Odd Byways in American History [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674366480, 9780674365285

Citation preview

Odd Byways in American History

LONDON : H U M P H R E Y MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Odd Byways in American History BY CHARLES

WARREN

CAMBRIDGE · MASSACHUSETTS H A R V A R D U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

COPYRIGHT, 1 9 4 2 BY THE PRESroENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVABD COLLEGE

PRINTED AT THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A.

Foreword explorations off the main-travelled highway of American History may seem disjointed and distracting to those who wish a smooth, direct, and connected road without breaks, detours, or crossings. But, as Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, " A footpath across a meadow — in all its human waywardness and unaccountability — will always be more to us than a railroad well engineered through a difficult country. No reasoned sequence is thrust upon our attention. W e seem to have slipped for one lawless little moment out of the iron rule of cause and effect." And the sidetracks, the bypaths, and the unexpected losses of our way frequently give a more illuminating view of the real nature of the countryside than do the straight and unbroken stretches of the highway from which we have deviated.

T H E S E RANDOM

This book, therefore, is not intended to present a consecutive historical narrative, but to afford glimpses of twelve picturesque and unusual (and, I hope, entertaining) episodes in American history and politics, during the years between 1778 and 1840, illustrating some of the difficulties and frictions in which our early Presidents and Congresses and others were involved. C. W .

Contents I. ΗοΊΰ Moroccan Lions and Arabian Horses Annoyed Presidents

3

IL Hoiv Billiard Tables and Gold Spoons Became Campaign Issues

30

III. ΗοΊΌ Congress Got and Lost the French Royal Portraits

51

IV. V. VI. VII.

How Americans Were Arrested as Spies in London

72

What Was the Weather at Washington's inauguration?

92

Ною the Great Tub Plot Scared the Federalists

102

Hoiv Jefferson's Death Was Reported in the Campaign of 1800

127

VIII. Hoiv the President's Speech to Congress Was Instituted and Abandoned

IX. How War with France Was Urged in ι8οβ

136 159

X.

Why the Battle of New Orleans Was Not Painted

177

XI.

How Politics Intruded on Washington's Centenary Celebration

192

XII.

How Andrew Jackson Opposed a National Fast Day

221

Notes

245

Index

265

Odd Byways in American History

^ I

^

How Moroccan Lions and Arabian Horses Annoyed Presidents

U R I N G the course of our national history, many questions of an economic or political nature have recurred from time to time and are even troubling the statesmen of today. But there is one question presented to our Presidents and Congresses during the first forty years of the nineteenth century which has ceased now to annoy them — the delicate and perplexing problem of getting rid of unwanted animals bestowed by foreign powers. The troubles which Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler had with the various Arabian horses and Moroccan lions which were showered upon them form a picturesque episode in our history. T o understand their cause, one must make a brief excursus into our relations with African and Asiatic nations in early days, for an indispensable and recognized condition to the consummation of treaty relations with African and Asiatic rulers was the presentation of money and other articles of value. These gifts, euphemistically termed expressions of civility and respect, were, in fact, mere bribes or tributes, though presents (generally of much less value) were made in return to the officers of the government initiating the treaty. Thus, in 1786, the price of a treaty negotiated by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson with the Emperor of Morocco

D

4

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

was $10,000, The treaty between Algiers and the United States in 1795 was bought by an annual tribute of $21,600 in naval stores and by other payments, in addition to presents amounting to $90,000, which, as Edward Everett later said in Congress, were on a regular tariff to members of the Dey's household by rank even down to the cook. These payments, the total amount of which was estimated by our Secretary of State in 1797 as being $992,463.25, were termed in the treaty itself "the price of peace." Our treaty with Tripoli, in 1797, entailed payment of a "present" of $40,000 in gold and silver coin, thirteen watches, five rings (three diamonds, one sapphire, one with a watch in it), one hundred and fortyone ells of cloth, and four caftans of brocade, plus a later payment of 12,000 Spanish dollars. Our treaty with Tunis, in 1797, cost $107,000 in cash and presents. Our treaty with Tripoli in 1805 cost $60,000 paid for ransom of American citizens. In view of such large payments by the United States of what amounted to tribute, these African potentates thus selling treaties must have indulged in ironical smiles when they heard of General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney's alleged reply to France in 1798: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." The amusing degree of ignorance as to the nature of the American government and its head is shown by the titles given to the President in some of these treaties. The Dey of Algiers referred to "the President and ruler of the American people living in the island called America, belonging to the islands of the ocean." Later, the Dey in a letter to President Madison termed him "His Majesty, the Emperor of America, its adjacent and dependent provinces and coasts and wherever his government may extend, our noble friend, the support of the Kings of the nation of Jesus, the most glorious amongst the princes, elected among many lords and nobles, the happy, the great, the amiable, James Madison, Emperor of America." The Bashaw of Tunis referred to "the most

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

$

distinguished and honored President of the United States of America, the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, of whom may the end be happy." Even in Europe a custom long prevailed of giving presents on negotiation of treaties. John Quincy Adams said in Congress in 1832 that our first treaty with France "had been effected through the influence of presents — by presents given by our Minister at Versailles. The practice of making presents in concluding negotiations prevailed even in Europe." Presents were also customarily given to diplomats when they took their leave. "I have heard," said Edward Everett in 1832, "of one snuff-box set with brilliants in one of these Courts which on occasion of negotiation of treaties had been presented to successive foreign Ministers for fifty years. The Minister received it, sold it to the jeweUer who made it for $5,000; the jeweller sold it again to the Government, who presented it to the next negotiator to be disposed in the same manner." And Adams stated that this snuff-box had been offered to him when he was Minister to Russia, though as an officer of the government he was forbidden by our Constitution to accept a present from a foreign power. It would appear that the United States itself conformed to this practice in the early years, for Albert Gallatin, in a debate on a resolution in 1789 to authorize Thomas Pinckney after his retirement from office to receive presents from Spain and Great Britain, stated that in a late government account there had appeared an item of $2,607 ^^r making presents to foreign Ministers. For the first forty years of our history these peculiar diplomatic gifts and payments had been little publicly known or discussed. Most of them were made without specific appropriations by Congress but from general lump-sum appropriations designated by Congress "for expenses incurred in negotiations with foreign nations," or "for contingent expenses of intercourse with foreign nations" — a kind of State

6

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Department secret services f u n d . ( i ) Through this device Congress managed to steer clear of publicity on this delicate subject of gifts or tributes. In 1806, however, President Jefferson met with a novel problem in this connection. T h e Bey of Tunis had threatened war on the United States b y reason of the seizure b y our navy of a Tunisian cruiser and its two prizes, and he sent to Washington an Ambassador, Suleiman Melli-Melli, who arrived in Washington, November 30, 1805, with a demand for the surrender of the ships and a three-year tribute paid in naval stores. W i t h him there came four Arabian horses as a present to the President from the Bey. T h e embarrassment which their arrival and gift caused was graphically and amusingly depicted b y William Plumer, the Federalist senator from N e w Hampshire in his Diary. Writing, November 29, he recorded an interview with Jefferson: The President said it was customary for the Government to whom Tunis sent a Minister to provide for his maintenance during the time of his residence in the nation to whom he was sent; that he had accordingly taken Stelle's old Hotel and made a contract with him to supply the Minister; that he understood the Minister had brought with him four very fine horses which were designed as a present; that altho no person in office can without the consent of Congress accept any present from a foreign prince or nation, the Government of the U. S. ought to accept these horses . . . that these horses will command such a price in the market as will probably maintain the Minister and his suite during the winter and thereby relieve the U. S. from that expense. A later entry b y Plumer disclosed the fact that the President was too optimistic as to the expense. On December 14, Plumer wrote that the Ambassador has three Arabian horses — one is a handsome mare — the others appear not worth more than $50 each. At 12 o'clock, set out to visit MelliMelli—met him in his carriage going to the President's to present him with the horses from Bashaw. He took 4 horses — one has died since his arrival. Two large negro servants preceded his carriage each

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

7

leading a horse. The horses did not appear remarkable — one of them was handsome. What will the President do with them? On December 7, the Secretary of the N a v y — Robert Smith — told Plumer that the Government were much embarrassed respecting the presents. . . . If they were refused, he feared it would create disgust at Tunis. If the President applied to Congress for their consent and if that consent was obtamed, it would seem necessary to reconsider the resolves of the former Congresses who have uniformly denied our Ambassadors the liberty of receiving small presents that were presented to them on leaving foreign courts. Meanwhile, Melli-Melli's stay was proving very agreeable to him, though not fruitful of diplomatic results. He and his suite of ten were provided with special quarters; he attended balls, was received by the House and by the Senate, and lived like a true Mahometan in much luxury. On December 23, Plumer recorded: He is a firm believer in the Alcoran — he reads and expounds a lesson from it every day to his household. Our government has, on his application, provided him with one or more women with whom he spends a portion of the night. (This was probably a Federalist slander.) On April 2, 1806, Plumer recorded an interview with President Jefferson in which he was told that the Tunisian Ambassador had stated that his master wanted money and tribute, but that he was informed "that the United States would never submit to either, but that as a proof of our friendship for the Bey, we would direct the ships taken by us as lawful prize to be restored." " I observed," Plumer continued, that I felt a degree of humiliation in seeing so much attention paid by our Government to that half savage, half brute, whom we had deigned to receive in the dignified character of an Ambassador from Tunis. He [Jefferson] replied it was unavoidable — that it was our

8

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N HISTORY

interest to preserve peace with these Barbary powers — and to attain that end we must pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their Ministers.

In the end, the United States paid not only the expenses of Melli-Melli's stay in Washington for nine months — a sum of over $ 15,000 — but also the expenses of sending him home on one of our ships. As against this, there could be credited only a very small sum received from the sale of the Arabian horses; for President Jefferson finally made up his mind that he would not risk consulting Congress as to their disposition and he ordered them sold at auction and the proceeds turned into the Treasury. This exchange of presents evidently resulted in a considerable balance on the side of Tunis. Such was the first of the series of animal troubles which during the next forty years were destined to annoy and perplex Presidents and Congresses.(2) The next instance gave more embarrassment and arose out of the circumstances of the negotiation of our first treaty with Turkey. For nearly three hundred and fifty years, the Ottoman Porte had closed the Black Sea and the Dardanelles to all commerce of foreign nations. Between 1774 and 1802, Russia, Austria, Great Britain, and France had obtained commercial rights by treaty, after making the required payment of the so-called presents to Turkey. The United States since 1799 had made efforts to secure a similar treaty. John Quincy Adams, when President in 1828, had instituted secret negotiations; but, as he himself said in Congress four years later, "a treaty had not been fully negotiated because the presents authorized by him from the foreign intercourse fund were not big enough."(3) In 1830, however, under President Jackson, a treaty was negotiated and signed by the United States Consul at Odessa, Charles Rhind, and by the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs (the Reis Effendi). On November 13, 1830, Mr. Rhind arrived in N e w York

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

Ç

with his treaty and, as the newspapers said, "with four elegant Arabian horses." Thereupon he wrote to the President, explaining with some pathos of expression the presence of these animals and the heavy transportation costs paid by him. He stated that they had been sent to him by the Reis Effendi and although they were evidently not intended for him in his official capacity, "since the Minister was aware that he could not accept them as such, he had been obliged to accept the gift since it was one that could not be returned without giving offence." He had been well informed, so he wrote, that to refuse the horses "would be considered an insult to the Sultan, and would doubtless be attended with injury to the interests of the United States," and that he must take them away from Constantinople even if he should cut their throats and throw them overboard the next day. Hence, he had seen nothing else to do but to accept them; he was, however, more than ready to transfer them to the United States. President Jackson evidently did not feel called upon to become involved in the matter and he turned the whole affair over to Congress, transmitting to it the Rhind letter "to enable Congress to decide what ought to be done." The House Committee on Foreign Affairs declined to accept any legislative responsibility and reported that inasmuch as the Commissioner, Mr. Rhind, "had feared that the important commercial interests we were seeking to adjust would probably have been suspended by his adherence to constitutional restrictions" and that "the present could not be declined without the greatest insult to an Eastern Sovereign," the best course for the Executive now to pursue would be that which Mr. Jefferson had followed in 1806. The Committee, therefore, returned the whole matter to the President, requesting to be discharged from further consideration and expressing an opinion that Mr. Jefferson's action "affords a proper precedent for the present and other analogous cases."

IO

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

This report, thus "passing the buck," apparently closed the matter, and Jackson ordered the horses to be sold at auction in New York. The United States did not benefit by the transaction, for eight years later Mr. Rhind was petitioning Congress to refund to him $585.20, being the costs of transportation of the horses paid by him in excess of the proceeds of their sale. Meanwhile, on February i, 1831, the treaty with Turkey had been ratified by the Senate, and it then appeared that the acceptance of these four Arabian horses by the United States was going to be an exceedingly costly luxury, since in exchange therefor Rhind had been able to secure his treaty only on the agreement to pay to the Sultan and his officials the sum of $75,000. The Senate balked at this amount and reduced this alleged "present" to $25,000. An appropriation bill providing for salaries and "contingent expenses" in carrying out the treaty aroused an active debate in the House; and Henry R. Storrs of Ohio demanded further information as to the mystic phrase. "Were these $25,000," he asked, "to be paid for gold snuffboxes, diamond-headed daggers, horses, arms, or what was it for? Turkey lays under tribute every nation with which she has intercourse, by this policy of requiring presents." It was degrading to pay such tributes, he held, and he moved to strike out the appropriation. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, William S. Archer of Virginia, asked why should we be degraded by doing that which had been done at all times and by all governments that had any connection with the Ottoman Porte? After considerable debate, the bill was passed, but the matter came before Congress again the next year; for the United States chargé, Commodore David Porter, on arrival in Constantinople to secure exchange of ratifications, found that Turkey insisted on the original sum "as an indispensable prerequisite," and only after considerable bargaining was he

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

II

able to persuade Turkey to accept $26,000. In a House debate in 1832 over a bill calling for an appropriation of $37,500 "for the salary of a dragoman and for contingencies to the mission in Constantinople," strong opposition again arose as to the payment of this "tribute," but Archer, John Quincy Adams, and Edward Everett explained the longestablished diplomatic custom and the appropriation was finally voted, reluctantly and unwillingly. (4) On this Turkish treaty, therefore, the account stood — net credit, by auction sale value of four Arabian horses — $.00; debit by payment to Turkey — $26,000. With the sale of these four horses. President Jackson probably thought that his animal troubles were over, but there was far worse to come. On January 6, 1834, the President sent a message to Congress with a letter from James R. Lieb, our Consul at Tangiers, from which it appeared that that officer had been induced to receive from the Emperor of Morocco a present of "an enormous lion and two fine horses," which he. Lieb, was holding as belonging to the United States. Lieb had written: "The presentation of a lion, which is held in high respect by the Moors as the King (or according to their expression, the Sultan) of animals, is the highest compliment the Emperor pays," and "any such present cannot be declined without the grossest insult to an Eastern Sovereign." He added that the animals were then in the consulate, costing one dollar a day for food and keepers and sure to cost more, since they would die if shipped to the United States in winter and must await the spring. He asked for instructions and suggested that, if the animals should arrive safely, the lion "might form one of a National menagerie, if such an establishment, in imitation of foreign nations, be deemed advisable by Congress." As there were no funds at the disposal of the Executive to cope with this situation, Jackson submitted the whole subject to

12

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Congress "for such direction as in their wisdom may seem proper." At the same time, he said that he had given peremptory instructions to our ofEcers "not under any circumstances to accept presents of any description from any foreign State." The House of Representatives received a report from its Committee on Foreign Affairs on March 4, 1832, saying: In all others than the Christian State of Europe (and in these to a greater or less extent) the interchange of presents between the authorities and foreign agents is not only a matter of invariable usage, but an established form of respect, the breach of which by refusal of acceptance on the part of the foreign agent would furnish an occasion of resentment comprising sometimes the efficacy of the agent, or, it might be, even the official immunities or personal security of the agent.

The Committee referred to the 1831 precedent and advised that the animals be sold and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury: "as the horses in the present case are represented as fine, the proceeds of the sale may be expected to produce a fund adequate at least to meet expenses." The House, however, adjourned without taking any action. In the succeeding November, before Congress reconvened and one whole year after the gift, the New York papers announced the arrival of the brig William Tell from the coast of Africa, having on board "a great male lion (Bashaw Memoun) and the two beautiful jet-black African studhorses (Abderhaman and Side Hamet), considered of the purest blood and swiftest breed in Barbary." On December 9, 1834, House dealt with the situation by passing a joint resolution authorizing the President to sell the horses and the lion. The Senate took up this grave matter on December 22, when Henry Clay of Kentucky moved to refer the House resolution to the Committee on Agriculture, saying that there was no other very appropriate committee. William R. King of Alabama thought the Committee on Foreign Relations more appropriate. Clay objected that as

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

I3

the animals were now in the city "the subject was not connected with our foreign affairs." In the end, the Committee on Agriculture had to solve the problem. On January 15, 1835, the resolution was semisolemnly debated. Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey moved to amend, by a proviso that the lion be presented to the proprietors of Peale's Museum in New York City and the horses to some New York agricultural society. Alexander Porter of Louisiana objected, saying that he had no idea of making such valuable presents to the richest State in the Union; that he would be willing to give the lion to New Jersey, but that the horses should go to an agricultural society in Louisiana. Gabriel Moore of Alabama said he had no idea of giving a lion to New York or accepting one from there. George Poindexter of Mississippi moved that the lion be presented by the President to King Louis Philippe of France. (It will be recalled that this debate occurred during the strained relations with France resulting from its failure to pay a debt owed to the United States.) James Buchanan of Pennsylvania opposed the proposal because, said he, "it would be a direct declaration of war against France." Frelinghuysen's amendment was then voted down. Ether Shepley of Maine next introduced in the debate the highly controversial political question as to the power of Congress under the general welfare clause of the Constitution to make gratuitous grants of the public lands and other property of the United States — a question which had been agitating the country for over fifteen years. He asked where in the Constitution was found authority to give away these animals? "If we make presents of small matters, on the same principle, we may give away millions. The animals ought to be sold and the proceeds placed in the Treasury." Frelinghuysen replied that "on principles of common law, in order legally to dispose of property, we must first be able to hold it, and he did not see how we could hold the lion." William

14

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Hendricks of Indiana thought that the animals should be given to Captain RUey as remuneration for having brought them over. Clay finally moved that the horses should be sold and the lion be presented "to such suitable institution, person or persons, as the President should designate," and in this form the joint resolution was finally passed and enacted. (5) The sequel is told by Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith, the wife of the editor of the National Intelligencer, in a letter of February 14, 1835: Hearing that Congress had placed the Numidian Lion at the disposal of the President, . . . [Mrs. Bomford, chief directress of the orphan asylum] instantly turned to him, obtained a private interview and asked him to bestow the Lion on the Orphan Asylum.

It is difficult to perceive the appropriateness of an orphan asylum as a place of consignment for a lion. Mrs. Smith continued, however: T h e old General showed so much warmth and kindness in acceding to her request that she says she was so overcome that she burst into tears and seizing his hand kissed it in the excess of her delight and gratitude. H e immediately drew an order on the Secretary of State and signing it, gave it to her. She hastened to us with the glad tidings and could not tell her story without tears. It is f o r both the asylums, Protestant and Catholic. . . . Last evening w e had a delightful fire-side circle . . . and last but not least Capt. Riley. H e came so apropos to tell us about the Lion. (6)

Following the above affecting scene, at the direction of the President the "Numidian Lion" was sold at public auction in April to the agent of the Boston Menagerie Company, and the proceeds, $3,350, were divided equally between the Washington City Orphan Asylum and the Saint Vincent's Orphan Asylum. The last appearance of this royal beast appears to be in an advertisement in a Washington paper on April II, 1835, as follows:

M O R O C C A N LIONS A N D A R A B I A N HORSES

15

LION EMPEROR OF MOROCCO T h i s distinguished visitor, richly entitled to be considered the first among his peers, being on a visit to the Metropolis of the Union, will be at home at his present residence on the corner of Tvi^elfth Street and Pennsylvania A v e n u e , at the Fountain Inn kept b y JOHN DOUGLASS.

The fate of the Arabian horses seems to have occasioned less interest, but they also were sold at auction. The disposition made of his presents apparently did not displease the Emperor of Morocco; for in the next year (1836), he renewed the old treaty of 1786 between his country and the United States. Our Consul at Tangiers, Lieb, wrote to the State Department that "the most remarkable feature in the negotiations is the fact that it was sealed by the Emperor before giving him his presents, and without stipulating to give him anything — a circumstance unknown hitherto in the history of Morocco." Nevertheless, the United States had sent to the Emperor and his officers the customary gifts. The reciprocal gift from the Emperor, three years later, caused President Van Buren still more trouble and occasioned his Congress still more debate. Late in the year 1839 the State Department received a letter from our Consul at Tangiers, dated September 5, announcing that in spite of persistent refusal of all gifts, in accordance with the President's instructions, he had been obliged to accept two lions and two horses from the Emperor of Morocco under the following amazing circumstances: I am sorry to inform the department that although I have exerted myself to the utmost to prevent the presentation of any animals from the Emperor, and to convince his ministers of the impossibility of

16

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

accepting a gift or present of any kind, my exertions have not been attended with success. . . . In a few days it was rumored that a party were on their way from Fez with some animals for the American Consulate. I immediately communicated to the Governor and Public Administrator my determination to refuse whatever might be sent and begged their influence in preventing such an offer. They replied that it was perfectly out of their power to prevent it; that the present must be made; that they could not understand by what right or power I could undertake to interfere in such a case between the Emperor and my Government; that a Moorish agent who should thus refuse to convey a present to his master would very justly have his head cut off; and that the refusal of whatever might be offered would be a decided insult. Finding I could get no assistance from any of the Emperor's officers, I resolved to write to the Emperor himself; but before a letter could be prepared, the sound of drums announced the arrival of the Bashaw's nephew at the head of a troop of soldiers with an enormous magnificent lion and lioness.

There then ensued, wrote the Consul, the following skilful exchange of retorts: I told him that it was perfectly impossible to receive the animals — the laws of my country forbade it. He replied they were not for me; that they were for my Government. I told him the President, the head of my Government, was in the same predicament as myself — that he had not the power to receive them. He said that the Sultan knew that; but that they were not for the President but for my Congress. I replied that Congress had resolved never to receive any more presents; and that the law prohibiting public officers to receive presents was part of the Constitution, and superior to the power of Congress itself. He wanted to know who made the Constitution. I replied, the people. Then, said he, if Congress will not receive them, the Emperor desires them to be presented to the people, as a mark of his respect and esteem for the "sultans" of America. At last, I told him that I would not receive them — that my mind was fully made up. Then, said he, my determination is as strong as yours — I am ordered to deliver them to you — it will cost me my head if I disobey. I shall leave them in the street. The street upon which is the American Consulate is a narrow short cul-de-sac. . . . Preparations were made for placing the guard at the open end and turning the lions loose in the street. Seeing further resistance hopeless and that to persist in the refusal would be to destroy the good feeling with which

M O R O C C A N LIONS A N D A R A B I A N HORSES

17

the Consulate is at present regarded, I was compelled to surrender to this novel form of attack, and to open one of my rooms for the reception of the animals where they now are. I have not dared to take the responsibility to send them to the U. S., or otherwise dispose of them. . . . They are to me a great expense and inconvenience. They are by far the finest animals of the kind I have ever seen.

The Consul also wrote that, in addition to the lions, some Arabian horses were on the way to him from the Emperor.(7) Before the President had recovered from this bad news, another oriental potentate stepped into the picture — the Sultan (or Imaum) of Muscat. This powerful and enlightened prince was the ruler of Oman on the eastern coast of Arabia, the great trade center for the Persian Gulf; he also reigned over African lands and the islands of Zanzibar and Socotra and was a strong opponent of the slave trade and of oriental piracy. On October 3, 1833, the United States, through its agent, Edmund Roberts, had concluded a treaty with Muscat, ratifications of which had been exchanged, September 30, 1835. In accordance with the diplomatic custom of that time the United States had made a somewhat modest gift to the Sultan, consisting of "a sword and altagan with gold scabboards and mountings, Tauver's Map of the United States, an American flag, a set of American coins, several rifles, a number of cut-glass lamps, a quantity of American nankeen," etc. (8) It was evidently to the interest of the United States that we should remain on good terms with the Sultan; for President Van Buren, in his message of December 5, 1837, spoke of "the prospect of considerable commercial benefit" and said that we had besides "received from the Sultan of Muscat prompt evidence of his desire to cultivate the most friendly feelings by liberal acts towards one of our vessels, bestowed in a manner so striking as to require on our part a grateful acknowledgment."

18

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N HISTORY

Under these circumstances, it was with considerable embarrassment that V a n Buren received from the Sultan a letter dated December 24, 1839, as follows: Sir. Hope the Almighty God will protect you and keep you in good health. From this part of the world having no news to communicate them to your excellency; and whenever opportunity offers this place, we shall feel happy to hear from your excellency with anything that we can do for you, little or plenty, shall feel happy. I have the pleasure of sending to your Excellency through friendship, viz., 2 good-bred Arab Nijd horses 1 string containing 150 pearls 2 separate large-sized pearls J carpet I bottle oil of rose 4 Cashmere shawls 5 demi-johns of rose water also I gold mounted sword, please to accept with other mentioned articles. Hoping you wül be pleased to accept the trifles from your friend. On M a y 2, the arrival was reported in N e w Y o r k of the ship Sultanee under command of Ahmet Ben Haman with the Sultan's animals and presents on board. V a n Buren at once wrote, M a y 8, a personal letter to the Sultan: It has been a source of lively satisfaction to me, in my desire that frequent and beneficial intercourse should be established between our respective countries to behold a vessel bearing Your Highness' flag enter a port of the United States to testify, I hope, that such relations will be reciprocal and lasting. I am informed that Ahmet Ben Haman had it in charge from your Highness to offer for my acceptance in your name a munificent present. I look upon this friendly proceeding on your part as a new proof of your Highness' desire to cultivate with us amicable relations, but a fundamental law of the Republic which forbids its servants from accepting presents from foreign States or Princes precludes me from receiving those your Highness intended for me. I beg your Highness to be assured that in thus declining your valuable gift, I do but per-

M O R O C C A N L I O N S A N D A R A B I A N HORSES

IÇ

form a paramount duty to my country and that my sense of the kindness which prompted the offer is not thereby in any degree abated.

The Secretary of State, John Forsyth, also addressed the commander of the ship to the same effect. But these letters did not conclude the matter; for the commander wrote back that, since the President could not receive the gifts, it would comport with the Sultan's desire and intention to present them to the Government of the United States. President Van Buren then, in a message of May 21, 1840, laid before Congress the whole subject of these gifts from the Sultan of Muscat and from the Emperor of Morocco, and other future gifts in general, for Congress to determine what course the Executive could pursue "without the risk of giving offense." On June I, 1840, the Senate passed a resolution reported by James Buchanan authorizing the President to accept the presents and to dispose of the same. (9) In the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported that the proceeds of sale of the gifts, instead of being received in the public treasury, should be divided equally among the different charitable institutions for the support of orphans in the District of Columbia. On June 9, 1840, a long and sharp debate arose over this momentous question, absorbing most of five days. David Petrikin of Pennsylvania did not see why the District charities should be benefited to the exclusion of others; he did not know any greater charity than to give money to the public treasury. "We ought to be just before generous. The Government has not now enough money to pay its debts." Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina, for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, thought that it was a "matter of small importance as to the manner in which the sale of these lions, jackasses, etc., should be divided and besides he did not feel disposed to burden the Treasury with more animals than were now attached to it; he did not want the jackasses to be fastened

2о

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

on the Treasury. It was also to be taken into consideration that some gentlemen were strict constructionists and would object to any money going into the Treasury that was not derived from taxation." (This was a hit at the Whigs who objected to filling the Treasury with the proceeds of sales of public lands.) Petrikin replied that Pickens appeared to turn his objection into ridicule: the gendeman let the demands of the poor men who are dependent on the Treasury remain unsatisfied because the money to pay them arose from the sale of jackasses? The money and armed vessels that went out to Muscat, for the benefit of a few pampered individuals in this community, came out of the Treasury, and why should not the money go back again into the Treasury, whether it was returned in the shape of jackasses or anything else? The resolution passed as reported, but the debate was renewed from a new point of view by John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts. He asked if there had been any example since the formation of the government in which the President was authorized to accept presents. He thought it a very new and dangerous thing. If the President can accept presents and then either House of Congress can dispose of those presents by giving them to charitable institutions, why tomorrow they might pass another law authorizing the President to accept and keep and turn to his own use presents from any foreign power. He wished to take his stand and say that the President should receive no presents from any foreign power or that any disposition should be made of them at all. Pickens pointed out that Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution only prohibited any official from accepting any present from any king, prince, or foreign state without the consent of Congress. Adams said that the power had never been exercised and should not be exercised now. A month later, on July 7, 8, and 9, the debate was resumed in a long speech by Adams, opposing the acceptance of the gifts by Congress and censuring as highly unconstitutional

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

21

the conduct of our Consul in Morocco in receiving the lions. Pickens replied that he thought that Mr. Adams had "visited this poor Consul at Tangiers with as unrelenting vengeance as certain persons of old did when they threw Daniel into the lions' den." As the Consul escaped in the first instance being torn to pieces by these beasts, he continued, "The gentleman now thinks it his duty to perform the operation. Mr. Adams has placed a forced construction upon the correspondence. I join with him most fully that our Consul ought not to submit in the slightest degree to the dictates of a tyrant or to be intimidated into a deviation from his duty by threats of any foreign power. . . . Was it the intention of the Emperor to show our agent a mark of respect and regard or was it his intention to treat us with contempt and to insult our power? The least reflection and examination of the correspondence will show that it was quite the reverse of disrespect and that the greatest respect and kindness were intended. . . . Barbarous nations have not learned such refined hypocrisy. They act on the old fashioned custom which prevailed at the foundation of society and offer to foreign nations towards whom they feel kindness, presents peculiar to their own country and identified with their soil or climate. It is true the Emperor had not the refinement to send a diplomatic note on rose paper but he presented the articles in a mode peculiar to his own country, rude and barbarian it is true, but nevertheless from no bad motives or design to insult our power or Government. If the Consul had tarnished our button, that emblem of our national honor, by submitting to dictation or intimidation, if he had suffered our National dignity to be trampled on in his person, then I would go with the gentleman from Massachusetts and declare that the Consul should be torn to pieces rather than suffer his country to be dishonored. But I think the gentleman has vastly exaggerated this matter. The motives with which these beasts were forced upon our

2г

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Consul were all kind and friendly." As to the present gifts from the Imaum of Muscat, he added, they had been sent without knowledge of the Constitutional prohibition, and since they were tendered to our agents and then to the Congress, as the representatives of the American people, we ought to dispose of the matter in a manner most consistent with the national delicacy under the circumstances. He concluded by saying that the matter had already consumed more time than the merits of the case required and that the venerable and learned gentleman had attached more importance to this particular case than it deserved. The House rejected the whole resolution. On July lo, this vote was reconsidered on a debated motion by Nathan Clifford of Maine to give the President discretion as to disposal of gifts. Edward Everett of Massachusetts wanted to separate the acceptance of the Imaum's presents from those of the Emperor of Morocco. As to the former, he argued, the question of acceptance had been put at rest by the President's letter of refusal and the reasons given by him "would doubtless satisfy the Imaum that no disrespect was intended by the return of the presents. They were manifestly intended for the personal use of the President, and now to sell them and put the proceeds into the Treasury would amount to an insult to this noble minded Prince and would be no less a disgrace to our nation." But, he stated, if we retained the presents, we ought to make some return, and he favored an appropriation for the repairs of the Imaum's ship, the Sultanee, now lying at New York, and for making suitable presents to the Imaum in acknowledgment of his kindness shown to a United States vessel in distress when wrecked on the shores of Muscat in 1833. Clifford's motion was passed authorizing the President to dispose of the gifts and place the proceeds in the Treasury. James Monroe of New York stated that he considered the proceeding a monstrous indecency. "We have not accepted

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

23

these presents, and yet we have ordered them to be sold and the proceeds placed in the Treasury." George H. Proffit of Indiana expressed his view "of this mean and beggarly mode of replenishing the Treasury" and inquired where there was any Constitutional authority for the act. He moved to entitle the measure: " A joint resolution to replenish the exhausted Treasury of the United States by sale of certain horses, lions, otto of roses, rose water, cashmere shawls, . . ." This motion was defeated and the resolution as finally enacted authorized the President "to dispose in such time and manner as he shall see fit of all such of the presents . . . as cannot conveniently be deposited or kept in the Department of State, and cause the proceeds to be placed in the Treasury of the United States." A month after this heated debate, the Arabian horses were sold in Washington at public auction, one of them being purchased for I350. The Alexandria Gazette stated that "they were not fine looking animals." The shawls, rug, rosewater, and other articles were deposited in the State Department. Meanwhile, on August 2, 1840, the brig Russell from Malaga and Tangiers arrived at Philadelphia with the lions, and, as stated in the newspapers, "the royal pair were landed at the Navy Yard and were in charge of Commodore Stewart." According to Niles'' Register, "The Emperor of Morocco was not apprized of the embarrassment which the favor of his neighbor of Muscat has occasioned our Republic on this side of the Atlantic or he would doubtless have spared Mr. Van Buren the additional inconvenience of contriving what to do with a lion and lioness." On August 31, in accordance with the Resolution of Congress, the President's inconvenience was relieved when the "royal pair" were sold for cash at the Navy Yard. This, however, was not the end of the episode. Both President Van Buren and Congress felt that some sort of

24

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

return ought to be made to the Imaum of Muscat for his generous though embarrassing gifts. Accordingly, it was decided to expend $15,000 in presents and to repair and refit the Imaum's ship, the Sultanee, which brought the gifts in May and which had been lying ever since at the Brooklyn N a v y Yard. Meanwhile, however, the crew of the Sultanee had not been particularly welcome. One N e w York paper described them as "fifty to sixty Arabs, as ugly a set of customers as it has ever been our lot to see; they eat one meal a day exclusively of curried rice; they are teetotalers, and one who was induced to drink in a barroom was seized when back on board and was told: 'Wretch, if you go on at this rate, you will soon be as low and degraded as a Christian.' " ( 1 0 ) Finally, the Sultanee, cleaned, painted, ornamented throughout, and armed with fourteen handsome carronades — all at the expense of the United States — sailed out of New York harbor. And Congress hoped that it had heard the end of the Imaum of Muscat. But it had not done so. For on May 15, 1844, President Tyler sent a message to the House, informing Congress of the receipt of a letter from the Imaum of Muscat, in which the latter, acknowledging the "sentiments of respect and friendship" transmitted to him by Tyler and praying God "that our friendship may always continue," asked the President "to accept a small present from your friend" in the shape of two Arabian horses in care of a groom. At the same time, on December 30, 1843, our Consul in Zanzibar wrote that the horses had been shipped to Salem, Massachusetts, by the barque Eliza. On May 2, 1844, the consignee, David Pingree of Salem, wrote that the horses had arrived at Salem and had been placed in the stable of the Essex House, "with the groom to see that they are properly cared for." The State Department had instructed the collector of the port at Salem "to take such steps as the occasion may require for preserving the horses and forwarding them to Wash-

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

25

ington in the safest and most economical manner." President Tyler in his message reported their arrival in Washington and stated that they would be "disposed of in such manner as Congress may think proper to direct." Ten months passed before Congress found the time to take any action. But meanwhile the horses apparently had not been idle; for on March I, 1845, an advertisement appeared in the Washington newspapers advertising the sale at auction at Walker and Kimball's National Stable of a "thoroughbred blooded mare of good size and handsome form, six years old, warranted to be with foal by one of the Arabian horses now owned by the Government." T w o days later, on March 3, 1845, the House passed a Resolution authorizing the President to sell the horses at public auction and cause the proceeds to be placed in the Treasury; and in the Senate, the Congressional Globe states that "amid much laughter the Resolution was read and adopted." ( 11 ) Whether the oriental potentates of Morocco and Muscat were discouraged by the statement of the "laughter" officially reported in our grave Senate records, or whether they felt that these successive auction sales of royal gifts did not comport with their dignity, the fact remains that, much to the relief of the Presidents and of the Congress, this was the last gift of lions or horses with which they had to cope. Sixteen years later, however, President Lincoln was confronted with a problem of elephants arising out of our treaty relations with another oriental power.(12) In 1836, the first treaty between the United States and Siam was negotiated, accompanied by exchange of presents. The United States sent a list of articles which had been requested by the King of Siam "with the exception of the stone statues which could not be obtained, and certain trees, plants and seeds which had been destroyed on the voyage," but replaced by "an extra number of the most elegant and expen-

20

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

sive lamps." The King of Siam fortunately presented no animals, but "a pair of gold-mounted swords, having massive gold scabbards." In 1856 another treaty was concluded, again with an exchange of presents; and in 1861 the King, in sending to the President a sword and photographs "of ourselves holding our beloved daughter in lap," and a pair of large elephant tusks, wrote as to his former gifts: W e have understood from the recent communication that these our royal presents were deposited and arrayed in one of the apartments of State as the common property of the Nation, that all visitors may observe them and that they may promote the glory of both countries. . . . For this news, we have great satisfaction which we desire hereby to express.

With this letter there came to President Lincoln another letter from the King which involved him in a delicate and perplexing situation, for it again concerned foreign animals. In 1856, the United States had voluntarily entered upon an undertaking having a zoological side; for the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, had accepted the idea evolved by General Edward Fitzgerald Beale that pending the construction of a transcontinental railroad camels might be profitably imported and used in transportation for military purposes across the deserts of the Southwest. He had procured about seventy of these animals, and for nearly two years they had been used with a modicum of success. News of this experiment having reached the King of Siam, the latter evidently said to himself: "If camels in the United States, why not elephants?" The arrival of the American frigate John Adams, Captain Berrien, afforded the King an opportunity to learn further details, and as a result he made to the President the following extraordinary proposal. Berrien, he wrote, had told him that elephants are regarded as the most remarkable of the large quadrupeds by the Americans so that if anyone has an elephant tusk of large

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

27

size and will deposit it in any public place, people come by thousands crowding to see it, saying is it not a wonderful thing; also though formerly there were no camels on the Continent the Americans have sought for and purchased them, some from Arabia, some from Europe and now camels propagate their race and are serviceable and of benefit to the country and are already numerous in America,

Having heard this, the King continued, it has occurred to me that if, on the continent of America, there should be several pairs of male elephants turned loose in forests where there was abundance of water and grass, in any region under the sun's declination both North and South, called by the English the torrid zone, and all were forbidden to molest them, to attempt to raise them would be well, and if the climate there should prove favorable to elephants, we are of opinion that after a while they will increase till they be large herds, as there are here on the continent of Asia, until the inhabitants of America will be able to catch and tame them and use them as beasts of burden, making them of benefit to the country, since elephants, being animals of great size and strength, can bear burdens and travel thru uncleared woods and matted jungles, where no carriage and cart roads have yet been made. . . . On this account, we desire to procure and send elephants to be let loose to increase and multiply in this continent of America, but we are as yet uninformed what forests and what regions of that country are suitable for elephants to thrive and prosper.

The King then stated that he had no means of conveying elephants to America, the distance being too great, but if the President of the United States and Congress who co-jointly with him rule the country, see fit to approve, let them provide a large vessel loaded with hay and other food suitable for elephants on the voyage, with tanks holding a sufficiency of fresh water and arranged with stalls so that the elephants can both stand and lie down in this ship and send it to receive them. We, on our part, will procure young male and female elephants, and forward them one or two pair at a time. When the elephants are on board the ship, let the steamer take it in tow, that it may reach America as rapidly as possible before they become wasted and diseased by the voyage. When they arrive in America, do not let them be taken to a cold climate out of the region under the sun's declination or torrid zone, but let them, with

28

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

all haste, be turned out to run wild in some jungle suitable for them, not confining them any length of time. If these means can be done, we trust the elephants will propagate their species hereafter in the continent of America.

The King then stated that "it is desirable that the President and Congress give him their views in reference to this matter at as early a day as possible," and that as it was the custom in Siam to take elephants from the herds in the jungle in the months of March and April, if the President and Congress approve of this matter and should provide a vessel to come f o r the elephants, if that vessel should arrive in Siam on any month of any year after March and April let notice be sent on two or three months previous to those months of that year in order that the elephants may be caught and tamed, when the elephants that have been long captured and tamed and domesticated here are large and difficult to transport and there might be danger, they would never reach America.

He concluded with the hope "that the President and Congress who administer the Government of the United States of America will gladly receive them as a token of friendly regard." This letter, written February 14, 1861, signed "Samdeth Phra Paramenda Meha Monkut, by the blessing of the highest superagency of the whole universe, the King of Siam, the sovereign of all interior tributary countries adjacent and around in every direction," and addressed to "His most Respected Excellent Presidency, the President of the United States of America, who, having been chosen by the Citizens of the United States as most distinguished, was made President and Chief Magistrate in the Affairs of the Nation for an appointed time of office," was received by President Lincoln a year later. It was, of course, obvious to the President that the King's proposition was impracticable; but it was highly desirable that a declination should not disturb the friendly relations

MOROCCAN LIONS AND ARABIAN HORSES

2Ç

which had been established with this Asiatic monarch. A c cordingly, the President addressed to him the following firm but courteous and tactful letter of refusal: To His Majesty, the King of Siam, My Good Friend, I appreciate most higMy your Majesty's tender of good offices in forwarding to this government a stock from which a supply of elephants might be raised on our soil. This Government would not hesitate to avail itself of so generous an offer, if the object were one which could be made practically useful in the United States. Our political jurisdiction, however, does not reach a latitude so low as to favor the multiplication of the elephants, and steam on land, as well as on the water, has been our best and most efficient agent of transportation in internal commerce. I shall have occasion at no distant day to transmit to your Majesty some token or indication of the high sense which this Government entertains of your Majesty's friendship. Meantime, wishing for your Majesty a long and happy life, and for the generous and emulous people of Siam the highest possible prosperity, I commend both to the blessing of Almighty God. Your Good Friend, (signed) ABRAHAM LINCOLN

W i t h this letter, the animal difficulties of the Presidents and the Congress ceased, and this bypath in American hist o r y came to an end.

Tir π How Billiard Tables and Gold Spoons Became Campaign Issues

I

F A S K E D to state what President of the United States was most hotly accused of extravagant and profligate expenditures, of living in regal luxury, and of installing in the White House an immoral gambling article, few Americans would name the stiff, staid, ascetic N e w Englander John Quincy Adams. Yet he was the President whose reelection was seriously affected by such charges. The American people have generally taken pride in the proper preservation and furnishing of that building in Washington known at various times as the "President's House," the "White House," the "Palace," and the "Executive Mansion." Three times in our history, however, expenditures for this purpose have become the subject of bitter and extravagant political attack — in the administrations of John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren. As early as the administration of President John Adams, Congress initiated the custom, on the election of a President, of authorizing him to sell such parts of the household furniture of his predecessor as might be out of repair, and of appropriating the proceeds together with the sum of fourteen thousand dollars "for the accommodation of the household of the President." Jefferson in 1801 and 1805,

BILLIARD TABLES AND GOLD SPOONS

3I

and Madison in 1809 and 1813, received these sums. After the White House was burned by the British in 1814, Congress appropriated $20,000 for repairs and $50,000 to enable Monroe to furnish "the President's House," in 1817 and 1818.(1) When, in 1825, on the inauguration of President John Quincy Adams, the regular appropriation of $14,000 was made for furnishing the President's House "under the direction of the President," no one could have foreseen the tremendous onslaught which was about to be made upon the unfortunate Adams with respect to its expenditure. Nor could it have been anticipated by him or by anyone that a tremendous political attack, having a serious effect upon his reelection as President, would be caused by a simple purchase of a billiard table. Yet this was to happen within a year after his inauguration, and in the following curious manner. After the regular appropriation of $14,000 was made in 1825, the Committee on Public Buildings of the House, acting under a resolution of Congress, filed a report, March 17, 1826, detailing the objects for which the money was expended, according to a list of payments which had been submitted by the President's son, John Quincy Adams, Jr., who was acting as his secretary.(2) On this list there appeared three seemingly innocent items: " T o Dr. Kervand for billiard table, $50; to Dr. Pomroy for billiard balls, $6; to F. Thompson for chessmen, $23.50." Soon after the report was filed and a few days before a discussion over it arose in the House, the President's attention was called to it and he informed the chairman of the Committee that so far as it related to the billiard table items it was erroneous, that they had been included by his son's mistake, and that these were his personal purchases, paid for by him and not chargeable to the public appropriation.(3) It could never have entered the President's head that the transaction would

32

ODD B Y W A Y S IN A M E R I C A N HISTORY

be the subject of vicious criticism and become a serious partisan campaign issue. Yet such was the actual outcome. The matter first came before the public in the course of a debate in the House, in May, 1826, over the appropriation of $25,000 for the completion of the large room in the President's house and for the purchase of furniture. (4) John Forsyth of Georgia said that while he doubted the policy of the law which required the President to live in the White House, and he should have been allowed "to live in such style as he might himself choose as a gentleman," nevertheless, "since the Nation had chosen to erect a palace, it is now fit that they should furnish it with decency and decorum." But, said he, "there are items in the account rendered which I could wish had been kept in the dark and never brought to light," and he wanted to know how this further sum was to be spent. Thereupon, Samuel P. Carson of North Carolina rose and said that he too regretted that the President should have made such a disposition of public money confided to him as had been made; and he asked: Is it possible to believe that it ever was intended by Congress that the public money should be applied for the purchase of game-tables and gambling furniture? And if it is right to purchase biUiard tables and chessmen, w h y not purchase also pharo banks, playing cards, race horses, and every other necessary article to complete a system of gambling at the President's Palace and let it at once be understood by the People that this is a most splendid gambling administration? Such conduct in the Chief Magistrate of this Nation is enough to shock and alarm the religious, the moral, and the reflecting part of the community; especially when we see such an Administration attempting to revolutionize the Catholic religion in South America, and to promulgate the true doctrines of our Saviour, by sending Mmisters to Panama. I for one can never vote for any further sum until I have assurance that it will not be expended for the purposes of completing the gambling arrangements of the palace. But, sir, let it not be said that I charge the President of the United States with being a gambler. I

BILLIARD TABLES AND GOLD SPOONS

33

would only be understood as saying that these articles are made use of for that purpose.

N o one else on the floor of the House, however, seemed at this time to be seriously concerned over the expenditure of these sums, amounting to $79.50; and it would appear that Congress found it difficult to visualize the stiff, puritanical John Quincy Adams in the capacity of a gambling debauchee. Hence, the bill passed the House without further debate. Adams' political foes, however, were eager to seize on any point for attack, and in the Congressional campaign in the fall of 1826 the anti-Adams newspapers circulated charges of wild Presidential extravagance. The "mighty and outrageous clamor," "the portentous outcry," which arose through the country were later described by Edward Everett in the Senate.(5) "The estimates of the upholsterers were diffused through the opposition press," he said: The hard, suspicious French names of furniture employed by these artisans were found significant of corruption; and it was declared to be the affair of the President and his political friends. N o man is above public opinion and no matter is so small that it may not furnish a sufficient fulcrum for moving the greatest masses.

As to the billiard table and the odium excited by this small matter, he said that, though the Committee to whom its purchase had been reported felt no alarm at "these dangerous articles," yet in the press the President was denounced as the corruptor of the youth of the country; the articles themselves were declared to be parts of a splendid gambling establishment; the Administration was represented (not merely politically but morally) as a set of desperadoes and debauchees, and the President's House was the scene of their orgies. . . . Columns of this loathsome cant filled the newspapers.

T o such an extent was the whole subject misrepresented to the people in some parts of the country that Everett

34

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Stated that it cost the Administration more votes than anything else. And, said he, this abused community has been so urged and plied on the subject through the channels of the press, that I am well informed that there are districts in the United States in which it is firmly believed that the private abode of the President, than whom a man of purer life does not exist in the country, is little better than a bagnio. Such an assault, in my limited acquaintance with the history of the country, I have nowhere found. A Chief Magistrate of more than ordinary simplicity of life and purity of character is denounced at one moment as the initiator of oriental pomp, and at the next as the profligate corrupter of the youth of the Nation. The Cabinet has been denounced as weak, inefficient, and corrupt and the Administration as profuse and extravagant. Early in 1827, an anonymous letter in the Richmond Enquirer (afterwards discovered to have been written b y Thomas H. Benton of Missouri) stated that the writer on N e w Year's D a y had visited the East Room to see how $25,000 could be stowed away in furniture: and my curiosity was fully satisfied. It was truly a gorgeous sight to behold but too much the looks of regal magnificence to be perfectly agreeable to my old Republican feelings. I recollected that President Monroe had incurred much censure for a set of costly chairs which a foreign agent had sent over to him; they cost one hundred dollars apiece; and people said that our worthy President required 50 acres of public land to set down upon; but here, said I, is the price of 20,000 acres of public land (enough at 40 acres apiece to furnish homes for 500 poor families) expended upon the decoration of a single room to gratify the taste and luxury of Monroe's successor. . . . Truly we support him like a Prince. (6) A n editorial in the Allegheny

Journal said:

The plain homespun style of James Monroe would not suit the taste of John Quincy Adams. He has one room dressed in scarlet, another in blue, a third in orange, and a fourth in green — all tastefully festooned with the richest hangings and furnished with the choicest collection of European fabrics. He has his drawing room, his dining room, his ball room, and his billiard room — all splendid saloons.

B I L L I A R D T A B L E S A N D GOLD SPOONS

35

An amusing and ironical defense of the President was made in a letter to the Telegraph headed: "The President's billiard table defended by precedents — like father, like son." It stated that in a report of a committee of the House of February 27, 1801, of expenditures made by John Adams as President, there were included: "7 well-looking horses, chiefly advanced in years; i set elegant plated harness for four horses in good order; i set brass ditto for four horses; I elegant chariot; i good coachee; i saddle and holsters; i market wagon." And it said: If these, in the Federal Administration of John I, were considered household furniture (under the appropriation), bought under that head and paid for out of the public money, surely in the Federal Administration of John II, a billiard table might be smuggled in under the same head. And as the game of chess is rather too slow for some of his Cabinet, w h y not purchase a few packs of cards?

