, presented in glowing colors the position of France as the great dispensatory of free opinions in the old world—as “struggling not only for her own liberty, but for that of the human race. Assimilated to, or rather identified with, free people by the form of her government,” he said, “she saw in them only friends and brothers. Long accustomed to regard the American people as her most faithful allies, she sought to draw closer the ties already formed in the fields of America, under the auspices of victory, over the ruins of tyranny.”

A reply to this address, under the peculiar circumstances in which Washington was placed, required the exercise of much discretion. It was necessary to express generous feelings adapted to the occasion, without the utterance of sentiments, concerning the powers then at war, inconsistent with the position of neutrality which the United States had assumed. The president accordingly said:—

Washington transmitted to Congress the letter from the Committee of Safety, the French colors, and copies of the speeches of Adet and himself at the presentation, on the fourth of January; whereupon, the house of representatives, by resolution, requested the president to make known to the representatives of the French people “the most sincere and lively sensibility” which was excited by this honorable testimony of the existing sympathy and affections of the two republics; that the house rejoiced “in the opportunity thereby afforded to congratulate the French nation upon the brilliant and glorious achievements” which they had accomplished during the present afflictive war; and hoped that those achievements would be attended with a perfect attainment of their object, and “the permanent establishment of the liberty and happiness of a great and magnanimous people.”On the sixth of January, the senate also passed resolutions expressive of the pleasure they felt on the reception of this evidence of the continued friendship of the French republic, and of a desire that the “symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement of that great people,” as expressed by Washington in his reply to the French minister, might contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere affection by which the two republics were so happily united. It was at first proposed, in a resolution offered in the senate, that the president should communicate the sentiments of that body to the proper organ of the French government; but this was opposed, because, it was said, the complimentary correspondence between the two nations had reached a point where, if ever, it ought to cease. This amendment was carried by a strict party vote.

[89] History of the United States, second series, i, 566.