When Congress met in January 1827, the White House expenditure was again the subject of violent debate, on a biU to provide that the $25,000 (which had been previously appropriated but not expended) be spent under the President's direction, and also on a motion for a report on the money already expended on public buildings. (7) Charles A. Wickliffe of Kentucky thought it was "a useless waste of public money." He called attention to the "Squandering" of money appropriated for the "People's House," as referred to in the letter in the Richmond Enquirer. Jeronimus Johnson of New York replied that though the writer of that letter described a "splendidly furnished" East Room which he had visited on New Year's Day, "every man, woman, boy and girl who was at the President's on that day knows that there was no furniture in the room, except a few old chairs and an old settee or two." Michael Hoffman of New York also defended the proposed appropriation, saying that he had been in the East Room, "where there was broken furniture which would disgrace a mean

Зб

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

lodging. . . . T h e edifice is splendid and the furniture should be appropriate." Charles Miner of Pennsylvania replied that he had visited the President's House attended b y the steward. The plate [said he] had been furnished at different times; some in Mr. Jefferson's, a part in Mr. Madison's, and a part in Mr. Monroe's Administration; and it was stamped with different marks. The steward, with honest pride, remarked that sometimes when foreign ministers had dined with the President, he could not help observing a glance at the different marks on the plates, as much as to say, "Have you sent round to the neighbors to borrow different sets to make up the entertainment.'" The dining room, so splendid when lighted up, is covered with a table cloth darned in several places. A few of the chambers are well furnished, but take it together, the house is ill furnished. A n d he continued: With regard to the large East Room, we hardly realize its size and therefore do not properly consider the quantity of furniture necessary to furnish it. In this country, we think a house forty feet square a large building. It requires a great deal of expense to furnish such an one in plain country style. Now this room is the size of two such houses. It is 80 feet long by 40 wide. . . . Nothing could look more mean than not to furnish such a room in an elegant manner. I do not consider this house and its furnishings as the President's; it is the People's. The People have built it for their own pride and pleasure. Robert P. Letcher of Kentucky said: The contemplated expenditure has already furnished a most inexhaustible topic of abuse against the Administration in some parts of the country and probably wiH again be seized upon as a good point of annoyance. The President is abused in the most violent manner and assaulted day after day, when he can have no hand in this money, if appropriated, and can derive no advantage from it whatever, directly or indirectly. Every article must be left there when his term of office expires. Gentlemen say the East Room is wholly destitute of anything and everything but four or five broken chairs. This is true. . . . But these three-legged chairs are the very best chairs in the world, and such as ought always to be set before public men. They admonish them of the uncertainty of place, of station, of fleeting honors, of the necessity of always being on their guard, in acting with

BILLIARD T A B L E S A N D GOLD SPOONS

37

prudence and circumspection in taking care of the interest of the public, and at the same time to maintain their own proper position. Sir, they are completely emblematic of political life and teach in a useful and solemn lesson — and that is, never to confide implicitly in appearances. W h e n you think yourself quite secure, and attempt to fix yourself comfortably in one of these chairs, all of a sudden you find honorable gentleman on the floor. Like political men, perhaps he falls to take the chance of another struggle. Sir, I am decidedly in favor of these chairs. T h e y are worth more than we can procure even at the highest price.

As it became evident that the opposition to the $25,000 appropriation was strong, Edward Everett moved to reduce the sum to $6,000. WickKffe said that he was "glad that public sentiment had been brought to bear and that gentlemen were now yielding to public opinion." Silas W o o d of N e w York (a Democrat) was "satisfied that the public mind was not prepared for the measure to furnish the House correspondingly to the style in which it had been erected, and hence he thought it prudent to vote for the amendment." James Buchanan and Daniel Webster took the same view; and the appropriation of $25,000 was reduced to $6,000 "to be expended under the direction of the President."(8) But this was not the end. For, somewhat unfortunately, the President had indirectly taken notice of the billiard table charge, by causing a statement to be issued by the Register of the Treasury on June 2, 1827, as follows: I hereby certify that, in the settlement of the furniture account of the present President of the United States, there is not any charge made by him, nor payment made by the United States, for a billiard table, cues, balls, or any appurtenance in relation thereto; neither has there been any charge or payment made for backgammon boards, dice or any appurtenance in relation thereto; nor for any chess boards, chessmen or any appurtenance in relation thereto. — Joseph Nourse, Register.

The Chairman of the Committee of Public Buildings, Stephen Van Rensselaer of N e w York, had also somewhat

38

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N HISTORY

belatedly written a public letter, explaining that the President had early told him of the "erroneous" items. Said he, "I regret that circumstances prevented me from making this explanation, afterwards, when the conversation on the subject took place in the House, since, had I done so, it is probable so many remarks might not have been indulged in before the public." (9) The public statement awakened further discussion at the next session of Congress and again afforded fuel for political attack in the approaching Presidential campaign in the last year of Adams' administration. In January, 1828, there occurred in the House and in the Senate a long debate on the subject of "retrenchment," which elicited remarks like these from James C. Mitchell of Tennessee: " G o into the various Departments — 9338 persons employed — Sir, is this like a Republic? . . . W e will soon slide into an ocean of profligacy." (10) Naturally, the East Room expenditures became again a live issue. In reply to the renewed charges by Samuel P. Carson of North Carolina as to the "profligacy" of expenditure, Samuel Anderson of Pennsylvania said: The supposed prodigality and extravagance of the Government for some time past has afforded a rich theme for declamation throughout every part of the United States. . . . And where have we been told we should find evidence of this prodigal expenditure of the public revenue? In the subordinate officers of the Treasury Department? No, sir. In the East Room. There, it has been boldly asserted, will be found the glittering and costly representatives of thousands and thousands of the public money . . . the most incontestable evidences of the extravagance and prodigality of the present Administration. What is the fact? What do we find? Nothing except a few chairs, apparently of domestic manufacture and of little value.

Returning to the attack, Carson again launched his blast on the billiard table which, in spite of the denial by the President and officially by the Register of the Treasury, he still insisted had originally been paid for out of the public money.

BILLIARD T A B L E S AND GOLD SPOONS

39

O n the other side, E d w a r d E v e r e t t of Massachusetts, a f t e r d e s c r i b i n g the u n f o u n d e d attacks of the p r e v i o u s y e a r s o n the President, and their serious political e f f e c t , a n d a f t e r again stating that the President had paid f o r " t h e s e o b n o x i o u s articles" himself, said: But I shall be told that there still remains against the President the high charge of having these articles (however paid for) in his possession. The opinion which may be found of the immorality of this Act will vary according to associations. I, myself, have been bred up in the bosom of a virtuous community and in which, it is supposed, something of the strictness of the Pilgrim Fathers may yet be traced in the morals of their descendants, I think I may say that with them no horror is felt on this subject. Among my friends, neighbors, and constituents, there are several who, deeming this relaxation not merely innocent but a healthful exercise when the weather does not permit exercise abroad, have the means of enjoying it in their dwelling house. Dr. Franklin, no corrupter of youth, was a great admirer of the game. Mr. Jefferson, I have been told, proposed to introduce it among the gymnastic exercises of the University of Virginia. Whether General Washington played billiards I do not know, but it is recorded of him that he played cards, which in a moral point of view is perhaps no better. ( H e r e J o h n R a n d o l p h o f V i r g i n i a interjected: W a s h i n g t o n p l a y e d billiards.") ( 1 1 )

"General

T h e s e r e m a r k s as to J e f f e r s o n d i v e r t e d the c o u r s e of the debate, and W i l l i a m C . R i v e s of V i r g i n i a r o s e to a d e f e n s e o f that statesman, s a y i n g that E v e r e t t h a d seen fit to " u s e the n a m e o f M r . J e f f e r s o n as a u t h o r i t y f o r this c o u r t l y pastime." " S t a n d i n g in the relation in w h i c h I did to that illustrious m a n as his n e i g h b o r , " R i v e s said, standing too in the relation in which I do to that Institution which was the pride and bantling of his old age, I feel that I ought not to permit the remark to pass without correction. Sir, Mr. Jefferson was averse to all games of fashionable dissipation. I believe he never played at them himself. I am sure he always discouraged them in others. His principle in regard to amusements — for he was a philosopher even

40

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

in his amusements — was to make them, while they exercised the body and recreated the mind, subservient to some useful end, to the discharge of some practical duty. Hence his own favorite amusements were found in the superintendence of his farm and in the cultivation of his gardens, and when the weather was such to prevent him from taking his usual exercises without doors (in which case, some gentlemen have said that the billiard table might be a very proper amusement), his habit was to occupy himself with the labors of the workshop. . . . In a room adjoining his bed chamber, he kept a work bench and a set of carpenters' tools with which he employed himself, whenever the weather confined him to the house, in fabricating articles of domestic accommodation; and many specimens of this kind now remain in his family to attest his ingenuity, his industry, and the primitive simplicity of his habits. Whether the Sage of Monticello or the President of the United States at the billiard table present the best moral lesson, the spectacle of truest simplicity, it is not for me to say.

James Hamilton, Jr., of South Carolina, returned to the attack on Mr. Adams by replying to Everett's defense: Let me tell him, this has not arisen from any severe moral reprobation which the people were disposed to visit upon the innocent recreation of a game hazard; for most of them like a game themselves. The gentleman has told us that the descendants of the Pilgrims, who are without doubt the most moral people on earth, play billiards, and I sincerely hope. Sir, may play a good game. But it was the littleness of this transaction, not the immorality, that produced this excitement. In a word, it was because the President did not in the first instance pay for it out of his own purse, and that fact furnishes a solution of the whole effect which the gentleman so feelingly deplores.

James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, on the other hand, in an attack on the President was insistent on the moral phase of the subject. "The question, worthy of our consideration," said he, is not whether the price of the billiard table was paid out of the Public Treasury or out of the private purse of the President, but whether a billiard table ought to be set up as an article of furniture in the House of the President of the United States. I am free to say, I think it ought not. In the State of Virginia, billiard tables are prohibited, even in the mansions of private gentlemen, under very severe penalties. . . .

BILLIARD TABLES AND GOLD SPOONS

41

This shows the moral sense of the people of that ancient and respectable Commonwealth. . . . They do not go against either the exercise or the amusement of the play; but they know the temptation which it presents to gambling and the consequent ruin which must follow in its train. It has a direct tendency to corrupt the morals of our youth. Indeed, I doubt whether there be a single State in the Union which has not prohibited the game of billiards. . . . Ought then the man who has been elevated to the most exalted station upon earth and whose example must have a most powerful and extensive influence upon the morals of the youth of the country to set up a billiard table as an article of furniture in that House, or ought he be there to play the game? . . . It has been said that Washington played at billiards. Be it so. I will however venture the assertion that he never set up a billiard table in the House which he occupied at the seat of Government whilst he was President of the United States. . . . I would ask whether in any portion of this Union, public opinion would tolerate that a Judge establish a billiard table in his house, or even play publicly at the game. On this subject, although I differ from the gentlemen from South Carolina and Virginia, yet I feel certain that I do not differ from the people of the United States. They believe that the President of the United States ought never to have set such an example. The debate was closed b y a speech from Ichabod Bartlett of New Hampshire, who again denounced the President's abuse of power and extravagant expenditures. In view of all this pettiness and rancor, Everett was well justified in his plea for more tolerance and less vituperation: It is time, for the honor of the country, that the war of extermination should cease. In laying waste the characters of those who, under the Constitution of the country, are clothed with the administration of its affairs, we are wasting that which is a part of the most valuable treasure of the Nation. Above all, it appears to me, that it is time the vehemence with which within these halls the war has been waged against the Administration should cease. In addition to its necessary and unavoidable evils —the waste of time, the sacrifice of dignity, the kindling of the worst passions — it is accompanied with the still greater evil, that it lends a kind of sanction to that ferocity of the press which has already reached the point at which many of the most valuable citizens of the community shrink back into

42

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

retirement before the storm of obloquy that awaits every one w h o appears before the public.

As the Presidential Campaign of 1828 had already begun, the billiard table issue became fine campaign material for Jackson's adherents; and while it was not one of the major causes of Adams' defeat, it was generally recognized as contributing to his unpopularity among the electorate. II When President Jackson came into office, the Democrats found that the "extravagance" issue was a game which two could play; for within a year the Whigs or Anti-Jacksonians were charging that the expenditure of public money on the White House by the President was greater than that made by President Adams. As early as December 18, 1829, the Administration paper, the United States Telegraphy felt obliged to make an elaborate defense of the President. After describing the items, amounting to $20,800, which Adams had asked for in 1825 to furnish the East Room, it said: Let us compare this immense sum with the substantial, elegant and economical plan adopted b y President Jackson. . . . Instead of expending the $14,000 appropriated periodically, as Mr. Adams did in decorating those apartments used b y the President's family in a style surpassing the magnificence of Eastern greatness, he sets apart $9000 of the money to furnish the room in a manner suitable for the reception or the use of the people, to whom it belongs . . . and in accordance with the steady expressed wish of the Representatives of the people.

It then presented a detailed account of how "the East Room had been fitted up in a very neat manner," though the picture given of that famous apartment in 1829 affords an interesting contrast to modern taste in furnishings. Attacks upon the luxury of the "President's Palace," nevertheless, continued to be made against Jackson for many years, of which the following by Chilton Allen of Ken-

B I L L I A R D T A B L E S A N D GOLD SPOONS

43

tucky, in the House of Representatives, May 24, 1836, is an amusing sample: It appears from the secret history of the debates in the Federal Convention that Doctor Franklin was of opinion "that the Executive should receive no salary, stipend or emolument for the devotion of his time to the public service but that his expenses should be paid." The great experience and sagacity of Franklin enabled him to foresee what has already come to pass, that, if a princely support was provided for the President, an example would be set in his style of living which would be followed by all subordinate officers, until extravagance and degeneracy would ruin the public service. President Washington seems to have entertained the same views; he refused to receive any compensation for his services above his expenses; and his plain republican style of living is well described in the memoirs of the celebrated Chateaubriand who visited Washington in 1791. He says: " A little house of the English construction, resembling the houses in its neighborhood, was the palace of the President of the United States, no guards, no valets. I knocked, the servant girl opened the door, etc." H o w delightful and refreshing it is to turn from the scenes around us to contemplate the profound forecast and philosophical views of Franklin and the citizenlike simplicity of the example left us by Washington! H o w striking is the contrast. N o w a splendid palace towers in regal magnificence far above many of those inhabited by the monarchs of Europe; and the President's hospitality is as sumptuous as the pampered epicures who doze away a worthless existence at the courts of Asiatic despots could wish. This palace, according to the notorious East-Room letter, was, in the administration of Mr. Adams, furnished in such splendid style as to shock the sensibility of a republican. Yet this reforming administration, not satisfied with the costly decorations which, then the theme of democratic denunciation, has expended the unexampled sum of $45,000 in the purchase of new furniture which throws all that preceded it far into the shade. In addition, to the President receiving an annual salary of $25,000 a year. In attempting to make a President, we have made a monarch in fact. . . . History furnishes no example in any free Government where the Executive power has made such advances of usurpation upon the other departments in so short a time as in the United States.

44

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

III It was during President Van Buren's Administration, however, that all the charges which the Democrats had made against Adams came home to roost. During the Presidential campaign of 1840 — the "log cabin and hard cider" campaign of William Henry Harrison — the Whigs in Congress and on the stump denounced the regal magnificence of Van Buren and his manner of living in the White House, and contrasted it with their candidate's frugality and simplicity of life. Assaults of this nature reached their climax in the House of Representatives in 1840, during a week's debate over a minor White House item in the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill. Defending Van Buren, Alexander Duncan of Ohio expressed his resentment at the "abuse daily heaped on the Administration party and the denunciations of its profligacy."(i2) But, said he, "by reference to the public journals of the nation, it will be seen that the cry of 'ruin, ruin, and panic' has been enacted in the year previous to every election and it is the effect of a species of political monomania. The cry of ruin and extravagance is perfectly understood by the people." He ridiculed the campaign cries for the "hard cider" candidate, William Henry Harrison — and the attempt to contrast his economy with Van Buren's extravagance. "Harrison neither drank hard cider nor lived in a log cabin, but he lived on a princely estate and enjoyed the emoluments of an office which netted him more than $5,000 annually." One form of attack which had been widely published in the newspapers of the North and East was the circulation of the following item: Mr. Andrews, a good Whig Member from Kentucky who possesses all the blunt honesty which characterizes the people of that State, whilst dining with the President, observed a splendid service of gold plate upon the table, and taking one of the golden spoons in his hand.

BILLIARD T A B L E S AND GOLD SPOONS

45

said to the President, "Mr. Van Buren, if you will let me take this spoon to Kentucky and show it to my constituents, I will promise not to make use of any other argument against you - this will be enough." This statement had been finally contradicted b y the Globe in Washington on April 13, 1840, saying that the gold plates, spoons, knives and forks which have figured so largely of late in the Opposition papers, are the same which the President found in the White House, when he took possession; that the plates, instead of gold, are simple china purchased in Mr. Monroe's time, the spoons, knives and forks (neither of which is gold) procured, it is believed, during each of the Administrations of Monroe, Adams and Jackson, having received no additions or improvements from Mr. Van Buren. A n d on April 14, the Congressman in question, Mr. Andrews, in the House, specifically denied that any such conversation as reported had ever taken place between him and the President. Entirely disregarding this denial, Charles Ogle, a W h i g from Pennsylvania, proceeded to make an extraordinary speech lasting several days in which he reiterated the story and denounced with violence the squandering of appropriations b y Jackson and V a n Buren. This speech, which he entitled, " T h e Regal Splendor of the President's Palace" and " T h e Pretended Democracy of Mr. V a n Buren," was published in t w o pamphlets and became a widely circulated campaign textbook.(i3) H e opened b y recalling that a large majority of the American people were incautiously led to believe that Mr. Adams was a lavish spendthrift and that his Administration was not only wastefully extravagant, but that it was rapidly verging to the confines of monarchy, in the magnificent decorations of the Presidential palace and by the studied introduction of court ceremonies. You doubtless well remember the voluminous report and the indignant denunciations on the fruitful themes of extravagance and aristocracy that were spread before the country by the renowned champions of economy in both Houses of Congress during the neverto-be forgotten winter of 1827—28. You, sir, cannot fail, too, to recol-

Ц.6

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

lect the lugubrious homilies which were then addressed to all pious and devout Christians in relation to the purchase by President Adams of a billiard table, billiard balls, cues, and chessmen. All these solemn exhortations were but the harbingers of the memorable era of reform then about overtaking the Administration in its supposed headlong departure from the pure precepts of the frugal simple democratic days of the fathers of the republic.

He then launched an intemperate attack on Van Buren's luxurious expenditures on his palace, as splendid as that of the Caesars. . . . Let us enter his palace and survey its spacious courts, its gorgeous banquetry halls, its sumptuous drawing room, its glittering and dazzling saloons, with all their magnificent and sumptuous array of gold and silver, crimson and orange, blue and violet.

He then gave a detailed description of the "gorgeous and dazzling" furnishing of the East Room, "adorned with regal splendor, far above any of the grand saloons of Buckingham Palace," the Yellow Drawing Room (in which he particularly assailed the "tabourets," the "Turkish divans" and the "French comfortables," and then the other rooms successively. His most vigorous strictures were launched on the "Court Levee or Banqueting Room," and he reiterated the false story about Van Buren's golden goblets, gold spoons, knives and forks and a dinner service of gold. "How exquisite," he exclaimed, "to sip with a golden spoon his soupeà-la-reine from a silver tureen." He also attacked Van Buren's "surtout or bronze gilded plateau, and the expensive table-glass and mirrors." Finally after a vindictive attack on Van Buren's politics, he defended Harrison and his manner of living. Though not rich, he said, he has always had money to pay for hemming his own dishrags and grinding his own knives and he would scom to charge the people of the United States with foreign-cut wine coolers, liquor-stands, and golden chains to hang golden labels around the necks of barrel-shape, fluted decanters with cane stoppers —or to make the people pay for his

BILLIARD TABLES AND GOLD SPOONS

47

Fanny Kemble green finger-cups, larding needles, and certain other articles which dare not be named to ears polite.

Ogle then contrasted Harrison's residence with the furnishing of this democratic President's house in a style of magnificence and regal splendor that might well satisfy a monarch. . . . We have heard much said about General Harrison's residence at North Bend. I have here a description of the house and furniture given by an eye witness, and I want to contrast it with the regal magnificence in which his rival moves at the White Chateau. Here, Sir, are no gilded plateaus, no gold spoons, no gold knives and forks, no mirrors as big as barn doors, no royal Wiltons, no tabourets, no French comfortables, no Turkish divans, no golden stars and rays, no Grecian baths, no air furnaces, no arcaded screens. In this description, you do not find among the brands which grace the table of the log cabin such palace gimcracks as galee and champagne rose, glace, en pyramids, and supreme de volaille en bordure a la galee; but more substantial fishes that are better adapted to satisfy the stomach of a plain, hard-working republican and his vigorous family of sons and daughters.

He charged that Van Buren rode in a gilded coach and four and did not mingle with the common people. At the conclusion of this extravagant speech, the Democrats sprang to the President's defense. Keim of Ohio first took up Ogle's charge in relation to Van Buren's aristocracy and his riding in a coach and four. "For my part," Keim said, I know of no coach and four, and I do know that when the President in his late tour passed through Pennsylvania, the vehicle in which he travelled was looked upon by the country people with surprise as being too humble even for themselves. While the President was sitting in a common tavern, an old Dutchman came in and said to him (Mr. K) in his teutonic dialect — "Where is that great man?" —although he was sitting next to the President at the very time. . . . The countryman said he expected to see a man proud and overbearing and one who had outriders to his carriage. . . . Although the charge of aristocracy was not true with regard to the President, I wül mention an instance where a former President had travelled through

48

ODD B Y W A Y S IN A M E R I C A N HISTORY

Pennsylvania in a coach and four with oucriders. That was the elder Adams, , . . Yes, he did travel in the manner wrongly imputed to Mr, Van Buren.

Relative to Ogle's scathing inventory of the White House, Keim said: I envy the feelings of no man who would, like a serpent, creep on his belly into the President's dwelling to see if he could not by chance discover some little article of convenience that did not exactly accord with his views of propriety. I cannot envy the feeling of a man whose magnanimous soul would lead him perhaps into the very bedchamber to discover if perchance there was a single yard more of cloth in the pillow case than he might deem consistent with the principles of Democracy,

The most complete and devastating reply to Ogle's charges was made by Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts, one of Ogle's own W h i g party. He complained of the many extravagant stories which had gone through the country in relation to the furniture of the President's house. The people, he said, had been informed of things which had no existence except in the imagination of those who originated such groundless stories. Similar charges were made against my venerable colleague (Mr. Adams) when that gentleman occupied the White House. The country was at that time made to believe the house was furnished in a costly and extravagant manner when in fact it had scarcely any furniture at all. . . . A t that time it was obvious that such stories were circulated for political effect, and is not this the case in the present instance? . . . It was a very small business. . . . The furniture is now what it ought to have been in the time of Mr. Adams, and now it is no better than it should be. . . . What is the state of the Receiving Room? There is not a mirror, even a common seven-by-nine mirror in it. There is not a single table except an old pine table in the corner which under the banner of the auctioneer would not fetch 75 cents and an old worn-out sofa. The whole lot would not fetch $5, and yet this is the anteroom into which Foreign Ministers and visitors of every description are introduced to see the President — hardly the proper thing or consistent with the dignity of the American people. I maintain that the supplying of proper fumiture to the White House can not have any anti-republican tendency.

BILLIARD T A B L E S A N D GOLD SPOONS

49

As to the costly furnishings of the ground-floor rooms, Lincoln pointed out that many of the articles objected to had been purchased by President Monroe from an appropriation of $50,000. A y , sir, this famous golden plateau and most of these gold spoons and knives and forks and vases which have so bewildered the imagination of the member and shocked the simple virtue of his heart were the purchase of the Republican Monroe. And in application to these even, there is a lesson of infancy which may profitably be remembered that "all is not gold which glitters," for if I am not greatly misinformed, the plateau and spoons and knives and forks are but silver gilded and the golden vases but china painted.

And, said Lincob, one thing above all seems to have created amazement with the Member. He has found in his dignified and manly research an invoice of cups and saucers which were in the closets of Mr. Adams and he cries out with astonishment at their number. What was the need, he demands, of so many dozens of cups and saucers? Sir, I will tell the member. They were wanted for a purpose which he could never conjecture — the hospitable entertainment of visitors and friends. They were used for the refreshment of the nation's guests. . . . The carpets and the curtains, the candlesticks and the candelabras, the ottomans and the divans, the tables mahogany and marble, the tabourets, were all doubtless in the estimates. They may be names of startling sound to an unpracticed ear but they are things of use and no uncommon appearance in many a private parlor.

T h e Members of the House, he concluded, might well give more heed at this time "to the alarming principles and flagrant misdoings of a vicious Administration than personal attention to a microscopic search for minor defects in the boastful economy of its disbursements. I solemnly protest against these things being brought into the politics of the day." In spite of this warm defense of President Van Buren by one of the leading Whigs of the House, Ogle's speech had a profound effect in the ensuing Presidential campaign. From

5о

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

May 6, when Van Buren was renominated for President in the Democratic Convention, and during the remainder of the session of Congress until its adjournment on July 21, and throughout the extravagant and illogical "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" campaign of the Whigs, the changes were rung on the "gold spoon" issue, and it became one of the many causes which led to Van Buren's carrying only seven of the twenty-seven States and receiving only 60 electoral votes to the 2 34 for William Henry Harrison,

m How Congress Got and Lost the French Royal Portraits

Τ

•^HE story of our treaty of alliance with France during the War of the Revolution and of the assistance to the American cause given by Lafayette, Rochambeau, the Comte d'Estaing, and Admiral De Grasse is well known to all readers of American history. There are some facts, however, connected with the early days of that alliance, which are known to but few. Among them are the story of the arrival and the picturesque manner of reception of the first Foreign Minister to be sent to this country and the curious story of how Congress sought, obtained, and lost the portraits of Louis X V I and Marie Antoinette. On Saturday, May 2, 1778, the Continental Congress, with scarcely more than thirty members present, was sitting in the town of York, Pennsylvania, and had adjourned for the day. Suddenly a messenger arrived from the coast, bringing the treaties which had been signed on February 6 between France and the United States. At this time it could hardly be said with accuracy that there were any United States, for by July 9 only eight of the thirteen States had ratified the Articles of Confederation; and Nathaniel Scudder, a N e w Jersey delegate, wrote to his State Assembly (which had not yet ratified) that the King of France "must be astonished and confounded (and what may be the fatal

52

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

consequences to America) when he discovers (which he will inevitably do) that we are ipso facto unconfederated, and consequently, what our enemies have called us 'a rope of sand.' WiH he not have just cause to resent the deception?" The news of the treaties was received, naturally, with great enthusiasm and words of praise. As the Virginia delegates wrote to Governor Patrick Henry: "His most Christian Majesty has been governed by principles of magnanimity and true generosity, taking no advantage of our circumstances, but acting as if we were in the plenitude of power and in the greatest security." T o Governor Johnson of Maryland, Samuel Chase wrote: "Let us be grateful to God for this singular unmerited mark of his favour and protection, and continue to exert every means in our power to support the war." William Ellery of Rhode Island wrote that the treaties were "magnanimous and founded in our independency, equality and reciprocity." Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut wrote that there was "nothing in them which indicates any design of obtaining any advantage over us but seems adapted to secure a lasting friendship which it is certainly the highest interest of France to cultivate." T o our Commissioners in France the Committee of Foreign Affairs wrote, on May 13, that the treaties had a "powerful and effectual tendency to dissolve that narrowness of mind which Mankind have been too unhappily bred up in. In these treaties, we see the Politician founded on the Philosopher, and harmony of affections made the ground work of mutual interest. France by her open candor has won us more powerfully than any reserved treaties could bind us, and at a happy juncture of times and circumstances laid the seeds of an eternal friendship." "The favorable issue of our negotiations with France is a matter for heartfelt joy, big with important events," wrote Washington from the army in Valley Forge to Richard Henry Lee, "and it must, I

THE MISSING ROYAL PORTRAITS

53

should think, chalk out a plain and easy road to independence." ( i ) The first visible result of these treaties was the removal of the British army under Sir Henry Clinton from Philadelphia on June 18, after nine months' occupation. Only a few days later Washington retrieved General Charles Lee's defeat in the battle of Monmouth. The rejoicing over these events was manifested by "an elegant entertainment given at the City Tavern by the officers of the army and other gentlemen of the city to the young ladies who had manifested their attachment to the cause of virtue and freedom by sacrificing every convenience to the love of their country." And the third anniversary of the Fourth of July was joyfully celebrated "with a grand festival at the City Tavern." Samuel Holten of Massachusetts noted in his diary that "there was an agreeable band of music and we had a very elegant dinner"; and Thomas McKean wrote that "the firing of a vast number of cannon proved that there was no want of powder," although the City Council notified the citizens "to forbear illuminating the city owing to the excessive heat of the weather, the present scarcity of candles, and other considerations."(2) Meanwhile, Conrad Alexander Gérard de Rayneval, the first French Minister to the United States, had set sail from Toulon, April 12, on the Languedoc, one of Count d'Estaing's fleet of twelve "sail of the line." His departure had been attended with the greatest secrecy; the destination of the ship was given as Brest, his identity was concealed under the name of "M. de Munster," and orders were issued that no letters from the fleet should mention the presence of Munster or of Silas Deane or of the American officers who also sailed to act as guides to Estaing's forces. Not until the fleet was three days out on the ocean beyond Gibraltar was its true mission revealed; then a solemn mass was celebrated on the Languedoc, Gérard was presented in his true

54

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

character as the King's Minister to Congress, and instructions were read by the Admiral, declaring the opening of war by France on Great Britain. On July 7, 1778, the fleet dropped anchor in Delaware Bay after a voyage of eightysix days; and on Sunday, July 12, Henry Laurens, the President of Congress, wrote to the President of N e w Hampshire: I expect Monsr. Gérard in the character of Plenipotentiary from the Court of Versailles in Philadelphia this morning, a novelty in these infant States, which cannot but occasion some uncommon and extraordinary movements among those whose proper business it is to pay due attention to the first European Ambassador to Congress. The "due attention" had been provided for by a vote of the Congress, on July 11, that "the Board of W a r take measures for providing a suitable house for the accommodation of Sieur Gérard and that they give the necessary order for receiving Möns. Gérard with proper honours on his arrival." Congress appointed a committee consisting of John Hancock, Richard Henry Lee, William Henry Drayton, Daniel Roberdeau and William Duer, "to wait on Ms. Gérard on his arrival and conduct him to his lodgings" (the house then occupied by General Benedict Arnold). The reception of Gérard by the committee took place at Chester. It was thus described by Elias Boudinot in a letter to his wife: On their arrival, a barge with twelve oarsmen dressed in scarlet trimmed with silver were ready to receive them. When the barge was half way to the ship, they lay on their oars and fifteen guns were fired. When they came to the ship, her sides were manned and our Committee were received on the deck by the marines with rested arms. At the gangway, they met the Plenipotentiary, etc., and were conducted into the great cabin, where, the compliments of congratulation being given, they returned to the shore in the same manner and with the same ceremony, accompanied by Le Sieur Gérard, Mr. Deane, etc. Here were four coaches with four horses our Committee had prepared in which they returned to this city, where they were saluted with fifteen guns.

THE MISSING ROYAL PORTRAITS

55

"The troops were lined up and cannon thundered to receive me. Mr. Laurens, almost all the Members and the principal men of the city, even the most phlegmatic, hurried to visit me," wrote Gérard to the Comte de Vergennes.(3) And the newspapers said: "It is impossible to describe the joy that appeared in every good man's countenance over this auspicious event." Henry Marchant wrote of the meeting of the committee with Gérard that he "never was witness to a more elevating and unspeakably joyous interview. It was reciprocally easy, graceful, enduring and noble. May it presage a happy issue to the American struggle and a growing and undecaying glory that shall diffuse its grateful influence thro the world." Gérard was described by various Members as "about fifty years of age," "a wise, well-bred gentleman"; "a modest, grave, decent, cheerful man, highly pleased with our country and the struggle we have made for liberty"; "a very polite and well-bred man, whom Mr. Deane says has been our fast friend in France." On the Sunday evening of his arrival. President Laurens, the committee, and a few other Members dined at General Arnold's house with the new Minister. On Monday, Gérard dined with Laurens; and on Tuesday, he breakfasted with him and explained his mission, stating that his powers were those of a minister plenipotentiary as distinct from those of an ambassador. Samuel Adams and the other Massachusetts delegates were among the first to call and "pay their compliments." "I know not that those of any other State has observed the ceremony," wrote Adams to General James Warren. "It appeared to us highly proper. We were received with politeness and heard some handsome things said of the State we have the honor to represent. . . . If I can form any judgment of him, his manners would suit our country." But he added later: "He is a sensible prudent man, not wanting in political finesse and therefore not to be listened to, too implicitly."

5б

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Gérard himself reported to Vergennes that "the appearance of the King's fleet appears to have united all hearts and all minds in the same sentiments. Two of the Delegates to Congress have brought to me their sons, in order, as they say, to inculcate in them, early, the mission of the King's Minister in this decisive epoch for their country, an epoch most proper to fix their affections firmly on their political principles." Nevertheless, he did not find political conditions in Philadelphia entirely happy, for, as he wrote, that town was reduced to one third of its ordinary population; and of this one third, only one quarter, at most, belonged to the Independence Party; New York, Boston, and all the commercial and populous towns presented the same spectacle; three quarters of those who remained in Philadelphia were "contraires, et contraires avec insolence." Congress, he observed, sat "in the most English City of the United States." Moreover, there were a number of prominent Members of Congress, like John Witherspoon and Samuel Adams, who were none too enthusiastic over this French Alliance; and their suspicions of the motives of the French Government were enhanced by the fact that Silas Deane, whose commercial transactions in France they violently distrusted, had been a fellow passenger with Gérard. Meanwhile, the Continental Congress, which had not met in Philadelphia until July 7, was then sitting in College Hall, owing to "the torn up and filthy and sordid condition" in which the State House, as well as many of the public and private buildings in the city, had been left by the British, and owing "to the offensiveness of the air in and around the State House which," as President Laurens wrote, "the enemy had made an hospital and left in a condition disgraceful to the character of civility — particularly they had opened a large pit near the House, a receptacle for filth into which they had also cast dead horses and the bodies of men. Congress in consequence of this disappointment

T H E MISSING R O Y A L PORTRAITS

57

have been shuffling from Meeting House to College Hall, the last seven days." Owing to these conditions, and somewhat to the disappointment of Gérard, who was impatient to enter upon his mission. Congress took time to consult "on the time and manner of the public reception," and on July 14 it appointed a committee consisting of Richard Henry Lee, Gouverneur Morris, and Samuel Adams. "Would you think that one so little of the Man of the World as I am should be joynd in a Committee to settle ceremonials?" wrote Adams to Warren. "It is, however, of some importance that we agree upon forms that are adapted to the true republican principles; for this instance may be recurred to as a precedent in futurity." Characteristic of the sentiments against anything savoring of anti-republicanism was Warren's reply: I think Congress have pitched on a person to settle ceremonials who will not be in favour of what I hate, pompous parade, etc. . . . In my opinion, all the plainness and simplicity consistent with decency should be used on such an occasion as agreeing best with our circumstances and profession; but there is such a variant and inconsistency between the practice and profession of patriots as well as Christians that I can easily conceive even a Member of Congress exhibitmg on such an occasion all the magnificence of monarchy.

That the Congress was considerably perturbed over the proper manner of receiving a foreign diplomat is seen from the fact that between July 17 and August 3 it considered and debated the reports of the committee on manner of reception on four different days. It was a "work of no small difficulty," wrote Richard Henry Lee, to settle the minute details of the ceremonies, salutes, military honors, and arrangements of the Chambers; but finally Congress, which had moved back into the State House ("cleansed and fitted up," as Josiah Bartlett wrote), notified Gérard, through its

58

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

commissioners, that it would give him an audience on August 6. On the morning of that day, Lee and Adams waited on him at the house of John Dickinson (which had been leased for his residence); and in "our coach and six preceded b y his own chariot and two with his secretaries," the Minister proceeded to the State House. There in the east room in which the Declaration of Independence had been signed two years before, Congress was assembled. " O u r President," wrote Elias Boudinot, to his wife, "was seated in a mahogany armchair on a platform raised about two feet with a large table covered with green cloth and the Secretary (Charles Thomson) alongside of him. T h e Members were all seated round with the Bar and a large armchair in the middle opposite the President, for the Plenipo." T h e curious ceremony of the reception, with its inordinate number of bows prescribed b y vote of Congress, was thus described in the Pennsylvania Evening Post, August 13, 1778: The carriages being arrived at the State House in this city, the two members of Congress, placing themselves at the Minister's left hand, introduced him to the chair in the Congress Chamber, the President and Congress sitting; the chair was placed fronting the President. The Minister, being seated, handed his credentials to his Secretary, who advanced and delivered them to the President (Henry Laurens). T h e Secretary of Congress (Charles Thomson) then read and translated them; which being done, Mr. Lee announced The Minister, to the President and Congress; at this time the President, the Congress, and the Minister rose together. He bowed to the President and Congress; they bowed to him. Whereupon the whole seated themselves. In a moment, the Minister rose and made a speech to Congress; they sitting. The speech being finished, the Minister sat down, and giving a copy of his speech to his Secretary, he presented it to the President. The President and Congress then rose, and the President pronounced their answer to the speech, the Minister standing. The answer being ended, the whole were again seated, the President giving a copy of the answer to the Secretary of Congress, he presented it to the Minister. The President, the Congress and the Minister then again rose together; the

THE MISSING ROYAL PORTRAITS

59

Minister bowed to the President who returned the salute, and then to the Congress who also bowed in return. And the Minister having again bowed to the President and received his bow, he withdrew, and was attended home in the same manner in which he had been conducted to the audience. Within the bar of the House, the Congress formed a semi-circle on each side of the President, and the Minister; the President sitting at one extremity of the circle, at a table upon a platform elevated two steps, the Minister sitting at the opposite extremity of the circle, in an armchair upon the same level with Congress. The door of the Congress Chamber was on this occasion thrown open, and without the bar were admitted to the audience, the Vice President of the Supreme Executive Council of the State, the Speaker and Assembly of Pennsylvania, foreigners of distinction, and officers of the army. Thus has a new and noble sight been exhibited in this New World — the Representatives of the United States of America solemnly giving public audience to a Minister plenipotentiary from the most powerful prince in Europe. Four years ago such an event, at so near a day, was not in the view even of imagination; but it is the Almighty who raiseth up; He hath stationed America among the powers of the earth, and clothed her in robes of sovereignty. A t this ceremony, a dinner was given b y Congress, "conducted with a decorum suited to the occasion." Twenty-one toasts were drunk, among others, to the King, the Queen, the King of Spain, the Perpetuity of the Alliance, and Success to the Allied Armies. Gérard in reporting to Vergennes described the long debates over the manner of his reception, and amongst others a debate over allowing any spectators at the reception, " f o r until then Congress had never admitted the public to its sittings." T h e delegates from the Southern States, "vainer than those of North," he wrote, voted for publicity. " V e r y confused notions prevail here of the honours, dignities, and etiquette of a sovereign State; but the details mark the division which reigns between the States of the North and those of the South." On Monday, August 24, 1778, "an entertainment was given at the City Tavern b y the Minister to the President and Members of Congress and the principal civil and military

6o

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

officers, as a celebration of the birthday of his most Christian Majesty." It was "grand and elegant and conducted with great decorum," wrote Samuel Holten of Massachusetts. T o Vergennes, Gérard wrote: I would have liked to have ended with a ball but I was given to understand that it would be willingly given up, because it was necessary to establish an absolute line of demarcation between the Wighs [Whigs] and the Tories, especially among the women; and also there was an objection because of a law voted under Presbyterian influence at the time of the siege to forbid public entertainments, in order to obtain heaven's protection.

At first, Gérard performed his duties as Minister with the greatest satisfaction to the country. His house, as he reported, became an informal place of assembly for the Delegates and he gave a series of dinners, entertaining in groups those comprising the various factions into which the Congress had already begun to split. Unfortunately, sources of friction between this country and France and Spain arose almost immediately with respect to questions of fishery, navigation of the Mississippi, and joint operation of the war. The Minister became deeply involved in the intrigues and personal dissensions and recriminations which had arisen in Congress; and the difficult political conditions with which he had to cope, together with the "heat of this pestiferous climate" (as Gouverneur Morris termed it), so seriously affected Gérard that as early as October, 1778, he asked Vergennes for his recall in the coming year. Before his return, however, there occurred the episode of the little known Royal Portraits. For some time. Congress had been in sore straits for further financial aid; and to its relief, it found itself furnished with an opportunity to bring its urgent need to the attention of the King of France when, on May 4, 1779, Gérard transmitted to Congress a letter "from his most Christian Maj-

T H E MISSING ROYAL PORTRAITS

61

esty," informing it of the birth of a princess to the royal family. A t this time, Louis X V I was twenty-four years old; he had been married for eight years; he had been on the throne for four years; and this was his first child — Marie Thérèse, the Dauphiness. Born the subject of effusive A m e r ican congratulation, she was destined, within a f e w years, to pass three years in prison as "the orphan of the T e m p l e " (and later to m a r r y Louis, D u e d'Angouleme, son of Charles X ) . T h e arrival of this news afforded Congress an occasion for communicating to the King a situation which it had for some time been considering — namely the necessity for aid in the matter of suppUes and loans. T o soften the request, however. Congress decided to pay a delicate compliment b y requesting "his most Christian Majesty" to present to Congress portraits of himself and of the Queen. A c c o r d ingly, it voted to send the following sldllful letter: Great, Faithful, and Beloved Friend and Ally; The repeated proofs we have received of Your Majesty's regard for the United States will lead their citizens to rejoice in every event that may conduce to Your happiness or glory. It affords us particular pleasure to hear that Providence has been pleased to bless your nuptials with the birth of a princess; and we pray God that the virtues and honour of your illustrious family may be perpetuated in a race of descendants worthy of so great and good an ancestor. W e receive with great satisfaction and sensibility Your Majesty's assurances of esteem and constant regard; and we entreat you to be persuaded that the permanence and stability of our friendship will be equal to the magnanimity of that conduct, and the importance of those good offices, by which it was created. Permit us to request the favour of Your Majesty to oblige us with portraits of yourself and royal consort, that, by being placed in our Council Chamber, the representatives of these States may daily have before their eyes, the first royal friends and patrons of their cause. W e beseech the Supreme Disposer of events to keep you both in his Holy protection, and long to continue to France the blessings resulting from the administration of a prince who nobly asserts the rights of mankind.

02

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Having paid this compliment, Congress then cannily decided that the occasion was one in which business and mendicancymight be combined with flattery; and it voted to send a further letter to the King appealing for funds to the amount of £505,792 for army purposes and £60,356 for the navy, together with supplies. " A very begging letter," wrote James Lovell, a delegate from Massachusetts; though as to the request for the pictures, he added, "much might be said on both sides, it will flatter France and mortify England." The request for the portraits was not the only compliment which Congress paid oflücially to its French ally. On Monday, July 5, 1779, a banquet was given in honor of the Minister, followed by fireworks, described by the newspapers as "conducted with great order and decorum and no unfortunate accidents happened but joy and innocent festivity heralded аП ranks of people." " N o windows will be broken on Monday. The Congress give a grand repast because we can't afford to fire cannon." In addition, Congress attended a Т е Deum ceremony at the request of the Minister, as to which Henry Laurens of South Carolina wrote sarcastically to Wilham Livingston: Shall I tell you, sir, that Congress had the honor yesterday of assisting at Те Deum in the Romish Chapel and that I saw there the only woman —What was I going to add? I forget. Those are the infirmities of old age to peep thro spectacles at pretty women in church and to forget them the next minute. Shall I say that I mean to dine at home today at my own expense, because I hold it an exceeding bad means of appreciating our paper money to give eight or ten thousand dollars for a dinner, and because I think my constituents are already sufficiently taxed.

A new French Minister, the Chevalier Anne César de La Luzerne, arrived, on September 21, 1779; but three years elapsed without any response to the Congressional request for portraits. On May 13, 1782, Congress received a notification from

THE MISSING ROYAL

PORTRAITS

63

La Luzerne that he wished to appear before that body; and it undoubtedly believed that he was about to announce the arrival of the long overdue royal gift. But the Minister's errand was to convey the joyful news of another arrival — the birth of a son, the Dauphin, to His Christian Majesty in the preceding October. This boy thus born to Louis X V I and Marie Antoinette was not the ill-fated Dauphin of the Temple, Louis Charles, sometimes known as Louis X V I I , but an elder brother who lived only seven years, dying in 1789. Congress again decided to celebrate the event by an effusive letter; for as James Madison wrote to Edmund Randolph: "It was decided politic at this crisis to display every proper evidence of affectionate attachment to our Ally." The new French Minister also gave an elaborate entertainment in a hall especially erected for the occasion in the Minister's garden and designed by a young and then unknown French oiBcer, M. L'Enfant, "an entertainment conducted so judiciously that not a single accident occurred." (4) It was not until March 28, 1784, that the portraits of the King and Queen so warmly asked for five years before finally arrived in Philadelphia. Their advent, three months after Congress had ratified the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain (January 14, 1784), was described in the newspapers as follows: Saturday last, arrived in this port on board the ship Queen of France the pictures of their most Christian Majesties, the King and Queen. T h e y are in full length. T h e King, in garments like those he wore on the day of his coronation. T h e royal throne is on his left side, decorated with the attributes of justice, as marks of the disposition of our great ally; he holds the ancient sceptre of France in his hand, and the crown with the hand of justice lie on a cushion on the right. This is said b y the connoisseurs to be a masterly piece of the art of painting. T h e Queen is dressed in a royal mantle spread with fleur de luce, and a g o w n of satin trimmed with golden fringes and tassels; on a table lies her crown, next to a vase filled with flowers. T h e table is covered with red velvet, embroidered with the Imperial Eagle of her family.

64

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Each picture is about thirteen feet, six inches high, including the frames.

No account of the portraits mentioned the name of the painter, but they were undoubtedly executed by Antoine François Callet, whose portraits of the royal pair presented by the King to Count d'Aranda who had served as Ambassador of Spain to France from 1773 to 1787, and recently hung in the Prado Museum in Madrid, correspond in every detail with the description given by the Philadelphia papers.(5) Since Congress was still holding its sessions in Annapolis, these portraits on their arrival at Philadelphia remained at the house of the French Minister; but Congress acknowledged the receipt of the gift in a Resolve and a letter of April 16, 1784, in which it stated not only "its satisfaction and pleasure" but also "its highest sentiment of respect" and "its feelings of the most affectionate friendship," saying: These lively representations of our august and most beloved friends will be placed in our Council Chamber; and can never fail of exciting in the mind of every American an admiration of the distinguished virtue and accomplishments of the royal originals. W e beseech the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, constantly to keep your Majesty and your royal consort in his holy protection and to render the blessings of your administration as extensive as the objects of your Majesty's benevolent principles.

In spite of the enthusiastic terms of this Resolve, Congress provided no proper place for the portraits and they remained with the French Minister until they evidently became an annoyance. Finally, the Chargé d'Affaires, Marbois, wrote "in pressing terms" to John Jay, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that some disposition must be made of the portraits, as he was about to vacate his house and was very solicitous to be relieved of the care of them. Congress was then sitting at Trenton, and Jay wrote that he would take the matter up with Congress and would soon be "enabled to

T H E MISSING R O Y A L PORTRAITS

65

convey to you the pleasing sense with which that obliging mark of His Royal attention will have impressed thereon." Congress, having adjourned on December 29, 1784, to hold its sessions thereafter in New York, passed a resolve on February 11, 1785: "that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs give orders for a careful removal of the portraits of His Most Christian Majesty and of the Queen of France from Philadelphia to the hall in this city in which Congress holds their session." (6) An amusing contretemps then arose. Jay wrote from New York, on March i, to Robert Morris in Philadelphia, asking him to see that the portraits were "carried to a place of safety until a good opportunity offers of sending them here." Morris thereupon sent an artist to Marbois's residence to take the pictures out of their frames and transport them to a safe place until proper cases were provided and orders received for sending them forward to New York. A misunderstanding between the artist and Marbois resulted in a very tart correspondence, in which the Frenchman intimated that Morris had wanted the pictures installed in his own house so as to make "an ostentatious display of them." Morris wrote to Jay, explaining the episode. He had, he said, declined interviews with this gentleman for some time past. . . . I sent Mr. Wright, a portrait pamter, to view the condition of the pictures, and a carpenter to measure the height of them, to see whether I could place them in my front parlor, which, being clean and free from vermin, I thought would be the safest place I could put them in until you should order them for N e w York. It seems, from some conversation Mr. De Marbois had with the persons I sent thither, he took it into his head that I was going to shew off with their Majesties' pictures, vented some expressions of that purport, and finally refused the delivery of them.

After this rather spicy correspondence, the portraits were later actually delivered by Marbois to Congress in New York, and Charles Thomson, Secretary, wrote in his letter-

66

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

book, May 14, 1785, that they "were pleased to give me orders yesterday to have the room [in the City Hall] where the Secretary's office is now kept, fitted up for the Sessions of Congress and the reception of the pictures of the King and Queen of France." In 1788, Colonel John May visited the City Hall and wrote in his Journeys to the Ohio Country: "The greatest curiosities in the Congress Chamber were pictures of their Majesties the King and Queen of France; their appearance was truly elegant and noble. No painting can excel these. The frames that contain the pictures are magnificent — twelve feet high by about six wide — superbly grand. But the Hall is not high enough to receive their crowns" — perhaps a presage of their doom. When the First Congress met under the Constitution in April, 1789, in the new Federal Hall in New York, the portraits presumably followed it there. At all events, when the Congress returned to Philadelphia in 1791, back also went the portraits; and there one catches an interesting glimpse of them in the Senate Chamber, through an entry in the diary of William Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania. In a debate on "our relations with France," on February 26, 1791, Maclay had vigorously defended France, "that now vilified nation," against a violent attack by Oliver Ellsworth; and, said he: "I have ever thought that a liberal and manly policy, being most conformable to the genius of the people, was the surest method of engaging and preserving the esteem of that magnanimous nation." He pointed out that, in 1783, "language labored and seemed to fail, in expression of gratitude to our ally. If right then, we must be wrong now." And then Maclay added, in his diary: "I recollected that I had the volume of Congress of 1783, which I had looked up for this occasion, before my seat, where the greatest encomiums were bestowed on the French. . . . I happened to turn around, and the full length portrait of the King and

T H E MISSING ROYAL PORTRAITS

67

Queen of France caught m y eye. I really seemed to think they would upbraid me if I was silent." Apparently, the portraits were not very carefully tended in the Senate Chamber, for in 1792 their condition was commented on in a letter to the Independent Gazetteer, as follows: ( 7 ) Mr. Editor. In every company where public affairs is the subject of conversation, I hear continually, "the doors of the Senate room should be open." I am of a different opinion. I think it would be very imprudent to open the doors, before the pictures representing the pitiful Louis X V I and the plotting Marie Antoinetta, with the dust on them, are removed; the motion in the House will occasion the dust to fly through the room, and, if the public were admitted, it would give the Patriots a dreadful cough, and throw those of the opposite party into a deep decay. While I am mindful of the health of the Nation, I won't hide my name. — Jack Blunder. In 1796, Adet, the Minister of the French Republic, saw the portraits hanging on the walls of the Senate, and he resented the presence of such traces of royalty in the legislative hall of a sister republic. H e was the more incensed because when, on January i, he had presented to the United States a flag of the French Republic, President Washington had said that it would be "deposited in the archives of the United States." That is to say [wrote Adet to the Committee of Public Safety in Paris] it will be concealed in a miserable barn and destined to become the food of mice and insects. . . . I am deeply chagrined at this affront which the Executive has put upon the French Republic. . . . I expected to see the flag placed in the hall of the Senate. How could I have ever thought that American Senators would have so little shame as to spurn this mark of friendship given by a Republican People and that they would prefer to preserve in their hall pictures (of Louis Capet and Antoinette of Austria) which are not longer objects of respect or cherished anywhere except in the camps of Charette and of Conde. (8)

68

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N HISTORY

When Congress established itself in the new Capitol in Washington in 1800, the portraits travelled thither; and they were noted in the Senate Room by the wife of the architect of the Capitol, Mrs. William Thornton, who attended to hear President Adams deliver his Annual Address, and who made the following entry in her diary, November 22, 1800: Cold and cloudy. Had the carriage and went about eleven o'clock to the Capitol to hear the President make his speech to both Houses; there were a great many people, the Galleries were full; the Ladies sat and stood below on the same floor as the Senate, etc. It was made in the Senate Chamber, and the whole appearance was solemn and conducted with order. The pictures of the late King and Queen of France are hung up in the Senate Room. (9)

In 1802, George Bourne, describing the Senate Chamber, said: "Above the canopy over the Vice President's chair, the spread eagle; a portrait of George Washington hangs behind him. On either side of him Louis i6th and the late Queen of France, elegant whole length portraits." T e n years later, the portraits were seen by an English traveller, John Neilson, who described the Senate Chamber as "an elegant apartment with handsome furniture; it is adorned with full length portraits of the late unfortunate King and Queen of France." B y the year 1813, some members of the Senate had apparently lost enthusiasm for the royal portraits; for a motion was made that "the President and Directors of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts be and they are hereby authorized to cause to be removed from the Capitol at the City of Washington and placed in said Academy, the portraits of the late King and Queen of France and subject to any future disposition thereof by Congress." ( 1 0 ) This motion was lost; but another motion, made by Rufus King of N e w York, that the portraits be placed in one of the Senate committee rooms, was carried; and from the wording

T H E MISSING R O Y A L PORTRAITS

6ç

of this motion it appears that the portraits had ahready been removed from the walls of the Senate into some other place: Ordered that the Sergeant at Arms be and he is hereby directed to remove the portraits of the King and Queen of France from the apartment in which they are now placed, and to put them up in one of the committee rooms of the Senate, causing the portraits to be first cleaned and repaired by a person skilful in such business.

With this motion, all further official reference to the portraits ceases, and no mention of them is to be found in the Journals of either House or Senate, or in the Annals of Congress or the Congressional Globe, or in the early city guide books. General statements have been made by various writers on the City of Washington and on the Capitol that the portraits were destroyed on August 24, 1814, when the British burned the Capitol; and a few writers specifically, but without citing any authority, state that they were used as part of the material to kindle the fire in the old House of Representatives.(ii) The official reports of investigating committees made to Congress at the session immediately succeeding the fire contain no mention of destruction of works of art, except the books of the Congressional Library. The only contemporaneous evidence on the subject is a letter written to John Trumbull by the architect of the Capitol, Benjamin H. Latrobe, on July 13, 1817, three years after the fire, in which he said, with reference to the method of installing the historical paintings which Congress had purchased from Trumbull: "I propose to leave an inch of air between the canvas and the wall lining in order to preserve perfect dryness, but otherwise it would be safer if the canvas touches a lining; if you have heard, a Dutch woman at New York poked her finger up to the hilt through the Queen of France's petticoat to try what stuff it was made of, and the hole remained 'till the picture was destroyed in 1814." This would seem to dispose of any doubt as to the fate of the

yo

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

portraits, had it not been for the fact that in March, 1910, Thomas Forsythe Nelson, in a paper delivered before the Columbia Historical Society in Washington, quoted a letter from David Cooke, a merchant of Philadelphia, to his wife, June 20, 1842, in which he wrote: ( 1 2 ) The Rotunda is an attractive place being a perfect circle ninety feet in diameter, having a splendid dome which rises one hundred feet above the floor vi^ith large skylights on the top and is adorned by means of the painters' and sculptors' art. . . . They have removed the much admired full-length likenesses of the murdered King and Queen of France; they have removed the large paintings, representing many figures of the first white settlers and the aboriginals engaged in desperate encounters and sanguinary combat, some expiring while the bloody affray was going on at a time when the land here and around was the Indian hunting grounds, and now there is to be seen five splendid paintings each about twenty feet square (only think how large). The Signing of Declaration of Independence. . . . The Surrender of the British at Saratoga. . . . The Surrender of Comwallis to Washington at Yorktown. . . . General Washington resigning his Commission to Congress in Annapolis. . . . The Baptism of Pocahontas at Jamestown (by John G. Chapman) forty figures including about ten Indians, the figure of Pocahontas kneeling at the altar, the expression of her countenance and the painting of the drapery is more beautiful than I could have imagined — her Husband standing near her looks like a dancing master —and other clever Historical paintings. There is thus presented an interesting historical problem: W e r e these "much admired full-length likenesses of the murdered King and Queen of France," which had been removed from the Rotunda prior to Mr. Cooke's letter, the original portraits presented to Congress b y Louis X V I ? W a s L a trobe's reference to the destruction b y fire of the Queen's portrait a mistake? Charles Fairman in his Art and Artists of the Capitol, published in 1927, has stated his belief that the pictures referred to b y Mr. Cooke in 1842 were copies of the originals: It is possible that a likeness of the King and Queen of France . . . had at some time been in the Rotunda, but it should be remembered

T H E MISSING R O Y A L PORTRAITS

71

that from the time of the completion of the central portion of the Capitol, the Rotunda and other portions of the Capitol were frequentlyused for the purpose of exhibition of pictures which the artist or the owners by this public exhibition hoped to sell to the Government. It would not be strange if portraits of the King and Queen of France other than those claimed to be destroyed by the British were on exhibition in the Rotunda a short time before the visit of Mr. David Cooke in 1842, as the Rotunda was used for the exhibition of paintings not belonging to the Government up to the year 1868, when Congress enacted legislation prohibiting the exhibition of works of art in the Capitol other than those owned by the Government.(13)

While, of course, this theory as to copies is plausible, it would seem curious that there is no reference in letters, books, papers, or newspapers to the existence in the United States of any such copies, or of any "much admired full length likenesses of the murdered King and Queen of France," other than the originals. If, however, the portraits to which Mr. Cooke referred in 1842 were, in fact, the originals, the reason for their removal from the Rotunda may well be that Congress, by joint resolution of June 23, 1836, had provided for the execution of four historical paintings to be placed in the vacant panels of the Rotunda (the other four panels having been filled by the paintings by John Trumbull). There would thus be no room left for any further large portraits. But the question then arises, where did they go after removal? Are they now in existence, and if so in what spot? Are they mislaid or lost in the recesses and sub-basements of the Capitol? It would seem that it would not be easy to lose or mislay portraits measuring thirteen feet, six inches in their frames. If, on the other hand, the originals were destroyed by fire in 1814, from what other originals were the copies painted which later hung in the Rotunda, and what has become of these copies? (14) This seems to be a historical mystery awaiting further research and solution by some earnest artistic detective.

^

IV

iV

How Americans were Arrested as Spies in London

N E of the most singular features of the War of the Revolution was the fact that, in general, many Americans who openly favored the "rebel cause" were allowed to reside in England without disturbance. There were two young men, however, who were not so fortunate, and their story is a curious one. The more prominent of the two was a man who later became famous as a painter — John Trumbull, son of Governor Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut. Young Trumbull entered Harvard College at the age of fifteen in 1771. Meeting in Boston John Singleton Copley, then at the height of his American fame as a portrait painter, he spent much of his time in copying pictures possessed by Harvard and ransacking the library for its few books on art. On graduation in 1773, he abandoned all ideas of entering the ministry, for which his father had destined him, and determined upon an artistic career. From this he was turned by the news of the battle of Lexington. Joining the First Connecticut Regiment as adjutant, he participated in the siege of Boston just before the battle of Bunker Hill. His drawings and plans of the military lines brought him to the attention of General Washington, who appointed him one of his aides-de-camp, on July 27, 1775. At the Craigie House in Cambridge (then the Continental Army headquarters).

O

AMERICANS ARRESTED AS SPIES

73

Trumbull first came into contact with John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Elbridge Gerry, whose faces he depicted fifty years later in his well-known picture of "The Signing of the Declaration of Independence." Preferring active service, Trumbull had resigned as aide, was made a brigade major under General Spencer, and fought at the battle of Dorchester Heights in 1776. He then came to the attention of General Horatio Gates, under whom he served as deputy adjutant general. In February, 1777, at the age of twenty-one, he showed a characteristic heat of temper by resigning from the army because of a fancied affront through neglect by Congress in sending him his commission; for, he wrote, he refused to "bear degradation" and "from this day, therefore, I lay aside my cockade and sword with the fixed determination never to resume them until I can do it with honor." Thus ending his military career, he returned to Boston and resumed for three years his study of art, especially the works of Copley and Smibert — his real interest in life. There happened then to be in Boston an Englishman with whose life Trumbull's was destined to intertwine — John Temple, a warm-hearted, impulsive, and somewhat rash character, who had held office in both countries and had played a singular and sometimes mysterious part in both American and English politics. Bom in Boston in 1732 — a relative of Richard Grenville Lord Temple, and of his younger brother, George Grenville, the British Prime Minister of Stamp Act fame — he was appointed Surveyor General of Customs for the Northern District of America and served with great credit, though incurring the enmity of the Provincial Governor, Sir Francis Bernard. In 1767, he married Elizabeth Bowdoin, the daughter of James Bowdoin, one of the most fervent of the Revolutionary patriots of Massachusetts Bay and later Governor of Massachusetts. In 1770, Temple was superseded and returned to England,

74

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

where he was made Surveyor General of Customs. After serving there for two years with warm sympathy for the American cause, he was summarily dismissed on suspicion of being concerned, with his intimate friend Benjamin Franklin, in the transmission of the Bernard and Hutchinson letters to the Massachusetts patriots. Retaining his sympathy with his native soil, though living in London as a British citizen. Temple came over to the United States with his family during the war, in August, 1778, in the hope of being of some service to each country in furthering a peace. On asking for an opportunity to visit the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, he was refused permission, for though he possessed many friends in the Northern States, Congress was of opinion that he might be "a secret emissary from the British Court." Temple was, however, genuinely in sympathy with the American cause, and during his eight months' residence in Boston he travelled considerably and talked with many of the American leaders — including one of his close friends. General Horatio Gates. Just before sailing from Boston for Amsterdam in May, 1779, he wrote to Gates that he expected to meet the Duke of Richmond and Lord Camden (two other American sympathizers) at a German spa, and that as far as my voice can go, I shall everywhere set forth the total impracticability of Great Britain's effecting anything more than her own further distress, if not ruin, by continuing the war against this country; and I think I can substantially support such my opinion from the personal observations I have made for now near a year that I have been upon the continent, having conversed freely with gentlemen of the first rank and character in these States as well as with many of their delegates in Congress; and I am perfectly sensible that Britain has nothing else to do, but with the best grace she can, offer her hand to America upon the very terms that America herself has proposed, and from which she never will recede.

It was through Gates, under whom he had served, that Trumbull met Temple — a fateful meeting; for, just about

A M E R I C A N S A R R E S T E D AS S P I E S

75

the time when Temple was preparing to return to London, Trumbull was preparing for a voyage to Europe on a matter of business, and Temple, who was acquainted in London with the great American painter, Benjamin West, strongly urged him to go there and study art. "Connected as I was and personally hostile as my conduct had been," wrote Trumbull later, "I did not believe that this could be done with safety during the war; but Mr. Temple was confident that through the influence of his friends in London, he would obtain permission for me from the British Government." This confidence was warranted; for Temple on his return to London secured from Lord George Germaine, the British Secretary of War, the requisite permit allowing Trumbull to go to England — accompanied, however, with the following caution: that if I chose to visit London for the purpose of studying the fine arts, no notice would be taken by the Government of my past life; but that I must remember that the eye of precaution vvrould be constantly upon me, and I must therefore avoid the smallest indiscretion; but that so long as I avoided all political intervention and pursued the study of the arts with assiduity, I might rely on being unmolested.

That a young man twenty-three years old, who had served in the "rebel" army against Great Britain for over two years, should be allowed entrance into the enemy country would seem unusual under modern war conditions, but during the American Revolution it was not an infrequent occurrence. With this assurance, Trumbull embarked for Nantes in France in May, 1780, in a French armed merchant ship, and on board he met the second of the group of Americans who were destined to be treated as spies. This companion was John Steele Tyler, who also had engaged in active military service in the "rebel" forces, as a major under Colonel Henry Jackson in the Continental Army for two years and as a

76

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

lieutenant colonel of the Massachusetts troops in the ill-fated Penobscot campaign from July to October, 1779.(1) Arriving at Paris, Trumbull was met with the bad news of the British victories in Charleston and South Carolina, which put an end to the possibilities of his commercial project, "my funds consisting in public securities of Congress, the value of which was annihilated by adversity." This left the study of the arts as a last resort and he decided to go, with Tyler, to England "and there wait a possible change." On arrival in London, he took lodgings at the Adelphi and sent immediate word of his presence to John Temple, who at once gave the information to Lord George Germaine. It might be supposed that the English would have been highly suspicious of strangers at that particular time; for, only a few weeks before, on June 4, 5, 6, and 7, there had occurred the terrible anti-Catholic, Lord George Gordon riots which had caused such excesses and destruction of property, and such fear of further disturbances. Nevertheless, in spite of the excited condition of London, the British Government paid no attention to either Trumbull or Tyler, and the former began his artistic studies under Benjamin West while the latter set out upon a round of social pleasure. A friend of Governor Trumbull wrote to him that a gentleman just returned to Connecticut from London had talked with his son and "with a number of other Americans who had taken an active part in the war in America and appeared openly in the city and no notice taken of them by Authority." There were also Americans who, having been present in England before the war as merchants, had remained there. In fact the number of Americans who favored the "rebel" cause and who went to England for one purpose or another was so great that it occasioned some criticism in the United States, as appeared from a letter in a Boston newspaper, a few months later in which surprise was expressed that the British Government "have in so many instances winked at or

AMERICANS ARRESTED AS SPIES

77

rather encouraged the appearance of American gentlemen in England" ( 2 ) : For what purpose do they encourage this? . . . Would any man in his senses expect to find any of the subjects of the United States of America, and particularly the sons or near relations of those who bear important offices in these States, not captives but voluntary and open sojourners in England? Was ever such a fight seen before between two nations? Though the intention of these travellers may be innocent, is their conduct either honourable or safe to their country? What must our Allies, what must the world think of it? If a few may be allowed to take this part, why not all? Why should any be restrained? Is not this point a serious one? Does it not lead to many more questions? And does it not require the particular and speedy attention of Congress and the several governments of the United States? A n d another letter from an American in France stated that "so many Americans going to England has extremely disgusted the French." It is interesting to contrast this condition with that in our country during the W o r l d W a r , when under our Trading with the Enemy A c t an alien enemy was not allowed to enter the United States. T h e lack of opposition in England to the presence of so many Americans in that country may well have been due to the fact that there were many Englishmen who themselves favored the American cause.(3) A s early as February 7, 1778, Charles James Fox said in the House of Commons: "If gentlemen are not blind, they will see that the American W a r is impracticable and that no good can come from force only; that the Uves lost and the treasure spent have been wasted to no purpose." On April i, 1780, Boswell wrote: Sir Philip Jennings Clark defended the opposition to the American war ably and with temper, and I joined him. He said the majority of the nation was against the Ministry. . . . Johnson. "The majority of those who can understand is with it; the majority of those who can bear is against it; and as those who can only hear are more numerous than those who can understand and opposition is always loudest, a

78

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

majority of the rabble шШ be for opposition." This boisterous vivacity entertained us, but the truth in my opmion was that those who could understand the best were against the American war.

On April 6, 1780, the Earl of Nugent said: "America is irretrievably lost. I myself have supported the war, and I am not ashamed to own that I have been in the wrong." Coke of Norfolk drank the health of George Washington every night "as the greatest man on earth." Horace Walpole wrote from Berkeley Square, September 19, 1780: "One thing I do discern — that the approaching recovery of America is about as near as the Millennium. . . . America is now like the Holy Land; none but bigots and madmen will think of subduing it"; and on October 7, 1780, "there is an end to our American dream." A little later John Wilkes delivered a famous speech in the House of Commons (November 27, 1780) on a motion to extend thanks to Sir Henry Clinton, Admiral Arbuthnot, and Earl Cornwallis, in which he strongly upheld the American cause, saying that he "considered victories in that country as losses, and our cause an unjust one. Without detracting, therefore, from the wellearned laurels of Lord Cornwallis, he could not thank him for such services as the victory at Camden. Had his Lordship triumphed over the natural enemies of Great Britain, the vote proposed should have met with his hearty concurrence." And, continued Wilkes: The independence, Sir, of the Colonies has been often mentioned in this debate, but with a positive declaration that it is a point never to be conceded. Whether it is granted or not by a British Parliament de jure seems to me of little moment and avail. It is merely an amusing, curious theme of speculation among a set of idle, listless, loitering, lounging, ill-informed gentlemen at Westminster who remark the disorders of the State, to combat which they possess not vigour of mind or virtue. A country much larger than our European empire, which we still love to call our Colonies, does and will possess it de facto, notwithstanding all the present delusive assurances of Ministers withm these waUs. . . . It is in this island only that persons are found who

A M E R I C A N S ARRESTED AS SPIES

79

doubt that the present war will end in the acknowledging of American independence. . . . I see more matter of grief than of triumph, of bewailing than of thanksgiving, in this civil contest and the deluge of blood which has overflowed America.

At an election in Bristol the newspapers referred to the intense spirit of party which had "arrived at such a pitch that a friend of one of the candidates actually proceeded to the place of poll with drums beating and the American colours displayed." At Bath, a little earlier, when a clergyman preached in the Abbey before the new Lord Mayor and delivered "severe censures on the American war, the wickedness of the Ministers, and the righteousness of the American cause, the leading people of the Congregation walked out," while the rest remained approving, until the Archdeacon bade the organist "strike up the bellows of the organ which were too strong to be overcome by the preacher's exertions, and the service ended and the parson was hissed out of the Church." The men who most strongly (and quite naturally) resented the presence in London of the rebel Americans were their fellow countrymen, the American Loyalist refugees, who had long been filling the minds of the Ministry with misinformation as to conditions in America and with accusations as to the "rebels." That they were a serious menace to the Revolutionary cause is seen from a letter of John Adams, who wrote to Thomas Cushing, December 15, 1780, a letter which was intercepted and published by the British Government. Adams said: "It is true, I believe, what you suggest, that Lord North showed a disposition to give up the contest, but was diverted from it, not unlikely, by the representations of the Americans in London who, in conjunction with their coadjutors in America, have been thorns to us indeed on both sides the water." While Trumbull thus engaged in his artistic pursuits unmolested, and Tyler in his business and social activities, they

8o

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

were joined by a third American, whose fate was soon to be intimately involved with theirs — Winslow Warren, the son of General James and Mercy Warren of Plymouth, Massachusetts. Frail in health, but gay of disposition and active for adventure, Warren left Boston on May 17, 1780, about the same time as Trumbull and Tyler, sailing on the ship Pallas with the object of visiting Holland and France and engaging in the shipment of goods to the United States on commission. He was captured within a few days after his departure by the British cruiser Proteus, and taken with other prisoners to St. John's, Newfoundland. There, three months later, they were joined by a very distinguished American prisoner, to whom, by curious chance. Warren bore a letter from his father. This was Henry Laurens of South Carolina, late President of Congress. Chosen by Congress to negotiate a loan from Holland, and sailing in August from Philadelphia, he was captured by the British frigate Vestal. Before his capture, Laurens destroyed all the papers in his trunks which he considered of significance, but unfortunately certain documents which he threw overboard did not sink and were fished out and read by his captors — among them being a draft of a suggested treaty with Holland, which the British Ministry considered of great consequence. Hence, when all these Newfoundland prisoners were taken to London, where they arrived on October 5, 1780, Laurens was immediately confined in the Tower on a charge of high treason. He was "treated with great insolence by the populace in his journey from Dartmouth to London," wrote John Adams to Congress. Horace Walpole wrote on October 7: "Lord George Gordon has just got a neighbor, I believe — not a companion, for State prisoners are not allowed to be very sociable." "I walked into the Tower when at London, where I had the pleasure of seeing Gov. Laurens," wrote young Warren to his mother. "He was walking on

A M E R I C A N S ARRESTED AS SPIES

81

the platform attended by the Royal Guard. W e bowed to each other, but it was out of my power to speak to him. This is a favour not permitted even to his son. He appeared to be very well. I related to you before, the conversation he had with me at Newfoundland, and what he said about his papers that were taken from him. They are indeed of very great consequence and I know not his motive for telling me he thought they were not." With better luck than Laurens experienced, Warren was released shortly after his arrival in London, and meeting at once with his compatriots — Trumbull and Tyler — he enjoyed himself in social circles for about six weeks. In their company, he came once more in touch with John Temple; for — again by curious chance — his father and mother in Plymouth were close friends of James Bowdoin and had long known Temple, Bowdoin's son-in-law. Thus a singular fate brought these four. Temple, Trumbull, Tyler, and Warren, into close connection and shortly afterward involved them in a serious plight. For, the complacency with which the British Government had hitherto regarded the presence of Americans in London was suddenly interrupted on November 13, 1780, since on that date there was received from America the first information of Benedict Arnold's treason and of Major André's execution. This unpleasant news was reported in the London newspapers of the day as follows: (4) Yesterday morning Colonel St. George, aid-de-camp to Sir Henry Clinton, arrived at Lord George Germain's house in Pall Mall from N e w York, with the following intelligence, viz., that in consequence of increasing jealousies and divisions among the leaders of the American army, the American General Arnold, grown tired of the service, contrived to give secret information thence to Sir Henry Clinton, adding that he not only had it in his power, but would actually bring over to the British Standard the major part of the rebel army, viz., 7,000 men, if his Excellency would countenance the revolt. Sir Henry Clinton, having duly weighed the matter and being convinced of the

82

ODD B Y W A Y S I N AMERICAN HISTORY

sincerity of Arnold's intention, sent Major André, one of his aid de camps, over to him in disguise, to forward so promising a design; unfortunately, however, the affair got wind the very night preceding the intended execution of the plan, in consequence of which Major André was apprehended and immediately hung up at American headquarters, while Arnold with the utmost difficulty escaped on horseback by getting within the lines of the royal army.

William Hickey in his Memoirs recorded a dinner at Mr. Paxton's in Buckingham Street, during which "our mirth received a check by accounts coming in of the melancholy and lamented death of Major André, a rising and very promising officer who, having accepted the dangerous office of entering the enemy's camp in disguise in America was discovered and hung as a spy." And Samuel Curwen, one of the American Loyalist residents in England, wrote in his journal: Arriving at home, William Cabot drank tea with me. S.Sparhawk came in afterwards and abode two hours, from whom I heard the first account of Arnold's intentional withdrawing himself and four or five thousand troops under his command from Congressional service to the Royal standard at New York, the failure of this scheme of treachery, and his lucky escape from his enemies' hands. From him also the relation of the seizure of Mr. Laurens' papers, late President of the Congress and now a prisoner in the Tower; giving an account of the desperate situation of their affairs, with complaints of failure of their resources, and their inability to support the war any longer without loans from Holland, France or Spain. T h e above comes from Benjamin Thompson, a native of Massachusetts (formerly an apprentice to my next door neighbor in Salem, Mr. John Appleton, an importer of British Goods) now Under Secretary in the American Department.

From that moment, Americans in England were regarded as objects of suspicion and even as spies. And the first persons to whom the British authorities turned their attention were Trumbull, Tyler, Warren, and, because of their intimate association with him in London, John Temple. The first blow fell on Trumbull, five days after the ar-

A M E R I C A N S A R R E S T E D AS S P I E S

83

rival of the news as to Major André. In his Autobiography, he claimed that the attack on him was due to American Loyalists in London whose jealousy led them to "put an end to my unintelligible security and protection," and who "took their measures with great adroitness and prudence by lodging information against Major Tyler as a very plausible and dangerous man, doubtless in the character of a spy." One of the leading Loyalists was a young man, twentyseven years of age, from Woburn, Massachusetts — Benjamin Thompson (afterwards Count Rumford) — who two months before had been made an Under Secretary of State. It was this man who now issued a warrant for the arrest of Tyler and at the same time instructed the police that "in the same house with the person who is named in this warrant lodges another American whom there are strong reasons for believing to be the most dangerous of the two. . . . You will not fail to secure Mr. Trumbull's person and papers for examination as well as Major Tyler." John De Neufvüle, the Amsterdam commercial agent of Trumbull's father, also wrote that "his greatest persecutor seems to be Thompson, the Secretary to Lord George Germaine, for he declared that not a letter should reach that Minister from Mr. Trumbull. So the Refugees appear, in general." An article in the London Daily Advertiser of November 25, 1780, however, seems to absolve the American Loyalist Secretary from originating the arrest; for it said: The following is said to be the means by which Government got possession of the secret papers and person of Mr. Trumbull, who is now a prisoner in N e w Prison, Clerkenwell. A man of the name of Gray, who had formerly served in the King's troops in America, went to Bow Street and made a voluntary deposition to this purport: that when he was a soldier in the above service, he was made a captive and together with several of his brethren was put under a guard which was commanded by a Major Tyler, then an officer in Jackson's regiment, belonging to the Rebel forces. That after his release, he returned to England and lately had been much surprized to see Major

84

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Tyler under whose captivity he was in America, actually resident in this Metropolis; and finally that suspecting some species of foul play, he made his application to the magistrates of his country. In consequence of this afEdavit, immediate recourse was made to Tyler's Chambers, who was gone out for the evening. His papers, however, were searched and as Mr. Trumbull's name was materially mentioned in them, and as he was present, for he lived in the same chamber with Mr. Tyler, he was accordingly taken into custody. It is interesting to note that Horace Walpole in his Journals thought that Trumbull's arrest had, in fact, been due to the hopes b y the Ministry that they might detect Americans as involved in the Lord George Gordon riots of the previous summer; for Walpole wrote: Mr. Turnbull [ííc], son of the American Governor of Connecticut, was taken up as a spy. His letters were immediately published, because in one to his father he said that Mr. Temple was intimate with the Duke of Richmond and Mr. David Hartley and Dr. Price who thence were represented as traitors. . . . Yet the publication of them proved the Court could prove nothing in them. . . . In reality, the Ministry hoped to discover that American agents had been at the bottom of the latter riots. Trumbull was arrested at his lodging late on Saturday evening, November 18, and detained in the Brown Bear in Drury Lane over Sunday. A t this point, the unfortunate young Warren came into the picture. For on Sunday, wrote Trumbull, [Warren,] who was a somewhat amphibious character, and withal young, handsome, and giddy, dined at Kensington with a party of loyalist gentlemen from Boston, when the arrest of Tyler for high treason, and his probable fate, became a subject of conversation at dinner. Tyler and Warren, from similarity of character, had become companions in the gaieties of London, and the moment Warren learned the danger of his friend, he excused himself from sitting after dinner to wine, by pretending an engagement to take tea with some ladies at the east end of the city, and knowing where Tyler was engaged to dine, he drove with all haste, found him, and warned him of his danger. Of course, he (Tyler) did not return to his lodgings, but pru-

A M E R I C A N S A R R E S T E D AS S P I E S

85

dently and safely made his escape to the continent. In the meantime, a few minutes after T y l e r went out on Sunday morning, a party of police were stationed in an opposite alehouse to watch for him.

From the London newspapers, it appears that the agent of the police waited at Tyler's lodgings till Wednesday "in expectation of his return," and "expresses were sent off on Tuesday night to all the different seaports throughout the Kingdom to prevent, if possible, the embarkation of the rebel Major Tyler against whom several informations are lodged for high treason." Another London newspaper referred to the presence of these two men as follows: For some months past, we have been honored with the company of the Rebel Major Tyler and the Rebel Colonel John Trumbull, son of the Rebel Governor of Connecticut. These men lived in some splendor in York Buildings, their goings out and comings in were known, and the Loyalists lamented that treason should be suffered to appear abroad unmolested — within these few days, however, Trumbull has been taken up and committed to prison. Tyler has absconded for the present, but we hope he will not be able to escape out of the Kingdom. Their papers are all seized and very curious ones they are.(5)

Tyler was never apprehended; he made a successful escape; the mystery as to his activities in London was not solved; and he passed out of the picture until, one hundred and fifty years later, a letter was discovered in 1933 in the British Archives written by him from France to Lord George Germaine, August 6, 1781, which showed that he need not have been feared as a spy; for in it he announced his readiness to serve the British cause as an officer in the Army; he denounced the American alliance with France; and he requested one thousand pounds as compensation for his American property which would be confiscated by his change of allegiance. Meanwhile, on November 20, 1780, two days after his arrest, Trumbull (described as the "son of the Rebel Gov-

86

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

ernor Trumbull of the Province of Connecticut in America") was brought up for examination at Bow Street before Government officials, Sir Sampson Wright and Justice Addington.(6) The newspapers described him as "a genteel looking man, and rather of a sallow complexion, who appears to possess a clear and manly understanding and conducted himself through the whole of the trying scene with a collected fortitude highly becoming his situation." From Trumbull's own account, rashness rather than fortitude would seem descriptive of his attitude; and in spite of his later statement in his Autobiography that his arrest was caused by the jealousy of American Loyalists in London, and that he was an innocent and abused man, it is clear that there was ample ground for suspicion of his activities. Among the letters found in his possession was one from a certain William White, containing rather suspicious references to an "expedition for which he expected to obtain the equipment in the Kingdom of our dear and great ally," (though Trumbull disclaimed knowledge of the facts concerned).(7) It was not surprising, therefore, that Trumbull was committed to prison in the Tothill Fields Bridewell, located behind Buckingham Palace and one of the few London prisons left standing after the Lord George Gordon riots. And while he considered himself a very badly treated man, there was much justice in the views of Thompson, the American Loyalist Secretary of State, who argued that "the Government could not with any consistency suffer this person to walk the streets of London in security, while so many of His Majesty's loyal subjects were driven from their estates in America by those people whose party his friends publicly aided and perhaps he himself favored in his heart." Trumbull was kept a prisoner for about six months. A letter of protest to Lord George Germaine in January, 1781, remained unanswered:

A M E R I C A N S A R R E S T E D AS S P I E S

87

Early in 1 7 7 8 , 1 determined to come to England to study the art of painting; and my intention being soon after made known to your Lordship through Richard Jackson, Esq., I was informed Your Lordship's answer was that "though no official leave would be given, yet, if I came to England and demeaned myself in a quiet and peaceable manner, no notice would be taken of whatever had passed in America." M y conduct since my residence in England, I trust does now appear to Your Lordship to have been fair and upright.

This letter appears to have lacked somewhat in candor, for in it he made no mention of the commercial undertaking which caused him to leave America or of the part which Temple had played. De Neufville, however, wrote to Governor Trumbull in February, 1781, that the British Ministry were "not likely to touch a hair of his head, and that he should certainly have been released in the course of eight days, had it not been for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; the sensible people of London, being themselves much irritated against Ministry for his detention, which they look upon as mHitary against their own rights." Eventually, through the efforts of Charles James Fox, Edmund Burke, and other prominent Whigs who visited him in prison and interested themselves in his behalf, and especially through the personal plea made by Benjamin West to King George, he was finally released on June 12, 1781, West and John Singleton Copley becoming his sureties; and, leaving England for Holland, he arrived at Amsterdam, July 6. Meanwhile, his friend and associate, John Temple, found himself in a peculiar position; for he was suspected and distrusted by both Americans and British. In the United States he had been regarded as a British spy and agent, since his trip there in 1778; and in England, because of his American relations and activities prior to the Revolution, he was regarded as an American agent and as a possible spy — a suspicion which was now emphasized by the papers found in Trumbull's possession and in those captured from Henry

88

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Laurens. (8) A London newspaper referred to the trio as follows: This metropolis is filled with Americans, numbers of whom are so unjust to the asylum afforded them as to be daily employed in abetting the business of sedition and giving a new spur to rebellion. The other day, one of these trans-atlantic serpents in a public coffee house in the environs of Covent Garden, being asked for a toast, gave "the three T's." Some of the company, not immediately devising his meaning, requested an explanation. "Why," (replied the impudent traitor), "I mean Temple, Tyler, and Trumbull."

While the British Government made no move to arrest Temple, and while the influential friends and relations whom he had among the prominent Whigs would undoubtedly have made any such action highly inexpedient politically, Temple made up his mind that it would be wise for him to leave England temporarily. Of the treatment of "poor Trumbull and Tyler, as well as Mr. Laurens," John Adams wrote to General James Warren: "[It] will convince our Americans, I hope, that Great Britain has become literally, in the language of old authors concerning Attila, the scourge of God and the plague of mankind. She must be abandoned, and renounced forever. There has been too much communication with them which must be cut off." And he reechoed General Warren's hope that "all intercourse with that accursed and barbarous nation should be entirely broken off." (9) Meanwhile, young Winslow Warren, the friend of all three of the suspected characters — Trumbull, Tyler and Temple — was also kept under surveillance as a possible spy in the eyes of the British Government, and his fate for some time hung in the balance. Luckily, the part which he took in the escape of Tyler never became known; and although his papers were seized in his lodgings, nothing of an incriminating nature was found, as they consisted chiefly of instructive letters on Massachusetts commerce and poli-

AMERICANS ARRESTED AS SPIES

89

tics from his father, and of letters containing highly moral and political advice from his mother. A f t e r a rigid examination before Lord Hillsborough, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the most determined foe to America, W a r ren was finally released on February i, 1 7 8 1 , on condition that he proceed to Holland, which had been his original destination. Just before sailing from Margate, however, he was again detained and his papers searched once more; but again, since nothing was found, he was allowed to leave E n g land towards the end of March. H e wrote to his mother, АргД 28, a description of his adventures: ( 1 0 ) Lord НШзЬогоидЬ asked me many questions about my situation and views, reprimanded me for visiting Mr. Trumbull confined in Tothill Fields Bridewell. His Lordship condescended to give me a great deal of advice, saying he was prepossessed in my favour from my appearance. He and others to whom my papers were consigned, lavished many praises on my mother's letters —said "they would do honour to the greatest writer that ever wrote," and added, "Mr. Warren, I hope you will profit by her instructions and advice." I had the honour of three private conferences with him. On the last, which was the day before I left London, I requested a passport from him to Ostend. He answered that the communication was free and open to every one, that he did not think it necessary, wished me a pleasant ride down and an agreeable passage over. His Lordship told me that as I was going to France, he supposed I should next be advised by the most "hypocritical, abandoned, old rascal that ever existed — a man who, if ever one goes to Hell, he will." "Franklin has uniformly deceived from first to last. He has deceived his Majesty, His Majesty's Ministers —in short, his whole system has been deception. It is the character of your countrymen." I replied, I hope His Lordship meant to make some exceptions. He wished I would not go to France, but "return and persuade my father and friends to submit to the best of Kings." I told him I must be excused, my business abroad was commercial, not political. But I forbear giving you more particularly of the conversation. If I proceed, I shall not know where to stop till I have finished the whole, which would be much too tedious. After this, when I arrived at Margate, I was again arrested by His Lordship's orders. You may easily suppose how much I was astonished at this; but I have every reason to suppose it was done in hopes of

ÇO

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

getting some hold of Mr. Temple by again seizing my papers; but in this, they are monstrously disappointed. Sir James Wright told me before I left that I was watched during my whole stay in London — where I went — when I removed my lodgings — who accompanied me to the House of Commons and who were my acquaintances. I replied that I was of more consequence than I before thought myself. A t Margate, they took from me all my private papers, among which was the particulars of the examination, which immediately on my discharge I had taken down on two sheets of large paper. This was not returned with my other papers which I received, as promised, by the officer, after waiting four days.

A hitherto unpublished letter from L. de Neufville to Franklin, February 8, 1781, throws some light on the causes of these arrests. He wrote regarding the "disagreeable situation" of an American named Digges which had been "caused by Mr. Trumbull's mentioning his name in his trial and his thus becoming a more immediate object of Ministry's attention, whilst on the other hand some Americans that owed their escape to his care had behaved rather imprudently by telling their story to the Captain of the vessel they came over in." He added that Mr. Warren and a Mr. Brailsford "had been taken up, the latter with a letter of recommendation in his pocket signed S[ilas] D[eane]. Your Excellency knows, I suppose that this Mr. Brailsford was said to be author of the letter found with Mr. Trumbull signed White, Thus I find that the suspicions falling on Mr. Digges, he is obliged to keep much out of the way for fear that the same insolence might extend to himself. Young Mr. Warren was suspected on account of his correspondence with Col. Tyler but which I believe has been found innocent. I hope that Mr. Digges will come away in time, as the example of Mr. Trumbull shows that innocence cannot avail against the inveterate rage of a corrupted Ministry; often his release was promised — but to no effect as yet. Mr. Temple used to behave with so much caution in writing that nothing absolutely could be done against him." ( 1 1 )

AMERICANS ARRESTED AS SPIES

ÇI

That American spies were actually employed in England at this time is undoubtedly a fact, but they were of a different character from Trumbull or Warren.(i2) Of the six characters involved in this political drama of the Revolution, Trumbull, after going back to the United States in 1781, returned to England when the war was over, and lived there from time to time until 1815, becoming finally a noted American painter, executing the well-known pictures in the Capitol after 1817, and dying in 1843. Temple became British Consul-General in N e w York in 1782 and died there in 1798; Tyler disappeared from the records; young Warren, after several years in France and Portugal, returned to this country, became a lieutenant in the Regular Army and was killed in General St. Clair's battle with the Indians on the Miami River in 1791; Laurens, after being kept imprisoned in the Tower, was released on December 31, 1781 in exchange for Lord Cornwallis, was appointed a member of the Peace Commission in France in May, 1782; returned to the United States in August, 1784, and died eight years later; and Benjamin Thompson, after serving in the British army in South Carolina, was knighted in 1784, made a Bavarian Count (Count Rumford) in 1791, became a famous physicist, and died in 1814,

^ y ^ What Was the Weather at Washington's Inauguration?

τ

"^HE question as to weather conditions at Washington's Inauguration is a matter of minor importance; but a difference between eyewitnesses on the subject affords an interesting illustration of the unreliability of reminiscences as authority in the writing of history — a fact which was forcefully set forth, over thirty years ago, in a striking paper by Edward L. Pierce, the biographer of Charles Sumner.(i) "The memory," he said, "is, even when only a short distance of time is covered, a most uncertain and treacherous faculty; and the historian must keep its limitations constantly in mind. He must not, indeed, overlook other things — the honesty and fidelity of the narrator who claims to have been on the spot, the accuracy of his perceptions, and the advantage or disadvantage of his standpoint; but assuming those conditions to be satisfactory, he must still be critical, even skeptical, in the treatment of testimony; and his skepticism should be the more exacting, the longer the period intervening between the transaction and the report." Pierce gave an illuminating example of the doubtful value of recollections, as follows: When the comer stone of the Bunker НШ Monument was laid in 1825, fifty years after the battle, there were present 190 survivors of the army of the Revolution, 40 of whom had been or claimed to have

INAUGURAL WEATHER

93

been engaged in the conflict of June 17, 1775. One of the directors of the Monument Association, William Sullivan, assisted by other directors and by Judge Thacher, wishing to preserve the details of the battle and to clear up disputed points, caused the depositions of the survivors to be taken. These or a transcript of them in three volumes were sent to the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1842 . . . and a committee, consisting of the eminent historians, Ticknor, Bancroft, and Ellis, was appointed to report on the historical character and value of the manuscripts. After examination, Ellis reported: "Their contents were most extraordinary; many of the testimonies extravagant, boastful, inconsistent, and utterly untrue; mixtures of old men's broken memories and fond imaginings with the love of the marvellous. Some of those who gave in affidavits about the battle could not have been in it, nor even in its neighborhood. They had got so used to telling the story for the wonderment of village listeners . , . that they did not distinguish between what they had seen and done and what they had read, heard or dreamed. The decision of the committees was that much of the contents of the volumes was wholly worthless for history, and some of it discreditable, as misleading and false." In 1937, the first inauguration of a President was held under the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, adopted, in part, to escape the horrid climatic experiences of past Fourths of March. If any historian should now wish to compare the scene of driving wind and drenching rain which marked the first inauguration on January 20, 1937, under this Amendment, with the weather conditions of April 30, 1789, the date of the inauguration of George Washington, what historical material could he depend upon to describe the weather conditions at the earlier date? In the first place, he would be confronted with the fact that although the weather plays a large part in modern times as a topic for thought, conversation, and writing, it is not until after the early years of the nineteenth century that one finds in the newspaper press or in diaries or in the correspondence of the day any considerable reference to weather in connection with public events.

94

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

The contemporaneous narratives of facts pertaining to the inauguration of Washington are not numerous.(2) The first is that given by his private secretary, Tobias Lear, who wrote a detailed account of Washington's progress from the house which had been engaged for him in Cherry Street, located at the corner of Queen (near Pearl) Street, several doors east of the present Franklin Square and then owned by Samuel Osgood of Massachusetts.(3) Lear described the procession, passing through Queen, Great Dock, and Broad streets to Federal Hall in Wall Street, and the ceremony at the Hall; but in this account, there is no mention of the weather. (4) Of the inauguration ceremony itself, most of the newspapers of the country published very summary accounts copied from the New York Daily Advertiser oí May I, 1789, which began its description thus succinctly: "The scene was extremely solemn and impressive. W e imagine the public cannot be more satisfactorily informed than by an unimbellished recital of the events and a simple picture of the figures which composed it." The Federal Gazette in Philadelphia published a slightly fuller description on May 2 and 5, 1789, and on May 8, a correspondent wrote from N e w York, May 3, describing the taking of the oath by Washington as follows: The scene was solemn and awful beyond description. . . . Upon the subject of this great and good man, I may perhaps be an enthusiast, but I confess that I was under an awful and religious persuasion that the gracious Ruler of the Universe was looking down at that moment with peculiar complacency on an act which to a part of his creatures was so very important. Under this impression when the Chancellor pronounced in a very feeling manner, "Long live George Washington," my sensibility was wound up to such a pitch that I could do no more than wave my hat with the rest, without the power of joining in the repeated acclamations which rent the air.

In no newspaper, however, was any mention made of the weather. One writer, signing himself R. R., wrote to his

INAUGURAL WEATHER

95

wife in Philadelphia from N e w York, M a y i, 1789, giving a f e w more details — but weather less, as follows: Dear S — Just as the sun set on the day I left you, I arrived here. Our journey was so rapid and expeditious that I could scarcely believe that I was in New York; but so it was, and I met with a very kind reception. I was just in time to see the inauguration of the President-General, which affecting solemnity was performed yesterday at one o'clock in the front gallery of the State House, in view of thousands of admiring spectators. After he was swom in, he was declared from the gallery by Chancellor Livingston, President of the United States, upon which the admiring crowd gave three cheers which the President returned with a most gracious bow. He then retired into the Senate Chamber and delivered to the Senate and House of Representatives an elegant speech for which I refer you to the newspapers. (5) Contemporary descriptions were given in the letters of Fisher Ames, Representative in Congress from Massachusetts; in the journal of William Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania; and in the letters of Major Samuel Blachley W e b b ; while the foreign diplomats — Don Diego de Gardequi of Spain on M a y i, Comte de Moustier of France on June 5, and Rudolph V a n Dorsten of Holland on March 4 — all sent rather full reports to their respective courts. But none of these contemporaries made mention of the weather. Dr. W . W . Buchanan, a godson of Washington, wrote in i860 the following short account of the ceremony as he recalled it, he being a boy of twelve years of age in 1789, and eightythree years old in i860: In those days the corner house of Wall and Broad Streets was entered from Broad Street and was a police-office and watch-house. From its stoop, I witnessed the oath of office administered by Chancellor Livingston to George Washington. The next House was occupied by a rush-bottom chairmaker. A door or two below that, left hand side, was the Nestor of our profession, the venerable Dr. Anthon, and a door or two lower still was Mrs. McLean's. John Randolph of Roanoke wrote later that, as a boy of sixteen attending King's College, he "saw the coronation, such

9б

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

in fact it was, of General Washington in 1789." Later accounts by standard historians and biographers such as John Marshall, Washington Irving, Jared Sparks, Richard Hildreth, Benjamin F. Lossing, and William Dunlap make no mention of weather. The first suggestion as to the weather comes from a man who wrote in 1854, sixty-five years after 1789, in The Republican Court: A t eight o'clock some clouds about the horizon caused apprehension of an unpleasant day; but when at nine, the bells rung out a merrypeal and presently with a slower and more solemn striking called from every steeple for the people to assemble in the churches, to implore the blessing of Heaven on the nation, its favor and protection to the President, and success and acceptance to his Administration, the sun shone clearly down, as if commissioned to give assurance of the approbation of the Divine Ruler of the world.

The writer, Rufus W. Griswold, was not alive in 1789, however, and he gives no authority for his description of the day; although in his preface, dated October 20, 1854, he said: "Walking, not many months ago, near the middle of a night of unusual beauty through Broadway, Washington Irving related to Dr. Francis and myself his recollection of these scenes. . . . He had watched the procession till the President entered Federal Hall, and from the comer of Broad Street and Wall Street had observed the subsequent proceedings in the balcony." No statement was made by Griswold that Irving said anything about the weather. A few more recent, non-contemporary histories write unequivocally that the day was one of fine sunshine, but they also cite no authority for their statements. (6) Up to this point, the historian seeking to leam the weather conditions at noon of April 30, 1789, would be at a complete loss for reliable authority. There are extant, however, two very full and detailed accounts of the inauguration with which the historian would be confronted and on one of

INAUGURAL WEATHER

97

which he would be obKged to rely, contained in the reminiscences of two young girls who were present as eyewitnesses. Each of them was stationed at a house opposite Federal Hall and each of them wrote her reminiscences later. Y e t the historian would find that these two reminiscences are so different that to reconcile them is a difficult, if not impossible, task. T h e first of these pictures of the inauguration was given b y Eliza Susan Morton (daughter of Maria Sophia Kemper and John Morton, a N e w York merchant, and later the wife of Josiah Quincy of Boston). In 1789, she was about sixteen years old and living at her father's house on Broadway, not far distant from the scene of the inauguration. A t the age of forty-eight (in 1 8 2 1 ) , when residing in Quincy, Massachusetts, she wrote "from memory and from the recollections of m y mother, now residing in our family and eighty-three years of age, the following narrative of some events in the lives of m y maternal ancestors and of m y own early life." ( 7 ) This was written, it is to be noted, thirty-two years after the occurrence of the following scene described b y her: On the 30th of April, when Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States, the ceremony took place in the balcony on the old Federal Hall, as it was afterwards named, which stood in the centre of four streets. I was on the roof of the first house on Broad Street, which belonged to Captain Prince, the father of one of my school companions; and so near to Washington that I could almost hear him speak. The windows and roofs of the houses were crowded; and in the streets the throng was so dense that it seemed as if one might literally walk on the heads of the people. The balcony of the hall was in full view of this assembled multitude. In the centre of it was placed a table, with a rich covering of red velvet, and upon this, on a crimson velvet cushion lay a large and elegant Bible. This was all the paraphernalia for the august scene. All eyes were fixed upon the balcony, where at the appointed hour Washington entered, accompanied by the Chancellor of the State of New York, who was to administer the oath; by John Adams, the Vice President; Governor Clinton, and many other distinguished men. . . . His entrance on the

98

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

balcony was announced by universal shouts of joy and welcome. His appearance was most solemn and dignified. Advancing to the front of the balcony, he laid his hand on his heart, bowed several times and then retired to an armchair near the table. The populace appeared to understand that the scene had overcome him and were at once hushed in profound silence. After a few moments, Washington arose and came forward. Chancellor Livingston read the oath according to the form prescribed by the Constitution and Washington repeated it, resting his hand upon the Bible. Mr. Otis, the Secretary of the Senate, then took the Bible to raise it to the lips of Washington who stooped and kissed the book. A t this moment, the signal was given by raising a flag upon the cupola of the Hall for a general discharge of the artillery of the Battery. All the bells in the city rang out a peal of joy, and the assembled multitude sent forth a universal shout. The President again bowed to the people and then retired from a scene such as the proudest monarch never enjoyed.

This account by Mrs. Quincy, it will be noted, makes no mention of the weather conditions. It so happened, however, by curious coincidence, that there was another young girl who observed the ceremonies from almost exactly the same location, namely the corner of Broad and Wall Streets, and it is interesting to see how vastly different was her account. Miss Mary Hunt Palmer (bom in 1775, daughter of General Joseph Palmer of Massachusetts and later wife of Judge Royall Tyler of Vermont) was fourteen years old in 1789. As "Grandmother Tyler," she wrote her recollections for her grandchildren about the year 1858, when she was nearly eighty-four years of age. In these she gave a detailed description of the inauguration — reminiscences which were not available or known to historians until the year 1925.(8) Young Miss Palmer was in N e w York in charge of the very young children of Elbridge Gerry, Representative in Congress from Massachusetts. Gerry and his wife, Ann Thompson Gerry, were living in 1789 in Maiden Lane at the home of Mrs. Gerry's father (James Thompson, a New York merchant) at no great distance from Federal Hall. And the following is the way young Miss Pakner remembered the inauguration:

INAUGURAL W E A T H E R

99

We, that is, the children and myself, had recovered from the smallpox, and I had the promise of going with nurse to the house of a friend of hers, near Federal Hall, in the open gallery of which it was decided the ceremony of taking the oath of office was to be performed, administered by Chancellor Livingston. Accordingly, I went and stood on a stoop, as they were called, directly across the street from the Federal Hall. It never rained faster, I thought, than it did that day. W e waited long for the procession. The streets were crowded. At length, a quick movement among them told us it was approaching. It approached, the Father of his Country, bareheaded, only defended by an umbrella, walked at its head. Several gentlemen surrounded him. He was dressed in a citizen's dress, the cloth of American manufacture, of a dark brown color; I believe the whole dress, alike, coat, vest, and breeches reaching just below the knee, and silk stockings; shoes, and buckles, and buckles at the knees. I did not know these particulars at the time but learned them from Mr. Gerry afterwards. As the procession drew near where I stood, I exerted myself to see the great man, and did so sufficiently to convince me that all the pictures we have of him, though varying, are yet like him. H e passed on, entered the hall, and for a few minutes the crowd surged to and fro, almost impatient of the pitiless storm. Everyone must have been drenched through that could not find shelter in the neighboring houses. Umbrellas were scarce articles then, and would have been a poor protection at best. At length, the great doors of the gallery were thrown open, and several gentlemen came out; when a shout of huzzas rent the air, and stopped all proceedings. Where I stood, I could not see the features, it was too distant, dark, and rainy, but I could see the interesting pantomine as, after this burst of feeling had subsided, the ceremony proceeded. I saw the Chancellor read from a paper what we all supposed to be the oath; I saw Washington bow himself and kiss the sacred volume. When the Chancellor waved his hat, saying "Long live George Washington," this was a sign that the ceremony was completed; when all that immense crowd tossed their hats in the air and almost rent their throats with hurrahs for several moments, repeating, "Long live George Washington," while he answered their enthusiasm by repeated bows on all sides. Thus ended this august ceremony, and I felt it paid me for all the silly mortification I had felt in coming to the City vmder such circumstances.

(Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the stoop on which Miss Palmer stood was probably that of a house occupied by

100

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Alexander Hamilton, from the balcony of which Griswold said that Hamilton witnessed the inauguration.) Here is not only the first reference to weather but also a very detailed and vivid description. Note the astonishing picture of Washington walking up Broad Street under an umbrella}. Note the drenching of the crowd of spectators! Yet, Miss Morton, who was there in the same place and at the same time, describes a crowd even on the rooftops and makes no mention of a rain — still less of a drenching rain. Thus is an interesting problem presented for the historian. Did Miss Morton, writing at the age of forty-eight, forget about the rain; or did Miss Palmer, writing at the age of eighty-four, remember a rain which never occurred? What weight should the affirmative evidence of the witness as to the presence of rain have as against witnesses who mention neither its presence nor its absence? Is this testimony by an eyewitness which was written down sixty-nine years after the event to be discarded and the testimony of another witness written down thirty-two years after the event accepted? Is the picture of Washington under an umbrella amidst a drenched crowd of spectators a pure piece of imaginative fiction — a fancied recollection, built up, year after year, by repeated narration? T o accept this theory requires two rather extreme assumptions: first, that the scene is of a nature which a woman's imagination would be likely to invent; and second, that her mind worked contrary to that of most persons, inasmuch as the invariable tendency of those who embroider past events is to gild and glorify the scene rather than to impart to it dull and unfavorable aspects. Did Grandmother Tyler, at the age of eighty-six, confuse Washington's inauguration with some other event? Did she import into her recollections of the first inauguration a rain which she saw at a later time? One thing, however, is certain, namely, that she did not confuse her recollections of

INAUGURAL WEATHER

ΙΟΙ

Washington's inauguration with those of any other inauguration, for she never was present at any other. Professor H. Morse Stephens, writing in 1896 in a notable review of the then recently published memoirs (written in 1820) of Barras and of La Revellière-Lépeaux, members of the French Directorate, said: "They were both well past sixty when they undertook to place on record the recollections of their political life. This fact of itself deprives their testimony of any direct documentary value. . . . The memory of an old man is proverbially treacherous, and even when edited by the use of authentic documents may easily go astray." (9) Upon the whole, therefore, much as the historian would like to credit Miss Palmer's picturesque description, he is probably warranted in applying established canons of acceptable authority and in discarding it as the product of imaginative invention, sincerely believed by an old lady writing at a long period of time after the event. And in the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary, it must be accepted as a fact that April 30, 1789 was a fine day — although there is little contemporaneous evidence to prove it.

^

VI

^

How the Great Tub Plot Scared the Federalists

^ W Americans today realize the degree of alarm and of semi-hysteria which inspired the Federalists in the United States during the years 1798 and 1799. French plots, spies, and conspiracies were the constant subject of newspaper articles and Congressional debates; and the fears which have prevailed in recent years in this country over the Red or Communist activities and over the Nazi influences and spies here were singularly paralleled in the apprehensions of danger and destruction of our form of government which were felt by Federalist statesmen and writers over the influence of France — and with somewhat the same degree of over-statement which is sometimes seen today. Thus Oliver Wolcott wrote to Noah Webster (both ardent Federalists), as early as May 3, 1794:

F

If the French succeed in their resistance, they will overturn every government, except, perhaps, those in the north of Europe. The destruction will moreover be signal and complete and will equally involve the refinements which have contributed to improve and adorn, or degrade or debase human nature. . . . W e ought carefully to guard against any deterioration of our principles, to reject novelties and innovations . . . to be prepared against invasions and intrigues, and above all, to come to an absolute determination that we will on no account become a party in the war.(i)

T H E GREAT T U B PLOT

I03

Noah Webster wrote to James Belknap, April 13, 1798: I have long seen the French pursuing a system to render the whole earth tributary to them; and their system, in America, will certainly be resisted with effect. They may not attempt an invasion of this country, but in case of any fatal disaster to England, an invasion of America may not be improbable. This terror of France was displayed even more strongly in a Congressional Committee report in 1799: (2) Unfortunately, for the present generation of mankind, a contest has arisen and rages with unabated ferocity which has desolated the fairest portions of Europe and shaken the fabric of society through the civilized world. From the nature and effects of this contest as developed in the experience of nations, melancholy inferences must be drawn, that it is unsusceptible of the restraints which have either designated the objects, limited the duration, or mitigated the horrors of national contentions. In the internal history of France and in the conduct of her forces and partisans in the countries which have fallen under her power, the public councils of our country were required to discern the dangers which threatened the United States and to guard against the effects of an unprecedented combination to establish new principles of social action and the subversion of religion, morality, law and Government. . . . Her means are in wonderful coincidence with her ends; among these and not the least successful is the direction and employment of the active and versatile talents of her citizens abroad as emissaries and spies. Histories of the times have set forth this situation in general, but they have omitted to describe in detail two special instances of the extravagance of the fears — the spy-fever debate in Congress over the Alien Bill in 1798 and the great " T u b Plot" in 1799. T h e notorious Alien Bill, as is well known, was a product of the situation which developed in this country after the failure of our Ambassadors, Marshall, Pinckney, and Gerry, to negotiate a treaty with France and the disclosure b y the famous X . Y . Z. letters of the efforts of French officials to obtain bribes. W h e n these letters were transmitted to Con-

104

OI^I^ BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

gress by President Adams on April 3, 1798, excitement over the conduct of France rose to extraordinary heights, and popular sentiment was further inflamed by the virulence of the editors of Federalist newspapers, "Whoever in the future recalls these letters," wrote William Cobbett in Porcupine's Gazette, April 7, "must hate, detest, abhor, and execrate the base, violent, and perfidious nation whose projects they develop. So shall the name of Frenchmen become a bye-word, a reproach and a curse." If there had been antagonism in previous years to individuals who comprised the party favoring the French cause, it was now greatly intensified. The French partisans were composed, wrote Cobbett, first, of "the desperate, devoted, hired agents of France who have been and yet are the leaders of the faction; second, the perverse and obstinate men who, having contracted an unreasonable hatred of Great Britain, have been attached to France merely because she is the mortal enemy of the object of their hatred; third, the sans-culottes, the poor, ignorant ragamuffins who hang idling about the great towns and who are in great part composed of foreigners. . . . The leaders are still the same scoundrels they were, a month ago, and have the same objects in view, which are to destroy the Federal Government, facilitate the introduction of the French, and share in the power and the spoils." The Federalist editors did not confine themselves to attacks on the French in this country but filled their columns with denunciation of men who had fled here during the Irish rebellion. Cobbett published long articles and speeches to prove that the members of the Society of United Irishmen were agents of France — "desperate villains, wretched runaways from Great Britain and Ireland, hanging to the French faction," conspiring with the French for the destruction of the United States Government, and even plotting to set fire to the City of Philadelphia on May 9, the day which Presi-

THE GREAT TUB PLOT

IO5

dent Adams had designated for a National Fast Day. "All sorts of artifices have been descended to, to agitate the popular mind," wrote Jefferson to Madison, May 17. "The President received three anonymous letters (probably written by some of the war-men) announcing plots to burn the city on Fast Day. He thought them worth being known, and great preparations were proposed by way of caution. . . . Many weak people packed their most valuable movables to be ready for transportation. However, the day passed without justifying the alarms." There was never the slightest evidence to warrant these fears; but the Federalists had worked themselves into such a state of mind that they needed no evidence to persuade them that all foreigners were a source of danger and must be deported. Their exaggerated estimate of the numbers and dangerous character of these foreigners was summed up by a Federalist historian, who estimated that there were 30,000 Frenchmen here, all entirely devoted to the interests of France; that the number of British-born subjects was still greater, many of whom were fugitives from justice for political or other offenses, and possessed with deep hostility to their own country; that great numbers of Irishmen had ñed here in 1795 and later, all organized, as were numerous German emigrants. "The whole of this multitude of foreigners were attached to France from various motives and were the active instruments of her machinations. Their numbers, their factiousness, and the perfect state of their organization, rendered them most justly a subject of general alarm among all classes of Americans who were not themselves regardless of the peace and welfare of their country."(3) Because of these alleged conditions, two bills were brought forward in Congress early in 1798. In the debates over one of these, a bill to restrict naturalization, alarm over the presence of aliens was expressed by John Rutledge of South

I об

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Carolina, who advocated the removal of "intriguing agents and spies who are now spread all over the country"; and by Samuel Sitgreaves of Pennsylvania, who said that we "must destroy the cankerworm which is corroding in the heart of the country. It is well understood by every member of the community — there is no occasion for specific proof — that there are a great number of aliens in this country, French emissaries among us who have not only fomented our differences with that country but who have endeavored to create divisions among our own aliens. They are assiduously employed at this moment." Following this debate, a bill passed the Senate early in June authorizing the President to order "all such aliens as he shall deem dangerous to the United States to depart" under penalty of three years' imprisonment and deprivation of the privilege of becoming a citizen. In the House, this bill eventually was divided into two separate bills, one providing for removal of aliens deemed "injurious to the public peace," the other providing for deportation or internment of enemy aliens. (4) But while the Federalists were filled with alarms about the dangerous activities of French conspirators in this country, they had produced no definite evidence of the existence of any such conspiracy. Just as the debate on the Alien Bill was beginning in the House, however, the vituperative editor of the Antifederalist Aurora, Benjamin Franklin Bache, seemed to afford them grounds for their belief in a French plot in which Bache was implicated. For, on June 16, 1798, the editor published the contents of a letter written by Talleyrand on March 18, 1797, to the American diplomats in Paris; and he stated that he had good reason to believe that the Administration had possessed it for more than a week and had kept it secret. For this publication Bache was denounced in Congress by George Thacher, a Representative from Massachusetts, as an agent of the French Directorate and in direct correspondence with it. Bache retorted by stating:

T H E GREAT T U B

PLOT

107

"This attack is base calumny and false. W e dare him to the scrutiny and shall not cease to call on him for the evidence which he is in possession of"; and he denied receiving the copy of the letter from any French official. On June 18, Bache was made the object of violent attack by William Cobbett, his equal in the art of vilification, as "the hireling Bache, organ of the diplomatic skill of France." "Ought such a wretch to be tolerated at this time?" he asked. And on June 19, Cobbett wrote: "I have long said (and I have been joined by the public voice) that the infamous Lightening Rod, Jr., was a hireling of and in correspondence with the Despots of France, The fact is now proven beyond all contradiction." The alleged proof was a statement from a certain John Kidder to the effect that he had brought over from France and left in the post office certain letters or packages addressed to Bache, James Monroe, Genet, and others from the French Foreign Office. While he produced no evidence as to the contents of these letters or of their receipt by Bache, Cobbett continued: Thus is the traitor caught at last. This discovery accounts for all the villain's conduct and for the continual connection that has been kept up with him by many persons in this country. Jefferson was seen going into his house the very day that the X . Y . Z. despatches appeared. Bache was the other day seen in company with Yrujo the Spaniard, Callot the French General, and T . S. Mason, a Senator from Virginia, and his connection with Dr. Logan and Reynolds, the chief of the United Irishmen, is notorious. . . . There is a faction devoted to the enemy, a faction that keeps up a regular correspondence with them and that are preparing the way for the subjugation of these injured and insulted States. . . . I believe there are thousands of villains already enrolled in the service by France. These emissaries have been at work. The instant all is ready, the defection will appear in different parts of the country and at one and the same time. . . . The French faction must be crushed or the Government here must fall.

Concluding, Cobbett denounced the Congress for failing to act:

Io8

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

With all this before their eyes, the House of Representatives sit debating, hesitating, shilly-shallying, whipping the devil round the post, and no energetic measure is adopted . . . by which traitors can, in the eye of the law, be found guilty and punished. Dreadful, awful state! If ever a people on earth were dancing on the edge of a precipice at this moment!

The Federalist Columbian Centinel in Boston regarded Bache's publication with equal alarm: "If the eyes of the American people are not now opened, they merit eternal blindness. Bache stands charged with being one of those hireling agents of France. . . . Probe every conspiracy to the bottom." At the same time, Federalist editors had another nightmare over the departure for France of a harmless Philadelphia physician, Dr. George Logan, who bore with him letters from Jefferson, Chief Justice McKean, and others. "Dr. Logan is just departed for France," wrote Cobbett, June i8: Recollect his connections, recollect that seditious envoys from all the Republics that France has subjugated first went to Paris and concerted measures with the despots; recollect the situation of this country at this moment, and tremble for its fate! The whole of this business is not yet come to light, yet we shall soon know it. In the meantime, watch Philadelphia, or the fire is in your houses and the couteau at your throats. A watch should be mounted every night in this city. Take care; when your blood runs down the gutters, don't say you were not forwarned of the danger.

It might be supposed that such extravagance would have given rise to ridicule rather than to alarm. But the contrary was the case. Robert G. Harper, Federalist Congressman from South Carolina, accepted these articles as proof of a serious French plot, and on June i8, made in the House a definite charge of the existence of a conspiracy between Americans and Frenchmen in this country and the Directory in France. As to this speech of Harper, Jefferson wrote to Madison, June 21:

THE GREAT TUB PLOT

IO9

Dr. Logan, about a fortnight ago, sailed for Hamburg. Tho for a twelve month he had been intending to go to Europe as soon as he could get the money enough to carry him there, yet when he had accomplished this and fixed a time for going, he very unwisely made a mystery of it; so that his disappearance without notice excited conversation. This was seized by the war-hawks and given out as a secret mission from the Jacobins here to solicit an army from France, instruct them as to their landing, etc. This extravagance produced a real panic among the citizens; and happening just when Bache published Talleyrand's letter. Harper on the i8th gravely announced to the H. of R. that there existed a traitorous correspondence between the Jacobins here and the French Directory; that he had got hold of some threads and clues of it and would soon be able to develop the whole. This increased the alarm; their libelists immediately set to work directly and indirectly to implicate whom they pleased. Porcupine gave me a principal share in it, as I am told, for I never read his paper. . . . Their system is, professedly, to keep up an alarm. Tracy, at the meeting of the joint committee for adjournment, declared it necessary for Congress to stay together to keep up the inflammation of the public mind; and Otis expressed a similar sentiment since. Such was the situation in Philadelphia and in the Federalist press when the Alien Bill came on for debate in the House on J u n e 19. Harrison G r a y Otis of Massachusetts, James A. Bayard of Delaware, and Harper were its most violent advocates, while Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania, E d w a r d Livmgston of N e w York, Robert Williams of South Carolina, and Abraham Baldwin of Georgia were equally heated in opposing the measures, both on the ground of unconstitutionality and of lack of any basis in fact. N o measure was ever discussed under more conditions of scare and panic and with less support f r o m definite facts, and no one indulged in more extreme and unjustified language than Otis. "If w e find men in this country," said he, "endeavoring to spread sedition and discord, who have assisted in laying their countries prostrate, whose hands are reeking with blood and whose hearts rankle with hatred towards us — have we not the power to shake off these firebrands?" H e asserted

n o

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

that the governments of Holland and Switzerland had been overthrown recently by the "dark manoeuvres" and the "industry and arts of the French apostles of sedition." It was well known to every Congressman, he went on, "that a Frenchman of a literary and intriguing character, who was formerly a member of the Club Breton and was doubtless in the confidence of the Directory, who had for a long time sojourned in Pennsylvania, who had explored the Indian country and travelled through other States, has lately taken flight." This was a reference to the harmless historian and scientist Volney. And he continued: "It is also well known that a citizen of Pennsylvania conspicuous for his attachment to the French has followed him." This was a reference to the harmless Dr. George Logan of Philadelphia. "It has also been lately discovered that another Frenchman who resides at New York, and who is naturalized, is in the constant habit of corresponding with the Directory — a man who, though holding no known agency under them at present, has heretofore agitated the Continent by his intrigues and may be looked on as in their employ." (This referred to Edmund Genet, whom Porcupine's Gazette had just called "the real French Minister here. Though he sells pigs and chickens on Long Island, he receives dispatches from the Tyrants of France.") "And the same kind of correspondence is traced up to our own citizens. . . . The times are full of danger and it will be the height of madness not to take every precaution in our power." To arguments of unconstitutionality, Otis replied that it was absurd to suppose that Congress had not the power "to restrain and banish persons who may have been sent into this country, for the very purpose of spreading sedition and of dividing the people, whose intrigues and malpractices threaten the welfare and the very existence of the Government. . . . The power of sending off this description of persons is essential. . . . In the fate of the European Re-

THE GREAT TUB PLOT

III

publics, we may read our own, unless all the prudence and energies of our country are summoned to avert it. . . . T h e y boasted of their patriotism and courage — they talked loudly of defence and of resisting the invader and of their attachment to their Government, yet when the hour of trial arrived it appeared that secret corruption and foreign influence had completed the work; upon the slightest shocks those Republics crumbled into fragments, and the good and honest citizens were left to stare with stupid wonder at the ease with which foreign agents and domestic traitors vaulted into place and power." Thus Otis conjured up a horrible fate for the United States, if Frenchmen were allowed to remain here; but it was noted that he could cite only two native Frenchmen whose activities he even suspected. Harper followed with a speech repeating his charge of the existence of a dangerous "plot." Gallatin asked him to bring forward facts and stated that "until he can do so, it is extremely indecent and improper to throw out insinuations." T o this Harper replied that he wished he were able to lay a resolution on the table on the subject; but though he was not able to do this, "yet the ramification of that plot is so visible that I should deem myself the worst of traitors and assassins to my country if I did not resist these attempts which are made to bind us hand and foot until our enemy comes upon us." This bill was desperately fought, he said, and attempts were made to excite prejudices against it "because it puts a hook into the noses of persons who are leagued with the enemies of this country. . . . It is well known, however, that those European nations which have escaped being overcome by the domineering spirit of France owe their safety to a bill like this; and unless we follow their example and crush the viper in our breast, we shall not escape the scourge which awaits." T o this indefinite talk of a "plot" and its "ramifications" and of the fate of foreign republics, Livingston, on June 21,

11 2

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

made an able and elaborate reply. "We must legislate on facts, not on surmises or vague suspicions," he said. The advocates of the bill, he pointed out, "cannot even show a suspicion why aliens should be suspected." (The proFrench paper, the Aurora, had said, June 14, that "sentiments like these involuntarily call to mind the despotism of Robespierre's time when persons were punished because they were suspected of being suspicious.") Switzerland and Holland had been overcome, said Livingston, not by conspiracies of aliens who resided among them, but by divided domestic factions and by foreign arms. In this country, no alien plots have yet been detected or are even reasonably suspected, nor has Harper yet told us where the monster lives. "No evidence being produced, we have a right to say that none exists; and we are about to sanction legislation, on the sole ground of our individual suspicions, our private fears, our over-heated imaginations." And he added: "So far as my observation goes, I have seen nothing like the state of affairs contemplated by this bill. I have seen either triumphant Englishmen or Frenchmen with dejection in their countenance and grief at their hearts preparing to quit the country and seek another asylum." And he uttered a very pertinent warning lest "we excite a fervor against foreign aggression only to establish tyranny at home, lest we be absurd enough to call ourselves free and enlightened while we advocate principles that would have disgraced the age of 'Gothic barbarity.' " Joseph McDowell of North Carolina also expressed the hope that Harper and Thacher would trace and probe to the bottom these "secret plots and conspiracies" of which they had spoken. He also hoped that Thacher would produce the facts, if any, as to the "French press here and the dangerous correspondence carried on between citizens of this country and of France." He believed, for himself, that the whole was "founded in that spirit of alarm which had been

THE GREAT TUB PLOT

II3

SO long kept up and that the story was trumped up for the purpose of assisting the passage of this bill."

Samuel Smith of Maryland deplored our proposed imitation of the worst form of English legislation. "Let any man look into the Annual Register of Great Britain and notice the proceedings of that country at the commencement of the French Revolution, and he will be astonished to see the similarity of our measures to those taken in that country at that period. Every day some new alarm was created, and by degrees the country was involved in war. . . . This law will fall upon German, English and Irish emigrants, as well as French, and shall we suspect these persons who have come here with a view of becoming citizens of the United States. . . . Shall they be sent out of the country, on the information of any evil disposed person, though they may have been in this country for four years past?" Great difficulty was encountered in answering these charges that proponents of the bill were unable to cite any facts as to specific dangerous aliens or alien conspiracies. Otis rather weakly said that he had never understood "that it was necessary to examine witnesses in the ordinary course of legislation, and the gentlemen should recollect that in these cases the full evidence does not appear until the explosion; the proof consists in the catastrophe, and when the enemy is in possession of the citadel, it is too late to enquire by what means the mine was sprung." But, said he, if they wanted evidence they should look at Volney's book entitled Ruins of Empire. They should recollect "the literati and journalists, the agents official and unofficial that have been in this country." (This has a very modem sound.) (5) Otis then proceeded to cite as one of the dangers Talleyrand, who had been in this country from 1793 to 1795 but who had been three years out of it. "Who is the present Minister of Foreign Affairs in France? Has he not made the tour of the Continent? Has he not been naturalized under

114

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

our laws, received, cherished, and domesticated in our families? Have not the French heretofore pushed their intrigues into some of the first offices of our Government? Do not our bad citizens correspond with the agents of the Directory, and does not that Directory boast of its diplomatic means and of course calculate on individuals here to give efficiency to those means? Are not, in short, the victories of France, her influence and facility in revolution-making to be imputed to the system of espionage which she has so well digested more than to any other cause?" It was a decidedly weak argument for a bill authorizing removal of alien French to cite the instance of a Frenchman naturalized here and his influence on American citizens here. And Harper did not strengthen the cause of the ЬШ by merely repeating his indefinite statements as to his belief in the existence of a "domestic conspiracy — a faction leagued with a foreign power to effect a revolution or a subjugation of this country by the arms of that foreign power." "Facts have lately occurred," said he, "which I trust will furnish a clue by which the whole may be developed. These facts have given me certain threads which I shall pursue with the hope of their leading me to some certain conclusion. . . . I must hope that for the good of my country, it may be developed and that the projectors and those concerned in it may be brought to punishment." Gallatin closed the attack on the obnoxious bill by saying that "gentlemen tell us" that "great danger exists and that there is in existence a conspiracy which, if not suppressed, will overturn the Government and involve this country in ruins and submission to a foreign yoke. We must believe that these are their sentiments and that they entertain this alarming opinion." So far, however, as he could leam, their fears were based solely on what had taken place in other countries rather than on any existing danger in our own. It was not enough to say that because events had happened

THE GREAT TUB

PLOT

II5

in Holland and Switzerland they would take place here. The revolutions in those countries were not produced by aliens residing therein but by their own citizens and an invading enemy. It is evident, therefore, he concluded, that gentlemen have "either suffered themselves to be led away by imaginary fears or wished to improve the temporary alarm they had themselves created for the purpose of executing arbitrary powers over a few obnoxious persons." And he uttered the warning that it should be remembered that this alien biU was avowedly to be followed by a strong sedition bill. This prophecy was accurate. The Alien Bill was enacted on June 25, 1798; the Alien Enemy Bill on July 6, 1798; and the Sedition Bill on July 14, 1798. On the very day when the Alien Bill was signed, the famous "plot" and the "clues" which Harper had promised to pursue were definitely exploded, when Bache in the Aurora published, under the heading of "The Plot Unravelled," the facts as to the alleged treasonable letters or packages sent to him by the French Directorate. It then appeared that these missives deposited in the post office in New York — but never received by him or by Monroe and others — had been opened by members of the Administration, and their contents had been found to consist of entirely harmless pamphlets dealing with affairs in England, written by Pichón of the French Foreign Office but having no connection with the relations between France and the United States. Even the Federal officials were satisfied as to the complete disproof of the charges which had been made by Cobbett, Thacher, and others against Bache in this respect; and Bache wrote, editorially: T h e Editor thinks that he has a just claim on George Thacher and Robert G . Harper to declare whether the ideas respecting him to which they gave body in the debates of last week are not dispelled by the proof in this day's paper. If they have a sense of honor left, they will feel that it cannot be below their dignity to do justice to

116

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N HISTORY

injured innocence, and their silence, while it deprives the Editor of plenary justice, can only disgrace themselves.

He called on the Federalist newspapers to publish this disproof. He was, however, disappointed; for neither the Congressmen nor the newspapers ever retracted their false charges, and Harper never explained his "plot" or its "clues." Less than a year later Gallatin, arguing in the House on February 25, 1799, for the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Laws, pointed out that no Frenchman had ever been deported under the Alien Law and that hence there was no necessity for its continuance on the statute books. "It is preposterous to say that the necessity of a general removal of alien friends flows from the apprehension of an invasion. . . . Do we not know that, notwithstanding all the claims of last summer and notwithstanding the two laws passed on that subject, not a single French citizen has been removed?" He rejected the whole theory on which the bill was based, namely that by legislation we must save the United States from the spread from Europe of a new social order. " W e are told," he said, "of a system which convulses the civilized world and has shaken the fabric of society, of an unprecedented combination to establish new principles of social action, of the subversion of religion, morality, law and Government. If these are the dangers which threaten us, and if Congress think themselves vested with all the powers which they think expedient to repel them, I wish to know to what extent Congress may not legislate and by what possible limitation they can be restrained in their assumption of power? There is not a man of common understanding and common information in this nation who, unless he is under the influence of the illusions of the new anti-republican fanaticism or blinded by party spirit, does not know that these pretended dangers are, in America, the visionary phantom of a disordered imagination — additional proof, that, under pretense of prosecuting imaginary evüs, an attempt is

T H E GREAT T U B P L O T

II7

being made to establish the omnipotence of Congress and substantial despotism in the ruins of our Constitution." These words of warning could well be applied in later periods of our history and to later fears of danger to our country from other European principles of government and attempts to prevent by legislation their establishment here. In spite of the fact that no Frenchman in this country had been deemed to be suiEciently dangerous to be deported, the Federalist mind continued to be haunted by fear of French plots. Congressmen had constant nightmares over the presence of French spies. Federalist newspapers saw in every editor or public man who opposed them, agents of the French Directorate. The simplest of occurrences were inflated into French conspiracies. Of all of these bogies, the most curious and the most incredible was "The Great Tub Plot" or "The N e w Tale of a Tub," which excited the United States in the spring of the year 1799. This strange story first appeared in the Charleston City Gazette on February 22, as follows: The collector of this port having received information from the federal government that several persons were about to embark at Hamburgh in a vessel bound to this port, vichóse views it was said were hostile to this country, he for some time past has given orders for all persons coming from Hamburgh to be strictly examined. Yesterday on the arrival of the brig Minerva, it was found that there were five passengers on board of her who it was probable were those designated by the government; they, being two white Frenchmen, two men of color, and a woman, were arrested; on examining their baggage there were a number of letters found concealed in two tubs which had false bottoms. As no authentic account of the contents of these letters has been made public we are not able to say what the views of these people were: should they be, as has been reported, of a hostile nature, we will take the earliest opportunity of laying before the public whatever the constituted authorities may deem proper for publication. The four men and the woman were yesterday lodged for safe keeping in Fort Pinckney; the two men of color were put in irons. T h e y were put in separate apartments. One of the men, we

118

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

are informed, is a Mr. Saloman or Salmon, member of the late Convention in France. This article was republished on March 4, under the scare headline "Alarming Intelligence" in the Neiv York Commercial Advertiser, edited b y the ardent Federalist, Noah Webster, and was copied in the leading Federalist papers throughout the country. (6) About the same time, the papers published a letter from a gentleman in Charleston to his friend in Richmond, dated February 22, giving a more detailed account of the episode: Sir, as a true friend of the land I live in and a firm supporter of its government, I hasten to communicate what I conceive important to both, and which ought to be made known to the people of America at large in the most early way, but particularly to those of the Southern States against whom in its first operation I fear the mischief was particularly leveled. Proofs of the insidious and malignancy of the French government against the United States, their fraudulent arts, their baseness to Americans have been in a succession of development, for a considerable time back, but I will now give you a truer "Tale of Tubs" than ever was penned by Swift. The Secretary of the United States (Pickering) about five weeks since, wrote confidentially to our Governor (Rutledge) and Collector (Major Simons) that the President of the United States had received well-founded information that four emissaries, giving their names, and describing their persons, agents of the French Directory, were to embark from Hamburgh for this port, with hostile and insurrectional instructions — that their despatches and papers of consequence would be found concealed in two false-bottomed tubs in the cabin. Vigilance has consequently been used, and yesterday arrived in this port from Hamburgh, the brig Minerva, Capt. Cramp, out 119 days; the boarding officer (William Crafts) was aware of her early — early on board too; he found four men passengers, three of whom were of color, the fourth said to be of the name of Salmon or Salomon and a member of the late National French Convention. A woman passenger is said to be also implicated in the conspiracy. Their names etc. agreeing with Mr. Pickering's description, they were seized, searched, the tubs discovered, broke up, and the papers accordingly found; they were in French and, the Governor being from town, lodged with General Pinckney. What part of these the constituted authorities may judge expedient to make

T H E GREAT T U B P L O T

IIÇ

known, cannot yet be learned. T h e persons are all confined in Fort Pinckney; those of color in irons —their surprise, horror and terror in being thus discovered is said to have shook and agitated their frames in a very uncommon degree.

It is to be noted that though the newspaper and the letter were dated the same day, they differed as to whether two white men or only one was involved. A New York paper stated that a letter had been received from a Federalist official in Philadelphia stating that "on receipt of the news an express was sent to Charleston by order of the Government, requiring those sons of darkness, those tools of the great and incomprehensible Beast to repair to Philadelphia in order that they might receive the just reward of their works." The editorials of the Federalist press at once expressed great alarm over this "diabolical plot," as they termed it. A New York paper said: T h e news from Charleston is of such an extraordinary complexion that we know not what to think of it. It is related in a manner that gives it a claim to confidence; but nevertheless such infamy appears almost incredible. It is, however, much in character with many of the infernal plans of the modem French rulers. A proceeding so perfectly diabolical cannot fail to excite the keenest resentment in every mind not fitted for the like enormities.

A Richmond paper wrote as to the letter from Charleston: After reading the above, is there a man who loves his country that will not join in extolling the wisdom of Congress for passing the law concerning Aliens? Let us waive, for a moment, the contested point of constitutionality and see whether the crisis does not justify the doctrine of expediency? Does not the general safety require every effort consistent with good policy to prevent the growth of foreign intrigue, and thus to save our country from the horrors of civil war? And what, fellow citizens of the South, may we not suppose to have been the project of these agents of the Directory? Let the fate of San Domingo serve as the answer. Whilst Talleyrand pretends then to hold out the olive branch to the North, the Directory are distributing

I20

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

daggers in the South! And yet we are told that Alien Law which is to prevent the effects of these diabolical schemes ought never to have been passed! It is time the people had awoke from that state of lethargy with respect to foreign enemies into which they have been lulled by the deluding enemies of our present wise system of government and administration. (7)

Another paper said: Americans rally round your Government. Look on Frenchmen with the eyes of suspicion and prepare to meet them as enemies, with a sword. And beware of French Emissaries. . . . Proofs of the necessity of this caution have succeeded each other every day; but they are now so plain that they must convict the minds of all but such as deserve transportation to France or the gallows.

On the Other hand, the Antifederalists and pro-French papers treated the affair with ridicule. The Aurora in Philadelphia, under the heading "Tubs to Catch Whales," published the story in full but with additional elaborated details as to "the horrors of guilt depicted strongly on the countenance of the guilty wretches whose bodies shook with fear and trembling. There was a design to have thrown them (the tubs) overboard from the cabin window, but it was prevented by the expedition of the gentleman who undertook the mission. . . . The woman who was taken up and who was evidently concerned in the conspiracy endeavored to take care of the tubs under her arm." As to this story, "remarkable more for its oddity and the inadequacy of the agents as means to produce any but useless alarming ends," the Aurora said editorially: Ingenuity may exert itself in vain to arrive at a certain discovery of the nature of the latter circumstances without some particulars more rational, more plausible than that we are here told. Taking it for granted that Mr. Pickering had written to Governor Rutledge as stated, we must conclude that Col. Pickering either knew the facts would take place from previous dispositions made or from some persons concerned in making them. W e will not suppose that our Government has yet arrived at that state of refinement to maintain spies

THE GREAT TUB PLOT

121

in the principal cities of Europe; neither can we suppose that the French Government would communicate the news of the Tubs to Mr. Pickering out of pure love. W e shall consider the supposed object and the means, the first from what other source could Mr. Pickering have obtained the information? Either from some American who was at Hamburg or from some British agent there. Everyone knows that Hamburg is the focus of continental intrigues. Perhaps Gouverneur Morris might have some knowledge of the transaction, he left Hamburg some time in September or October. . . . It may very well be that the ingenuity of such men as Mr. Crawford, the British agent at Hamburg, and Mr. Liston, the English agent at Philadelphia, out of their indefatigable care and anxiety for the honor and dignity as well as the safety of America had contrived this matter . . . to alarm Congress at a critical period. . . . By some of these modes undoubtedly, this conspiracy of three mulattoes, one white man and a lady . . . were charged with dispatches. Good! To whom? Time alone can develop this new mystery. But upon the face of it, there are lineaments of absurdity too preposterous to meet credibility. What object could the French Directory have in sending such persons with despatches to Charleston? Were these persons competent to the destruction of our peace, our laws and government? No, say some unfledged Quidnunc, but they had two tubs full of Jacobin papers among them written in such a style as must have deprived the Carolinians of their senses and set them to loggerheads.

Another Antifederalist paper, the Albany Argus, said editorially, under the heading "The Old Woman and The Tubs": The laughable tale of the Tubs is at least a substitution for the false alarms hitherto sounded by Messrs. Harper & Co., whose repeated faux pas have so wearied out the credulity of the public that the discovery of something like a real "clue to a conspiracy" was absolutely necessary to revive the sinking credit of the party. Whether they have actually unravelled a plot, we shall be able to judge when the promised season for the development arrives. It is difEcult to conceive that the French Directory, whatever may be their designs, could have adopted means apparently so ill concerted for effecting an msurrection in part of this country; and as we presume our Government have no secret service money to distribute among foreign spies and agents, and are besides too moral and religious to make use of such means, we find it equally difficult to conceive in what manner

I 22

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

they became possessed of so particular an account of the whole plot. . . . Certainly we may be excused for laughing at this modem Tale of the Tubs. That one white person, three mulattoes and a woman (we hope not the Dulcinea that intrigued with General Pinckney) are selected by the Directory for effecting something hostile to the peace and welfare of the United States, has the appearance of a farce to which nothing could so well serve for prelude as the pantomime use of X Y Z. The "false-bottomed Tubs" comport so iUy to the skill diplomatique universally ascribed to the Directory that we are very seriously inclined to conclude the whole story to be founded on a false bottom. But if we should find ourselves mistaken, and it should prove to be the intention of the Directory to stir up the southern blacks, we have the consolation that the vigilance of Administration which enabled them to discover the conspiracy in embryo will, of course, frustrate designs so diabolical. Whether the contents of the false-bottomed Tubs have leaked out or whether they are of such a nature as to require the utmost secrecy on the part of the marplots are questions about which we hope not to be kept long in suspence. T h e Independent Chronicle in Boston said: "England is now reduced to a forlorn hope. America is their only resource, and in their present extremities w e shall hear of plots. Tales of the T u b , Conspiracies, etc., with innumerable plans to deceive the citizens, in order to bring us if possible to assist England in her last agonies." B y March II, 1799, the story had grown as it spread, and the plot was now alleged to involve a negro insurrection. A N e w Y o r k paper said, March 12: Capt. Smith of the Sloop Nancy, arrived in 8 days from Charleston, informs that the persons who had been arrested by order of Government were still in confinement, and, as he understood, in irons. A guard is kept on board the vessel which brought them from Hamburgh. It was generally supposed that the object of the prisoner was to encourage an insurrection, in which plot several people in Charleston were reported to be concerned. Captain S. was informed that a hollow rolling-pin or something similar had been found in one of the trunks containing papers writ in cypher. W e are authorized to say, by a gentleman who arrived on Sunday last from Philadelphia, and who had some conversation from the Secretary of State, that the

THE GREAT TUB

PLOT

123

account published on the 3d instant by an extra sheet from this office extracted from a Charleston paper . . . was correct, excepting that in the communication from the Secretary to the Government was not stated "that those people were agents of the Directory." (8)

According to the New York Commercial Advertiser, Captain Smith stated that "those infamous incendiaries who were sent on the business of exciting a revolt among the negroes in the Southern States and who by the vigilance of an Executive were happily detected are still confined in the Fort with the additional security of being in irons. . . . We may, therefore," it added, "place confidence in the statement copied from the Charleston paper." A week later the story had again expanded; and on March 19, a paper in Salem, Massachusetts, announced that "a vessel arrived at Beverly yesterday in 11 days from Charleston. By her, we learn that the Tub prisoners were stiH in confinement at Fort Pinckney . . . and that it had transpired that part of the diabolical plan was to set fire to Charleston." And the Columbian Centinel in Boston said that the plot "is confirmed from all quarters. The conflagration of the City of Charleston and insurrection of the negroes of the South are two of the items of the campaign. The early discovery of the plot establishes the pre-eminent vigilance of the Executive; and it is wholly owing to the false delicacy of the paragraphists of Charleston, who first narrated the event, that a ridiculous levity had been attached to a very serious affair. Instead of tubs, the utensils in which the papers were cunningly concealed were those of a Goddess— to whom the French pay their devoirs with an unrivalled nonchalance. The account first given of this affair in the Centinel was correct, except that the intimation of the Secretary of State to the Governor of South Carolina did not state the conspirators to be agents of the French Directory." A letter from Charleston appeared also in some of the

124

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Northern newspapers, in which fears were expressed that the "alarming business" was to be consummated b y emigrants from San Domingo as follows: Two packages covered with oilcloth and directed to this city and Wilmington in N. Carolina are under the examination of the Governor and General Pinckney who will send an official account of this providential discovery to the Secretary of State and our delegation by this day's post. The emigrants from S. Domingo were much depended on, it seems, for the execution of the diabolical projects of firing our city and attempting an insurrection. From the last we have nothing to apprehend, being quite a community of soldiers. . . . But it is difficult to devise preventative measures against the plots of incendiaries; and if it had not been for the vigilance of our Administration, my last letter to you might have been the last you would have received of mine — ere this, our throats might have been cut; carnage and devastation roaming thro our land and our fair city one pile of ruins. (9) The Antifederalist papers, however, with much reason continued to scoff at the whole affair. In particular, they had sport with General Pinckney; and since one of the French prisoners was a woman, they pretended to believe that she was the same Madame de Villette who had visited Pinckney in Paris, posing as an agent of Talleyrand. W r o t e the Albany Argus, rather scurrilously: As General Pinckney detailed the former conversation he had with his political lady in Paris, we hope he will gratify the curiosity of the public in narrating the several dialogues which may have taken place at their tête à têtes in Charleston. W e are anxious to know whether he persists in refusing to give any money to the fair one and her friends, after having pursued her with her brother from Paris to Hamburgh and from thence to South Carolina. Great must be the fortitude of the Nymph in attempting so long a voyage in such a tempestuous winter and we hope she has not been disappointed. And the Aurora, on March 21, said: The Tory Gazette (of the United States) announces that General Pinckney has let the Lady of the Tubs escape. W e know not whether the amiable fair one has sufficient chance to retain the affection of

THE GREAT TUB PLOT

125

the celebrated diplomat; we suppose that the General's taste is in favor of the ladies of his own colour and permitted the two gentlemen who arrived with her to continue their attendance on the discarded favorite.

After all this excitement over this "serious" and "diabolical" plot, the real facts became known in about three weeks after the original publication in the Northern newspapers. And what were the facts? It appeared that there were no papers of hostile purport or "of considerable importance"; there were no cipher documents in trunks; there were no agents of the French Directorate; there was no project for a negro insurrection or for a conflagration of Charleston. In fact, there was no plot at all; and the Secretary of State's much extolled vigilance had resulted only in the arrest of four inconspicuous, harmless French passengers. When the later copies of the Charleston City Gazette arrived in N e w York by vessel, they brought the news that the Frenchmen had been released from confinement after four days, their baggage had been restored to them, and on March 17, they had sailed for Guadelupe on the French cartel brig Romain. "From the circumstance of their being released in this manner," it was stated, "it is probable that the papers which were found concealed in their possession did not contain anything of a nature hostile to this country." (10) And on March 25, information brought by the schooner Hiram, seven days from Charleston, caused the Federalist N e w York papers to announce briefly and inconspicuously that the prisoners had been released and "on examination, the letters so nicely concealed in double-bottomed tubs only related to commercial affairs. Thus ends the late magnified Tale of the Tubs." Considering the provocation to exult over the complete explosion of the story, the Antifederalist papers conducted themselves with considerable restraint. "The labouring tales of the French plot discovered in a Tub have proved abor-

120

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

tive," said the Independent Chronicle. And, referring to the violent sermons of a Federalist preacher in Massachusetts, it said: "It is known that the Tale of the Tubs was only a trick of the Tories to delude honest Americans. Solemn thanks was returned in the Andover Meeting House for the wonderful discovery of a French plot. Alas! that the House of God should be so often turned into a theatre of party politics. . . . The Christian Shepherd who alarmed his flock . . . would do well to ask pardon of his audience for giving them so much uneasiness." ( 11 ) Again, " A Cypher Plot is now on the anvil equally as laughable as The Lady and the Contents of Tubs though it may not smell so strong of a fundamental insurrection." The Aurora treated the release of the French lady passenger as a mere matter of social intrigue and wrote cryptically: "The Tubs are no longer a butt for the whale catchers. The diplomatic lady may perhaps make some noise on the subject shortly and perhaps introduce a new character on the tapis." And again: "A letter from Charleston says the Adventure of the Tubs is now, more than before, the subject of conversation. At first the gravity of the affair lengthened every visage; but now faces of all assume a broader aspect. . . . The poor lady expressed serious apprehensions on account of her situation and her friend threatened to publish all, in consequence of which and to prevent blabbing, they have all been forced to embark for Guadelupe. She is promised to be provided for." To conclude this Federalist tempest in a teapot, an interesting commentary on the journalistic standards of the day is afforded by the fact that no Federalist newspaper ever acknowledged the truth about the non-existence of the alleged plot.

^

VR

^

How Jefferson's Death was Reported in the Campaign of 1800 'O other Presidential campaign in American history ever brought forth such vicious and scurrilous personal attacks upon a candidate as that of the year 1800. Jefferson was assailed as an atheist, a revolutionist, a Jacobin, an embezzler, and a progenitor of negro children. Most of this dirty campaign originated in the Federalist newspapers in Massachusetts and in New York, and especially in the Connecticut pulpits.(i) To realize the extravagance of the charges against Jefferson, one should read a series of letters signed "Burleigh" in the New York Commercial Advertiser, and reproduced widely in Federalist journals.(2) The writer opened his assault by asserting that "Mr. Jefferson has long felt a spirit of deadly hostility against the Federal Constitution and in conjunction with his party has steadily plotted its destruction." Again he charged that Jefferson and his leading followers were planning to flood the country with every "seditious, slanderous, demoralizing, atheistical publication which the industry and wickedness of Jacobins could collect . . . to disseminate falsehood, sedition and atheism free of expence into all parts of the country and thus poison the minds and destroy the morals of the people and spread the seeds of confusion, anarchy and slavery throughout the

N

128

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

United States." The prediction of "grass growing in the streets" is nothing new in a political campaign, for "Burleigh" predicted that "if Mr. Jefferson is President, the navy is to be laid up, the ships are to rot at our wharves, our commerce is again to be plundered, our farmers are to be impoverished, and our merchants ruined." Moreover, his election would mean war — "war with all its horrors with Great Britain — fraternization, with its tenfold horrors, with France." In the last of the series of "Burleigh's" letters, October 9, 1800, a culmination of disaster was foretold: If he is elected President, the Constitution will fall a sacrifice to Jacobinism and the results of the destruction will be dreadful to the State. . . . With a bold and undaunted front, the leaders in this conspiracy proclaim the downfall of the Government in the streets; while the peaceful and unsuspecting citizens are summoned to the nocturnal orgies of the pestilential band to listen to the promulgation of sentiments, bold, base, and blasphemous, calculated only to infect, corrupt, and poison all the blessings and virtues of man. These sentiments . . . are leveled with a sure and deadly aim at the life of society. T h e y will enter your dwellings, deprave the minds of children, estrange the affections of parents, and pollute the bosoms of husbands and wives. . . . Do you believe in the strangest of all paradoxes—that a spendthrift, a libertine, or an atheist is qualified to make your laws and govern you and your posterity?

Moreover, "the stigma of infidelity is upon Mr. Jefferson, the idol of the Jacobin party. . . . Is there a Christian in the United States hardy enough to lift his hand for the election of such a man to preside over a Christian country?" Such being the Federalist attitude towards Jefferson as a candidate for President, it is not surprising that a false report of his death in the early days of the campaign apparently elicited from Federalist newspapers no expressions of sorrow. The episode is a curious one and throws light on the ease with which rumors could spread far before the

JEFFERSON'S DEATH F A L S E L Y REPORTED

129

truth could become known in that era of slow transmission of news. On Monday, June 30, 1800, the Baltimore American ( J e f fersonian in its policy) carried the following item: It was last evening reported that the Man in whom is centred the feelings and happiness of the American people, Thomas Jefferson, is no more. A duty which I owe to the public naturally excited me to trace this alarming and truly melancholy report. It appears to have been first brought to this City by Messrs. Garrett, Holmes and GHmer, who left Winchester on Thursday and inform that a gentleman arrived there on that day who left Charlottesville about 4 miles from Monticello on Wednesday; this gentleman, on whose assertions great credit was given by the citizens of Winchester informed that Mr. Jefferson died on the day preceding, after an indisposition of 48 hours. T h e writer of this article then proceeded to say that, "impressed with the great importance of this event, in order to form a correct opinion," he had compared dates and local relations "which are likely to establish or subvert its truth"; and he concluded: " A s the unavoidable result of such an inquiry, it is demonstrable on every ground of presumptive proof that the above account is false." H e pointed out the silence of Fredericktown and Alexandria papers, which would have learned the news earlier, but added that as long as "the story circulates unopposed b y positive testimony, the deep interest which it has excited will continue." T h e Philadelphia True American^ J u l y i, following the first portion of the Baltimore article, said: A report was, last evening, in general circulation that Mr. Jefferson had died suddenly at his seat in Virginia. We took some pains to ascertain the source of this report and found that it was received by a gentleman direct from Fredericktown. We saw the gentleman and was informed by him, that, being at Fredericktown Friday last, two respectable inhabitants of the place arrived there from the neighborhood of Mr. Jefferson's seat with an account of his having died in a sudden manner. Our informant adds that the news obtained credit at Fredericktown. We have not been able to obtain any further information on the subject.

130

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

On Wednesday, July 2, the Gazette of the United States in Philadelphia said: "The report of Mr. Jefferson's death appears to be entitled to some credit." The bitter Federalist paper in New York, the Cormnercial Advertiser, on July 2 republished the item from the True American, and on July 3 copied the Baltimore report of June 30 in full. It also quoted from Claypoole's Philadelphia Gazette a statement that this report "was corroborated last evening by a gentleman directly from Baltimore who says that the same account had been received there from Winchester and that it was generally believed," As Noah Webster, the editor of the New York paper, was one of Jefferson's most violent opponents, he probably received the news without any great regret. On this same third of July, however, Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser in Philadelphia said in an editorial: Last evening a gentleman arrived in this city from Baltimore which he left at two o'clock yesterday morning. He informs that, on Tuesday evening, the account of the death of Mr. Jefferson was contradicted at Baltimore and that he was assured by several reputable characters there was no ground for the report. Since the above, we leam that a letter has been received from a gentleman in Baltimore dated yesterday morning, which agrees with the foregoing; and w e are assured from good authority that a Richmond paper of Friday last is totally silent on the subject and that an Alexandria paper of Tuesday contradicts the report.

The Gazette of the United States, July 3, stated that "the accounts of Mr. Jefferson's death are contradictory." On the same day, the staunch Jeffersonian paper in Philadelphia, the Aurora, after publishing the first report from Baltimore, came to regard it as a Federalist trick and said editorially: A n article subjoined, we copy from a Baltimore paper merely to show the length to which the friends of order and morality will go, the Editor of the Aurora is in possession of a letter from a Federal Officer at Baltimore declaring it to be a fabrication intended to damp the festivity of the 4th of July and prevent the author of the Declara-

JEFFERSON'S DEATH FALSELY REPORTED

131

tion of Independence from being the universal toast of the approaching auspicious festival. Mr. Jefferson was in his usual good health on the 25th of June.

The Gazette of the United States stated that: "the accounts of Mr. Jefferson's death are contradicted. The editor of the Aurora says a letter dated the 28 ultimo has been received from him." On Friday, the Fourth of July, the Philadelphia True American said that "a gentleman who left Petersburg Monday and arrived in town last evening, informs that no intelligence of the death of Mr. Jefferson had been received there previous to his leaving it." Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser, however, on this Fourth of July, published a Baltimore dispatch of July i which left the truth of the report still in doubt: Nothing either to invalidate or destroy the distressing information relative to the removal of Mr. Jefferson was received in town yesterday. Tomorrow's mail will probably relieve the public anxiety on this melancholy subject. Since writing the above, a gentleman has arrived in town from Charleston (Vir.) who informed that the mail arrived at that place from Charlottesville on Wednesday P. M. last and, that no intimation of such a distressing event was received or any account of Mr. Jefferson being indisposed.

On the next day, July 5, both this paper and the Gazette of the United States published a Baltimore dispatch of July 2 to the effect that "a gentleman arrived in town yesterday who dined with Mr. Jefferson on Thursday last at Monticello!" On July 5, the New York Commercial Advertiser copied the items as to the gentleman dining with Mr. Jefferson and as to the gentleman who left Petersburg on Monday; but it failed to deny the reported death specifically. The report of the death gradually spread through N e w England and was known in Boston by the Fourth of July. On July 7, the Connecticut Courant was still in doubt as to the truth of the report; but published the following letter:

132

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Communication. We have often remarked that during a dearth of news there were always hatched a variety of reports, etc., which found their way into the public prints. At this time, the politician is hungry, and it is probable that some compassionate being, in order to prevent starvation, has very humanely killed Mr. Jefferson.

On Tuesday, July 8, the report apparently was still believed, for the Massachusetts Mercury republished the account that had appeared in the Philadelphia papers of July i ; on July 9, the Massachusetts Spy, in Worcester, printed in full the Baltimore article, as well as later contradictions; and on the same day, the Columbian Centinel in Boston reprinted all the Philadelphia items, but without any denial of the truth of the report and without any expression of regret if the report should be verified. And what was the basis of the original story? As early as July 3, the Gazette of the United States printed inconspicuously a brief item as follows: It is reported that an old Negro slave called Thomas Jefferson, being dead at Monticello, gave rise to the report of the demise of the Vice President — the slave having borne the name of his master.

This report was not reproduced in any papers for nearly a week. It was, however, the truth; and on July 1 1 , the Massachusetts Mercury wrote: "The report of Mr. Jefferson's death has completely evaporated."(3) Meanwhile, the usual Fourth of July dinners and celebrations had been held throughout the country — in most places the ceremonies being duplicated, one dinner being given by the Federalists at which only Federalist toasts were drunk and Federalist statesmen lauded and the name of Vice-President Jefferson never mentioned, while at the Antifederalist meetings President Adams was usually similarly neglected. That a report of Jefferson's death elicited no word of grief or commendation for him from the Federalists celebrating the anniversary of his Declaration of Independence affords

JEFFERSON'S DEATH F A L S E L Y REPORTED

133

an extraordinary illustration of the bitterness of political partisanship at that day. T h e Aurora of July 7 commented further, with irony, on the fact that the Federalists in Philadelphia omitted the usual forms of celebration of the anniversary: Heretofore it was customary for the bells of Christ Church to be rung. Heretofore, it was customary with those who call themselves federalists to keep up a shew of gratitude and joy on this festival. Heretofore, it was customary with the two parties to vie with each other in the pleasures and congratulations of a day of jubilee and joy. On Friday last, no bells were rung in any church on this occasion. . . . On Friday last, there was no emulation, no rivalry, no congratulation, no joy, seen among those who call themselves Federalists; sorrow and disappointment was marked on their countenances and to them it seems as if their hearts were clothed in sackcloth arid ashes as on some day of general mourning. But the day was celebrated by Republicans and by them only with their wonted conviviality and gladness. . . . The day was calm and cool and the sky tempered with a refreshing moisture as if Providence seemed to favor the festive day under the happy return of the nation from the delusion under which it has so long labored. T h e Aurora also, saying that the rumor of Jefferson's death had now been exploded, quoted a sarcastic article from

the Baltimore American:

Exultation! Exultation! All was glorious exultation! Among the old Tories, Refugees and haters of our independence, on the annunciation of the death of Mr. Jefferson, there was such snickering and ogling and such nods of the head and such winks of congratulation, that a stranger unacquainted with the cause would have supposed that the Devil himself had formed a treaty offensive and defensive with the republic of Nova Scotia! "What think you of your party now, since your champion's gone?" says the viciated offspring of an old Refugee to an honest Republican? "When lions fall, asses bray," retorted the American. Now this is the subject of the whole story; the asses of aristocracy, fearing the paws of this republican lion, reported his death — because they wished him so! But heaven has still more blessings in store for us than our merits entitled us to. Jefferson still lives! — lives to witness the consummation of all his labours and virtues; to

I 34

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

strike with terror and shame the enemies of his country and preside over a free people who require only his presidency to make them happy.

T o these jibes, the Gazette replied, July 11 : "The Aurora complains that no 'aristocratical' bells rang on the Fourth of July. It is supposed they were busy tolling for Mr. Jefferson's funeral." The Aurora then retorted: "It is said that some Federalists begin to think that the celebration of the Fourth of July is not a matter of much importance, that it frequently creates riot and disturbance, and that it would be more productive of good order to discontinue in future any particular attachment to the anniversary." The Gazette, however, had the last words, for on July 14 it said: "It is a fact obvious to all but Jacobin eyes that of the multitude of toasts which of late have choked up the columns of the Aurora more than half are seditious and treasonable or flagrantly immoral and flagitious. If the sentiments exhibited in the drunken revels of the democrats were realized and acted upon the State would topple headlong and all the bands of morality would be unloosed"; and on July 16 it delivered its final blast, saying that "the author of the report of Mr. Jefferson's death is chargeable with a gross libel; that renowned Statesman being the man of the people, to accuse him of being dead was no less than to accuse the people of being unmanned." The effect produced by this false rumor upon Jefferson's friends is interestingly shown by a letter to him written by Pierre Samuel DuPont de Nemours, from N e w York, July 6, 1800: Nothing can equal the grief and consternation I felt when I saw the sad and false piece of news which America's enemies and yours had inserted in the newspapers. I believed I had lost the greatest man on this continent, the one whose clear thinking can be most useful to the two worlds, the one who by his similarity to our principles gives me the hope of the firmest sort of friendship, so necessary to one

JEFFERSON'S DEATH F A L S E L Y REPORTED

135

living far from his native land. I went through several days of indescribable unhappiness. I congratulate you and the United States and I myself am thankful that blundering attempts at slander always prove to be a boomerang. They will make some mistake or other, M. dc Vergennes said. This self satisfaction which an enemy never lacks is always of more value to us than our own cleverness. H o w Jefferson himself regarded the story appears from his reply on J u l y 26 to this letter: " I am much indebted to m y enemies for proving b y their recitals of m y death, that I have friends. . . . I have never enjoyed better and more uninterrupted health."

vili ^ How the President's Speech to Congress was Instituted and Abandoned

H E N Jefferson became President on March 4, 1801, the United States had for six years been a nation bitterly disunited over both domestic problems and foreign relations. There had been heated conflicts between the Legislative and the Executive, and this dissension had been promoted by a practice which originated in the very first session of the First Congress — the practice of a speech in person by the President and reply addresses by each House. Instituted merely as a compliment to Washington, this practice had degenerated in the twelve years between 1789 and 1801 into a source of partisan criticism and rancor and into a steady growth of friction between the two branches of government. It was to put an end to this source of friction that President Jefferson, on December 8, i8oi, in the first session of the Seventh Congress, instituted the custom of a written Message to Congress, as reported in the House Journal:

W

The following Message was delivered by Mr. Lewis, the President's Secretary, to the Speaker of the House and read by the Clerk, December 8, 1801. The circumstances under which we find ourselves at this place rendering it inconvenient in the mode heretofore practiced of making

THE

SPEECH

TO

CONGRESS

137

b y personal address the first communications between the Legislative and Executive branches, I have adopted that b y Message, as used on all subsequent occasions through the session.

In doing this, I had

principal regard to the convenience of the Legislature, to the economy of their time, to their relief f r o m the embarrassment of immediate answers on subjects not y e t fully before them, and to the benefits thence resulting to the public affairs. Trusting that a procedure founded in these motives will meet their approbation, I beg leave of you, Sir, to communicate the inclosed Message, with the documents accompanying it, to the H o n . the House of Representatives, and pray y o u to accept, to yourself, and them the homage of m y highest respect and consideration. THOMAS JEFFERSON

The story of the preceding conflicts is a curious one. When President Washington, after taking the oath of office on April 30, 1789, delivered an inaugural speech, he established a precedent for which no provision had been made either in the Constitution itself or by the Congress in the elaborate programme which it had adopted for conducting the "ceremonial for the formal reception of the President of the United States." Returning to their respective chambers in Federal Hall, after attendance with the President at services in St. Paul's Church, the Members of Congress discussed the speech and the action which they should take with reference to it. They finally decided to follow a custom which had existed in the English Parliament of presenting a reply to the speech of the King, and in some of the Colonial and State Legislatures of presenting replies to the speeches made in person by the Royal and by the State Governors. The initiative in establishing this new practice in American politics was taken by the House of Representatives, on the day after the inauguration, May i, 1789, when it resolved as follows: T h a t an Address to the President ought to be prepared expressing the congratulations of the House of Representatives on the distinguished proof given him b y the affection and confidence of his fel-

138

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

low citizens, by the unanimous suffrage which has appointed him to the high station which he fills; the approbation felt by the House of the patriotic sentiments and enlightened policy recommended by his speech; and assuring him of their dispositions to concur in giving effect to every measure which may tend to secure the liberties, promote the harmony and advance the happiness and prosperity of their country.

Such an address, prepared by a committee headed by James Madison, was adopted on May 5, and the House "resolved that the Speaker attended by the Members of this House do present the said Address to the President"; and that "as the Chamber designed for the President's receiving the respective Houses is not yet prepared, the House will wait on the President in the room adjacent to the Representatives." Accordingly, on May 8, the Speaker and the Members "withdrew" to that room and "there presented to the President of the United States the Address." In the first session of the Senate after the inauguration, however, an episode had occurred which might have served as a warning against the adoption of any British practice in these early days of the new government. John Adams, the Vice-President, had referred to Washington's "most gracious speech," whereupon one of the Senators from Pennsylvania, William Maclay, a lively, crotchety, rheimiaticky lawyer, fifty-seven years of age, who possessed a pungent and caustic tongue and an irascible temper, and who held exaggeratedly Republican views, rose in the Senate on May 2 and moved to strike out Adams' words; for, as he wrote in his diary: W e have lately had a hard struggle for our liberty against kingly authority. T h e minds of men are still heated. Everything relating to that species of government is odious to the people. T h e words prefixed to the President's speech are the same that are usually placed before the Speech of his Britannic Majesty. I know they wiU give offense. I consider them as improper.

When the Vice-President expressed the "greatest surprise at the motion," saying that he "thought the people were for

THE SPEECH TO CONGRESS

I 39

a dignified and respectable government," Maclay retorted that the enemies of the Constitution had objected to the new government because of "the facility there would be of transition from it to kingly government, and all the trappings and splendor of royalty. If such a thing as this appeared on the minutes, they would not fail to represent it as the first step of the ladder in the ascent to royalty." Richard Henry Lee supported Maclay's motion, and the words "most gracious speech" were struck out. And thus early was a warning given that the Legislative was likely to preserve its independent attitude towards the Executive. The Senate, moreover, in considering its Committee's draft of a reply address to the President "made sour faces" (as Maclay wrote) over some of the congratulatory phrases suggested, especially over a statement that Washington had "rescued us from evils impending over us." Finally, however, it voted that it "should wait on the President at his own House on Monday next at quarter after 11 o'clock and that the Vice-President then present the Address of the Senate." Accordingly, on May 18 — three weeks after the inauguration — the Senate, headed by the Vice-President, proceeded in carriages to the house then occupied by Washington at 3 Cherry Street, situated less than half a mile from Federal Hall. In reply to the Answer, the President "was pleased to make" a short speech; and Senator Maclay in his diary gave a detailed and amusingly sarcastic account of the ceremony, noting that the President was much confused and embarrassed by having his hat, paper, and spectacles all in his hands. Since the initiation of the new Federal Government was a very special and momentous event, there appears to have been little criticism of the adoption, for this particular purpose and occasion, of this English ceremony; although it is to be noted that the English Parliament very rarely waited in person on the King and usually returned its Answers by

140

ODD B Y W A Y S IN A M E R I C A N HISTORY

a committee. ( i ) But when at the second session of the First Congress the President again appeared and delivered a speech in person, it became evident that a continuance of the precedent of a reply address by Congress would arouse dissent and opposition. For when a Senate committee reported a draft of such a reply, Maclay described it in his diary as "the most servile echo I ever heard. . . . Many of the clauses were passed, without either aye or no, in silent disapprobation. I told both King and Patterson that I had never heard so good an echo, for it repeated all the words entire." And when the motion was made that the address "be presented by the Vice-President, attended by the Senate," and that the Committee "wait upon the President and desire to be informed at what time and place he will receive the same," Maclay strongly opposed the continuance of such a ceremony. As he recorded: January 12. I made an unsuccessful motion when it was proposed that the whole Senate should wait on the President, with the answer to the speech. First, I wished for delay, that we might see the conduct adopted by the House of Representatives. I thought it likely they would do the business by a Committee. In that case, I wished to imitate them; and as a committee with us had done all the business so far, I wished it to continue in their hands, that they might have exclusively all the honors attendant on the performance. That I, as a republican, was, however, opposed to the whole business of echoing speeches. It was a stale ministerial trick in Britain, to get the Houses of Parliament to chime in with the speech, and then consider them as pledged to support any measure which could be grafted on the speech. It was the Socratic mode of argument introduced into politics, to entrap men into measures they were not aware of. I wished to treat the speech in quite a different manner. I would commit it, for the purpose of examining whether the subjects recommended in it were proper for the Senate to act upon. If they were found to be so, I would have committees appointed, to bring forward the necessary bills. But we seem to neglect the useful, and content ourselves with compliments, only, and dangerous ones, too. But for my part, I would not consider myself as committed by anything contained in the Answer.

THE

SPEECH

TO CONGRESS

I4I

Maclay's objections did not prevail; and on January 14, 1790, the two branches of Congress — the Senate at eleven o'clock, headed by the Vice-President, and the House at twelve o'clock, headed by the Speaker, accompanied by the respective Sergeants at Arms^—proceeded from Federal Hall in carriages to the residence of the President, the House, as Washington noted in his diary, "with the Mace preceding the Speaker." Maclay's comment on the occasion was as follows: W e went in coaches. Got our answer, which was short. Returned in coaches. Sauntered an hour in the Senate Chamber, and adjourned. Every error in government will work its own remedy among a free people. I think both Senators and Representatives are tired of making themselves the gazing stock of the crowd, and the subject of remark by the sycophantic circle that surround the President, in stringing to this quarters; and I trust the next session will either do without this business altogether, or do it by a small committee, that need not interrupt the business of either House. I have aimed at this point all along. It is evident, from the President's speech, that he wishes everything to fall into the British mode of business. I have directed the proper officers to lay before you, etc. Compliments for him, and business for them. He is but a man, but really a good one; and we can have nothing to fear from him; but much from the precedent he may establish.

The addresses of the two Houses in the third session of the First Congress in Philadelphia in answer to the President's speech were delivered at his residence — a large, double brick house in a tree-shaded garden on the south side of Market Street between Fifth and Sixth streets. Since it was less than two blocks from the Hall where Congress sat, the procession of upwards of thirty Senators and eighty Representatives riding in carriages for this short distance seemed somewhat ridiculous. The practice of reply addresses to the President's speech continued at both sessions of the Second Congress and at the first session of the Third Congress, without arousing any

142

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

marked controversy between the Legislative and the Executive. Nevertheless, there were signs that a discussion in these addresses of the serious political questions agitating the country would be likely to lead the President and Congress into hot water. Moreover, the custom of making these addresses, and especially the practice of the Senate and of the House in going en masse to the President's residence to deliver them, had become a source of heated criticism — not only from Maclay in the Senate but from the public press. Beginning with the very early debate in the Senate in the First Congress over the titles to be given to the President and Vice-President, there had been an increasing opposition to anything savoring of monarchy; the holding of levees by the President and Mrs. Washington and various other practices of the new government were assailed as being unrepublican; and to many nothing seemed more like an attempt to imitate English and monarchical customs than the personal speech of the President and the replies by the Congress.(2) As early as September, 1790, an amusing example of the extravagant fears of growing aristocracy is to be found in a letter to a Boston paper referring to "the unfortunate opinions which appear to be working their way into this country that there ought to be a style imitative of the parade, ostentation and etiquette of foreign Courts": T h e people it seems are to be dazzled with this ridiculous formality — with the farcical insignificance of set levees, with reserve and distance in our federal officers. False greatness is preferred to real magnanimity. T h e natural civility of the American character is to be corrupted by a feeble display of these new-fangled customs. T h e refinements of a monarchy are to be substituted in the room of republican simplicity. N e w and unusual titles are contended for in one branch of the Legislature, and I am afraid but faintly opposed in the other. . . . Congress . . . in one minute aping the ceremonies, and in another the fashionable indecencies of the British Parliament, always booted and spurred as if for a horse race — lounging in their seats or reading the gazettes . . . meeting at eleven and often adjourning at two.

THE SPEECH TO CONGRESS

143

And a contemporary writer described the House as follows: " A few of the members persisted in wearing, while in their seats and during the debate, their ample cocked hats, placed fore and aft upon their heads, with here and there a leg thrown across the little desks before." In November, 1792, a Philadelphia Antifederalist paper said: "In a government like ours, the people are not to be imposed upon by ceremonious forms or outward show, and our endeavors to imitate the fopperies of European Courts commonly draw on us the ridicule of the reflecting." Another writer in 1792 complained of the use of the terms "His Excellency, the President," "The Honorable Member," and said: The diabolical terms, whether in humble imitation of royalty or the tottering remains of a dying aristocracy, are surely repugnant to the divine principles of a republican government. . . . Let us endeavor to exterminate every vestige of titles as being the remaining seeds of that cursed distinction, that poisonous aristocracy, from whence we derived an origin — the social and soul-warming term, citizen.

About the same time, another Antifederalist paper in Philadelphia published a letter setting forth categorically what it termed the "Forerunners of Monarchy and Aristocracy" in the new government, in which it objected to "the titles of Excellency, Honorable and Esquire; Levees; keeping the birthdays of the servants of the public; Parades of every kind in the oiEcers of government, such as pompous carriages, splendid feasts and tawdry gowns." An article on "Monarchical Pomp," in a Boston Antifederalist paper in 1794, attacked specifically the practice of Speech and Address, saying: When the President met Congress for the first time, though they had no throne for him to be seated on, yet they affected to receive him with all the formality of courtly parade. And when the members of both Houses were to return an answer to the President's speech, they agreed to go in a body. But to walk the street on so pompous

144

B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

an occasion would by no means have comported with the dignity and splendor of the intended parade — therefore, all the coach-houses in New York were ransacked for carriages for them to ride in.

It was at the opening of the second session of the Third Congress that the President's speech to Congress first became the subject of direct attack. Delivered on November 19, 1793 (and for the first time in the chamber of the House instead of the Senate), it dealt with controversial subjects which were certain to stir up sharp debate. During the past year, the country had been violently split into proFrench and pro-English factions. The activities of the new French minister, Genet, and the spreading of the Democratic Clubs, Constitutional Societies, and like bodies sympathetic to France had aroused intense opposition from the Federalists. "It is well known," wrote Chauncey Goodrich to Oliver Wolcott, April 14, 1794, "that these popular societies speak the sentiments of certain demagogues, and that the Clubs consist of hot-headed, ignorant or wicked men devoted entirely to the views of France." The suppression of the Whiskey Insurrection had stirred up much bad feeling in parts of the country. When, therefore, the President in his speech referred in somewhat caustic terms to the organizations which the FederaUsts termed "Jacobin Clubs" as "certain self-created societies," opposition to his words and to his policies at once broke out in the Senate on the question of the adoption of the address. Aaron Burr, supported by James Jackson of Georgia, moved to strike out that portion of the draft which reechoed the President's sentiments. The motion was lost after much heated talk, and the address was presented to the President on November 22. In the House, however, the fight against the President was much more determined; and the debate lasted for six days, principally over the President's obnoxious words "self-created societies." William B. Giles of Virginia said that "the tone of that passage in the Speech had made a great deal of noise

THE SPEECH TO CONGRESS

145

without doors, and it was likely to produce considerable agitation within doors." A "labyrinth of amendments" were proposed to the draft of the address. A motion to recommit the address, however, was lost b y the close vote of 48 to 42, and it was finally presented to the President on N o v e m ber 28, ten days after his speech to Congress. Thus, for the first time, the practice of making an address had given rise to bitter political dissension in the House. "Must the President's Speech be really reëchoed?" said a writer in an Antifederalist paper, a f e w months later: Is this really a law? Is it a Congressional precedent? The Nation will soon be as abject, as grovelling as the meanest oriental slave. Have we any certainty that future Presidents can do no wrong? None. Future and perhaps rapacious Presidents may be the dark and despotic Caesars of America. . . . Is it the duty of Congress, are they in conscience bound, to endanger the political system by paying compliments? And, just before the next Congress sat, the desirability of discontinuing the practice was urged in an extraordinary letter in the Aurora, in December, 1795, addressed to the M e m bers of Congress, a letter which shows accurately the feelings of the Antifederalist faction: ( 3 ) The United States have travelled with inconceivable velocity towards practical monarchy. . . . Republicanism in its cradle was decorated with the gewgaws of a debauched government. The frippery of a Court was seen to usher our Administration into notice, and all the paraphernalia of monarchy excepting a crown bedizened the chief magistrate of a free people. Your predecessors, with what views I will leave to you to suggest, either encouraged or sanctioned this departure from the genuine principles of liberty. The President was treated by them with more submission than is shown to the monarch of Great Britain — royal etiquette was calculated to a fraction; and with unaccounted servility, the representatives of a free people proceeded in a body, preceded by their sergeants at arms and their Speaker, to let an Executive officer know, that they had heard his Speech and that they would give it their attention! This solemn farce, this mockery of republicanism, this satire upon freedom has been re-

146

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

cited for near eight years, and hitherto no voice has been raised against it. Shall this mummery be continued? . . . Reverence yourselves, and scom to tread in the monarchical and sycophantic footsteps of your predecessors. . . . Is an Executive magistrate in a Republic paramount to the law givers thereof? Is he of more consideration than the Legislative body? Does he monopolize in his own person all that is great, powerful, influential, and authoritative, that the representative body homage him as a venal British Parliament homage their King? T h e writer continued b y attributing to Alexander Hamilton (probably wrongly) the adoption of the practice of the Address b y Congress: This practice, so abject, so degrading to the representatives of free men, was borrowed from the corrupt monarchy of Great Britain, and legitimatized among us by a man whose views have ever been hostile to republicanism, whose plans have carried with them the poison of liberty and whose generi principles and conduct would have suited the Meridian of Constantinople. T o this man, whose very name is a libel upon morality, is owing the discontents of our country, the corruptions of our government, the prostitution of our national honor, the violation of our faith, and in a word everything that is disgraceful, dishonorable and perfidious in our government. T o the first session of the Fourth Congress, the President delivered his speech, December 8, 1795, in the chamber of the House. Since the last session, the J a y T r e a t y had been ratified, and the country had been divided on most passionate lines of opposition. T h e speech, dealing principally with foreign affairs, was received with marked disapprobation b y the Anti-British faction in Congress; and for the first time Washington saw signs of personal hostility in his legislative auditors. T h e scene was graphically described b y William Cobbett at the time as follows: The President is a timid speaker; he is a proof, among thousands, that superior genius, wisdom, and courage, are ever accompanied with excessive modesty. His situation was at this time almost entirely new. Never till a few months preceding this session, had the tongue of the most factious slander dared to make a public attack on his character.

THE

SPEECH

TO CONGRESS

147

This was the first time he had ever entered the halls of Congress, without a full assurance of meeting a welcome from every heart. H e now saw, even among those to whom he addressed himself, numbers who, to repay all his labors, his anxious cares for their welfare, were ready to thwart his measures, and present him the cup of humiliation filled to the brim. (4)

A long and hot debate ensued in the Senate — the first debate which was publicly reported; for hitherto, the Senate, contrary to the sentiment of the people, had sat behind closed doors.(5) An unsuccessful attempt was made to strike out from its address (drafted by King, Ellsworth, and Cabot) all commendation of Washington's foreign policy, but the address was carried by a vote of 14 to 8, and presented on December 12, 1795. In this Senate debate, however, there appeared for the first time legislative disapproval of the practice of making an address to the President. Stevens Thomson Mason of Virginia objected to the Senate's stating to the President that "our situation was in every way auspicious." King replied that one of the principal features of the address "was to keep up that harmony of intercourse which ought to subsist between the Legislature and the President, and to express confidence in the undiminished firmness and love of country which always characterizes our Chief Executive Magistrate." Pierce Butler of South Carolina said that he did not approve of "long and detailed Answers," and he objected to the word "firm" as applied to the President: "If it is that firmness in opposing the will of the people which is intended to be extolled, the vote shall never leave the walls of this Senate with my approbation." Henry Tazewell of Virginia asked: "What has given rise to this practice of returning an Answer of any kind? There is nothing in the Constitution or in any of the fundamental rules of the Federal Government which requires that ceremony from either branch of Congress. The practice is but an imitation of the ceremonies

148

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

used upon like occasions in other countries, and is neither required by the Constitution nor authorized by the principles upon which our Government was erected. . . . I will only tolerate the ceremony, as a compliment to the Chief Magistrate. It can not be permitted to arrest all opinions, previous to regular discussion, nor to operate as a means of pledging members to the pursuit of a particular course which subsequent and more full inquiries might show to be extremely improper. Every Answer, therefore, to the President's communication ought to be drawn in terms extremely general, neither seducing the President into a belief that this House will pursue a general recommendation into points not at first contemplated by them, nor pledging themselves." Similar opposition to an address arose in the House, also for the first time, when Josiah Parker of Virginia said that while he "had the highest respect for the President, he had always disapproved of the practice of making our Addresses in answer to these Speeches and of the House leaving their business to go in a body to present them. Last session, the framing of this Address had cost very long debates and produced very great irritation. Some of the most disagreeable things that happened during the session occurred in these debates." (6) When the address was reported to the House, however, there arose a three days' debate which developed into an unpleasant personal attack on President Washington. For although the draft omitted all reference to the Jay Treaty and foreign affairs in order to avoid unnecessary conflict, yet it contained the following passage: Contemplating that probably unequalled spectacle of national happiness which our country exhibits . . . permit us to add the benefits which are derived from your presiding in our councils, resulting as well from the undiminished confidence of your fellow citizens as from your zealous and successful labors in their service.

THE SPEECH TO CONGRESS

149

This statement appeared to the opponents of the JayTreaty as far too extreme; and Parker of Virginia at once moved to strike out the words "probably unequalled," and also all words from "councils" to the end. He admitted that "the United States owed much to the President for his services on most occasions; but he had sometime erred as other men. He [Parker] could not, for his own part, subscribe to the expressions contained in the words which he had moved to strike out; his confidence in the President ivas diminished, in consequence of a late transaction." On the motion being put, the words "probably unequalled" were struck out by a vote of 43 to 39. Then the debate raged over the words "undiminished confidence," which it was proposed should be eliminated. Murray of Maryland said his confidence in the President was "undiminished"; but Giles of Virginia said the assertion in the address did not "correspond with the fact" and he wished it struck out. Nathaniel Freeman of Massachusetts said that while he thought he might say that his personal confidence in the President was "undiminished," he "could not utter the same sentiment in behalf of the people at large" though the disaffection was of a very small part of the people, in his view. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina agreed, but said that he was willing to vote that the confidence of the House was "undiminished." Sedgwick of Massachusetts warmly supported the President and the popular confidence in him. He said that licentious presses "which had lately teemed with infamous and scandalous abuse of the President" were unrepresentative. Livingston of New York said that, if necessary, he would strike out the word "undiminished," as he did not conceive that the House was called on to express an opinion as to the feeling of the country; but since striking out the word would be "tantamount to declaration that the confidence reposed in the President ivas diminished," he urged that the address be

150

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

recommitted. When Madison reported it back on December 16, all reference to "undiminished confidence" in the President had disappeared; and the clause read: "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." The address, so amended, was presented to the President, on December 17, 1795. While the President's reply to the address contained no recognition of the personal reflections on him, in the debate, it occasioned him much chagrin. The President's speech to the second session of the Fourth Congress, made in the House Chamber, December 7, 1796, was his last speech before retirement from office. Accordingly, it was felt that especially complimentary addresses should be made to him. The Senate acted without delay in adopting the draft of its committee on December 10, and presenting the address on December 12. But in the House, when its committee on December 12 reported a decidedly adulatory address, a two days' debate ensued, owing to a violent attack by William B. Giles of Virginia, who objected to the adjectives applied to the President. He said that though he did not object to a respectful and complimentary address, yet he thought they ought not "to carry our expressions beyond the bounds of moderation." He hoped they should "adhere to the truth." As to those parts of the address which spoke of the "wisdom and firmness" of the President, "he believed the Administration had been neither wise nor firm for the last six years. It was a want of wisdom and firmness that had brought the country and its foreign relations into such an alarming and critical situation. . . . If we take a view into our internal situation and behold the ruined state of public and private credit . . . if we survey this city and the shameful scene it alone exhibits, owing to the immense quantity of paper issued, surely this could afford

THE SPEECH TO CONGRESS

151

no ground for admiration of the Administration that caused it." He had no objection to Members complimenting the President privately but he "hoped such adulation would never pervade that House." The address was finally adopted by a vote of 67 to 12, and presented December 16; but a Philadelphia correspondent wrote that the answer was "carried principally from a disposition to prevent any unreasonable delay, on this mere complimentary business. It was found that the sticklers for adulation meant to force the Answer by contending the principles in elaborate speeches and then lay the blame of expending so much time and money on so trifling a transaction on those who were opposed to it. Words are but sounds, and at this period a few more feathers in the Cap of the Executive will only serve, when the consequences of his Administration are more severely felt to render the pageantry more pointed against the supporter of the treaty and other British measures. In my opinion, it is but to little purpose how we nxtind up the present Administration, whether by flattery or censure, as a new epoch commences in our political calendar, in the controversy between France and America." And the Antifederalist Independent Chronicle in Boston spoke of Washington, December 26, 1796, as "the weak man, wavering in his determination." (7) The election of John Adams to the Presidency, in arousing much apprehension among the Antifederalists over possible increase in monarchical forms, gave an impetus to the movement of abolition of the address of reply. "The man who has advocated titles ought to be carefully watched, lest under this enchanting lure, the poison of monarchy and aristocracy may be insensibly instilled." During the Presidential campaign in Virginia, reports had been assiduously circulated that Adams was bom in England; "that he had been a Member of the British Parliament six years; that he never rode in a coach unless drawn by six horses and never walked

152

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

on foot without a body guard; that he suffered no man to visit him and lived in all the luxury of Eastern magnificence at his palace in the vicinity of Boston,"(8) His inauguration ceremonies apparently relieved some fears; for a Boston Antifederalist paper said that it was much to the honor of the President of the United States that he would not permit the Marshal and other officers to walk in procession before his carriage on the day of his Inauguration. In this, he had discovered himself to be a practicable republican; for what can be more monarchical and more degrading to our fellow men than to see them parading the streets before a set of horses harnessed to a carriage containing a man like themselves? True dignity consists in character, and not in ostentation, and it is a circumstance very conspicuous to our country that this is the kind of dignity the President means to display. (9)

At the first and special session of Congress, the President, confronted with the serious question of our relations with France, delivered what was known as a "war speech" and one which was bound to provoke heated debate when Congress undertook a reply address. The Antifederalists bitterly criticized the proposed answer, and the extreme section of the Federalist party considered it too müd, for as Alexander Hamilton wrote to Oliver Wolcott, June 6, 1797: "It contains too many hard expressions; and hard words are very rarely useful in public proceedings. . . . Real firmness is good for everything. Strut is good for nothing." Antifederalists like John Swanwick of Pennsylvania, William B. Giles of Virginia, and Mathew Lyon of Vermont thought the occasion a suitable one for abandoning the whole practice of reply addresses. The House had fallen, said Lyon, "into a very silly custom of leaving its business, to attend to so absurd and unnecessary form as waiting on the President en masse. It is also absurd to send to know when he should be ready to receive this Address; the Address ought to be sent at once, for I will not pay the President so

THE

SPEECH

TO CONGRESS

I53

bad a compliment as to suppose he is not always ready to receive communications; in fact it is his duty." He said that he hoped "our magnanimous President joins with the enlightened yeomanry of America in despising this boyish piece of business," and that he would be "pleased to be decently rid of this disgusting piece of mummery . . . a custom degrading to the representatives of an enlightened people." At the second session of the Fifth Congress, November 27, 1797, Lyon asked for a resolution excusing members from attendance on the President. He said that while he would not "debar gentlemen of that gratification which they felt when indulged with pageantry and parade, he hoped they would permit him the gratification of being absent from a ceremony which did not comport with his idea of the dignity of the representatives of the people." The presentation of the address on November 29 at the President's house was accompanied by a new feature, the serving of refreshments, reported in the paper as follows: T h e Address being presented, the answer received, and having eaten cakes and drank wine with the Chief Magistrate, the Speaker and Members returned to the House, and order being obtained, the Speaker as usual read the answer of the President, from the Chair. (10)

This hospitable innovation gave rise to an amusing comment in the Aurora: Some of the Members of Congress, boasting of their good cheer, observed to Mr. Lyon that he had better have gone with him to the President's, and eat of his cake and drank of his Madeira. Mr. Lyon replied they might thank him, he believed, for the cake and wine; as, it not having been customary heretofore, it might be considered as baiting the members in future —but he could assure them that he thought that was not the way to catch Lyons.

The practice of reply addresses continued through the sessions of the Fifth and Sixth Congresses in 1798, 1799, and

154

ODD B Y W A Y S I N AIVIERICAN H I S T O R Y

1800; but in 1801, when the political revolution brought Jefferson and his party into power, pledged to what they termed a return to simple, republican forms of Government, the newspapers carried reports that this was one of the "unrepublican" customs which was not to be followed. Jefferson's message at the opening of Congress, December 8, 1801, signified the change. ( 11 ) The President's innovation at once became the object of a savage attack in the Federalist newspapers.(12) A Washington correspondent of a Boston paper said: Whatever others may think of this procedure, I hold it highly 'disrespectful to the Legislature, and an unnecessary deviation from a usage established by President Washington, and, I believe, practiced by the Executives of all the States. T h e excuses for it, in the envelope, are futile and contradictory. It is true that it is an humble imitation of the mode in which Bonaparte communicated to the French Legislature; but I am yet to learn that it is therefore right and fit. If the President is conscious that some part of his recent conduct will not bear discussion, he has been politic in communicating with Congress by message rather than orally. . . . A s Messages admit of no Answer, the gag is effectually placed on their mouths, excepting indeed they come forward with a formal denunciation.

The Washington correspondent of a Connecticut newspaper said the new practice of a message "betrayed an unaccountable pusillanimity." A New York paper said that whether the President's action "has proceeded from pride or humüity, from a temperate love of reform or from a wild spirit of innovation, is submitted to the conjectures of the curious. A single observation shall be indulged — since all agree that he is unlike his predecessors in essential points, it is a mark of consistency to differ from them in matters of form." The Washington Federalist said that "the President's neglect of a personal address appears rather than otherwise an innovation intended to catch some childish applause. What were the 'circumstances' that rendered his presence in the Capitol 'inconvenient'?"(13)

T H E S P E E C H T O CONGRESS

155

The Gazette of the United States in Philadelphia said: A s the President omitted to treat the representatives of the people with the customary civility and condescension of meeting them in person at the opening of the session, but chose, like an Eastern prince, to remain in his palace out of the sight of his people, and to send his communication by a messenger, it is but reasonable to suppose that the people's representatives will feel self-respect to omit to wait upon him with an Answer.

T o this, the Aurora retorted: (14) Bronson [editor of the Gazette'i says he hopes the representatives of the people will not condescend to wait on the President, as he has been so impolitic as not to visit them (in form) — but he forgets that to avoid the ridiculous pomp that has been heretofore displayed in visits in form and levees, the school for hypocrisy and adulation, is a sufficient inducement for a republican President to stay at home. Bronson compared the President of the United States to an Eastern Prince, because he has not visited in form the Legislature of the Union. But how much more like Eastern Princes have our former Presidents been, for the conveyance of whom about zoo yards, no less than four horses would suffice, and these white, in imitation of the royal parade of the King of England, with equerries, pages, footmen and horsemen, some to support the ponderous bag, others the glittering sword. It is high time that these attempts to introduce aristocratic forms should be put an end to.

The Gazette also attacked the President's opening language as foUows: "Mr. Jefferson, in his new mode of communicating with Congress, copies the French style of address. He began with 'Fellow Citizens, etc.' He might have spared the insult to the feelings of some of the members by saying, 'Gentlemen and Fellow Citizens,' and then he properly would have included aU the members." The Message itself began with the words: "Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives." President Washington's Speeches had also begun: "Fellow Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives." President Adams' Speeches had changed this formula to "Gentlemen

156

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

of the Senate and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives." The Antifederalist papers came swiftly to Jefferson's defense. His Administration organ in Worcester, Massachusetts, said: W e remark the same attention to the public convenience, the same regard for economy and republican simplicity, for which the President has been uniformly distinguished. T h e unmeaning ceremony of rising in a body and presenting a crude and indigested Answer upon the spur of occasion is judiciously and prudently avoided. T h e parade and pageantry of a personal attendance upon the Legislature may afford to a monarch an opportunity f o r displaying his sacred person to the gazing eyes of the populace, but in a government like ours when a President may be seen and heard without a formal exhibition of his person, there can be no occasion f o r this splendid raree-show. In the stillness of the written message, we see nothing disrespectful to the Legislature, "no humble imitation of the practice adopted by the Chief Consul of France," but an exemplification of the principles by which this great and good man has been constantly directed.

One of the ablest defenses appeared as an editorial in the Independent Chronicle, in Boston, on December 28, as follow: The spirit of faction must be drained to the dregs when there is nothing to be said against the President but that his communication to Congress has been in the form of a message rather than in that of a speech. Does our Constitution recognize a speech as a thing necessary or proper, to be made by the First Magistrate to the Supreme Legislature of the Nation? T o be sure, he may appear personally and may make a speech. If he has an insidious design to pledge the Legislature, by a premature opinion, on a subject not properly before them, he may take an unfair advantage of the spirit of accommodation too apt to be displayed on such occasions and may acquire an undue influence by this political strategem. This is almost invariably done under the Government of England, and undoubtedly would be very agreeable here, to those few who wish to assimilate the administration of our public concerns to that standard. But the Convention who made the Federal Constitution never contemplated such a measure, . . . Before Mr. Jefferson is censured for this useful innovation, would it

T H E S P E E C H TO CONGRESS

157

not be well to make it certain that the former practice was more agreeable to the spirit and design of that instrument under which he is acting? Let the Republicans recollect the waste of time and treasure and the temper that has marked the former proceedings of Congress on these occasions. Every lawyer of eminence had a speech to make upon some abstract question which cost the community about a thousand dollars an hour. . . . It has been, no doubt, flattering to the Executive to have this deliberative assembly pledged, individually, to the support of certain measures, in their proper functions, by a sudden impulse, after a tedious and irritating debate. The whole House was then obliged to travel, wet or dry, warm or cold, to pay their respects at the shrine of power; or the delinquents were to be libelled in the public newspapers as opposers of the government. . . . It must be evident that the communication by message, from time to time, is far preferable to the former mode, which served no other purpose than to extort precipitate opinions, when the utmost deliberation was requisite to ensure a wise and temperate decision.

Within a f e w weeks after the sending of the written message, further assaults upon it by the Federalists were diverted b y the occurrence of a more serious matter — the introduction of the Circuit Court Repeal biU on the passage of which Jefferson was insistent, and to which the Federalists were violently opposed. During the ensuing debate in Congress, the excitement over the message died away, and since it was seen that a reply by Congress in person to a message delivered in writing would be entirely inappropriate, no suggestion or effort was made in either House or Senate to appoint a committee to draft such a reply. And thus, without discussion, the practice adopted in 1789 was discontinued forever. (15) While the practice of sending a message continued to be the object of some Federalist criticism throughout the administration of President Jefferson, as well as that of his successor President Madison, nevertheless its reasonableness became generally recognized. In 1811, John Adams wrote to Josiah Quincy that he thought the question quite unimportant:

158

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N HISTORY

I thank you for two presents, the Message and the documents. Mr. Madison follows the example of Mr. Jefferson in this instance; but is the difference between a Speech and a Message of much importance? Does the aversion to Speeches and the partiality for Messages arise or proceed from the spirit of democracy or aristocracy?

On April 8, 1913, however, the Presidential practice of one hundred and twelve years' standing was shattered when President Wilson, accompanied by no private secretary, aide, or Cabinet officer, appeared before Congress and delivered, in person, the Tariff Message at the opening of the first and special session of the Sixty-third Congress. On the day before making this innovation, he stated his reasons as follows: "The reasons are very simple. I think that is the only dignified way for the President to address the Congress at the opening of the session. Instead of sending the Address to be read perfunctorily in the Clerk's familiar tone of voice, I thought that the dignified and natural thing was to read it. It is a precedent which, it is true, has been discontinued a long time, but which is a very respectable precedent." The next day, he prefaced his Address to Congress with the following comments: "Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Congress: I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity to address the two Houses directly and to verify for myself the impression that the President of the United States is a person, not a mere Department of the Government, hailing Congress from some isolated island of jealous power, sending messages, not speaking naturally with his own voice; that he is a human being, trying to cooperate with other human beings in a common service. After this pleasant experience, I shall feel quite normal in all our dealings with one another," (16) Whether President Wilson's return to the practice of President Washington and President Adams was wise or not, it is certainly true that the Congress was well advised in not returning to the practice of reply addresses which had in the early days occasioned so much friction with the Executive.

^

ÎK

^

How War with France Was Urged in 1803

o w the free navigation of the Mississippi River became a matter of serious domestic political dissension in the United States and of complicated controversy with Spain and France throughout the years from 1776 to 1788; how on October 16, 1802, the Spanish Intendant at N e w Orleans closed the River to Americans, in violation of our treaty with Spain of 1795; how, meanwhile, France had secretly purchased Louisiana from Spain; how Jefferson sent James Monroe to negotiate for the purchase of N e w Orleans and the left bank; and how Robert R. Livingston and Monroe purchased instead the whole vast Louisiana Territory — all this is a very familiar story in American history. But how the Federalist party at that time sought to push Jefferson's administration to the verge of war with France is not always fully realized, and some of the picturesque details of the situation are almost entirely unknown. Especially unknown is the indictment in Kentucky under the Logan Act, due to the war fever. The Federalist task in 1803 was an easy one, for Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and the Western country in general were already indulging in flaming denunciation of the Spanish action and were ready for hostilities with either Spain or France, unless the right of free navigation of the Mississippi

H

l6o

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

River should be restored. The Federalists, therefore, saw an opportunity to sow seeds of dissension between Jefferson and his Republican supporters in the West and were willing to seek this political gain, even at the risk of involving the United States in war. They began their attack early in the year 1803 with virulent editorials in the press, assailing the President's policy of "peaceful negotiation." The Charleston Courier^ one of their leading newspapers in the South, expressed its fears of the "feebleness" and "lack of vigour" of the President: W e fear that supplication is more suitable to his ways and means than compulsion; and that the rights of our commerce and the honor of our country will suffer from feeble procrastination and fruitless protective effort. . . . Is a display of weakness, of apprehension, of horror of war and of overweening desire for peace, is that the way to obtain honorable peace, to secure from insult or obtain redress for injuries?

This paper as well as many others assailed Jefferson for not sending an expedition to take New Orleans by force. In the North, Federalist papers condemned the "tedious process of a tardy and ineffectual negotiation," advocated war rather than "submit to National humiliation and insult," and said that the public voice was raised against "the feeble and pusillanimous executive measures on the subject of Louisiana." One paper also published a letter from Washington stating that the free navigation of the Mississippi "must be preserved or the American Empire must be dismembered. If we had a Washington at the head of our government, I should expect firm and decisive measures would upon this occasion be pursued." The writer added that N e w Orleans ought to be taken by force of arms; "but I apprehend no such vigorous measures will be taken by our present Executive. . . . If we fail by negotiation . . . what other can be the consequence but war with France, or a falling off of the people in that Western country from the

WAR

WITH

F R A N C E URGED IN

1803

161

Union and uniting themselves to the government of France, or Louisiana?"(i) Jefferson's supporters in the press, on the other hand, deplored these "insidious and flagitious articles of the Federalists to plunge us into war," "For some weeks past," wrote William Duane for the Aurora^ the Federal papers have teemed with inflammatory publications evidently intended to dispose the people of the United States to hostility against France and Spain. . . . The war-whoop has been heard in various quarters from the open enemies of the government and Administration and its insidious friends. On the floor of Congress, and in the prints devoted to those who have avowed the want of confidence in the Executive, the hollow invocation to war has murmured and reverberated. All the machinery of wickedness has been set in motion. Forged pamphlets, rescripts, and fictitious correspondence have been seconded by the exaggeration and mutilation of facts. Truth has been disregarded or concealed by those who are determined to deceive and inflame the public mind; and every artifice is employed to irritate and to wound the feelings and pride of those who could not be assailed on the side of their understanding, if correctly and fairly informed — and all this, under the old mask of affected patriotism. (2)

Less than a month after the confirmation of Monroe as Minister to France on January 13, 1803, the Federalists launched their movement in Congress to involve this country in a war with France. The situation was curiously similar to that which existed over one hundred years later when attempts were made to involve President Wilson in a war with Mexico. On February 13, James Ross of Pennsylvania delivered in the Senate an extremely violent and inflammatory speech on the conditions in the West,(3) He said that he came "from a part of the country where the late events upon the Mississippi had excited great alarm and solicitude," that an effort must be made "to avert the calamity which threatened the Western country"; that more than negotiation was absolutely necessary; and that, as the President

102

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

could not use force, Congress must act; that Spain had "wantonly and unprovokedly violated" her treaty both by "flagrant, destructive spoliations of our commerce" and by her action at N e w Orleans, through which half a million of our citizens were cut off from a market and $2,000,000 of goods shut out — a fact which might involve also many Atlantic Coast merchants in ruin. " W h y not expel the wrongdoers? The Western people will support you," he exclaimed. The West may not wait for negotiation. They have arms in their hands. They only want a leader. And it would be strange if with such means and such a spirit a leader should not soon present himself. . . . The East should not balance between National honor and sordid interest." This was inflammatory language to be used by a Senator; and the Republicans wisely forced an adjournment of the Senate. T w o days later, however, Ross renewed his violent speech and presented the resolutions, authorizing the President to take immediate possession of N e w Orleans and adjacent territory and to call out the militia in South Carolina, Louisiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Mississippi territory, not exceeding 50,000 men, together with the regular army and navy. He also urged an appropriation of $5,000,000, saying that negotiation was hopeless, that the United States must "go forward, remove the aggressors," that indeed "war may be said to be already begun." " W e have at different times suffered great indignity and outrages from different European Powers," he added; "but none so palpable, so inexcusable, so provoking or of such magnitude in their consequences as this. Upon none has public opinion united so generally as this. It is true we have a lamentable division of political opinion among us which has produced much mischief and may produce much greater than we have yet felt. On this question, party spirit ought to sink and disappear."

WAR WITH FRANCE URGED IN

1803

A debate on Ross's resolutions, lasting ten days, then ensued on purely political lines. T h e Federalists were all for war; the Republicans supported the President's policy of peaceful negotiation. Gouverneur Morris of N e w York, Jonathan Mason of Massachusetts, and Samuel White of Delaware were particularly belligerent. The latter said: " W e can never have peace on our Western waters till we possess ourselves of N e w Orleans. . . . The Western people win not submit. The Government cannot restrain them. . . . T h e West may turn to Bonaparte as a friend and protector. There may be a French faction in the Government from the West. A crisis will arrive resulting either in the political subjugation of the Atlantic States or in their separation from the Western country — a dismemberment of the Union." On the Republican side, Ross's resolutions were regarded as a purely political attempt of the Federalist party to pose as the particular champion of the West and to enflame it against the President — a partisan move made solely to embarrass the President in his foreign policy. There was considerable justification for this belief, for there was no reason w h y the Federalists should be more solicitous for the interests of Kentucky and Tennessee than were the Senators themselves from those States, who were supporting Jefferson. "Would it not be inexcusably rash policy to plunge this country into war to effect that which the President not only thinks can be effected but is now actually in train of negotiation?" asked Senator Breckenridge of Kentucky; and he denied that Kentucky would rise in arms or that there was any "germ or treason or insurrection" there. "It is a calumny to say that the Western people would be influenced by emissaries of France," said Senator Joseph Anderson of Tennessee, who indignantly denied the Federalist right, with all their disrespect for the Western people, "to tell us that they were their only friends."

104

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Senator Stevens Thomson Mason of Virginia said that it was "a political phenomenon — this extreme solicitude of the East for the interests and rights of the West, while the representatives of the West appear to know nothing of this great danger and to feel a full confidence in their Government." Senator Robert Wright of Maryland charged that Ross was "attempting to excite the Western people to revolt against the Government by a seditious appeal to their passions." Senator DeWitt Clinton of N e w York said that no man could "view this as a severance of the States without horror"; but that it was absolutely false to say that there was any "natural collision between the East and the West," or that the Western brethren were "lawless, unprincipled bandits." He said that Ross's resolutions partook of the character of war. Other Republicans made the direct charge that the sole purpose of the Federalists was to interfere with the success of the President's negotiation. "Much has been said about confidence in the Executive," said Senator Wilson C. Nicholas of Virginia. "There is another way in which these gentlemen may manifest their confidence in the President and which the public good requires of them. It is that they acquiesce in the effort that he is making to obtain our rights and securities for those rights by negotiation and thereby add to its chance of success." Senator William M. Wells of Delaware said that the resolutions were an attempt to exercise the functions of the President. The Ross resolutions were finally defeated by a vote of 15 to II, and in their place a colorless resolution, proposed by Breckenridge, was adopted by a unanimous vote, authorizing the President, whenever he deemed it expedient, to require the State Governors to take effectual measures to organize, arm, and equip effective militia not exceeding 80,000 men, and hold them in readiness to march at a moment's warning.

WAR WITH FRANCE URGED IN 1 8 0 3

165

The outcome of this Federahst move was highly satisfactory to the President and his party, for they believed, as the Aurora said, that Ross and Morris had been "deliberately seeking to lead the van of a new crusade in arms against the Government." (4) Ross's speech and resolutions were the attempt of a mere faction, "apostles of discord and disorder to enflame the public mind and to mislead by imposition," as William Duane wrote, "whose avowed object was to provoke war and to disgrace the government in the eyes of foreign nations, and to degrade the Executive in the eyes of the people, in order that he and his agitators may again have a scramble for power, waste of treasure, taxes, armies, navies, loans, and contracts." The National Intelligencer said: T h e Senate have, with becoming firmness, resisted the war measures attempted to be forced upon the country. . . . Thus have the measures calculated to enflame the passions of the Nation, to sow discord among them, and to destroy that harmony between the Executive and Legislative departments of the Government so preeminently necessary at this crisis, been nipped in the bud. . . . Never did a people exist less likely to be embroiled in a civil war. . . . W e are happy in the enjoyment of equal rights, and the madman who unfurls the banner of rebellion cannot find within the limits of the Union malcontents enough to keep the field for a day.

Jefferson wrote on February 19 to Thomas McKean, G o v ernor of Pennsylvania: If we can settle happily the difficulties of the Mississippi, I think we may promise ourselves smooth seas during our time. Mr. Ross . . . is setting himself up by his war movement here as if he were their only friend, and the only person who has their confidence. (I have been told, he has declared the people of his quarter would go of their own authority and take New Orleans and that he would head them himself.)

And Duane wrote: N o portions of the country would suffer more from war, than New England and the West. TTie common sentiment of all the American

166

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

people is —trade honorably, equally, and impartially with all Nations — interfere with the politics of none — suffer no nation to interfere with your internal affairs. Far from having an interest to attack us, the very justice which we exercise will command their respect and confidence. No nation of Europe could, after that experience, entertain the idea of attacking us for conquest. T o attack us to overturn our rights is a task which would not produce compensation for the expense. T h e disappointment of the Federalists at the outcome of their maneuvers was voiced b y their party organ in W a s h ington, in a long article describing the proceedings of Congress. A f t e r stating that "the Ministerialists" had been "goaded into action b y the struggles of the Federalists to place the Nation in a situation at once dignified and c o m manding," it concluded: Will our Western brethren be content to have their interests thus sacrificed at the shrine of a party? Will they be satisfied to have their substance wasted, their property ruined, and themselves and families reduced to beggary, merely to uphold a weak, tottering Administration, trembling at its shadow and starting at every rustling leaf? And pursuing this deUberate policy of opposition to attempted settlement b y negotiation and of insistence on war, the Federalists through their party newspapers continued t o spread alarmist reports as to preparations for w a r and for secession in the W e s t e r n States. T h e Salem Gazette in Massachusetts, referring to a publication in W e s t e r n Pennsylvania, said that if its bold language accords with the present spirit of the Western people it is all important, as it shows the United States are no less exposed from the conduct of a large portion of their own citizens than from foreign powers. This notion of independence in individual States and breaking off from the General Government on every occasion of dislike, will, if it grows, be productive of every intestine calamity. T h e Columbian

Centinel

in Boston published a letter from a

WAR WITH FRANCE URGED IN 1 8 0 3

167

N e w Y o r k Federalist of March 5, scouting the idea of Monroe's mission and saying: This city like most of the capitals of the Union abounds in politicians, some of whom scent the air of war in all the passing events; others think the scud will fly over and that the still life of peace will be continued. The affair of Louisiana is in everybody's mouth. We have reports here which come pretty direct that Kentuckians are about taking up arms to attack New Orleans. It appears to be the general wish that they should —so that in the negotiation we could pay off that informality against the informality of the Spanish Intendant. (5) Rumors had also been published to the effect that Aaron Burr and Jonathan Dayton were planning a journey to the W e s t to aid the Kentuckians in an armed attack on N e w Orleans. T h e Republican press ia the East, on the other hand, published severe attacks on the Federalists as "advocates of w a r " and "champions of murder," "uttering warwhoops on the floor of Congress and elsewhere," and indulging in "insidious and flagitious artifices"; and they charged them with "preaching insurgency in Kentucky and urgiag on such an event." (6) T h e Frankfort Palladium in Kentucky also indignantly denied the Federalist imputations on that State's loyalty, saying: The attachment which the citizens of the State have long felt to the Union has often been very undeservedly questioned by political writers in the Eastern States. . . . We think it is high time to deny, in behalf of our fellow citizens, that any power has, or in all human probability will have, claims to their affection, superior to the general Government of the United States. . . . One sentiment only prevails on this subject —a perfect reliance on the justice of the Federal Government and a determination to support its decisions, let it cost what it will. Throughout January and February, the Federalists had contented themselves with vague and general statements and rumors as to Kentucky's preparations for war. On March 4,

168

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

however, the New York Evening Post published a definite report, under the alarming headlines, "Rising in the West, Kentucky in Arms!" to the effect that a body of 1500 men had been organized and equipped to march against N e w Orleans. The truth of this report was at once challenged by Republican newspapers in N e w York, and three weeks later, after further investigation by Virginia papers, the Post was obliged to admit that it was without foundation.(7) When this wild tale of the Kentucky uprising had reached the West, the Frankfort Palladium had declined to treat it seriously and said that "it must have afforded the coffeemongers of that city (New York) a delicious meal for a few days. W e presume it can hardly be necessary at this time for us to say there has occurred no transaction in this State which could give even a colour of probability to a single assertion in it," But hardly had the fears of the East as to Kentucky's position been calmed by the exposure of the falsity of the report as to its arming when the news arrived of the publication on March 2, 1803, in a Kentucky newspaper (the Guardian of Freedom in Frankfort) of an article which, by its advocacy of secession of the State and of a junction with France, seemed to indicate a serious and even treasonable condition of affairs, if it represented any considerable sentiment in that State. This article gave rise to one of the most remarkable indictments ever found in a Federal Court in this country, and it has hitherto been unknown. The writer, signing himself " A Western American," began by saying in intemperate language: "Instead of directing our resentment towards the European Powers, let us with more propriety turn it towards Eastern America." The source of "all our calamities and where all our ills originate," he maintained, was east of the Allegheny Mountains. "Thence we have derived our misfortunes and still smart under her political scourge. . . . Let us no more be deceived by those fair speeches . . . and pre-

WAR WITH FRANCE URGED IN 1 8 0 3

169

tended good intentions of our President and Eastern brethren. They will do anything for us except for our advantage." He spoke of the "unfriendly views and conduct of Eastern America," charging that it was because of "the base intrigues" of Monroe and of Monroe's country of Eastern America that France, in 1795, did not get from Spain both East and West Florida to turn over to the United States; and that it was the policy of Eastern America to have the Western rivers remain in the dominion of Europe so as to keep down the commerce of the West and cramp its foreign trade, to the advantage of the "poor and generally worn-out lands of Eastern America." "Hence," he went on, "it becomes more necessary to secede from the Union (unless she abandons her politics) than it was for the United States to revolt from Great Britain. The interests of France, Spain, and Western America would go hand in hand." After denouncing Monroe "of detested memory," and the mission on which he had been sent by Jefferson, the writer then stated that the first step for Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Indiana and Mississippi territories to take should be "a spirited remonstrance to Congress praying for independence." "Should our petitions be spurned," he said, let us "set the General Government at defiance and erect ourselves into an independent, distinct republic, and should we experience any weakness on our part, we can recollect that France is strong; and we can know that 'tis better to have a friend for a master (if we fear our weakness must be mastered) than an enemy. . . . I am attached to my native home, but have very little veneration for my native rulers, the Eastern Americans, as I conceive they are hostile to our prosperity and happiness. . . . When the Western thunder begins to roll, we may know where to direct the bolt." The violent sentiments thus expressed, the advocacy of secession or acceptance of French dominion for the Western States, and the attack upon Eastern America, so far from

lyo

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

meeting with endorsement in Kentucky, became at once the subject of severe denunciation. By direction of Governor Garrard, the Attorney General of the State demanded from the editor of the Guardian of Freedom the name of the writer of the objectionable article, with a view to institution of criminal proceedings. When, however, search was made for the author, one Francis Floumoy, it was found (as stated in the newspapers) that "he had eloped," and "the inhabitants of the place to evince their detestation of the author and his doctrines burnt him in effigy." The editor of the paper, in describing the episode, said that the publication had "created unusual sensation at this place"; he disclaimed the political views expressed in the letter; and he noted with pleasure that "an effigy was made and carried through the principal streets of the town, whilst the citizens treated it with the greatest indignity, as expressive of their detestation of the principles the publication contained — after which it was consumed by fire, amidst the loudest acclamations of their desire for the perpetuity of the Union, confidence in our Government." Other Kentucky newspapers made vigorous condemnation of the letter and its author, and one wrote: A more inflammatory and ill-timed essay we have seldom seen, and we are happy to add the reception it met with was commensurate with its merits. One general burst of indignation against the author and the principles he avowed was heard from every mouth. . . . Sentiments more abhorrent to the feelings of the people of Kentucky could not have been penned. T h e y are warmly attached to the Union and in general highly approve of the principles which pervade the present administration of its government. (8)

Floumoy's article was regarded by the Republican papers in the East as another Federalist attempt to incite the Western States against the Administration, and there was considerable justification for their belief. The National Intelligencer stated that the resentment shown in Kentucky against Flour-

WAR WITH

F R A N C E URGED IN

1803

171

noy was "a demonstration of the spirit of the West"; it stated it had never believed the Federalist calumnies on the West or that the West had any interest distinct from the Atlantic States: T h e late reprehensible efforts, so unblushingly made, to disturb the common harmony, to lessen, if not destroy, the confidence of our citizens on the other, in these on this, side of the mountains, and to shake their reliance on the measures of the General Government, has confirmed this conviction and has exhibited new and unequivocal proofs of the patriotism of our Western friend* and that though separated from us by a considerable tract of country, they are not, from that circumstance, less in principle or feelings — American.

The Administration organ in Massachusetts, the National Aegis, termed it "a most inflammatory, seditious and treasonable publication," and said that the writer's "incendiary efforts will be held in abhorrence by every man who belongs to our country and claims the character of America." And the Republican paper in New York, the American Citizen, termed it "inflammatory jargon and a treasonable publication by some Federal incendiary in Kentucky." (9) Jefferson himself attributed the article to the Federalists, and wrote to Madison, March 22: "I see the Federalists find one paper in Kentucky into which they can get what they write either here or there. Bradford's Guardian of Freedom of March 4, has a piece recommending immediate separation. A cool calculation of interest, however, would show that Eastern Americans would not be the greatest sufferer by that folly." The Federalist papers in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York, though republishing the Flournoy letter with gusto, now perceived that their past encouragement of a split between the West and the East had reacted to their disadvantage, and they vied with the Republicans in denouncing it as a "treasonable production," "an infernal project fraught with the most direful misery to all the States, as well Western

172

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

or Eastern." Some papers were inclined to believe that the author was "employed by emissaries of France to ascertain the effect which such proposition would have on our Western brethren. T o divide and conquer has been the policy invariably pursued by the present ruler of France." (10) In the midst of the Eastern editorial condemnation of the Flournoy letter, there arrived from Kentucky the news that steps had been taken towards a criminal prosecution of the author himself. The indictment forms one of the most extraordinary episodes in American legal history and may be properly termed a legal curiosity. Though Flournoy's letter was everywhere termed "treasonable," it is clear that neither its writing nor its publication constituted the technical crime of treason. It could be termed neither a levying of war nor a giving of aid and comfort to the enemy — which acts alone made the crime of treason under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Placed in this dilemma, the United States Attorney, Joseph Hamilton Daveiss, seized upon a Federal statute which had been passed without the remotest idea of its applicability to a situation like the one involved. This was the Logan Act, enacted by Congress on January 30, 1799, which made criminal the actions of any United States citizen who without the permission or authority of the Government, directly or indirectly, commences or carries on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with an intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies of the United States or to defeat the measures of the government of the United States,

and which also made criminal the acts of any citizen or resident of the United States who advised or aided in any such unauthorized proceedings. The purpose of this law, thus passed during our "partial" war with France, to prevent "the usurpation of executive

WAR WITH

F R A N C E URGED IN

1803

I73

authority" by private citizens, had been explained by Roger Griswold of Connecticut in Congress, as "necessary to guard by law against the interference of individuals in the negotiation of our Executive with the Governments of foreign countries. . . . If offences of this kind are to pass unpunished, it may be in the power of an individual to frustrate all the designs of the Executive. The agent of a faction, if such a faction shall exist, may be sent to a foreign country to negotiate in behalf of that faction, in opposition to the Executive authority. . . . No gentleman would pretend to say that an unauthorized individual ought to exercise a power which should influence the measures of a foreign Government with respect to this country." It is difficult to imagine by what metaphysical ingenuity the United States Attorney, Joseph Hamilton Daveiss, convinced himself that the mere writing of a letter for publication in a newspaper could be construed to constitute the carrying on directly or indirectly of any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with a foreign government, within the prohibition of that statute. It may be noted, however, that Daveiss had been appointed to his office by President Adams; that he had married in this year, 1803, a sister of Chief Justice Marshall; and that he may, therefore, be assumed to have shared in the Federalist antipathy to France and in the Federalist desire to array this country against France. Whatever may have been his impelling motives, it appears that this United States Attorney saw no legal difficulties in the way of instituting a prosecution under the Logan Act; and the Grand Jury of the District Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky, on March 14, 1803, found an indictment which is so unique as to deserve reproduction in full: ( 1 1 ) The Judges of the Grand Jury of the United States for the District of Kentucky, being clearly impressed with the importance of preserving the Union of these States entire, and of preserving and sup-

174

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N

HISTORY

porting in their fullest vigor and energy the bands which bind them together, do declare that we receive with the utmost detestation and abhorrence any speeches, writings or insinuations tending to excite a spirit of discord, discontent, or schism among our citizens towards the government of the Union, and consider such as utter or make the same as enemies to the prosperity, welfare and peace of this country, and wickedly and viciously inclined to bring upon us the heavy curse of dis-union, which to a young and weak country must be utterly ruinous —do on our oaths present Francis Floumoy of the county of Pendleton in said District, farmer, for unlawfully commencing a written correspondence indirectly with the government of the French nation, which is a foreign government to that of the United States, and with intent to influence the measures and conduct of the said government of the French nation towards the United States, and with intent to defeat the measures of the government of the United States relative to a certain controversy depending between the said government of the French nation and the said United States concerning the territory of West Florida and the Island of N e w Orleans and the navigation of the river Mississippi, which said unlawful, indirect, written correspondence was commenced as aforesaid with the intent aforesaid and at the county and district aforesaid on the day of February, 1803, by the said Francis Floumoy unlawfully and without the permission or authority of the Government of the United States — by means of a certain unlawful writing signed " A Western American" and addressed to the printer of the Guardian of Freedom and which said unlawful writing the said Francis caused to be printed and published in a newspaper on the 2nd day of March, 1803, which is stiled and called the Guardian of Freedom and is edited in the town of Frankfort in said District and which said unlawful writing is in tenor and effect as follows: [Here follows the publication verbatim] contrary to the laws of the United States in such cases provided and against the peace and dignity thereof. This presentment made upon the knowledge of our own body and on the testimony of Mr. James Bradford, printer, of the town of Frankfort in the county of Franklin. ROBERT ALEXANDER,

foreman

In view of the shaky legal grounds on which the case rested, and in view of the unexpected political events which rapidly ensued, it is not surprising that no further proceedings were ever had upon the indictment. It appears that the defendant could not be tried in fact at that time, since he

WAR WITH F R A N C E URGED IN 1 8 0 3

175

had fled from the State. T h e political issue which produced the indictment disappeared within a f e w months. Nothing on the records of the United States District Court now in existence shows that any trial was ever had, even at a later date. W i t h the exception of the indictment obtained in this Floumoy case, no other prosecution under the Logan A c t was ever had in the Federal Courts, although consideration of such action was given b y the Department of Justice of the United States, in 1915, in connection with an episode mvolving an American journalist who was alleged b y thé British authorities to be carrying dispatches for the Austrian Ambassador to the United States, Constantin Dumba.(i2) T h e situation in Kentucky in 1803 was most interestingly described b y Senator Breckenridge in a letter to Monroe, J u l y 19: Upon my return to this country, I found it in the most profound tranquility. The attempts of the minority in the Senate to inflame the Western people were wholly abortive. They were so insidious that they attached instant suspicion and odium to those who made them, and strengthened the existing confidence in the Executive. All believed their war projects were intended for mischievous and vindictive purposes and not for the good of the Western States. But a single man in this State ventured to oppose the general sentiment, by publishing an inflammatory piece recommending War, disunion, etc., and at the first sitting of the Federal Court thereafter, he was presented by the Grand Jury and burnt in effigy by the mob. I mention this fact to show that the people were not only apparently tranquil but heartily so, and were determined to maintain that tranquility, until the result of the mission was known. The restoration of the deposit which took place about 19th of May has removed the anxiety which existed on account of our exports during the present year. That event, moreover, has sanctioned the wisdom of the measures pursued by the Executive and Legislature and more glaringly exposed the destructive projects which were so ardently pressed upon the country. Believing, however, as I do, that the peace of the Union will be at hazard, and that the Western States cannot prosper, so long as any foreign Nation

\η6

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

is possessed of the mouth of the Mississippi, I feel all that solicitude which an object of such great National and personal concern can inspire. A simple restoration of the right of deposit, I consider as ultimately of very little importance. The perpetual fear of similar and more violent outrages on our commerce will effectually discourage every adventurer possessing ordinary prudence and foresight; and a second similar outrage will kindle a flame which cannot be extinguished, until its cause can be removed. Such, I believe, is the general sentiment here. Nothing, therefore, can be more interesting to men than you and your mission are to us. We are greatly gratified at the accounts published of your reception at Havre. God grant you a complete success, to the extent of your powers. I know they cannot be more extensive than your wishes, and no man will enjoy with more sincere satisfaction the lasting applause which a grateful nation will bestow on you. T h e above letter (hitherto unpublished) was written from Kentucky before Breckenridge had learned that in Washington, fifteen days before, on J u l y 4, 1803, public announcement had been made that the whole question of the Mississippi River had been settled in perpetuity. For, on M a y 2, Monroe and Livingston had signed the famous Louisiana Purchase Treaty bearing date of April 30, 1803. Rightly did Samuel H . Smith, the editor of the National Intelligencer, write to his wife that the Fourth of J u l y was a day of joy to our citizens and of pride to our President. . . . Next to the liberty of his country, peace is certainly the dearest to his heart. How glad then must that heart be which, with loving participancy in obtaining and securing the one, has placed the other on an impregnable basis. This mighty event forms an era in our history and of itself must render the Administration of Jefferson immortal. (13) W i t h the ratification of this treaty on October 21, 1803, Francis Flournoy, the Franco-Kentucky Alliance, the Logan A c t , and the efforts of the Federalists to involve this country in a war with France, dropped out of sight and recollection in American history.

^ χ

^

Why the Battle of New Orleans Was not Painted

r

" IS a little-known fact that for many, years in the early part of the nineteenth century the members of the Congress of the United States devoted much time to posing as art critics, and to discussing art and its function in general and the merits of certain paintings in particular. The occasion for much of this absorption in a subject singularly distant from ordinary legislative topics first arose out of the supposed necessity of decorating the Capitol, which was rising anew after its destruction by fire by the British in 1814. Since the plan of both architects — Benjamin H. Latrobe, who resigned in 1817, and Charles Bulfinch, his successor — called for a central building connecting the two wings (whose ruined walls still were standing) and containing a large circular apartment or Rotunda, some decoration of this latter seemed desirable. And it happened that just as its construction was under way Colonel John Trumbull, the American artist, had recently returned from England, bringing with him small pictures of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence and of other historical subjects, in which most of the persons depicted had been painted by him from life. Exhibited in the new Hall of the House of Rep-

lyS

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

resentatíves, these paintings had received much favorable notice; and on January 27, 1817, a resolution was introduced in the Senate to employ Trumbull "to compose and execute a painting commemorative of the Declaration of Independence, to be placed, when finished, in the Capitol of the United States" (later amended so as to authorize "the execution of four paintings commemorative of the most important events of the American Revolution"). This resolution passed the Senate "after a desultory but pleasing debate, occasionally animated by flashes of eloquence," as the National Intelligencer stated. In the House, however, there was a long and vigorous debate which was reported in the Annals of Congress as "interesting, amusing, and instructive."(i) The talents of the artist were acknowledged on all hands and the excellence of these paintings exhibited as the models from which the large paintings arc to be taken, was generally admitted. But, in opposition to the resolution, a variety of arguments were urged by different gentlemen, such as, that it was questionable how far it was just or proper for the Government of the United States to become the patron of the fine arts; that if it were to do so, no such expense ought to be authorized until the faith of the Government was redeemed by the fulfillment of all its pecuniary obligations, nor until every debt was paid arising out of the war of the Revolution, or of the late war . . . and that generally, in the countries where they had been brought to the highest perfection, paintings and statuary in commemoration of liberty and of great events had no perceptible effect in preserving the liberty and independence of those nations, and the rights and liberties of this nation depended on no such paltry considerations as these.

Replying to these arguments, advocates of the Trumbull paintings stated "that it was not proposed by the Resolve to make the Government the patron of the Fine Arts, otherwise than it had already been by employing artists to rebuild and embellish the Capitol; and that the moral effect of these paintings would be, independent of their intrinsic worth, of

N E W ORLEANS U N P A I N T E D

179

great value to the present and future generations, serving to recall to the attention of future legislators the events and principles of the Revolution and to impel them to an imitation of the virtues of the men of those days; that the time now was, which once passed away, could never be regained, when a living artist of great ability and a compatriot of the Revolutionary sage could transmit accurate likenesses of them to posterity." The resolution was finally adopted by Congress; and a contract was made with Trumbull to paint four pictures to fill panels in the Rotunda for the sum of eight thousand dollars each. This contract was certainly unusual and remarkable in form, for while it provided very specifically for the dimensions of each picture — eight feet by twelve — it contained no specification as to the subjects. It is small wonder that Arthur Livermore said in the House that it was an extraordinary document "which bargained for a picture by the yard or by the acre."(2) The four paintings, now known to every American, were "The Signing of the Declaration of Independence," "The Surrender of General Burgoyne at Saratoga," "The Surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown," and "The Resignation of his Commission by General Washington at Annapolis." They became at once the subject of much adverse criticism. Already, John Quincy Adams had written in his diary as to the portrayal of the Declaration of Independence: I cannot say that I was disappointed in the execution of it, because my expectations were very low but the picture is unmeasurably below the dignity of the subject. It may be said of Trumbull's talent as the Spaniards say of heroes who were brave on a certain day; he has painted good pictures. I think the old small picture far superior to this large new one. He himself thinks otherwise.

And an English traveller viewing it in Washington wrote: I cannot help thinking that the painter might have selected a more interesting period of time in this great transaction. . . . The great ob-

180

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

ject has been to get together into one group the portraits of those self-devoted men who were the principal actors in this event, but in this, the result is really calculated by its total want of epic grandeur, to remind us somewhat of the Vicar of Wakefield's family picture . . . all as demure as if they had been associated to attend a funeral.(3)

William Dunlap, the art critic, wrote that disappointment had been loudly expressed: Attitudes which appeared constrained in the original were awkward in the copy; many of the likenesses had vanished, the arrangement of the whole appeared tame and unskilful; and people asked " W h a t is the point of time? It is not the Declaration" — " N o , it is the bringing in of the Declaration by the Committee." It was found that men who were present at the scene were omitted and men not present or who had not even taken a seat in Congress were represented as actors in the great deliberative drama. Men said — "Is history thus to be falsified and is this record to be placed in the Capitol to contradict the minutes of Congress and the truth?"

In 1824, in objecting to the purchase of any more paintings by Congress, Senator John Holmes of Maine said that Congress had been "abominably taken in" by Trumbull's pictures, which had cost $32,000 and were not worth thirtytwo cents. "I do not pretend to be a critic of painting," he said, "but I will say that Trumbull's last painting commemorative of the Resignation of General Washington is a piece of the most solemn daubing I ever saw. The event it was intended to commemorate was one of the most sublime incidents that ever took place in the country. But what do you see in this picture? Why, a man looking like a little ensign, with a roll of paper in his hand like an old newspaper, appearing as if he was saying, 'Here, take it — I don't want to give it up.' " Undiscouraged by the adverse comments on his paintings, John Trumbull in 1826 wrote to President Adams suggesting that for "any event, political, naval, or military which shall be regarded by this Government as of sufficient importance to be recorded as matter of history" the Government should

NEW ORLEANS UNPAINTED

l8l

employ some distinguished painter to depict the same, and should present a copy "to the minister, admiral or general concerned . . . as a powerful stimulus to the ambition and exertions of the national servants in their various departments, as well as an effectual encouragement to artists and an honourable mode of exciting their unremitting endeavours to attain to the highest possible degree of eminence." In making this suggestion, Trumbull could not have anticipated or foreseen the terrific Senatorial struggle which was about to be caused by the next proposal for an historical painting in the Capitol. This was the battle over the Battle of N e w Orleans. On January 8, 1828, the anniversary of Andrew Jackson's victory, James Hamilton, Jr., of South Carolina, introduced in the Senate a seemingly innocuous resolve that the Library Committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of having an historical picture of the Battle of N e w Orleans painted by Washington Allston for the Rotunda. "Whether the victory of the 8th of January," he said, "was an event which, delineated by the hand of genius, might be applicable to some one of the purposes to which the great moral of this art is subservient is precisely the question which he wished the intelligent Committee to decide. There might be a peculiar fitness in placing a delineation of that achievement by the side of the Surrender at Yorktown. He could hardly conceive a finer subject for the canvas than the objects which would animate and the scenery which would adom this picture . . . scenery of that Delta of Egyptian fertility and tropical magnificence through which the Mighty Father of our Western Waters is pouring the tribute of his thousand streams to his almost finished journey to the ocean." Under ordinary conditions, it is unlikely that this proposal would have awakened much political discussion; but Hamilton had chosen an unfortunate time to introduce the subject. For the contest for the Presidency between Jack-

182

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

son and John Quincy Adams was already becoming vigorous and acrid. Hence, no sooner had Hamilton concluded his speech than it became evident that the Anti-Jackson men of the North believed that this was a political move to enhance the fame of Adams' opponent; and Henry T . Dwight of Massachusetts stated that he thought the resolution might well be made to embrace the Battles of Bunker Hill, Monmouth, Princeton, and the Attack on Quebec. Henry R. Storrs of N e w York followed this up by suggesting that "our naval victories were entitled to some notice as well as the exploits of the army," and stated that he wished to add the Battle of Lake Erie or such of the victories achieved by the N a v y of the United States as in their opinion should be selected for such national commemoration. Edward Everett of Massachusetts, Chairman of the Library Committee, then said that the present was not the first time that he had attempted on the floor of the Senate to add his tribute to that which had been so liberally paid by this whole people to the great man who had achieved that victory but he thought the terms of the Resolution should be extended by making provision for filling all the empty panels of the Rotunda with appropriate paintings. George Kremer of Pennsylvania, seeing that the N e w England members were trying to load down the resolve with amendments, suggested sarcastically: "When this victory was achieved which rendered our country so glorious in the eyes of all nations, it excited both pride and wonder. I wish I could stop there. But I must say, it created envy too. N o w , in order that posterity may have a fair opportunity of judging of that transaction, I would suggest that another painting be placed alongside of the victory of N e w Orleans, representing the meeting of the Hartford Convention which was in full session at the same time." On the next day, January 9, 1828, Hamilton resumed his

N E W ORLEANS UNPAINTED

183

speech, saying that he had not expected that the passage of his resolution would be embarrassed by amendments calculated to defeat it. "This," he said, "is a well known mode of legislative hostility — to suffocate a measure which could not be defeated on its merits, by weight of amendments ungenerously put upon its back. I would be delighted to vote for a picture of the Battle of Lake Erie as a separate and distinct proposition." John Barney of Maryland confessed to humiliation that the naval branch had been so long neglected and suffered flagrant injustice. He thought that the picture of the hero of New Orleans would be "rendered more illustrious by associating with it one of our naval triumphs." Storrs insisted that "among aU the chivalrous exploits which had advanced the glory of the American character, the Battle of New Orleans is not entitled to the exclusive honors now proposed to be conferred upon it. I feel it will lead to injurious criticism if we refuse to confer at the same time the honour of the country on the splendid achievements of the Navy — the one had saved the South — the other, the North and Northwest." William Drayton of South Carolina thought that it would be no compliment to the Navy to have its service dragged in as an accidental thought at the tail of a resolution. He hoped that the reputation of the Navy might be rescued from an indignity, and that it ought to cry out "Save me from my friends." Charles Miner of Pennsylvania now proposed to add the Battle of Stony Point to the subjects for painting. Burwell Bassett of Virginia thought that the purpose of the amendments went to destroy the whole and agreed with Drayton that it would not be for the honor of the Navy to join it in any consolidated scheme. Tristam Burges of Rhode Island then made a speech which was exceedingly irritating to the Jackson partisans. He said

184

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

that in commemorating deeds like those contained in the amendment, he was unwilling that the vote should be taken under any possible suspicion of mere party hostility. He was, however, against both resolution and amendments, because he did not believe that the fame of any man could be secured by legislative enactment: "The future fame of Oliver H. Perry does not depend on any vote which the House can pass. His fame is already secure. It is beyond your reach or mine. . . . I feel unfeigned surprise when I observe the solicitude of gentlemen to secure the glory of the Hero of the Battle of New Orleans by any vote of the House. . . . The victory of Lake Erie, whether we consider its nature or the consequences which flowed from it, is infinitely superior to that of New Orleans. I for one am not willing that that act shall follow in the train of any military comet which has shone and glittered and glared across this land. No, sir, let the victory of Erie stand by itself and not be tacked to a resolution whose only object is to commemorate N e w Orleans. It is not my intention to deny or disparage the merits of that achievement. But I ask if there is any man here who feels his bosom swell and his heart glow at the recollection of the victory at Orleans who does not at the same time feel his exultation checked by a pang at the thought that such a battle with all its attendant carnage and woe was fought by two nations who were at the moment at peace — that the contest was a mere mistake. And who is there who does not regret that all this glory had not been won while the nations were yet in the career of full and open hostility? Not so with the Battle of Erie. That immortal victory happened when it was most needed." Everett then said he was opposed to the amendment because it did not go far enough; he did not wish the House to pass any resolution which might leave it to be inferred that all public merit was divided between military and naval achievement. "In all the details of the great National Monu-

N E W ORLEANS UNPAINTED

185

ment, we ought to keep constantly in view our obligation to teach a valuable lesson to posterity. We may find enough memorable events in the civil history of this country to call for all the aid of all the arts." Dwight denied Hamilton's charge that he was trying to smother the original Resolution with amendments ungenerously thrown upon it, and Everett then moved that the Library Committee inquire into the expediency of procuring a series of historical paintings for the empty panels of the Rotunda. Ichabod Bartlett of N e w Hampshire agreed with Everett, stating that he did not hesitate to say that he believed it important to our future prosperity and safety that we should not give a fictitious importance to the military character of the country. "This is the fatal error into which all Governments resembling in any degree our own, have fallen and it will become us to take warning from their fate." He suggested subjects connected with our civil history — the Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers, Penn's Treaty with the Indians, the Federal Convention. "Are these matters of no interest to the present and future ages? If naval affairs are to be celebrated, why not the Bon-Homme Richard and the Serapis, Decatur and the Bay of Tripoli? Or if the military — the Battle of Monmouth or Bennington? Moreover, why a picture of one man? There were other men there, and boys too, who did not ingloriously flee." Philip P. Barbour of Virginia thought it an improper disbursement of the public money to devote it to purposes of ornament. Moreover, said he: "There is a better mode of handing down great actions to posterity than either painting or statuary. The hero of New Orleans has his monument in the hearts of aU his countrymen; and as it respects the generations to come, the page of impartial history will better carry down his actions than any perishable monument. And as to the moral effect attributed to such monuments, so long as the high spirit of liberty which now animates the Nation

I 86

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

shall prevail, it wants nothing to preserve it and when it shall once have passed away, nothing that the arts can do will ever restore it." William McCoy of Virginia also said that he was opposed to laying out the money of this Nation for pictures. "In this age of civilization, any such mode of commemoration is wholly unnecessary. The art of writing is a much better and surer mode of perpetuating a great action. I think we have had a sample of the Fine Arts and it is now in the Rotunda, and in my opinion it has brought us more plague than profit. And if the Fine Arts cannot thrive in this country without getting up Government jobs, why, I say, let them fail. I am opposed to this whole business." John Randolph then rose to close the debate and said that he concurred with Barbour and McCoy: "I have heard similar sentiments expressed in this House by one [Nathaniel Macon] who might be called the 'Fabricius' of this country. It was at the last session of the Presidency of the elder Adams that he said, in relation to the proposition for the erection of a monument or a pyramid to the memory of Washington, that the sure way to commemorate his virtues was to put his life into the hands of every schoolboy in the country. In ancient days, monuments were resorted to, to commemorate public events or individual fame. What has become of them? It was the vote, and not the work of the artist which conferred honor. I heard Roger Sherman, who had scarcely a superior in sagacity, say, when a number of propositions for the crection of monuments were made, that the monument was the vote to erect one; that posterity would never enquire where the monument was. Where is the memory of Homer? Where was his monument? But his memory lives at the end of 3000 years as green and as great as ever. N o man who has ever walked through Westminster Abbey will, in my opinion, be in favor of erecting monuments to commemorate public

NEW ORLEANS UNPAINTED

187

service. Go there, and as in many cases the dear delusion is torn away. Like the tombs of Hamilton and Washington, the monuments are disfigured by the hands of mischievous schoolboys; and miserable things sticking against the wall commemorate the talents of such men as Gray, Shakespeare and Ben Jonson." Moreover, said Randolph, as an additional reason against the proposal thus to honor Andrew Jackson, he wished to call attention to the fact that Congress had already passed an Act giving thanks to Major General Jackson and directing a gold medal to be struck "emblematical of his splendid achievement." And finally, Randolph said: "I might be disposed to support a proposition for the further decoration of the Rotunda, if it would not make the room more of a nuisance than the utmost efforts of architecture has already been able to make of it"; but he was opposed to any more paintings in the Rotunda like those of Trumbull: "I have been recorded in a publication called the American Annual Register as having expressed a very high opinion of the Trumbull paintings already installed. I wish now to protest against the whole of these paintings, in justice to myself as possessing the slightest possible pretention to the character of a man of taste. I disclaim a disposition to say anything to wound the feelings of anyone — of an artist particularly, because artists are probably genus irritabile, because genius is easily excited. I hardly ever pass through, without feeling ashamed of the state of the arts in this country. . . . In my opinion, the picture of the Declaration of Independence ought to be called the Shin-piece, for surely never was there before such a collection of legs submitted to the eyes of man." (4) After this speech, the numerous amendments to include various other battles in the proposed resolution were defeated by the Jackson men. Then Everett's amendment that the Library Committee inquire into the project of completing

188

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

the Rotunda paintings was defeated, Hamilton, the original proposer of the resolution, saying that, since every member of that Committee had voted for every proposition calculated to defeat the resolution, "they were unfit depositaries for the subject and that he would not put the lamb to nurse to the wolf." Finally, despite Hamilton's ardent protestation that his resolution had not been proposed with a political or sectional or selfish motive, it was voted down by the Anti-Jackson men. Thus temporarily ended the great battle over the Battle of New Orleans in Congress. The fight was renewed, however, six years later, when the House, offended apparently by the four vacant panels existing in the Rotunda, plunged into discussion of a resolution to employ four native artists to fill the panels. While it was practically certain that this would precipitate the old fight over the Battle of New Orleans, singularly the first opposition developed on a different line — owing to the unguarded expression of opinion by John Quincy Adams of his "doubt whether four native artists could be found who were fully competent to the task." This at once aroused the one-hundred-percent Americans to the defense of American art. Jarvis said that he did not wish to make a monopoly of the business, as was done before: "There is nothing in the pictures now in the Rotunda which can be adduced as an argument in favor of giving the execution of four more paintings to one individual. I do not doubt that four artists can be found in the country who can execute paintings quite equal to those now in the Rotunda and which will do honor to the country." Henry A. Wise of Virginia said: "As an American, I will boast that Allston is the finest historical painter. Sully, the finest portrait painter, and Greenough, the finest sculptor, in the world. And to these, I could add the names of twice the number four. The country is rich in artists. Though the Fine Arts are not encouraged here, they are indigenous to the country." And Wise then levelled

NEW ORLEANS UNPAINTED

189

a blow at Trumbull by saying: "The evil of a monopoly is now to be seen in the Rotunda. In the painting of the Declaration of Independence, it may be seen by anyone who will look at them, that the faces on one are the faces of all four — and that all the faces in the same piece have all the same characteristics. Contrast will be obtained in paintings by different hands." Wise then continued: "I very much desire to see if America cannot bestow her favors and lawful patronage in such a manner on American artists as to nurture the Fine Arts, to illustrate in their tum the arms, the civic virtues and the glorious deeds of this illustrious Nation. . . . The United States is not only the richest in the Fine Arts now but is the richest country in the world in historical events for the pencil of the painter — in historical events of the battlefield and in the council chamber. Every inch of ground in this country is consecrated by freedom, by events, great, holy and sacred." All would have been well, if the discussion had been confined to the existence and qualifications of American artists. But Tristam Burges — a hot opponent of President Jackson — was not content so to confine his remarks; and he now cast once more a political bomb into the debate. While he doubted, said he, whether we possessed many artists competent to adorn the Capitol, but assuming that we employ a number of artists to execute the paintings, he particularly wanted to know what subjects will they select. "There is one subject in this city of all absorbing interest which had formerly been suggested — the Battle of New Orleans. At the mention of it, many feel their blood warm and hearts glow." And he added ironically: "It may, too, excite some party feeling — some feelings in connection with the Constitution, and some in reference to matters of taste." And he concluded by saying: "Gentlemen seem to be too fearful of making a monopoly. But I am not such an admirer of democracy as to divide these works of art upon agrarian

iço

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

principles. Are we in such a state of mediocrity that we have no star amongst this host of artists? If we have such a galaxy there must be some star of the first magnitude which outshines the rest." Burges' sarcasm as to Jackson at once aroused Wise: "The gentleman from Rhode Island seems to tremble lest the Battle of N e w Orleans should be put on a canvas, lest some act or event of the President's life should be selected as a subject. For myself, I would be content to confine the subjects to a date prior to 1783. Every State in the Union has events to be painted. Even the little Rhode Island has a great man to be painted." Burges thereupon retorted again sarcastically that he had no partisan motive: "I have no objection that posterity shall know all the achievements of General Jackson, but I hope they will never know all the movements of his little partisans who make him a public convenience and accommodation, sometimes following him with applause, and sometimes when it suits their purpose with censure. So far as I am from wishing to obscure the fame of General Jackson that I hope his laurels will go down green to posterity and freshen in the lapse of ages. But I am not yet so much imbued with the spirit of the times as to make him a public convenience by lauding him one day and abusing him the next." These remarks so angered Wise that he said he felt incompetent to make a proper reply to Burges: "Silence perhaps is the best that could be made, as that gentleman is notoriously 'a privileged character' as he has been called on this floor. But I cannot conceive why he should, unless from constitutional weakness, as well as weakness of old age, go out of his way to spit at me on this occasion his habitual and characteristic venom and malig—" Here the Speaker interrupted by shaking his head at Wise, who continued: "Sir, I leave the blank to be filled by the House who know him

N E W ORLEANS UNPAINTED

IÇI

well." Then, more calmly. Wise said: "Sir, I know not and I care not, whether the President or any friend of his desires the Battle of New Orleans or any other event of his life, the subject of either of these paintings. As I before said, I would prefer the events of the Revolution, but I care not what subjects are selected, so that American artists are chosen and the subjects and the execution comport with the dignity of our National history and the works tend to nurture the arts at home and redound to the credit of our own country." Samuel F. Vinton of Ohio now attempted to allay the party feelings which had been aroused by moving to amend the resolution so as to restrict the subjects of the painting to colonial or revolutionary events preceding the peacc of 1783. John Quincy Adams wanted to omit "colonial." Jarvis said that Vinton's amendment would exclude the choice of one subject, the Landing of Columbus — a subject which "would give greater scope to the genius of a painter than any other," and he suggested a provision that no subject should be chosen of a more recent date than the year 1783. Before a vote could be taken, the House adjourned; and such had been the political antagonism again awakened over the possibility of a painting of the Battle of N e w Orleans that the proposers of the resolution thought it unwise to put it to the test of a vote and the House took no action at all upon the matter. (5) It was not until two years later that in a more peaceful mood the Congress passed a joint resolution, on June 23, 1836, under which four artists were directed to paint pictures to fill the four vacant panels — the pictures which now are installed in the Rotunda — and no one of which, be it noted, portrays the Battle of N e w Orleans.

^

XI ^

How Politics Intruded on Washington's Centenary Celebration

OLITICS in this country have invaded, at one time or another, almost every phase of our national life. Most American citizens, however, would probably learn with surprise that the centennial celebration of Washington's birthday was attended by partisan discussions. Today nothing could be more remote from politics; but in 1832 many Americans, in their desire to cast a brick at Andrew Jackson, almost lost sight of George Washington. In the world's history there have been few men whose birthdays have been celebrated annually after their death. There have been still fewer whose birthdays have been celebrated during their lifetime — other than royal rulers (and in this country in colonial times, royal governors). It is, therefore, a remarkable thing that as early as 1779 the birthday of George Washington began to be observed with public dinners and balls, and by 1784 such observance had become rather general throughout the States. After the inauguration of the new government in 1789, however, the celebration was conducted more and more under exclusively Federalist auspices and became so tinged with politics that in 1792 a leading Antifederalist newspaper in Philadelphia listed under the title "Forerunners of Monarchy and Aristocracy" the use of the title "Excellency," the holding of

P

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

193

presidential levees, and the "keeping the birthdays of the servants of the public."(i) After Washington's death on December 17, 1799, aU partisan sentiment disappeared and there was a universal desire that a proper tribute to his greatness should be paid by the nation. Hence, when John Marshall supported in the House of Representatives, on December 23, a joint resolution "that a marble monument be erected by the United States at the Capitol in the City of Washington and that the family of General Washington be requested to permit his body to be deposited under it; and that the monument be so designed as to commemorate the great events of his military and political life," the resolution was unanimously adopted, and Mrs, Washington on December 31 wrote a letter consenting to the plan. In addition, official recognition of Washington's birthday was made for the first time by a resolution introduced by Marshall on Decmber 30, that "it be recommended to the people of the United States to assemble on the twentysecond day of February next in such numbers and manner as may be convenient, publicly to testify their grief . . . by suitable eulogies, orations, and discourses, or by public prayers." (2) One year after this action by Congress, in December, 1800, the House passed a bill to construct for the reception of Washington's body a marble mausoleum, pyramidal in shape, with a base one hundred feet square, at a cost of $200,000. (It should be noted that the Capitol at that time consisted of only one wing, and that the present Rotunda and crypt below it were not then built.) The project was opposed by many Congressmen, particularly from the South; and it was adopted by a close party vote. The Antifederalist paper in Boston, the Independent Chronicle, said of the debate that it "was in some part desultory, tedious, and uninteresting, and in others forcible and spirited. In particular, the eloquence of Mr. Harper and Mr. Randolph were impressive; in the

194

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

collision of opinion the ordinary rules of decorum were prostrated, and language indignant and sarcastic, impeaching personal motive was reciprocated with keen severity." In the Senate the plan was postponed until the next session. Sixteen years then elapsed without any further action upon it by Congress. In 1816, when the legislature of Virginia asked permission from Judge Bushrod Washington to remove Washington's remains to a spot near Richmond (which was denied), Benjamin Huger, a Congressman from South Carolina, expressed his "astonishment and more than regret at the neglect and apathy of the American people on this subject," and moved that the House consider what further action should be taken "on that sacred and interesting subject" to carry out the vote of the Congress of 1799. A committee was appointed, which reported in favor of the erection of a marble monument. Erastus Root of N e w York urgently opposed it on the ground that it was preferable that "Washington's name live in history [rather] than in marble." The matter was again postponed by Congress.(3) In 1824 still another attempt was made to carry out the vote of 1799, when James Buchanan moved in the House for a committee to report on the subject, saying: "Several attempts have since been made in Congress to redeem the plighted faith of the Nation, but they have all proved unavailing. . . . His mortal remains have yet been unhonored by that people who, with justice, call him the Father of his Country. It is difEcult to determine whether this neglect be more impolitic or ungrateful." Again vigorous opposition developed. George Cary of Georgia said: " W e need no monuments. . . . He has a monument in the hearts of every American . . . and let it be our peculiar pride to enshrine him there alone." If a monument should be erected in the Capitol, he said, "it will only be visible to the favored few who are drawn to this spot by their public functions, who visit it on a jaunt of

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

195

pleasure, or attend it on concerns of private business," Again Congress failed to act. In the next year, 1825, a bül proposed in Congress for the purchase from Rembrandt Peale an equestrian portrait of General Washington was defeated. Senator John Holmes of Maine, while declining to vote for any more pictures in the Capitol, stated that if the proposal should be made that "some skilful man collect and cause to be digested and printed the acts of Washington, both civil and military," he would vote for it "upon the condition, that as the money is taken from the people, they should derive the advantage. Since early impressions are lasting, I would discriminate between rich and poor; and when the work shall be completed and printed I would distribute it among the latter, the former can buy for themselves. I would extend them to the cottages in the pine hills of North Carolina, to the Western frontier, and to every portion of this Union. Parents could then read and make early impression upon their children of the political, moral, and religious worth of Washington which can never be done by fixing up pictures and portraits in the Capitol." In 1826, Congress even declined to adjourn over the twenty-second of February, by defeating a motion for that purpose made by John Cocke of Tennessee in the House "to show their respect for the memory of that great man by refraining from business on that day." John Forsyth of Georgia was opposed, on the ground that "the most respectful tribute the House could pay to the memory of General Washington was a due attention to the discharge of their proper duties." This was the first time, he believed, "that it ever entered into the head of any Member of Congress that it was proper to pay respect to the birthday of any man; and he hoped the matter would not prevail, to become a bad precedent for the future." Four years later, on Washington's birthday in 1830, the

196

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

House took a step towards carrying out the resolution of 1801 for the erection of a mausoleum, by appointing a special committee headed by Tristam Burges of Rhode Island to report on the matter. This committee took up the subject with George Washington Parke Custis, who wrote to them and to President Adams that he perceived "with much pleasure and truly much surprise that the Government after the lapse of thirty years has at last determined to give national rites of sepulture to the venerated remains of Washington." He also called their attention to the fact that it had been Mrs. Washington's understanding when she gave her assent to the removal of her husband's body that she should ultimately be buried with him. The committee recommended to the House that a resolve be passed that "the remains of George Washington and Martha Washington be entombed in the same national sepulchre, that immediately over the centre of this tomb and in the grand floor of the Capitol shall be placed a marble cenotaph in the form of a wellproportioned sarcophagus. . . . Immediately above this, in the centre of the Rotunda, a full length marble equestrian statue of Washington, wrought by the best artist of the present time. . . . These memorials, little costly and ostentatious as they may appear, will better accord with the feelings of this Nation and more appropriately commemorate the pure and elevated character of our Washington than could any the most expensive or splendid monument or mausoleum." But like its predecessor of 1800-01, this resolution failed to pass Congress; and two years went by before that body took any oflicial action to commemorate the Father of his Country. Meanwhile, though Congress declined to make official recognition of Washington's birthday, each year the City of Washington had a parade on that day, and a birth-night ball, the latter being usually attended by the President of

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON S CENTENARY

197

the United States, the diplomats and military officers, and frequently the Chief Justice. (4) John Quincy Adams noted in his diary, February 22, 1828, that having company to dinner on that day, he observed to Chief Justice Marshall that "it was not customary at this House to drink toasts; that since I had been here, there had been to this rule only one exception — it was on the 6th of September, 1825, the last day that General Lafayette passed in the United States, and it was his birthday. We had then drunk one toast, which was — 'The 6th of September and the 22d of February.' I now proposed again the same toast, only with inverted order, and we drank in champagne — 'The 22d of February and the 6th of September.' " As the year 1832 approached, however, proposals for a celebration by Congress of the centenary of Washington's birth began to be made. No period could have been less auspicious for obtaining any united or harmonious Congressional action on any subject. Discord and dissension were rife throughout the country. Two years before, in describing the great Senate debate over the public-lands issue on the Foot Resolution, and the speeches by Webster, Hayne, Benton, Holmes, and others, John Quincy Adams had written in his diary, February 23, 1830: "This debate is a symptom of the times. Personalities, malignities, and hatreds seem to take the place of all enlarged discussions of public concerns," The Democratic New York Evening Post of February 6, 1832, said: "The madness of party at the present day spares nothing. No respectability of character or degree of public capacity or length of public service can escape it," And five days later, as if to prove its own charges, it termed Henry Clay "a wretched demagogue, broken down in body and mind by vice and profligacy." And the Albany Argus of February 11 termed him a "malignant, apostate politician." On the other hand, a Washington correspondent of the Boston Daily Advertiser, January 11, in comparing

IÇS

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Clay with President Jackson termed the latter, "the ignorant, imbecile, and inefficient man who now unfortunately occupies the chair of Chief Magistrate."(5) In the month before the centenary, the Nullification movement in South Carolina was approaching its climax; Georgia was in open defiance of the United States Supreme Court with reference to her rights in Cherokee Indian lands; N e w York and N e w Jersey were at swords' points with each other and had brought suit in that Court; so had Massachusetts and Rhode Island; the Western States and the Eastern States were bitterly opposed to each other on the subject of the sales of public lands. Moreover, the tariff issue was becoming more and more enflamed; on January 9, Henry Clay had proposed a new tariff measure, even more objectionable to the South than the "Tariff of Abominations" of 1828; and had said that in pushing it through he would "defy the President, the Democratic party, and the devil." For six weeks prior to Washington's birthday, this tariff fight had raged with constantly increasing bitterness. (6) And as a climax to all the other sources of hostility between the President and the opposing party, on January 25 the Senate had refused to confirm President Jackson's nomination of Martin Van Buren as Minister to Great Britain (in spite of the fact that he had been Secretary of State and was already in London under a recess appointment). Van Buren's rejection by the casting vote of Vice-President Calhoun had infuriated Jackson, and he looked with contempt on what was termed the "unholy coalition of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun." Under these conditions, it was unlikely that there would be much harmony of action in Congress at this time on any subject. And when Congress finally decided upon a celebration of the Washington centenary, the appointment of Clay and Webster by Vice-President Calhoun to head the Senate Committee on the subject did not ameliorate the

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

199

situation. Nor did the project start under very favorable auspices, for six men appointed on the committee refused to serve — Littleton Waller Tazewell of Virginia saying that "Man-worship, howsoever great the man, . . . he would ever oppose," and Mahlon Dickerson of N e w Jersey saying that, while willing to have the Senate adjourn and unite with other citizens in the usual observance of the day, he could see no good reason why Congress should do anything further. (7) The plan of celebration which was finally reported by the Senate Committee (jointly with a House Committee) consisted of an adjournment of the Senate from February 21 to February 23, divine services at the Capitol on February 22, an oration before Congress by Chief Justice Marshall, and the removal of Washington's body from Mount Vernon to a crypt in the Capitol (which had been constructed under the Rotunda between 1818 and 1829) —the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to prescribe the order of the ceremonies. A vigorous debate ensued in both branches of Congress over the proposal for the removal of Washington's body. In the Senate, Henry Clay argued that no time could ever occur, at least during the present generation, more proper to redeem the unfulfilled pledge made by the Congress of 1799. Webster agreed, saying that no greater opportunity to give imposing solemnity to the proceedings could occur than at this centenary celebration. On the other hand, Tazewell and John Tyler of Virginia strongly opposed the plan, the former saying that it was contrary to Washington's own last will, that the Congress of 1799 had acted "under the fervor of excited feelings," and that "no statues are necessary to commemorate the virtues that are recorded on more imperishable materials." "Once commence this Romish rite," said he, "and you will canonize as many patriots as there are saints in the Romish calendar and associate Washington

200

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

with any patriot whom party may blindly elevate. . . . Will you make the odious distinction between the elder Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe and decree to one a national tomb, passing by the others?" John Forsyth of Georgia said that he could not consent to any burial in the Capitol, and that Washington's character was beyond any action of Congress. "When foreigners inquire of us, 'Where is his monument.^' our answer is, Ί η our hearts — our deep, all-pervading, overwhelming gratitude to the great benefactor of our country.' " T o this opposition, answer was made by Peleg Sprague of Maine, who said that the proposed ceremony was not so much to "honour the dead as it was to show the gratitude of the living." George M. Bibb of Kentucky also said that it was "to exhibit to the world the bright example of his life, and not to advance his fame." John Holmes of Maine charged that the debate was simply a contest between the State of Virginia and the United States. Clay answered Tazewell by saying that "although he knew too well that the last great man was always considered the greatest, and the disposition of the people to make idols of this favorite, he would himself discriminate between Washington and any man who had lived, from Adams down; and he was willing to trust to his successors for the continuance of that veneration of Washington's character which would forever place him incomparably higher in their estimation than any other man who had as yet arisen among them." The resolution was finally adopted by the Senate by a vote of 29 to 15 — very largely a party vote, as most of those who voted against it were Democrats. (8) In the House, on February 13, an exceedingly heated debate occurred over the proposed celebration, more than twenty-five members taking part. Representatives of Virginia and of the South were in general opposed. William F. Gordon of Virginia said that it was "a vulgar honor, and

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

20I

degraded Washington to the measure of little men who needed a monument to preserve their name . . . an emptypageant, unChristian in its character and every way in bad taste." Augustus S. Clayton of Georgia said that "all reverence would be lost, in the same reckless levity that is witnessed every day at the pictures in the Rotunda." Erastus Root of New York said that it was "incongruous to remove the remains on a day of celebration and rejoicing," and that it was "introducing the services of Good Friday on Christmas morning." Benjamin C. Howard of Maryland said that from the first ages of the world the records of all time furnished only two instances of birthdays being commemorated after the death of the individual — those two were the 2id of February and the 25th of December. In addition, however, to opposition based on these grounds, on Virginia's state pride, and on arguments derived from the wording of Washington's will, a more ominous note was heard. The shadows of Nullification and Secession crept over the debate. In arguing against removal of Washington's body, Richard Coke, Jr., of Virginia said: "There are at the present time in the flag of the Confederacy the glittering stars of twenty-four sovereign and independent States; but the time may perhaps arrive when, at some distant period, these stars shall be dimmed of their original brightness and present to the view twenty-four fragments of a great and powerful republic warring the one with the other. At that lamentable time, should Virginia, in oifering homage to the memory of the mighty dead, be forced to pay a pilgrimage to the remains of her own son, through scenes of blood, shed perhaps by kindred hands?" And Wiley Thompson of Georgia said: "I presume there is scarcely an individual within this Hall, or within the United States, at all conversant with passing events and political aspects, who does not feel compelled to look to the possibility of a severance of this Union. Indeed some profess

202

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

to think that such an event is probable. God forbid! May this Union be continued through all time. But, remove the remains of our venerated Washington from their association with the remains of his consort and his ancestors, from Mount Vemon and from his native State, and deposit them in this Capitol, and then let a severance of this Union occur, and behold! the remains of Washington on a shore foreign to his native soil." These suggestions as to the possibility of a severance of the Union disturbed many Congressmen. Charles C. Johnston of Virginia said that he was sorry to hear Thompson's argument, and that he, himself, "was not willing to acknowledge this danger. We ought not to allow our minds to glance that way for a moment, particularly on the present occasion." William Drayton of South Carolina said: "The preservation of our Constitution and of our Union are inseparable. The disappointed hopes, the crooked policy, the reckless ambition of selfish demagogues, or the narrow prejudices, the infuriated passions or the clashing interests of different sections of our Confederacy, may gradually undermine and eventually prostrate our Constitution. . . . Whatever may be our fate hereafter, we ought to perform our duties now." Charles A. Wickliffe of Kentucky said: "The gentleman from Georgia has spoken of the possibility, nay, the probability of the disunion of these States. Sir, the sacred name of Washington should never in debate or in thought be connected with the idea of a dissolution of this happy Union. Disunion of these States, Sir! I will not permit my mind to dwell on so dire a calamity. It can never happen while the name of Washington is spoken and his memory revered. . . . I have no such gloomy forebodings." Jonathan Hunt of Vermont said that "no act can be done by the Government that would have so deep and permanent a moral influence in uniting the people and cementing the

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON S CENTENARY

203

Union of this confederacy as the burial of Washington in the Capitol." Charles F. Mercer of Virginia also thought that such action by Congress "would tend to consolidate the Union of these States." William S. Archer of Virginia said that opinion had been expressed that such action "would be a cement to Union, from its appeasing influence on the distractions of excitement." He thought that the opinion had been stated perhaps too strongly. "It is, however, not without justice. Almost in the immediate presence of this aweinspiring deposit, the utmost fury and tempest of excitement must stand in some degree subdued." To this, Wüliam F. Gordon of Virginia retorted that "the way to cement the Union is to imitate the virtues of Washington — to remove not his body but if possible to transfer his spirit to these Halls." In addition to the argument based on possible secession, a novel plea was brought forward also by Thompson of Georgia based on the possible transfer of power from the East to the West and the probable removal westward of the site of the Capitol. Said he: "In the march of improvement and the rapid progress of the increase of population in the United States, it is probable that our settlements will not only extend to the Rocky Mountains, but reach beyond, stretching down to the Pacific Coast. But, say that the foot of the Rocky Mountains will form their Western boundary — and we may reasonably suppose that this will happen at no distant period — then bring the great, the powerful West to act upon a proposition to remove the site of the Federal Government and who can doubt that a location more central will be found and established on the banks of the Ohio. Shall the remains of our Washington be left amidst the ruins of this Capitol surrounded by the desolation of this city?" To this argument Joel B. Sutherland of Pennsylvania aptly retorted: "If our population is to reach to the Western

204

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Ocean and the seat of Government is to be removed, when we carry away the ensigns of power from this place, we will carry with us the sacred bones of Washington." The tone of the debate further became so caustic and the opposition so insistent that Samuel P. Carson of North Carolina termed the contest "disreputable," and James M. Wayne of Georgia said that, while differences of opinion were to have been expected, he regretted the debate. Nevertheless, as he pointed out, there had been a "beautiful harmony in the intense devotion of every speaker to the dead; and though composed of different materials the monument to his memory made by this day's discussion shall go to the world and to posterity as another proof that Americans are not ungrateful, and have not degenerated from the virtues of their ancestors." The Committee's plan for a celebration was finally adopted by a vote of 109 to 76, those voting in favor being largely Northern Whigs and those opposed largely Southern Democrats and Southern Whigs. On the next day, in the House, it appeared that the wording of the Committee's plan had aroused still further party feeling, owing to Clay's extraordinary omission to provide for any part to be played by President Jackson in the ceremony. T o calm the Democratic antagonism, John Adair of Kentucky now moved that the President and Cabinet be invited to attend the celebration and to superintend deposit of the remains. John Quincy Adams concurred, saying that "a very solemn act is about to be performed on the part of the representatives of the people, and I think that it will appear better before the World and before posterity that these invitations shall be given by a direct act of the House." William Drayton of South Carolina also said that though he was "perfectly sure that not the least disrespect towards the President of the United States has been intended by the author of the resolution, yet such an inference might be drawn on the part of the World. It is a great occasion —

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON S CENTENARY

20$

such a one as will probably never occur again — and I think that it is not decorous in the House to leave to its presiding officer an act which had better be done by itself. It will be more respectful to the Chief Magistrate to adopt the new resolution." Drayton's behef that the omission of the President had not been intentional on the part of Clay in the Senate was not entirely shared by those who knew the bitter feelings between the two, Wickliflie of Kentucky then moved to include, in the invitation to attend, the Judges of the Supreme Court and Charles Carroll. John Quincy Adams moved to include James Madison. Churchill C. Cambreleng of N e w York moved to include "the late President of the United States." Adams said that he hoped that the last motion would be withdrawn, that he was "sufficiently honored in the fact that such an invitation had been proposed; whatever I might have been, I hold at present what I consider the most honorable station that can be conferred on me as one of the representatives of the people of the United States." These various motions prevailed in the House; but the Senate by a vote of 13 to 14 refused to vote to invite the President, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, Carroll, and Madison; Clay and Poindexter termed it "a novel and extraordinary measure — to issue cards of invitation by a joint resolution of Congress." All this debate had occurred within a short nine days of the date of the proposed celebration, and without any assurance that the Washington family would assent to the removal. The first accident which happened to the plan was the declination of Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote on February 10: "The addition of my exertions, feeble as they might be, to those of Congress 'in honoring the memory of the father of his country,' of the man whom language cannot exalt, would be an act on which I should long look with pride. Could I undertake to deliver a public address on any

2об

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

subject, all my feelings would impel me to comply with a request which does me so much honor and is so grateful to my heart." He regretted, however, that he was physically unable — "my voice has become so weak as to be almost inaudible even in a room not unusually large. In the open air, it could not be heard by those nearest me." (9) The second accident which happened to the plan was the receipt by Congress, on February 16, of a letter from John Augustine Washington, the then occupant of Mount Vernon and representative of the Washington family, flatly refusing assent to the removal of the body (though George Washington Parke Custis, writing from Arlington House, assented). Even this refusal had a political tinge and was highly approved by that stiff old Whig, Phüip Hone of N e w York, who wrote in his diary, February 18, that Congress ought to purchase the Washington estate and erect a mausoleum there for his remains, "but do not place them in the Capitol where they may hereafter be exposed to the contamination of the neighborhood of some demagogues who may be raised to that distinction by party prejudice and not by patriotism." Little now remained of the Congressional celebration, the only feature left being the divine services at the Capitol at eleven o'clock in the morning. These were performed by the chaplains of the House and Senate and were attended by Vice-President Calhoun, Andrew Stevenson, the Speaker of the House, Members of Congress and citizens, the House being "well filled but not crowded." John Quincy Adams in his diary set forth his views of the occasion as follows: Feb. 22. Centennial birthday of Washington. The solemnities intended for this day at this place lost all their interest for me by the refusal of John A . Washington to permit the remains of George Washington to be transferred to be entombed under the Capitol — a refusal to which I believe he was not competent, and into the real operative motives to which I wish not to enquire. I did wish that this resolution might have been carried into execution, but this wish was

POLITICS A N D W A S H I N G T O N ' S C E N T E N A R Y

207

connected with an imagination that this federative Union was to last for ages. I now disbelieve its duration for twenty years, and doubt its continuance for five. It is falling into the sere and yellow leaf. For this, among other reasons, I determined that my celebration of this day should only be by sharing in its devotions, I attended the performance of divine services at the Capitol, where a very ordinary prayer was made by Mr. Post, the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, and a singular, though not ineloquent sermon was delivered by Mr. Durbin, Chaplin to the Senate. . . . It was extemporaneous and yet well suited to the occasion. It exalted the character of Washington perhaps too much. There were close approaches to the expression of a belief that there was something supernatural in his existence. There seemed little wanting to bring out a theory that he was a second Saviour of Mankind. That he had led a charmed life, and was protected by a Special Providence was explicitly avowed as a belief.

President Jackson showed his resentment at having been ignored by Congress in its centenary plans by refraining from attending the service at the Capitol, and none of his Cabinet were present. In answer to criticisms of his course, the Administration newspaper printed the following amusing commentary: W e perceive that the Washington letter writers are filling the papers at a distance with conjectures with regard to the cause which prevented the President from attending "divine services" in the Capitol on the 22d of February. W e heard the President casually remark, on the evening of that day, that he had devoted the leisure of it in reading the Farewell Address of the father of his country — and he expressed the fervent wish that every Member of Congress — the men to whom the destinies of the country are committed — had also read it and impressed upon their hearts the spirit of patriotism and the devotion to the Union which it is so well calculated to inspire. From this, we inferred that General Jackson considered this day consecrated to Washington and preferred holding a communion with his thoughts rather than with those of any man living. On the Sabbath following, the President attended "divine services" —as is his custom on every Sabbath.

The corporation of the City of Washington, having decided hurriedly, on February 20, to hold their own celebra-

2O8

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

tion, arranged for a firing of loo guns at sunrise, a military parade, and a birth-night ball at Carusi's Salon (of which General John V. Van Ness was manager), while private citizens advertised a military birth-night ball at Masonic Hall (tickets $3).(io) The newspapers described the military parade of the volunteer companies, which, "being joined by the elegant company of Philadelphia volunteers on their return from their visit to Mount Vernon, repaired to the Capitol Square where they were reviewed by the Major General of the District, Walter Jones." The ball at Carusi's was "numerously and brilliantly attended — the Vice-President, the Speaker, the Secretary of State, many Members of Congress and a number of distinguished officers of the Army and Navy" being present. By far the most interesting part of the celebration, said the Whig National Intelligencer, was a dinner, instituted on only two days' notice, at Barnard's Hotel (on the site of the present Willard Hotel), by a few members of Congress, at which Daniel Webster acted as president and delivered an oration. The whole atmosphere of this occasion was political and anti-Administration; and almost all of the one hundred present were Whigs or Calhoun partisans and hence antiJackson. Both the President and the Vice-President of the United States declined to attend to listen to Webster's oration. The National Intelligencer, describing it on February 24, said that "the dinner and wines, however excellent, were but small part of the entertainment which was, in every sense of the phrase, 'the feast of reason and the flow of soul.' The toasts, regular as well as volunteer, were admirable, adapted to the occasion — but still more inspiring were the strains of eloquence." Twenty-one formal and several volunteer toasts were drunk, each responded to by a speech of more or less Whig tendency. The last toast, transmitted by John Quincy Adams (who had declined to attend, on account of his health), was: "Progressive improvement in

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON S CENTENARY

20Ç

the condition of man from Washington's birthday t o this — M a y its march to the next Centennial Anniversary be, Forward!"(ii) T h e great event of the afternoon was, of course, Webster's oration w h i c h "was heard w i t h the most profound and enchanted attention and frequently applauded." Before his formal address, W e b s t e r also gave a striking toast which, not published in his Works, is well w o r t h y of reproduction n o w in these days of depression of spirits: If it had been allowed us as intelligent agents to choose at what time or place we would pass the portion of time allotted for us by Providence in this world, we could not, I think, have selected otherwise than the kindness of Providence has selected for us. At what period could we have chosen to live — in what spot — on what orb, would we have preferred to dwell rather than now, on this earth and in this spot? When I contemplate the times I live in and the place I live in, I am grateful to the Almighty Disposer of all things, and am compelled to view myself as among the favored of the human race. There is so much in this age to gratify and to ennoble an immortal mind — so much to swell and delight the patriotic heart. The place, the times, are so full of fruition and of hope that for the few days which may be permitted to me, I thank God my lot has been cast when and where it has been cast; and as an honest expression of this sentiment, I offer you gentlemen the following toast — "Our times and our Country." A correspondent of the Boston Daily Advertiser (an ardent Clay proponent) used the oration, w h i c h he termed W e b ster's "most triumphant effort of eloquence and a masterly commentary on the life and admonitions of Washington," as a text for a political diatribe against Jackson: Would to God that every man, from the shores of the ocean to the base of the Rocky Mountains, from the Saint Croix to the borders of Mexico, could have listened to the stirring energy of his oration; with one voice they must have proclaimed, the Republic shall be maintained, the honor of the country shall be vindicated, the reign of terror and misrule shall end, the demagogues and minions of faction who now disgrace the Republic shall be hurled from their stations, a

2 IO

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

universal lustration shall be performed, that high minded son of the West, Henry Clay, and his worthy great and numerous co-patriots shall guide the destinies of these United States and save us from utter ruin. Another correspondent did the same: The moral of this discourse lies in the contrast which every unprejudicial mind must make between events and men of this day, and of Washington, his associates, and the men of their day. Selfish ambition; how poor and paltry does it look by the side of Washington's portrait! Accidental elevation, arrogant pretending, how very little do they look in the presence of this great man! The bustle and the sound of office; how insignificant do they seem compared with the modest but conscious dignity of Washington. . . . It is a dark and gloomy hour for this nation, but let us not despair. . . . If we are not now at the worst, we must soon be there and a change must come. . . . Such efforts as Mr. Webster's on this and other occasions prepare us for better days. The New

York American

of March 8 said:

Webster's speech was worthy of him and worthy of its high theme. It is delightful and refreshing to turn from the paltriness of such politics as now prevail in the land, from the doctrines and examples of the "banditti school" to the lofty sentiments with which a thorough appreciation of the unparalleled character and services of Washington, inspired Mr. Webster on this occasion. The Democratic papers, however, were not so enthusiastic. The New York Evening Post, March 2, said satirically: The National Intelligencer dilates on the interesting nature of the proceedings of the festivity and in particular extols an eloquent address with which the President of the day prefaced the first toast, and in which, says the Intelligencer, he excelled even himself. . . . The pregnant remark which the showman placed under the picture of his elephant — "this is the greatest elephant in the world except himself" — is now proved by the instance furnished by the National Intelligencer to include a most cautious and conscientious distinction. And a correspondent of the Albany Argus, April 3, wrote that Webster's speech "favors the exaggerated, bombastic.

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

2 11

and flowery style of the Asiatic than the chaste, plain, and demonstrative language inherent to rational liberty and correct republicanism." The political character of the Barnard Hotel dinner was noticed by various newspapers; and the Democratic Albany Argus termed it "an altogether anti-Van Buren concern, entitled to be visited by public indignation," and it wrote, March 13: The design seems to have been, under the smoke and pretension of a regard to the "memory of Washington," to conceal the character and anti-American conduct of certain Federal friends of the Hartford Convention. Accordingly, those who profess a horror at the thought of the possible existence of "party spirit" and who were recently so "pained" at the necessity of performing an act of unexampled party intolerance and proscription (referring to the recent rejection by the Senate of Van Buren's nomination as Minister to Great Britain), converted an occasion, which of all others should be freest from party feeling, into a political feast. On this occasion the "god-like man" presided; assisted by four gentlemen of the opposition from different States. . . . The whole complexion of the thing was political and federal, and the speakers, omitting the Calhoun faction, were much the same as the speakers on a previous secret occasion in the Senate Chamber. It is true the President of the United States was invited to attend this dinner; and it is equally true, and by no means strange, that he declined the invitation. T o this, the Whig National retorted, March 19:

Intelligencer

of Washington

Considering that in the creed of "the party," the President can do no wrong, it is not surprising that the Argus applauds his refusal of the invitation to the Washington dinner. The President, however, had he attended, could not but have arisen from that table, a wiser, if not a better man than he sat down to it. If there be anything in the purest aspirations of patriotism or the loftiest flights of eloquence to move the soul and convince the understanding, no man who had a place at that feast, but must have arisen from it a more ardent admirer of the character of Washington, a more enlightened politician, a better American in every sense.

2 12

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

The Albany Argus replied, March 26: The National Intelligencer is evidently annoyed at the exposition of the character and objects of the political dinner given at the seat of government, on the late Centennial anniversary. The Intelligencer says the Argus "seems to consider that entertainment to have been altogether an ami Van Buren concern." Most certainly we did so consider it. . . . The whole complexion of the thing, presiding officers, speakers, etc., was ultra federal. Of course, it was anti Van Buren. We confess that we considered it by no means strange that the President of the United States declined to sanction by his presence this conversion of an occasion which of all others should be free from party feeling, into a political feast. . . . In the estimation of the people of this country, Andrew Jackson is wise and good enough for their purposes, without any such improvement as may be derived from the dinner inspirations of John Holmes or Daniel Webster. But did all partakers in "that entertainment" rise from the table wiser or better men? Rumor tells another tale. Rumor says that the finale of "that entertainment" was little else than a Bacchanalian revel, gross and foul as the hypocrisy of the dinner orators on that occasion or even the Jesuitical cant of their eulogists of the Intelligencer. Is it not true that, heated with the libations of the table, these party revellers "to the memory of Washington," repaired to the ball; that there Gen. Walter Jones, the particular friend of the "godlike man," fell into a quarrel with another citizen, and threw at him a decanter, which, hitting him also on the head, was broken into a thousand pieces; that the "god-like man" exclaimed on being informed that Jones and his antagonist were in a quarrel — "I am for Walter Jones, right or wrong" — and when it was repeated to him, that the parties were about to settle their differences, did he not say —"If Jones makes up, I will kick him out of the world." Verily, so far as we look for the exhibition of character, in vino Veritas is a true saying. Such were said to have been the scenes or the consequences of "an entertainment" from which, in the language of the courtly Intelligencer, our venerated Chief Magistrate "could not but have risen a wiser if not a better man"! An intelligent people will distinguish between the hypocrisy which assumes an honored name and a hallowed occasion to conceal old political delinquencies and that just estimate of the character of such persons which declines a participation in their designs.

The New York Evening Post, erroneously inferring from

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

2I3

the Argus article that the fracas took place at the dinner, instead of at the ball following, wrote (March 27, 3 1 ) : The National Intelligencer, a few days ago, alluding in its sly way to the fact that the President did not attend the party Centennial dinner in that City on the i i d ultimo, stated that had he done so, "he could not have but arisen from that table a wiser, if not a better man than he sat down to it." W e supposed at the time of reading the remark that it had reference to the illumination which would have been shed upon General Jackson's mind by the orators who made speeches on that occasion, particularly Mr. Webster. . . . The Albany Argus of yesterday, however, gives an account of certain little matters which took place at the Washington Centennial dinner which probably the Intelligencer had in view, when it regretted the opportunity the President had missed of obtaining an increase of wisdom, if not of goodness. If the story told in the Argus is correct, (and the Argus is an authentic paper and not apt to speak on insufficient information), it must be confessed that that dinner gave rise to circumstances of a very edifying description. Breaking bottles and decanters over each others' heads was no doubt very pleasant amusement for those concerned, and the part said to have been taken in the affray by him who had "excelled even himself" was well calculated to make the beholders "wiser if not better men." The President, had he attended, would probably have leamt one lesson of wisdom — namely not to be caught in the same company again.

In answer to the Argus, the Whig New York

American,

March 28, wrote, admitting the fracas, but denying the remarks of Mr. Webster: The ethics of the political press in this country, instead of improving, seem really to become more and more vitiated daily, and, so that a distinguished adversary can be reached, no expedient is thought too base to be resorted to, no falsehood too gross to be adopted. . . . Offence seems to have been taken at the idea that Andrew Jackson could be enlightened or improved by listening to the eloquence of Daniel Webster. . . . Can anyone who knows Mr. Webster, his habitual and perfect self command on all occasions, hesitate an instant in pronouncing this whole (Argus) story utterly false? . . . It is true, we presume, as has been stated in several papers, that at a ball on that evenmg, Gen. Jones and Mr. Thornton, one of the Auditors, had a disagreeable controversy such as men are some-

2 14

ODD BYWAYS I N AMERICAN HISTORY

times, in the heat of the moment, betrayed into, Mr. Thornton being, according to all the representations we have heard, the aggressor; but what have the public to do with that? What have the citizens of N e w York to do with a personal squabble at Washington? But above all, by what rule of right is Mr. Webster's name connected with the squabble. . . ? The Argus and Post . . . have not scrupled in this instance to circulate the slanders derived from pimps and spies, who, at Washington as elsewhere, and even more than elsewhere, infest the path and watch the movements of eminent men.

To this admission that there was an actual fracas at the ball, and to the attempted exculpation of Webster, the Albany Argus replied, editorially, April 3: "We assure the American . . . that, for once, Rumor and Truth have been identified and that the relation of the latter scenes of the party revel on the occasion alluded to was a true relation." So much for the celebration in the City of Washington. Throughout the Union, parades and speeches took place. (12) In the neighboring City of Baltimore, the following scene was described by the newspapers: The Venerable Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, was stationed at the door of the second story of his dwelling, surrounded by his family, when no citizen passed him covered, amid the waving of banners and martial music. The whole scene is said to have been interesting and impressive and we can well believe it.

In New York, there were a procession, an oration by Major General Morgan Lewis, balls, and illuminations. In City Hall Park, there was erected the tent (loaned by George W. P. Custis) which General Washington used during his campaigns, and in which he entertained General Cornwallis after the latter's surrender; and in front of it, there stood as sentinel one of Washington's own body guard — one Reed. In the Superior Court Room in City Hall, there were exhibited the flag used at Washington's inaugural, and a dress sword, a waistcoat, and a pair of pistols belonging to him — also a small piece of his coffin.

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

2 15

In Boston, there were two official celebrations of the day — one by the legislature, consisting of a procession from the State House, and an oration in Old South Meeting House — the other by the City (Charles Wells, Mayor; Thomas C. Amory, Chairman of Committee of Arrangements) consisting of the ringing of bells for one half hour at sunrise and sunset, a parade of the Fire Department at 8 A.M., and a dinner at Faneuil Hall after an assembly at City Hall at 3 P.M. The legislative procession, headed by Alexander DeWitt as chief marshal, left the State House at noon. In the line were all the state, city and federal officials, followed by members of the Suffolk Bar; then the President and Fellows of Harvard College, and officers and clerks of State Institutions; then members of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Massachusetts Medical Society, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Marine Society, and Massachusetts Charitable and Mechanics Association. Then there were listed other societies, lyceums, teachers of youth, fire department, and wardens and inspectors of State prisons; then directors of banking and insurance companies, and finally other citizens. Of this part of the celebration, the Boston Daily Advertiser of February 24 said: The weather proved extremely favorable . . . nearly the whole population of the City devoted themselves to the occasion and business was generally suspended. The procession was escorted by the military corps ordered for that duty by the Governor. Companies of Light Infantry, seven in number, appeared with full ranks and some of them in new and rich dresses and made a very handsome display. The Independent Boston Fusiliers was the only Company present which performed escort duty in the visit of General Washington to this City in October, 1789. This Company was then commanded by Captain Lawton and the escort by Mayor [Harrison G r a y ] Otis, the late Mayor.

At the Old South Meeting House, the services were "solemn and impressive," but of an extreme length; for they did not close until 4 o'clock — one hour after the City's rival cele-

2 l6

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

bration was supposed to have begun in Faneuil Hall. The orator of the day was Francis Galley Gray, as to whose two-hour discourse opinions evidently varied, according to the political predilections of his hearers. The Daily Advertiser reported it as "able, appropriate and interesting . , . listened to with profound attention by a very numerous audience who gave satisfactory demonstration by entering into the feelings and being impressed by the sentiments of the orator." The Democratic newspaper, the Boston Statesman of March 16, commented on the length of the oration, which, it said, treated of "divers subjects, even from the manufacture of nails to the doctrine of nullification. . . . Some thought, when two thirds through that the rest should be printed." Owing to the long session at the church, the City's dinner in Faneuil Hall, with its 700 guests, did not begin until late — after four o'clock. It was "worthy of the occasion and of the hospitality of the city, the building was handsomely decorated, and the tables were richly provided," said the Daily Advertiser. "Both song and sentiment abounded, and all seemed to enjoy themselves," said the Statesman. The episode for which the dinner became famous, as well as severely criticized in some quarters, was the attack made upon President Jackson for his Cherokee Indian policy. The fact that a celebration of Washington's birthday could be turned into an anti-Jackson occasion is an interesting commentary on the times. All went smoothly during the dinner while the thirteen regular formal toasts were being drunk and responded to as follows: I. The Day and the Place: In the Cradle of Liberty, we honor her darling chUd." 2. The President of the United States. 3. The United States. 4. The Governor. 5. The Orator. 6. John Marshall. — "The historian of Washington — he has imbibed the virtues of that character he describes and has transmitted them to posterity in the

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

2 17

records of our Judiciary." 7. The State Judiciary. 8. The United Army and Navy. 9. Our Literary Institutions. 10. Lafayette. 11. Poland: "Liberty weeps over the graves of its defenders. Glory has made their memory immortal." 12. The Mother of Washington: " A Nation which has been blessed in the fruit should venerate her who watched over the blossom." 13. The Militia System. After the twelfth toast, Mr. Alexander H. Everett stated that he wished to propose another sentiment, in connection with an anecdote of the Marquis de Chastellux, who, he said, visited this country not long after the war and who "called at the residence of Mrs. Washington, to present his respects to her. In the conversation which passed between them, he, of course, enlarged a good deal upon the brilliant achievements of the American hero — Mrs. Washington listened to him with complacency, and, when he had finished, said to him, in reply: Ί have never been surprised at what George has done, he was always a good boy'!" Said Mr. Everett: "If sublimity consists in expressing the noblest thought in the simplest and most natural style, I have met with few things more sublime than this, among the most remarkable of the recorded sayings of ancient or modern time. And I propose the following toast — The Memory of Mary Washington — the good mother of a good boy." Following the formal toasts, there came volunteer toasts, and with these the anti-Jackson sentiments of Boston began to crop out. Some of these volunteer toasts were innocuous: "The Memory of General Kosciusko"; "The Delegates of Massachusetts in the Congress of 1775 by whose influence and exertions George Washington was nominated and appointed to the command of the armies raised and to be raised for the defense of the Country"; "The Mayor — a working man, he had built up a reputation which will bear a critical architectural examination"; "The City of Boston"; "Mount Vemon"; "General Ward and Washington"; "The Seven-

2 18

ODD B Y W A Y S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

teenth of March"; "The Century which has passed"; "The 22d of February, 1932, and the Century which that day will close: May it possess many virtues and have many glories to celebrate, but the Firmament has but one sun and Time can have but one Washington" (proposed by the President of Harvard College). Two toasts were proposed to Daniel Webster, and one to "all statesmen who, like him, are more anxious to serve their country than to be served or exalted by it." And then the toasts approached dangerous ground. The President of the Senate proposed "Cherokee Patriotism — which has determined the people never to be driven from their country — never to sell the sepulchres of their Fathers"; and another toast: "The Original Proprietors of this happy Land." At this point, two Cherokee Indian chiefs, Boudinot and Ridge, who had been leaders in the struggle between their tribe and the State of Georgia, addressed the assemblage. How delicate a subject was then introduced will be seen when it is recalled that President Jackson's active opposition to the claims set up by the Cherokee Indians was well known. These speakers were referred to by the Daily Advertiser as follows: T h e y claimed continued possession of their country under treaties, signed by Washington, and which he assured their brothers would last as long as the earth. T h e y expressed their hopes of justice from the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Ridge, in a toast, said: "Washington never spoke to their ancestors with a forked tongue." iVIr. Boudinot gave: "George Washington — first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen, and first in affections of the Cherokees." John Pickering made a number of appropriate observations respecting the Indians and gave the toast, " T h e Policy of Washington towards the Cherokees: It cannot be forgotten except by those who have forgotten its author."

The tone of these speeches and of the toasts and the manner of their reception clearly showed the Whig character of the gathering.(13)

POLITICS AND WASHINGTON'S CENTENARY

219

Though its experience with its attempt to celebrate Washington's birthday officially was unfortunate. Congress determined on the execution of a permanent memorial. On May 28, 1832, a Senate Committee was ordered to inquire into the expediency of a bronze equestrian statue of Washington to be erected in the square east of the Capitol; and on July 14, an appropriation was voted "to enable the President to contract with a skillful artist to execute in marble a pedestrian statue of George Washington to be placed in the centre of the Rotunda of the Capitol." "Of the many illustrious men to whom their country owes a debt of gratitude," said Clay in the House, "Washington is the only one to whom I would think it prudent to pay the homage now contemplated. A n image — a testimonial of this great man, the father of his country, should exist in every part of the Union, as a memorial of patriotism, and of the services rendered his country." This statue, executed by Horatio Greenough as a seated figure and not as the "pedestrian statue" required by Congress, was erected in the Rotunda in 1841, removed to the plaza east of the Capitol in 1842, and from there transferred to the Smithsonian Institution in 1908. N o other action was taken by Congress with reference to Washington until 1848, when it donated a site for the Washington Monument, the cornerstone of which was laid June 7, 1848, and which was formally completed and opened to the public in 1888. Meanwhile, in 1856, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts made Washington's birthday a public State hoUday, and in 1857 an article in the North American Review said that "it would augur well for the Republic to observe it as a universal holiday." (14) After recalling the movement to purchase Mount Vernon, Edward Everett's famous oration on Washington, the multiplication of copies of the Stuart portrait, the "splendid memorial" in Vir-

2 20

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

ginia, and the recent "new and admirable" biographies, it said: These and many other signs of the tunes prove that the fanaticism of party strife has awakened the wise and loyal to a consciousness of the inestimable value of that great example and canonized name, as a bond of union, a conciliating memory, and a glorious watchword. The present, therefore, is a favorable moment to institute the birthday of Washington, hitherto but partially and ineffectively honored, as a solemn. National festival. . . . Consecrate that day with a unanimity of feeling and of rites which shall fuse and mould into one pervasive emotion the divided hearts of the country, until the discordant cries of faction are lost in the anthems of benediction and of love, and before the august spirit of a people's homage, sectional animosity is awed into universal reverence. Following this article, the States of the Union very generally constituted the birthday a public holiday by statute; on February 19, 1862, President Lincoln issued a proclamation recommending that the people "assemble in their customary places of worship . . . and celebrate the anniversary of the birth of the Father of his Country, by causing to be read to them his immortal Farewell Address"; and finally, Congress, by the A c t of January 31, 1879, made the 22d of February a public holiday for the District of Columbia.

^ ш ^ How Andrew Jackson Opposed a National Fast Day

N T H E early days of our government, Constitutional struggles arose in Congress over most unlikely topics; and none was more unexpected than that which was produced by the advent of Asiatic cholera in the United States, an attempt of Henry Clay to obtain the proclamation of a National Fast Day by Andrew Jackson, and a Whig attempt to bar the reading in the House of a letter written by the President. Thanksgiving and Fast Days might seem very harmless subjects for Congressional action; but they proved to be otherwise in our history. In the very first session of the First Congress, opposition developed to a National Thanksgiving, when on September 25, 1789, Elias Boudinot of N e w Jersey said that he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them. And he moved a resolution "that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors

I

2 22

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness." To this resolution opposition was offered by Aedanus Burke of South Carolina, who said that he did not like "this mimicking of European customs where they made a mere mockery of thanksgivings," and where "two parties at war frequently sang Te Deum for the same events, though to one it was a victory, and to the other a defeat." Mr. Boudinot retorted that he was sorry to hear arguments drawn from the abuse of a good thing against the use of it; and he hoped no gentleman would make a serious opposition to a measure both prudent and just. Thomas T. Tucker of South Carolina thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them: "Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they had no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We do not know but that they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and as such is proscribed to us. If a day of thanksgiving must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several States; they know best what reason their constituents have to be pleased with the establishment of this Constitution." Roger Sherman of Connecticut justified "the practice of thanksgiving on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ"; for instance, said he, "the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon after the building of the Temple, is a case in point. This example is worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion." After Boudinot had quoted further precedents from the

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

223

practice of the late Congress, the resolve passed both House and Senate; and President Washington, on October 3, assigned Thursday, November 26, 1789, as a Day of Thanksgiving to God for his "favorable interposition in the war" and for the "tranquillity, union, and plenty since enjoyed — the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness and particularly the national one now lately instituted"; for our "civil and religious liberty," and for our "means of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge." How delicately and with hesitation the Congress approached a subject even remotely connected with religion was illustrated by this debate, and even more by a debate which occurred on the passage of the first Census Bill. Nothing would seem to be more remote from religion; yet it is to be noted that even James Madison, on February 2, 1790, in the House, thought there might be some objection to an enumeration of clergymen in a separate category of the Census; for, said he: "as to those who are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties of religion, there may be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the General Government is proscribed from interfering in any manner whatever in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this in ascertaining who are and who are not ministers of the Gospel." Apprehension of criticism on religious grounds, however, did not prevent President Washington from again proclaiming, on January i, 1795, a day of public thanksgiving and prayer — Thursday, February 19 — "for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot as a nation; particularly for the possession of Constitutions of Government which unite and by their union establish liberty with order; for the preservation of our peace, foreign and domestic; for the seasonable control which has been given to a spirit of disorder in the suppression of the late insurrection." (The

2 24

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

President was referring to the so-called "Whiskey Rebellion" in Pennsylvania.) "The day has been kept by all denominations and all parties in a manner that do them great honor," wrote Elias Boudinot to Samuel Bayard. "Dr. Smith of Princeton delivered the most elegant political sermon ever delivered in this city. . . . Never was a sermon delivered here with more applause."(i) The wisdom of political sermons hailed with applause might well have been questioned then; and the next instance of a national day for prayer plunged the preachers directly into the midst of politics, when on March 23, 1798, President John Adams, on his own initiative, issued a proclamation to the citizens of the United States recommending the observance of May 8 as "a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer," owing to the fact that "the United States of America are at present placed in a hazardous and afflictive situation by the unfriendly disposition and conduct of a foreign power, evinced by repeated refusals to receive our messengers of reconciliation and peace, by depredations on our commerce and the inflictions of injuries on many of our fellow citizens."(2) For this action, Adams was not as fortunate as his predecessor in escaping attack. The occasion of his proclamation was the serious state of the relations between this country and France which were rapidly leading to a "partial war"; but the proclamation was regarded by the Federalists as providing an opportunity for denunciation as well as for prayer and humility, and in N e w England, especially, the Fast-Day sermons became bitter and extravagant arraignments of France. Most of the Antifederalists, however, refused to recognize the day, and the political sermons gave great offense to them and aroused violent counter-attacks upon the President. It was evident that this first attempt of the national government to promote a day of prayer had

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

225

produced dissension rather than concord, and had awakened sentiments far from religious. Undiscouraged, however, by this result of his action, President Adams, on March 6, 1799, again proclaimed a Fast Day, to be observed on April 25, for prayer to God that "He would withhold us from unreasonable discontent, from disunion, faction, sedition and insurrection; that He would preserve our country from the desolating sword; that he would save our cities and towns from a repetition of those awful pestilential visitations [yellow fever in Philadelphia and New York] under which they have lately suffered so severely." Again the Antifederalists attacked the President for his proclamation, on the ground that he was "not authorized by God or man to interfere in matters of religion"; and the Independent Chronicle said: The frequent profanity of these days by the party spirit which is exhibited from the Pulpit must be displeasing to Heaven. Many Ministers of the Gospel have devoted them to the purposes of division and controversy among their parishioners, assiduous to excite an implacable animosity among the people. A stranger would suppose on such occasions that we had assigned the day to investigate the political tenets of France and that w e were assembled to call on Heaven for its vengeance.

The third National Fast Day occurred after our declaration of war against Great Britain, June 18, 1812, when President Madison at the request of Congress, on July 9, proclaimed "a day of public humiliation and prayer."(3) Again this proclamation resulted in a fierce partisan attack upon the President and a complete failure to observe in a religious spirit the day of prayer — an attitude due, this time, to the anti-war and pro-English sentiments of the Federalist party, especially in New England. It was difficult to mix politics and religion successfully. While President Madison, at the request of Congress on November 16, 1814,

2 20

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

proclaimed a Fast Day, and on March 4, 1815, a Thanksgiving Day (4), with no public dissent, it is a noteworthy fact that Congress did not again deal with this delicate subject until sixteen years later. Then at the first session of the Twenty-second Congress, its effort to request President Jackson to proclaim a National Fast Day aroused one of the most violent of all the fierce controversies which engaged the attention of that Congress. From its outset on December 5, 1831, that session had been one marked by a series of stormy debates and violent personal attacks — over the bill for the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States and its veto by the President; over the Washington's Birthday celebration; over the Tariff Bill and Southern nullification threats; over Georgia and the Cherokee Indian lands — and the controversy over the proposal for a National Fast Day came as a climax of political attack. This curious contest arose out of the fact that during the year 1831 the dreaded Asiatic cholera had ravaged Europe, the deaths being numbered in the thousands. Early in June, 1832, the disease reached Canada, and the first case in New York was reported on June 26.(5) On June 27, Henry Clay, in the Senate, disregarding the unhappy political results of similar efforts under President Adams and President Madison, proceeded to present a resolution to appoint a joint committee of Congress to wait on President Jackson and request him to recommend to the people of the United States a day "of public humiliation, prayer and fasting to be observed by the people of the United States with religious solemnity, and with fervent supplications to Almighty God that He will be graciously pleased to continue His blessings upon our country and that He will avert from it the Asiatic scourge which has reached our borders, or, if in the dispensations of His Providence, we are not to be exempted from the calamity, that through His

J A C K S O N OPPOSES A N A T I O N A L F A S T

227

bountiful mercy, its severity may be mitigated and its duration shortened." It was peculiarly unfortunate that Clay, as the most violent opponent of President Jackson, should have been the man to offer such a resolution; for he had, in a speech during the Presidential campaign of 1828, made a remark which the Democrats had never forgotten and which the newspapers now revived with startling force. He had asserted at Baltimore that Jackson's election would be a worse curse in its effect upon the country than "war, pestilence and famine." (6) As soon as Clay's resolution was introduced in the Senate, the Washington Globe published an ironical editorial entitled "Mr. Clay's Repentance," in which it said: Has Mr. Clay become sincerely penitent or is his resolution the offspring of mere political piety? Has he found that a man of evil genius may bring curses upon his country, but that the prayers of the righteous can alone prevail to redeem it from them? Of does he mean in presenting his Resolution for the proclamation of a fast to make a display of opinions in contrast with those of the President as expressed in the letter which has been given in the N e w York Journal and which will be found in our columns today? Whatever his motives, wicked or charitable, we must express oùr satisfaction that they have brought him to make a display so different from that which heretofore excited so much surprise in the country. It is no longer at Dinners and Barbecues that Mr. Clay would vociferate imprecations. H e now invokes a Fast which he would accompany with prayers and supplication. . . . While he offers up prayers to Heaven to avert from our country the Asiatic scourge, will he show a temper to save it from a still greater scourge which his policy is likely to bring upon it in the shape of civil war — the rending of the Union — and all the horrors that must ensue? . . . W e trust that Mr. Clay, under the operation of his changed spirit, will cease to insult and give looks of threatening violence to venerable age in the Senate Chamber — cease to urge this oppressive system of taxation in time to prevent Southern feeling from breaking out in rebellion. If our Senator sincerely hopes that his prayers will prevail with "Almighty God to contimie his blessings upon our country" we may indulge the belief that he will not continue to harbor the designs or feelings of a Catiline.

2 28

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Other papers throughout the country voiced similar attacks on Clay, to which the anti-Jackson United States Telegraph replied in defense: Verily, there is cause for humiliation, for fasting and prayer when such language is acceptable to our rulers. . . . Mr. Clay's remarks about famine, pestilence and death, were used by Mr. Clay as a figure of speech intending to show his objections to the elevation of General Jackson. He did not "implore the Almighty to send us war, pestilence and famine" but as an alternative preference, in his opinion, to the moral and political consequences which would follow the election of General Jackson. There was a third reason w h y it was peculiarly unfortunate, from a political standpoint, that Clay should have introduced this resolution; for only a f e w days before there had appeared in the Albany Argus and in other N e w Y o r k papers a letter from President Jackson addressed to the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church — a letter (dated June 12, 1832) declining to issue a National Fast D a y proclamation, on the ground of unconstitutionality, as follows: Whilst I concur with the Synod in the efficacy of prayer, and in the hope that our country may be preserved from the attacks of pestilence "and that the judgments now abroad in the earth may be sanctified to the nations," I am constrained to decline the designation of any period or mode as proper for the public manifestation of this reliance. I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President; and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country, in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government. It is the province of the Pulpits and the State Tribunals to recommend the time and mode by which the people may best attest their reliance on the protecting arm of the Almighty in times of great public distress; whether the apprehension that the Cholera may visit our land furnishes a proper occasion for this solemn notice, I must, therefore, leave to their consideration. It was later claimed b y Clay's supporters that he was ignorant of the fact that, only three days before, this letter

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

22Ç

from President Jackson had appeared in the newspapers denying the constitutionality of such Presidential action. Jackson's friends, on the other hand, believed that this move on the part of Clay was, to some extent, an attempt to embarrass the President. The Washington Globe said: " H o w far the disavowal on the part of Mr. Clay's most zealous friends , . , may exculpate him from the inference that he never would have moved the resolution but for the President's letter is left to the decision of those who are best acquainted with Mr. Clay's reHgious opinions and political schemes." Whatever the fact was as to Clay's motive, he evidently thought that the passage of the resolution would not be actively opposed; for he made no elaborate speech in its support. He contented himself with citing the 1814 precedent, and in conclusion he made a rather striking statement: "I am a member of no religious sect. I am not a professor of religion. I regret that I am not. I wish that I was and I trust I shall be. But I have, and always have had, a profound respect for Christianity, the religion of my father, and for its rites, its usages, and its observance. Among these, that which is proposed in the resolution before you has always commanded the respect of the good and devout; and I hope it will obtain the concurrence of the Senate." Theodore Frelinghuysen of N e w Jersey (a W h i g ) supported the resolution, but Littleton Waller Tazewell of Virginia (a Democrat) opposed it, saying that in his opinion Congress had "no more power to recommend by joint resolution than to enact by law any matter or thing concerning any religious matter or right whatsoever." The resolution passed the Senate by a vote of 30 to 13; but Democratic leaders such as Benton, Haynes, Hill, King, Troup, and T y l e r voted against it. It soon became manifest that it was to become the focus of a bitter political and Constitutional controversy in the Congress and in the newspapers.

230

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

The Louisville Advertiser stated that it was "a queer spectacle— Mr. Clay assuming the functions of a priesthood and appointing for the Nation a day of prayer." Since "in his Baltimore invocation he pronounced General Jackson's election a greater curse than war, pestilence and famine," and since Jackson was to be a candidate again, it asked: "Why not recommend to the people of the United States now to supplicate the Almighty that he will be graciously pleased to avert this calamity also from our country"; and it added that the resolution calls for every man's reprobation. A prayer by State authority! truly sounds strangely in the public ear. It reminds us of the canting hypocritical days of Cromwell. Mr. Clay may be worthy to follow in the name of the illustrious and never-to-be forgotten Praise God Barebones. . . . UntU the foul union of Church and State shall be effected, let these things — prayer, fasting and humiliation — remain for the people of the Old World who are regarded as born with saddles on their backs for Priests and Pious Statesmen to ride.

As the Congress was already involved in violent struggles with the President over the Bank of the United States, the tariff, and many other political issues, it was practicaHy certain that the Democrats would adopt Jackson's views on this Fast-Day question, and that this innocent (?) move on Clay's part would do little to avert Asiatic cholera but would lead to a hot partisan conflict. Such a result at once ensued. No sooner had the resolution reached the House than William S. Archer of Virginia (a Democrat) moved to lay it on the table, saying that he "presumed that there was no gentleman in that House who could believe that either the General or the State Governments had, as such, anything to do with the subject of religion at all. . . . The language of the Constitution showed that such was the will of the Nation." (7) The political debate then began with a strong speech in opposition by Warren R. Davis of South Carolina (a Democrat). He thought the proposed action was "one

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

23I

peculiarly pertaining to the various Christian churches in our land and did not belong to any Government at all." The custom derived from our English ancestors had long prevailed in England, and was proper enough there on their theory of Government in which the King was recognized as the head of the hierarchy. In this country, the President was not the head of the church and our government as such had nothing to do with the matter. Moreover, the measure was objectionable as tending to increase alarm and giving a solemn sanction to the fears of the people. Instead of averting the calamity, it would have an opposite tendency, since it was generally held that a previous state of alarm constituted a great part of the danger. Franklin E. Plummer of Mississippi said that he did not find in the Constitution any power conferred upon the President to appoint a day for such a purpose. Moreover, the proposed action would be "highly indecorous and disrespectful on the part of the House, since members have aU seen the President's letter expressing the opinion that the Constitution gave him no power to fix a Fast Day." Samuel P. Carson of North Carolina said that for himself he would "make no professions of any love for prayer and fasting and all that sort of thing." He thought the measure improper and likely to lead to no good purpose. He then stated that he thought the matter might be arrested very suddenly and simply by reading President Jackson's letter, and as it was long, he requested that the Clerk should read it to the House. At once, the House became in an uproar. There were cries of "No! No! We have all read it." Carson refused to be shouted down, and proceeded himself to read the letter in full. Robert Craig of Virginia attempted to answer the letter by saying that the proposed resolution contained nothing obligatory, and that the President was free either to issue the proclamation or not, and the people would be free to observe it or not.

232

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

There then ensued a long and excited debate on the passage of the resolution, in which its Whig defenders rallied to its support against the political attacks, Henry A. S. Dearborn of Massachusetts said that if ever a measure of this description was fit and becoming, it certainly was so at a time of great calamity like the present; and despite the statement to the contrary, there had been precedents in the resolutions of Congress in 1812 and 1814. T o this Julian C. Verplanck replied: "That Fast was kept, not in that unmixed spirit of humility and innocence enjoined by President Madison in his peculiar style of accurate and condensed eloquence, but (as it will be recalled now on all hands) with too much of the 'old leaven of malice and bitterness.' The pulpit was made the rostrum of turbulent and rancorous political declamation. The language of Scripture itself was employed by divines in their sermons and by magistrates in their proclamations to point political 'sarcasms and to enkindle political rage.' Such then, and such will always be, 'the iniquities of all holy things' when they are made subject to political legislation." A t this point, the debate drifted away from the Constitutional and historical arguments and turned into a fierce attack upon, and defense of, the introduction of President Jackson's letter into the discussion. In the ensuing lengthy debate, the tempers of those engaged became more and more heated; and the central figure in the attack on the President was his predecessor, John Quincy Adams. Adams was then sixty-five years old, and had been elected to this Congress a year and a half after his defeat for reelection as President. His presence in the House had occasioned much perplexity. That a former President should be given an important chairmanship seemed clearly appropriate, yet the Speaker, Andrew W . Stevenson of Virginia, could hardly be expected to appoint a determined opponent of President Jackson on

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

233

the Foreign Affairs Committee — the committee on which Adams seemed best fitted to serve. Stevenson, having a white elephant on his hands, finally appointed him as chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, which had to deal with the troublesome problems of the tariff — a subject on which Adams knew little, but on which he was opposed to Jackson's views. As an ardent supporter of internal improvements, he was also brought into conflict with Jackson's adherents who wished a rapid decrease of duties so as to lessen the revenue which acted as a temptation to indulge in such improvements. In addition, Adams still harbored intense personal resentment against Jackson. Moreover, he possessed a recalcitrant, obstinate, and irascible temper in general, when opposed on any measure. All this made it inevitable that any debates in which he took part would be lively; and the Washington Globe said at the end of this session, not without accuracy, that while before election the Adams papers had been filled with "tirades upon the ungovernable temper of General Jackson," the most virulent and unfounded speeches ever then published against Jackson could not compare with "the exhibition of temper" now presented by Mr. Adams. The Whig attack on the quotation of the President's letter in the House began rather mildly with a statement from Thomas Marshall of Kentucky that the "House was not to take as the guide of its action an opinion expressed by the President in reply to an individual communication." Daniel Jenifer of Maryland also protested against having the President's private opinion set up as an argument against the proposed action of the House; and George H. Briggs of Massachusetts argued that any opinion of the President need not prevent the present gravely needed action. Said he: "Every passing breeze brings the intelligence of the still nearer approach of this desolating calamity; from town to town, from city to city, the dread of it comes stealing on.

2 34

ODD BYWAYS IN A2VIEIUCAN HISTORY

causing even the good man to turn pale." Tristam Burges of Rhode Island said that he did not believe that the President would refuse to comply to a request so reasonable and so proper. William W. Ellsvi^orth of Connecticut thought that President Jackson would not refuse a request from the representatives of the whole American people, and said that it would be strange indeed if Congress were forbidden by the Constitution merely to present such a request to the President. Joseph Vance of Ohio said that a practice had sprung up in the House of discussing the opinion of the Chief Magistrate — a practice derogatory to every member. "I have seen the day," he exclaimed, "when for referring in the House to the opinions of the President, any member would have been put down. Is Congress to be a mere instrument in the hands of the President of the United States? Do we sit here to register his edicts?" At this point, there were loud cries of "Order!"; but Vance continued, "I trust while a drop of American blood flows in our veins, we never will submit to such a state of things." Here, the temporary Speaker of the House, James K. Polk, attempted to stop Vance; and John Quincy Adams then asked the Chair: "In any debate of the House, is it in order to refer to an opinion of a letter of the President with a view to influence members?" Polk replied that the question was new to him, but that it had always been the custom in the House to refer to any published acts of the officers of Government. William Stanbery of Ohio then said that if it was the decision of the Chair that it was in order to cite the opinion of the President to influence members, he should appeal from the decision. Lewis Williams of North Carolila urged a point of order against discussion of the consistency of certain opinions of the President not officially communicated. The Chair replied that he had often heard letters quoted in the House over the signature of individuals

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

235

and the practice had never been declared out of order. John Quincy Adams then said that it had become an extremelyimportant question and he must appeal from any decision of the Chair holding that it was in order to refer to private letters of the President containing his opinion on a subject before the House for deliberation. Jesse Speight of North Carolina agreed with the Chair's ruling, and said that it did not comport with the dignity of the House to be engaged in a long discussion on the question whether they ought to pray; and "with a view to their coming together in a more suitable frame of mind," he moved an adjournment, which was voted. W i t h three days in which to cool off, it was hoped that less excitement would prevail when the House convened on Monday, July 9; but this hope failed when the Speaker, Andrew W . Stevenson of Virginia, announced his ruling on the point of order as to discussion of Jackson's letter: "Whatever might have been the rule of order as to the first introduction of such a letter into the House, or whatever might be the law of Parliament in relation to a reference to the opinions of the King, since the letter had been published in one of the public papers, as it had been read in the House and commented on in debate, it was now too late to make the question whether a reference to it was in order." John Quincy Adams then insisted on his appeal from the Chair, stating that the Speaker could not shelter himself by saying that it was too late to raise the question. When Carson originally read the President's letter to the House, said Adams: "I heard it read with indignation. It was the first attempt I had ever witnessed to influence the action of the House by referring to a private communication of the President. It should have been at once ruled out of order. The question is whether a letter of the President expressive of his opinion in relation to a matter before the House could be

236

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

referred to on the floor. The practice is in its nature extremely dangerous. If, from the public and official expressions of his opinion, it is permitted to descend to the President's private letters, to conversation, to whispers and rumors of what are his sentiments, the lofty spirit of this Nation will be made to cower before the influence of the Chief Magistrate in a manner that was never the purpose or imagination of those who framed the Constitution. The character of the House will be changed. If the House allows the opinions of the Chief Magistrate to be quoted here, it will at once introduce him as a debater on this floor; it will allow gentlemen to attack his opinions and meet his arguments and thus introduce a sort of civil war in the House. The House will no longer represent the majority of the people of the United States but will be influenced and guided by indirect communication from another quarter." Adams then referred to the conduct of Speaker Lenthall in the House of Commons with reference to Charles the First, by reason of which Lenthall's name had become immortal. "Í hope," said he, "that the name of our Speaker of this House may not have a contrasted immortality." He insisted that the unofficial opinions of the Chief Magistrate should never be referred to in the House at all. John Branch of North Carolina retorted that the President's letter gave no sign of a desire to overawe the action or deliberations of the House, and Carson was not actuated by any improper motive in referring to the letter. Richard Coulter of Pennsylvania stated that the letter had been published in the papers and had become a matter of history known to the nation before it was read in the House. He cited as a precedent an extraordinary and unprecedented "paper," forty closely printed pages in length, which President Monroe had transmitted to the House, May 4, 1822, expounding his views on the subject of the constitutional power of Congress to make internal improvements.

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

237

Adams replied that that was a very different case. Monroe had acted on his official responsibility and the statements of his opinion to the House had been made in a public message which he had considered incumbent on him under a sense of duty to the Constitution. "I had been," said Adams, "one of Mr. Monroe's confidential advisers and had for a long time earnestly entreated him to strike out a passage to which allusion has been made, as likely to have an unfavorable effect upon his influence in the House and his standing in the country; and I have since had reason to believe that Mr. Monroe afterwards regretted that he had not taken my advice." James K. Polk, upholding the Speaker's ruling and referring to Adams' statement that the consideration of Jackson's letter was unprecedented, stated that opinions of Adams himself when President, expressed on various topics, had been made the subject of discussion on the floor. Adams at once jumped up and asked Polk to "specify a single instance." The Chair called him to order, whereupon Adams said that he was "glad the Speaker had found any order." Again the Speaker called him to order; and Polk said that he did not desire to hurt Adams' feelings and could refer him to several instances — notably the celebrated letter written by Adams from St. Petersburg when Minister to Russia and which had been the subject of prolonged debate in both Houses of Congress. Adams again interrupted, and said that the letter had not been written while he was President. Polk then said that he regretted the temper manifested by Mr. Adams, and that he would not imitate the example thus set, high as the authority might be: "Notwithstanding the strong excitement which has been exhibited before the House, I will endeavor to keep clear of all effects of sympathy and wül proceed to reiterate that the opinions of Presidents have often been quoted on this floor. . . . I trust the day wül never arrive when represen-

238

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

tatíves of the people will be prohibited from referring to the relevant private opinions of any individual. It would be a very important restriction of liberty of debate . . . much more important to the opposition than to the friends of the Administration." Daniel Jenifer of Maryland then returned to his attack on Carson for reading the Jackson letter. He said that the Administration paper, the Globe, had published it — and for what reason? "Can any man shut his eyes to the fact that it was for the purpose of influencing the House? It has had its effect. . . . Is the House to pass Resolutions or reject them according to the private opinions of the Executive?" At this point, William Stanbery caused an excitement by making a bitter personal attack on President Jackson and on the Speaker. "In England it is not in order to refer to the opinions of the King," he said, "and the same rule holds here. Never did a monarch on the British throne exercise so much power over his Parliament as the President exercises over the deliberations of this House. By all your predecessors, it has been decided to be out of order. Mr. Macon always presided with great dignity and always asserted the rights of order. He never flattered and cringed to those in power. He never shaped his course to suit the Executive wiU, with a view to getting an opportunity to a high office abroad. I insist that allusions to the opinions of the President are out of order. I defy any gentleman to point me a single decision to the contrary until you presided over this body. And let me say that I have heard the remark frequently made that the eyes of the Speaker are too frequently turned from the Chair you occupy towards the White House." At this point, Stanbery was called to order; and the Speaker said that the "insinuations were unfounded and untrue." Michael Hoffman of New York said that the House presented "a most singular exhibition. It has entirely strayed

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

239

away from its constitutional duties in taking up this subject. Whenever, instead of settiing questions of policy and laws, the House proceeds to the more delicate discussions of matters of religion, it is extremely difficult to apply the strict rules of order." Clement C. Clay of Alabama tried to divert the debate from the path which it had taken and to tum it back to the subject of the resolution — a subject which, he said, the framers of the Constitution had been scrupulously careful to avoid. "It is incumbent on us to follow out the principles of the Constitution by keeping religious and political affairs entirely distinct and separate from each other and to put the seal of reprobation on the first attempt to prostitute our holy religion to purposes such as he would not mention." Tristam Burges of Rhode Island exclaimed that the opposition to the Resolution was "a horrid mockery of Almighty God." And Thomas H. Crawford of Pennsylvania asked: "What are members doing on the floor — debating in all the fervor of a political contest whether they should appeal to the Almighty God for his protection against an impending evil. . , . The pertinacity, the excitement, the passion which has marked the debate is such as I have never witnessed in this House. It is anything but dignified thus to debate any question, still less on an occasion when men are talking about a solemn approach to the Deity." Thomas D. Arnold of Tennessee (a Whig) said that though the resolution had been introduced with great modesty, it had led to an unexpected and angry debate and "the President's own friends have made this proposal a political question and put this matter on a political ground." At this point, John Bell of Tennessee (a Whig) urged his compromise amendment, providing that Congress alone by concurrent resolution recommend to the people a Fast Day, stating that this would avoid the necessity of any action by the President, and would "avoid the indelicacy or inde-

240

ODD B Y W A Y S IN AMERICAN HISTORY

cency of asking the President to do what he had declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution." This suggestion again aroused the opposition of Adams, who said that he could not vote now for either the resolution or its amendment. "Suppose the amendment shall be adopted," he said, "what will be the natural inference? — That the House is afraid to go to the President and ask him to adopt this measure — that the members of the House cower before the President's private opinion — that they dare not put the question to him." A t this Clay, in the Chair again, called Adams to order for speaking disrespectfully of the House. Adams replied that he had only spoken hypothetically; and he continued, triumphantly: "I state only what the country will say and what posterity wiU say (for we are not acting in a comer) — a House cowering before the President and not daring to resist his opinions. Moreover, I do not believe it competent to the House to make any proclamation to the people; for it is not a legislative act." Bell then tried to restore a little calm to the situation by saying: "The eyes of the people, the eyes of that Great Being whom it is proposed to address are fixed upon us; and surely, it is not becoming, in debating such a subject, to exhibit feelings of passion and malignity." At this point, Verplanck of N e w York made the most sensible and temperate speech of the whole debate, saying that, viewing the course and spirit of the discussion and the whole business with disapprobation, he had early tried to have it laid on the table, but had been "accused of acting either upon farfetched and extravagant or pretended views of constitutional restriction, or being swayed by the base motive of subservience to the Executive — of 'cowering under the wishes of the President.' " As to the latter charge, he repelled it with scorn; as to the question of constitutional power, that could only arise in matters of proper legislation, of binding law. It was a far graver motive which impelled him

JACKSON OPPOSES A NATIONAL FAST

24I

to oppose both the originai and the amended Resolution. "Whenever," he said, "Congress or any other politicai body in this country meddles in aiFairs of religion, they must run counter more or less to the spirit of our free institutions securing equal religious rights — offend the conscience or wound the feelings of some or other of our citizens. Many look with dislike, as their ancestors did with honor, upon all days or times of formal and stated supplication. . . . You cannot make religion a party and an actor in the halls of human legislation without infinite and incalculable evil — evil to religion, evil to the State. You inflame the rancor of party politics by adding to it the fervor of religious zeal or that of sectarian fanaticism. Of else you do worse — you pollute and degrade religion by making her the handmaid of human power or the partisan of personal ambition." And Verplanck concluded by asking members to consider the course and spirit of this very debate: "Has not the circumstance of this question having been agitated upon the political theatre and by political men drawn on angry crimination, personal imputations, indirect insinuations and open charge of unworthy motives?" He said that it was becoming a party question — "one great public man introducing the resolution — another understood to disapprove it" — (meaning that the issue had again become only another phase of the fight of Clay against Jackson). "What may we expect when this serious subject becomes the topic of the party press during an excited election?" Finally, he summed up his whole argument by saying: "Let us leave prayer and humiliation to be prompted by the devotion of the heart and not the bidding of the State." Thus ended the debate. Bell's motion to refer the Clay resolution to a Special Committee to report an amendment fixing August 2 for a National Fast Day by Congressional action alone was adopted by a vote of 86-70. This action

242

ODD BYWAYS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

effectively put an end to the whole matter; for before the Committee could report, the House indulged in another violent debate. The friends of the President had resented the insulting references to the Speaker made by William Stanbery on the previous day; and accordingly on July 10 — a day when the House was already violently stirred by receipt of President Jackson's Message vetoing the Bank of the United States charter bill — a resolution was offered: "That the insinuations made in debate by Wñliam Stanbery of Ohio charging the Speaker with shaping his course as presiding officer with a view to the attainment of office from the President of the United States was an indignity to the Speaker and the House and merits the censure of the House." After a hot discussion as to whether the resolution was in order, and protests by Stanbery that such action would be "unjust and tyrannical," a vote was ordered. As the roll call began, the other stormy petrel of the session, John Quincy Adams, rose and asked to be excused from voting, "believing it to be unconstitutional, inasmuch as it assumes references of fact from words spoken by the member without giving the words; and the facts not being warranted in my judgment by the words which he did use." The House voted not to excuse Adams; whereupon, on his name being called, he refused to answer. The Speaker directed Adams' name again be called; but no response was made, and the motion censuring Stanbery was then adopted 92 to 44. On the next day, July 12, the House proceeded to consider a resolve holding that Adams had committed a breach of rules and that a Committee should be appointed to determine the course of action which the House ought to adopt in a case so novel and important. After a renewal of heated discussion, the House wisely decided to drop the whole matter, and Adams retired from the field in triumph. T h e final stage of this curious episode was described by Adams in a letter to his wife on July 13: (7)

J A C K S O N OPPOSES A N A T I O N A L F A S T

243

I wrote you on my birthday (July 1 1 ) under a threatened resolution to expel me from this House and to commit me to the custody of the Sergeant-at Arms — preparatory resolutions to which had that day been moved by Col. Drayton. The majority of the House were in a towering passion with me for declining to vote upon what I thought an unconstitutional question. The next morning the House cooled down wonderfully, and after duly trying my temper, voted by a large majority to lay Col. Drayton's resolutions on the table, . . . The pressure upon body and mind has been too much for me; but I am lighthearted and hope to leave here next Tuesday morning.

Three days later, on July 16, Congress adjourned without enacting the Fast-Day resolution. Ajnd this was the last that was ever heard of the famous controversy in which Asiatic cholera, Andrew Jackson, prayers to the Lord, politics, the Constitution, and the right of Congress to refer to Presidential opinions were all so curiously intermingled. Whether or not it was due to this troublesome experience in 1832, no attempt to procure a National Fast Day was made again by Congress until 1861, ten days after the disastrous Battle of Bull Run, when a resolution was passed asking President Lincoln to declare "a day of public humiliation, fasting and prayer." Similar resolutions were passed in 1863 and 1864.(8) These were the last efforts which Congress has ever made to enter into this religious field.

NOTES

NOTES CHAPTER ONE

1. See Act of March 20, 1794 (i Stat. 315); Act of May 6, 1796 (i Stat. 460); Act of May 30, 1796 (i Stat. 483); Act of March 3, 1797 (1 Stat. 505); Act of February 13, 1806 (2 Stat. 349); Act of April 18, 1806 (2 Stat. 354); Act of March 3, 1807 (2 Stat. 432); Act of February ID, 1808 (2 Stat. 462); see also Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 2d Sess., report of Secretary of State dated January 6, 1797. John Forsyth of Georgia said in the Senate, February 25, 1831, Register of Debates, 21st Cong., 2d Sess.: "Very early in the progress of the Federal Government, a fund was set apart to be expended at the discretion of the President on his responsibility only called the contingent fund of foreign intercourse. . . . It was given for all purposes to which a secret service fund should or could be applied for the public benefit . . . for persons sent publicly or secretly to search for important information, political or commercial, for agents to carry confidential instructions, written or verbal to our foreign ministers in negotiations where secrecy was the element of success, and for agents to feel the pulse of foreign Governments to ascertain if treaties, commercial or political, could be formed with them and with power to form treaties if practicable." 2. See Renter of Debates, 21st Cong., 2d Sess., House Report No. 10η, March I, 1831; see also Register of Debates, 21st Cong., 2d Sess., speech of William S. Archer of Virginia in the House, March i, 1831; Works of Thomas Jefferson (Ford Ed.), I, 389, entry of March 13, 1806. 3. Register of Debates, uà Cong., ist Sess., in the House, March 16, 1832. 4. See Niles Register, X X X I X , 220; Register of Debates, 21st Cong., 2d Sess., House Report No. lo-j, March i, 1831; Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., House Journal, January 20, 1842; Register of Debates, 21 St Cong., 2d Sess., in the House, March i, 1831; in the Senate, February 22, 23, 24, 25, 1831; Register of Debates, iid Cong., ist Sess., in the House, March 16, 1832. 5. 23d Cong., ist Sess., House Doc. No. 28, letter of Leib, March 7, 1833; 23d Cong., ist Sess., House Report No. 302. See also instructions from Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams to Richard Rush, Minister to England, November 6, 1817. See also Niles Register, X L VII, November 8, 1834; Congressional Globe, 23d Cong., 2d Sess., December 22, 1834, January 15, 1835; Resolve of February 13, 1835 (4 Stat.

792)·

6. The First Forty Years of Washington Society (ed. by Gaillard

248

NOTES TO C H A P T E R

II

Hunt, 1906); Niles Register, vol. XLVIII, February 28, April 11, 183s; National Intelligencer, Aprü 11, 1835. 7. Seeing nothing else to do, the State Department on November 12, 1839, directed Carr to ship the animals to this country at Government expense. 8. See W . S. N . Ruschenberger, A Voyage Around the World Including An Embassy to Muscat and Siam in 183;, 1836, and 183^ (1838), p. 91. For presents given to the King of Siam on conclusion of a treaty in 1836, ibid., p. 343; see also Edmund Roberts, Embassy to the Eastern Courts of Cochin China, Siam, and Muscat in the U. S. Sloop of War Peacock, David Geisinger, Commander, during the Years 1832-3-4 (1837), in which are described the presents desired by the King in 1833. 9. Congressional Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., in the Senate, May 24, 1840; see Niles Register, vol. LVIII, August 6, for Senator James Buchanan's reply to Tappan. For the debate in the House, July 10, 1840, see National Intelligencer, July 11, 1840; Joint Resolution of July 20, 1840 (5 Stat. 409); Niles Register, vol. LVIII, August i, 8, 20, 1840. 10. New York Evening Signal in Niles Register, vol. XLVIII, May 23, 1840. 11. 28th Cong., ist Sess., House Exec. Doc. No. 256, May 15, 1844; National Intelligencer, Washington Globe, March i, 1845; Congressional Globe, 28th Cong., 2d Sess., March 3, 1845; A c t of March 3, 1845, c. 38 (5 Stat. 730). 12. As to this episode, see National Archives, correspondence with Siam; Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America (1933, ed. by Hunter Miller), III, 741-788; as to Muscat, pp. 789-810. CHAPTER TWO

1. President Monroe furnished the White House with furniture and plate partly bought from him at an appraised value of $9,071; partly bought in France at $18417, and partly bought in this country at $22,511. 2. 19th Cong., ist Sess., House Committee Report N o . 122; see Joint Resolution of February 8, 1826, and see also Joint Resolution of March 3, 1825, directing the Commissioner of Public Buildings to take an inventory of the furniture of the President's House and to deliver a copy to the President and to each House of Congress. A c t of May 22, 1826 (4 Stat. 194); Act of March 2, 1827 (4 Stat. 218). 3. See Niles Register, XXXII, 149, April 28, 1827. 4. 19th Cong., ist Sess., in the House, May 17, 1826. 5. Register of Debates, 20th Cong., ist Sess., speech of Edward Everett in the House, February i, 1828. 6. Richmond Enquirer, January 4, 1827; ibid., April 27, 1827. See letter to the editor of the United States Telegraph, January 20, 26,

NOTES TO CHAPTER III

249

1827; see also United States Telegraph, Febraary 5, 1827; letter from "Codfish" in United States Telegraph, January 8, 1827. 7. Register of Debates, 19th Cong., 2d Sess., in the House, January 15, February 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 1827. 8. United States Telegraph, February 26, 1827; ibid., December 18, 1829, in which it is said that Adams "diverted |6,ooo of the money granted by Congress for the East Room from its legitimate purpose and expended it in decorating in princely style an apartment for the accommodation of Mrs. Adams." 9. Niles Register, vol. XXXII, April 28, 1827, 10. Register of Debates, 20th Cong., ist Sess., in the House, January 25, 26, 29, 1828. 11. Register of Debates, 20th Cong., ist Sess., in the Senate, February I, 2, 4, 1828. 12. Congressional Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., April 14, 16, 21, 27, 1840. 13. Published by Weeks, Jordan & Co., in Boston and containing 56 royal octavo pages at $38 per 10,000 copies. See also Congressional Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., esp. speeches of Keim, April 20, 1840; Jameson, April 21; McKay, April 23; Evans, April 23; Lincoln, April 16, in Appendix. CHAPTER THREE

[This Chapter and Chapters Four, Eight, and Eleven are condensed from papers prepared for the Massachusetts Historical Society and are included here by its courtesy.] 1. These letters and all other letters from members of the Continental Congress quoted in this chapter are to be found (unless otherwise stated) in Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (edited by Edmund M. Burnett) and in Writings of George Washington (Ford's ed.), vol. VIII. See also, in general, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, L I X (1926), 45. 2. See Pennsylvania Packet, July 4, August 3, 1788; Pennsylvania Evening Post, August 4, 25, 1778. 3. For this letter of July 19, 1778, and other letters of Gerard and La Luzeme, see Doniol, Histoire de la Participation de la France à rétablissement des États Unis d'Amérique (1892), vol. III. 4. Pennsylvania Packet, July 18, August i, 1782; Freeman's Journal, July 17, August 28, 1782; Independent Gazetteer, July 20, 1782; Pennsylvania Journal, July 17, 1782. 5. Independent Gazetteer, Saturday, April 3, 1784; Pennsylvania Packet, Thursday, April i, 1784. Pennsylvania Journal, June 21, 1784. See Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, vol. L X (1927), article on portrait of Louis X V I by Worthington C. Ford, with a reproduction of the portrait.

250

NOTES TO CHAPTER III

6. For correspondence between Morris and de Marbois, see The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States 6837). 7· Quoted in Norwich Packet, November 29, 1792. 8. Correspondence of the French Ministers to the United States, П91-1191, edited by Frederick J. Turner, Amer. Hist. Ass. Rep. (1903), vol. II, letter of January 13, 1796 (26 Nivose, 4th Year of the Republic). 9. "Diary of Mrs. William Thornton" in Columbia Historical Society Records, vol. X (1907); "Account of the City of Washington" by George Bourne, MS. in Library of Congress; John Neilson, Travels in the United States (1812). 10. Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., ist Sess., in the Senate, July 19, 20, 27, 31, August I, 1813; David Baillie Warden, in his Statistical Description of the District of Columbia, vi^hich was published in Paris in 1816 but must describe the Senate Chamber prior to the above motion in 1813, wrote as to the Capitol: "The North Wing, which contains the Senate Chamber, has the form of a segment, with a double arched dome and Ionic pillars. It is adorned with portraits of Louis X V I and Marie Antoinette." 11. The Washington Guide (1823); Elliot's Washington Guide (1837); George Watterston, A New Guide to Washington (ist ed. 1840, enlarged ed. 1842); Philps Washington Guide (1861) said that the portraits "were cut out of the frames or burned or stolen." Report of September 23, 1814, on the Capture of Washington, Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 3d Sess., Appendix, pp. 1518-1738. George C. Hazelton, in The National Capitol (1897), said: "By means of rockets, tar barrels found in the neighborhood, broken furniture, heaps of books from the Library and pictures, including the full length paintings of Marie Antoinette and Louis X V I which had been presented by that unfortunate monarch to Congress, the whole structure was soon in flames." William B. Webb, in his Centennial History of the City of Washington (1892), printed a statement, quoted but without citation of authority: "The pitch pine boards were torn from the passageway between the wings; the books and papers of the Library of Congress were pulled from their shelves and scattered over the floor; valuable paintings in a room adjoining the Senate Chamber were cut from their frames, and the torch applied to the combustible mass." The chief account of the British attack on Washington by a contemporary writer is the Reminiscences of Dr. James Ewell who lived then in a house close to the Capitol on the site of the present Congressional Library, but he makes no mention of the portraits. See Columbia Historical Society Reports, I, i. 12. Columbia Historical Society Reports, vol. X I V (1911), 13. 69th Cong., ist Sess., Senate Document No. 95. 14. A suggestion has been made that the Royal Portraits might have

NOTES TO CHAPTER IV

25 I

been removed to the Library of Congress and have been burned in the fire which occurred there on December 24, 1851; but the National Intelligencer of December 25 described with full and great detail the losses but no mention is here made of any loss of portraits of the King and Queen. CHAPTER FOUR

1. See in general Autobiography, Reminiscences and Letters of John Trumbull (1841); Trumbull Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 5th Series X, 7th Series II, III; "Bowdoin-Temple Papers," Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 6th Series IX, 7th Series V I ; "Warren-Adams Letters," Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, vols. L X X I I and LXXIII; Divided Loyalties (1933) by Lewis Einstein; History of the Rise and Progress of the Arts of Design (1834) by William Dunlap, I, 340, et seq. 2. Independent Chronicle (Boston, Mass.), March 8, 1781. 3. Boswell's Life of Johnson (1835), vol. VII; Coke of Norfolk and His Friends Ó908), by A. W . Sterling, I, 167-190; Letters of Horace Walpole (ed. Sir Horace Mann, 1894), vol. Ill; speech of Wilkes printed in full in Pennsylvania Gazette, August 5, 1781; Pennsylvania Packet, May 22, 1781, Bristol letter of February 4, 1781; ibid.. May 15, 1781, Boston letter of Oct. 22, 1780. 4. See London Daily Advertiser, November 15, 1780, publishing General Clinton's letter of October 12; ibid., November 16, publishing further details as to Major Andre, ibid., December 13, 26, publishing letters of October 2, from Tappan, giving details of Andre's execution and as to Arnold. Pennsylvania Packet, March 20, 1781, contained an extract from a London newspaper of November 14, 1780, showing the manner in which the news was announced in London. 5. London Daily Advertiser, November 24, 1780. 6. London Daily Advertiser, November 23, 25, 1780; London Chronicle, November 23, 25, 1780; London letter of November 24, 1780, in Boston Gazette, March 5, 1781; Continental Journal (Boston), March I, 1781. See also London letter of November 30, 1780, in Royal Gazette (N. Y.), February 21, 1781. 7. See also letter of John Trumbull to his father from Amsterdam, July 13, 1781 {Trumbull Papers, supra, p. 246). 8. As to the Laurens papers, see London Daily Advertiser, November 28, December i, 1780; as to examination of Laurens before Justice Addington and the Secretaries of State, see Boston Gazette, February 12, 1781; see also London letter of November 28, 1780, in Continental Journal, March 29, 1781, as to papers in Laurens' trunks and as to Temple: "This Mr. Temple is the particular friend and associate of Mr. Trumbull now in Clerkenwell Bridewell for treasonable practices against the State." A London letter of December 6, 1780, in Royal Gazette (New York), February 17, 1781, said: "Laurens' papers

252

NOTES TO CHAPTER V

are worth millions of money to us. . . . They shew us the wretched state of the rebel army and prove beyond contradiction the impossibility of their providing for another campaign without a large loan." 9. Warren-Adams Letters, II, 136, 154, Warren to Adams, July 19, 1780, Adams to Warren, December 9, 1780. 10. See papers of Mrs. Mercy Warren in possession of the author. 11. See Franklin Papers in American Philosophical Society. 12. See Pennsylvania Packet, May 5, 1781, London dispatch of December 27, 1780: "The ports are strictly watched to prevent the escape of the American spy. . . . The American spy is taken at Harwich and will be examined before the Privy Council. Many papers were found upon his person touching treasonable correspondence." Ibid., January 2, 1781, for the arrest of Brailsford. See also Plymouth {Eng.) Advertiser, January 26, 1781, quoted in Pennsylvania Packet, March 7, 1781; The Last Journals of Horace Walpole, vol. II, entries of November 20 and December 6,1780. CHAPTER FIVE

I. Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d Series X (1896), pp. 473, et seq. г. See, in general. History of the Centennial Celebration of the inauguration of George Washington (1892), edited by Clarence W . Bowen; Memorial History of the City of New York (1893), vol. Ill, chapter 11, "New York, the Federal Capital and Washington's First Term," by Moncure D. Conway; Magazine of American History, X X (1881), 433-460; William Dunlap, History of Neiv York for Schools, II, 263. 3. Washington's Cherry Street house was then located near the bank of the East River with a delightful view across to the Long Island farms; it had been the family mansion of Walter Franklin, an eminent merchant and a member of the Society of Friends who inhabited that quarter of the city. Then owned by Samuel Osgood of Massachusetts (who had married Franklin's widow), it had been designated by the Continental Congress as a home for the President, by vote of February 15, 1789. 4. Writings of Washington (ed. by Jared Sparks), X , 463. Lear described the President's attendant procession of troops and of committees and heads of departments in carriages; and he continued: "Next the President in the State coach and Colonel Humphreys and myself in the President's own carriage. The foreign ministers and a long train of citizens brought up the rear. About 200 yards before we reached the Hall, we descended from our carriages and passed through the troops who were drawn up on each side, into the Hall and Senate Chamber where we found the Vice President, and Senate and House of Representatives assembled." 5. Historical Magazine, III (1859), Republican Court

NOTES TO CHAPTER VI

253

(1868), by Rufus W . Griswold; Correspondence and Journals of Samuel Blachley Webb (1894), vol. Ill, letter of May 3, 1789, to Miss Hagebom. See also The Inauguration of Washington, a paper by Mrs. Martha J . Lamb before the New York Historical Society, October 2, 1789; The City of Neiu York in the Year of Washington's Inauguration in ιηΒ^ by Thomas E. V . Smith; "The Inauguration of Washington," by Clarence Winthrop Bowen in The Century, vol. X X X V I I I (1889). 6. John Fiske in The Critical Period of American History (1888) wrote: "It was one of those days of clearest sunshine that sometimes make one feel in April as if summer had come." Mrs. Constance Caty Harrison in The Century, vol. X X X V I I I (1889), wrote: "Six days after the President's installation in his rural dwelling occurred the imposing ceremonies of the Inauguration. No heart could have asked for a broader smile than that bestowed by the rising sun of the 30th of April." On the other hand, in the biography of George Washington by Shirley Little in 1929 (p. 359) it is said: "The 30th dawned in a shower of rain. By nine o'clock the sun had come out. . . . Immense crowds were packing the sidewalks oblivious of the mud." In Episodes in the Life of George Washington (1932), by A. J. Cloud and V . Kersey, it is said: "It was a bright, clear day" (p. 14). And Professor Morison in The Growth of the American Republic (1930) says: "The prospect seemed fair enough outwardly on that bright morning of 30 April 1789 when Washington, a picture of splendid manhood, stepped out onto the balcony overlooking Wall Street" (p. 191). 7. Memoirs of the Life of Eliza Susan Morton Quincy (1861). In a note at the end. Miss Quincy wrote that the pages containing the account of Washington's inaugural "were sent to Mr. Irving in 1856 at his request by the Editor and are inserted in his Life of Washington, IV, pp. 510, 513, 514, but without reference to their source." 8. Grandmother Tyler's Book. The Recollections of Mary Hunt Palmer Tyler (1925), pp. 119-121. The manuscript was written in the years between 1858 and 1863. 9. See American Historical Review, I (1896), 475, et seq. CHAPTER SIX

1. Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams (1848), by George Gibbs, vol. I; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (1908), XLIII, 148. 2. 5th Cong., 3d Sess., Report of Committee on Repeal of Alien and Sedition Law, February 25, 1799. 3. Gibbs, supra, vol. II. 4. Jefferson wrote to Madison, May 31, 1798: "The threatening appearances from the Alien bills have so far alarmed the French who are among us that they are going off. A ship chartered by them-

2 54

NOTES TO C H A P T E R

VII

selves for the purpose луШ sail within about a fortnight for France with as many as she can carry. Among these, I believe, will be Volney who has in truth been the principal object aimed at by the law." 5. The Columbian Centinel, May 12,1798, published an article from the Petersburg [Va.] Intelligencer stating that Talleyrand when in Pennsylvania in 1796 had surveyed the lands on Bald Eagle Creek, the most fertile in the State, and had purchased from Robert Morris an immense tract. "The deeds were drawn but they remain in the hands of a gentleman of Philadelphia provisionally until T P should be enabled by honest exertion in France to pay the purchase money. ТЪе 50,000 livres lately demanded for him as a douceur for permitting the envoys of the United States to an interview with the Directory of France may perhaps be repaid in Philadelphia. T h e above are facts that can be substantiated by the person who drew the deeds and transacted the whole business. He is ready to come forward, if required of him." 6. See Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), March 6; American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, March 6; Columbian Centinel (Boston), March 9, 13; Connecticut Courant, March 11, 1799. 7. See Columbian Centinel, March 20; Charleston City Gazette, March 23, publishing dispatch from Richmond (Va.) dated March 12; ibid., April I, 1799, quoting a dispatch from N e w York dated March 12; Aurora, March 7, quoting a Charleston dispatch. 8. Quoted in Charleston City Gazette, March 30; New York Commercial Advertiser, March i i ; Independent Chronicle, March 21, 1799, quoting a Salem dispatch of March 19; Aurora, March 28, quoting Columbian Centinel of March 26, 1799. 9. Charleston City Gazette, Aprü 24, 1799, quoting a letter sent from Charleston and received in Newport, R. I., March 26. 10. Charleston City Gazette, February 23, 26, March 18, 1799; Independent Chronicle, April 4, 1799, quoting N e w York dispatch of March 25; American Daily Advertiser, March 19; New York Commereiai Advertiser, March 26, 1799. 11. Independent Chronicle, March 25, April i, 8, 1799; Aurora, March 30, April 3. CHAPTER SEVEN

1. See compilation in The Eagle Screams (1936), by Coley Taylor and Samuel Middlebrook. 2. See New York Commercial Advertiser, July 11 to October 9, 1780, containing fifteen letters from "Burleigh"; Connecticut Courant and Columbian Centinel (Boston) for July, August, September and October, 1800. See also "The Jacobiniad" by "Decius" in Columbian Centinel for July and August. See also letters of "Old South" in Independent Chronicle (Boston), reprinted in Constitutional Republicanism (1803), by Benjamm Austin, Jr.

NOTES TO CHAPTER V i l i

255

3. See Connecticut Courant, July 9, 1800; Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth, N . H.), July 12, 1800; New Hampshire Gazette, July 15, 1800; Farmer's Museum (Walpole, N. H.), July 14, 1800. 4. Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Fierre Samuel DuPont de Nemours, ιη()8-ι8ιη, ed. by Dumas Malone (1930). He wrote another letter to Jefferson, July z6, i8oo: "After mourning your death as one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to America and the world, and my heart added 'to me also,' I have been worrying today about your health. . . . I let you know how the sad news spread by the newspapers had filled me with grief; with what pleasure I learned that it was false; and my opinion that such spiteful stupidity always benefits worth and virtue." CHAPTER EIGHT

1. See Boston Gazette, December 28, 1795: "The House of Commons only proceed in a body to return an answer to the King's Speech on extraordinary occasions. The commonplace, even among them, is to return answer by a Committee." 2. Letter from the Political Scrutator "Rusticus," Independent Chronicle, September 9, 1790; see also Gazette of the United States, November 10, 1792, quoting General Advertiser·, see also letter of "Mirabeau," National Gazette, December 12, 1792. See also letter of "Cornelia," ibid., December 26, 1792, attacking the "drawing room," and letter of "Condorcet," ibid., December 15, 1792, saying: "The Vice President never appears but in the full blaze of office, as if every place he went to was a circle and every circle which he invited needed a Vice President." Congress Hall (1895), by Samuel Pennypacker; Gazette of the United States, November u , 1792, quoting General Advertiser·, National Gazette, December 26, 1792, letter of "Diogenes"; Independent Chronicle, September i, 1794. 3. "Arbiter No. II," in Independent Chronicle, April 30, 1795; see also letter of "Codrus" in the Aurora, quoted in Boston Gazette, December 28, 1795. 4. Prospect from the Congress Gallery During the Session Beginning December 7, (1796), by Peter Porcupine (William Cobbett). A Philadelphia letter in Columbian Centinel, December 19, 1795, said: "I was present at the delivery of the President's Speech and think I never witnessed a more august and heart-affecting scene. I hope the answers will equal the Speech in composition as well as moderation and patriotism." 5. The secrecy of debate in the Senate had long been the object of criticism. Washington wrote to David Stuart, July 26, 1789: "Why they (the Senate) keep their doors shut when acting in a legislative capacity, I am unable to inform you, unless it is because they think there is too much speaking to the gallery in the other House, and business is thereby retarded." Writings of Washington (Sparks ed.),

256

NOTES TO CHAPTER

Vili

Χ, 21. See also letter to Madison August 25, 1789. See Providence Gazette, Febraary 5, March 12, 1791, as to resolutions in the legislatures of North Carolina, Massachusetts and Virginia directed against secrecy in the Senate. See also a letter from "Diogenes" in National Gazette, December 26, 1792, and General Advertiser, quoted in National Gazette, November 21, 1792; Norwich Packet (Conn.), November 29, 1792, quoting Independent Gazetteer (Phila.); Independent Chronicle, November 26, 1795, quoting Aurora. 6. Parker's speech is thus reported in Annals of Congress, December 9, 1795. It is interesting to note that the reports of debates in Congress at this time, as given in the newspapers, frequently differ somewhat from the report in the Annals. See report of Parker's speech in American Daily Advertiser, December 11, 1795. 7. Columbian Centinel, December 24, 1796: "It is worthy of remark, says a correspondent, that the British papers at no period of the Revolution ever teemed with more sheer abuse of the Administration of the Government of the United States than the jacobin papers do at this very moment. . . . What must the world think of a Government which is thus traduced by its citizens?" 8. Independent Chronicle, October 17, 1796. The Aurora, December 14, 1801, referred to Adams as "gratifying his vanity with pomp and feast and revelry, antique masques and pageantry." See Columbian Centinel, December 14, 1796; Independent Chronicle, May 8, 1797. 9. See Aurora, Aiay 18, 19, 1797; Independent Chronicle, May 25, 1797; see Annals of Congress, 5th Cong., ist Sess., May-June; see also more full account of some of the speeches in Aurora, May 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, June I, 5, 1797. 10. Letter of "Propriety" in Independent Chronicle, January 10, 1799. 11. "The first sitting of this first truly republican Congress," Aurora, December 15, ι8οι. See also Boston Gazette, December 17, 1801, Washington letter of December 7. The Aurora, December 10, 1801 (Thursday), said, from the Editor, Washington City, December 7: "If the Houses form this morning, it is probable that the President will send his message to them on Wednesday, and you may expect it in Philadelphia on Friday morning." On December 11, 1801, it published another letter from the Editor in Washington dated December 7, in which he said: "The President speaks very animatedly on the naturalization law and on the judiciary, and on the militia law and juries." As this was the day before the Message was delivered, Duane, the Editor, evidently had seen an advance copy. See also American Daily Advertiser (Phila.), December 11, 1801: " A letter from a respectable member of Congress, received yesterday by the Editor, states that the President of the United States will make his communication to Congress this session in the form of a message."

NOTES TO CHAPTER V i l i

257

See also Gazette of the United States, December 11, 1801; New York Evening Post, December 11, 1801; Salem Gazette, December 15, 1801; American Citizen (New York), December 12, i8oi. 12. Newport Mercury, December 22, i8oi; National Intelligencer, December 14, 1801. A letter from " A Respectable Farmer," in the Federalist Newport Mercury, Jan. 12, 1802, compared the Message unfavorably with Washington's Farewell Address, and termed it "an extraordinary message, the whole tenor appears to be at variance with the wise counsel contained in the legacy of our sage Patriot"; and it said that Washington's Address was "different from the bold declamation and impertinent froth of the noisy demagogues and mock patriots of the present day." Columbian Centinel, December 19, 23, 26, 1801; Boston Gazette, December 26, 1801; Washington Federalist, January 11, 1802; William Sullivan in The Public Men of the Revolution (1847) said that Mr. Jefferson "chose to depart from the Federal practice of going to meet Congress and making a Speech . . . because a Speech may be answered and a Message cannot." See also Farmers' Museum, January 5, 1802, letter from " A True Republican"; Connecticut Courant, December 28, i8oi; Boston Gazette, December 24, 1801; Columbian Centinel, December 26, 1801. 13. Washington Federalist, December 16, 1801; Gazette of the United States, December 15, 1801; Connecticut Courant, December 28, 1801. 14. Aurora, December 14, 1801; National Aegis (Worcester), December 14, 1801; National Aegis, December 23, 1801. 15. It may be noted that the Governors of South Carolina and of Virginia at once followed Jefferson's example by sending a message to their legislature, instead of making a personal appearance. See Aurora, December 12, 1801, as to South Carolina. The Salem Gazette, January 8, 1802, said: "Gov. Monroe of Virginia, aping the conduct of President Jefferson, has sent a letter to the Legislature of that State, instead of meeting them and addressing them orally." See letter of John Adams to Quincy, January 15, 1811 {Life of Josiah Quincy (1867), by Edmund Quincy). On May 26, 1809, John Randolph said in the House of Representatives: "It would ill become me, who so highly approved then, and who so highly approve now the change introduced by communicating to the two Houses by Message instead of by Speech, to say anything that might imply a disapprobation of it. I like it. . . . But I am not so clear, though we were then half right, that we were wholly right; though on this subject, I do not mean to give a definite opinion. No man can turn over the Journals of the first six Congresses of the United States, without being fairly sickened with the adulation often replied by the Houses of Congress to the President's Communications. But nevertheless, the answer to an Address, although that answer might finally contain the most exceptionable passages, was in fact the greatest opportunity which

258

NOTES TO C H A P T E R

IX

the opposition to the measures of the Administration had of canvassing and sifting its measures; and in my mind whatever goes to take away this opportunity, goes so far to narrow down the rights of the minority or opposition, commonly so called, and in fact to enlarge the rights of the majority and the Administration party, so called. . . . This opportunity of discussion of the answer to an A d dress, however exceptionable the answer might be when it had received the last seasoning for the Presidential palate, did afford the best opportunity to take a review of the measures of the Administration, to canvass them fully and fairly, without there being any question raised whether the gentleman was in order or not; and I believe the time spent in canvassing the answer to a Speech was at least as well spent as a great deal that we have expended since we discontinued the practice." (Annals of Congress, n t h Cong., ist Sess., 92.) 16. President Wilson's innovation was opposed in the Senate by the Democratic Senator, John Sharp Williams of Mississippi, who regretted that "the old Federalistic procedure should be revamped — the speech from the throne." On the other hand, Henry Cabot Lodge thought that there was "much to be said for the old practice." See Congressional Record, 63d Cong., ist Sess., April 7, 1913. T h e New York Times, June 7, 1913, doubted the value of the new method, and said: "The wonder is that in seven years Theodore Roosevelt never thought of this way of stamping his personality upon this age." CHAPTER NINE

1. See Charleston [S. C.] Courier, January 18, February 14,19,1803; ibid., March 10, 1803, quoting a sarcastic article from the Washington Federalist, stating that Jefferson would probably allow the French to take N e w Orleans, "the music will be appropriate, and the favorite airs of 'Sweet Lullaby, My Dear,' and 'Bye Baby Bunting' will be performed with uncommon execution." It may be noted that the Charleston Courier had just been founded in 1803 by a strong Federalist from Boston, Loring Andrews; it soon became the leading Federalist paper of the South, and its editorials were widely copied throughout the United States. 2. Farmers' Museum (Walpole, N , H,), January 25, February 8, March 8, 1803; The Mississippi Question Fairly Stated and the Views and Arguments of Those Who Clamor for War, Examined in Seven Letters Originally Written for Publication in the Aurora, at Philadelphia (1803), by "Camillus" (William Duane). 3. Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d Sess., debate in Senate, February 14, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 1803. 4. See National Intelligencer, May 5, 1803, quoting Aurora·, ibid., February 28, 1803; The Mississippi Question, supra. Nos. 5, 6, 7; February 21, 24, 26, 1803. But also see violent editorials in Charleston Courier, March 14, 15, 1803, denouncing the Breckenridge Resolution

NOTES TO CHAPTER IX

259

and praising that of Ross; ibid., March 21, 1803, assailing "the supineness of the Executive"; and for even more savage later attacks on Jefferson's peace policy, ibid.. May 13, 14, 15, 1803. 5. Washington Federalist, March 7, 1803; Salem Gazette, February 22, 1803, quoting letter of " A Farmer," January 17, 1803, in Westem Telegraph of Washington, Pennsylvania; National Intelligencer, March 28, 1803, quoting Columbian Centinel·, American Citizen, March 5, 1803. 6. National Intelligencer, February 23, 1803, quoting article on "The Mississippi" from the Aurora·, see also The Mississippi Question (1803), by William Duane, supra; Salem Register, March 11, 1803. 7. See for the progress of the New York Evening Fast story of March 4, 1803: Salem Register, March 14; New York Evening Post, March 9, 27; Alexandria Advertiser quoted in Washington Federalist, March 23, giving Herbert's letter of March 16; National Aegis quoted in New York Evening Post, March 29; Aurora, March 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15; see in general National Intelligencer, March 14, 16, April 11, 28, May 5; ibid., March 23, containing a long letter signed "A Kentuckian" in v^hich it said editorially: "There is the best reason to believe that it correctly expresses the sentiments of the people of Kentucky"; see Virginia Argus, reproduced in National Intelligencer, March 23; Aurora, March 29, under the headline "Another Federal Misrepresentation cut up by the Roots"; Salem Register, April 4; and in many other Republican papers, but in few of the Federalist other than the Washington Federalist, March 25, and the New York Evening Post, March 27, 30. See also National Intelligencer, May 5, 16, 1803; see also Republican Watch Tower, April 16, 1803, containing "a letter from a gentleman in Tennessee," dated March 30, which stated that the citizens of that State also had no intention of taking arms against the Government"; also Washington Federalist, March 30, 1803; New York Evening Post, March 22, 1803. 8. Aurora, April 11, 1803; ^^ork Daily Advertiser, March 29, 1803; quoting a letter from Frankfort, March 11, stating that Flournoy had made his escape, also quoting Guardian of Freedom·, National Intelligencer, March 25, 1803, quoting Guardian of Freedom·, Kentucky Gazette, quoted in New York Daily Advertiser, March 25, 1803; see ibid., March 29; Frankfort Palladium, quoted in National Intelligencer, March 25, 1803; Aurora, March 26, 1803. 9. Aurora, March 24, 26, 1803; National Intelligencer, March 25, 1803; Alexandria Expositor quoted in Virginia Argus, April 20, 1803; National Aegis, April 6, 1803; American Citizen, March 26, 28, 1803. 10. See New York Daily Advertiser, March 25, 26, 1803; New York Evening Post, March 26, 1803; Federal Gazette, and Baltimore Daily Advertiser, March 30, 1803; American Daily Advertiser, March 23, 1803; National Intelligencer, March 28, 1803; Salem Register, April 11, 1803; Spectator, March 26, 1803; Aurora, March 24, 26, 1803. 11. Published in National Intelligencer, April i, 1803; Aurora, April

200

NOTES TO CHAPTER XI

2, 4, 1803; New York Daily Advertiser, April 4, 1803; American Citizen, April 4, 1803; Virginia Argus, April 6, 1803. The Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has reported to the present writer that on the original records, "District Court Order-Book D, p. 94," it appears that in United States V. Francis Flournoy "information was returned by the Grand Jury on March 14, 1803, that capias ad respondent was ordered to issue for his arrest, returnable in ten days," but that no further entry appears on the Order-Book and that "the Step-Docket covering the period cannot be found." 12. I Stat. 613; see debate, December 20, 27, 28, 1798, January 7, 1799, Annals of Congress, 5th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2488, 2493, et seq., 2565, 2583, et seq. See History of Laws Prohibiting Correspondence with a Foreign Government and Acceptance of Commissions, by Charles Warren, 64th Cong., 2d Sess., Senate Doc. 696; the Logan Act has been cited in only two Federal cases — United States v. Craig, 28 Fed. 795, 801 (1896); American Banana Co. v. United States Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 356 (1909). John Bassett Moore in his Digest of International Law (1906), IV, 448-450, V , 20-22, has stated that "no conviction or prosecution is known to have taken place under this Act"; but the Flournoy case, which was discovered by Charles Warren, was not known to Mr. Moore. 13. The First Forty Years of Washington Society (ed. by Gaillard Hunt, 1906), pp. 38-41, letters of S. H. Smith to Mrs. Smith, July 3, and of Mrs. Smith to S. H. Smith, July 8, 1803. CHAPTER TEN

1. Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 2d Sess., in the Senate, January 13, 16, 20, 21, 1817, pp. 64, 69, 77, 79; in the House, January 27, 1817, pp. 761, et seq. 2. Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 2d Sess., February 19, 1819, pp. 1142, et seq. 3. Travels Through Fart of the United States and Canada in 1818 and 18ig (1823), by John M. Duncan. 4. Trumbull wrote a hot reply to the attack on his pictures by John Randolph, in a letter to Theodore Dwight, January 13, 1828. 5. Annals of Congress, izd Cong., 2d Sess., in the House, December 15, 1834. CHAPTER ELEVEN

I. National Gazette, December 12, 1792, letter of "Mirabeau." See also articles by Albert Mathews in Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XI, 195; XII, 254; XIII, 96; X I V , 199; XVIII, 62. It may be noted that the early celebrations of the birthday were held on February 11, see Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser,

NOTES TO CHAPTER XI

201

February 22, 1790, giving an account of a Baltimore celebration, February II, 1790. 2. Annals of Congress, 6th Cong., ist Sess., in the House, December 18, 19, 26, 27, 30, 1799; in the Senate, July 19, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 1799. See also President Adams' Messages of December 19, 1799, and January 8, 1800. Further expression of the sentiment of Congress was contained in votes of the House and Senate that on December 26 they proceed "from Congress Hall to German Lutheran Church" to listen to an oration by Major General Henry Lee, that the Senate wear mourning crape on their left arm during the session, that the President recommend to the people of the United States to wear crape for thirty days. The Continental Congress had voted, in 1783, that an equestrian statue be executed "in honor of George Washington, the illustrious Commander in Chief of the United States Army during the war which vindicated and secured our liberties." Its erection never took place, however, owing to the opposition of Washington himself to any such honor in his lifetime. 3. See Annals of Congress, 6th Cong., 2d Sess., in the House, December 2, 5, 23, 1800, the vote being 45 to 37; in the Senate, February 4, March 3, 1801, the vote on postponement being 14 to 13. Ibid., 14th Cong., ist Sess., in the House, February 16,17, March 14, April 29, 1816; in the Senate, February 19, 1816. Ibid., i8th Cong., ist Sess., in the House, January 15, 1824; the vote on postponement was 97 to 67. Ibid., 19th Cong., ist Sess., in the House, February 21, 1926, the vote was 85 to 52 against the motion, 4. National Intelligencer, February 24, 1823, February 23, 1829; see entries by John Quincy Adams in his Memoirs, February 22, 1827, and February 22, 1828. 5. See attack on Jackson by James Noble of Indiana, in the Senate, February 22, 1830 {Annals of Congress, 21st Cong., ist Sess.), and eulogy of Washington, in which he said: "Hireling presses have spoken of a 'second Washington.' Without intending to give any offence, and with great respect for the opinions of all, however they may differ from me, I must be permitted to say, if 'the hero of two wars' be called a 'second Washington,' it is no more than a mere mockery at the tomb of Washington." 6. The tariff debate began in the Senate on January 9, 1832, and continued on January 16, 20, 23, 30, February i to February 14, and even on the day before the Washington birthday celebration. 7. John Forsyth and George M. Troup of Georgia and Hugh L. White of Tennessee expressed similar views and declined to serve, and Samuel Smith of Maryland who declined on account of his age and health. The members of the committee who finally served were Clay, Webster, Ezekiel F. Chambers of Maryland, George M. Bibb

202

NOTES TO CHAPTER XI

of Kentucky, and George Poindexter of Mississippi. See Annals of Congress, zzd Cong., ist Sess., in the Senate, February 6, 7, 13, 14, 1832. 8. Annals of Congress, izd Cong., ist Sess., February 7, 8, 13, 1832. Alexander Buckner of Missouri, George M. Dallas of Pennsylvania, John Forsyth of Georgia, Felix Grundy of Tennessee, Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, Isaac Hill of New Hampshire, William R. King of Alabama, Willie P. Mangum of North Carolina, William L. Marcy of New York, Stephen D. Miller of South Carolina, Samuel Smith of Maryland, L. W. Tazewell of Virginia, George M. Troup of Georgia, John Tyler of Virginia, and Hugh L. White of Tennessee were those voting in the negative. 9. A letter from Washington to the Portland Advertiser, dated February i, 1832, published in the New York Evening Post, February 24, 1832, described Marshall's "quavering, feeble, and weakened tones that age has evidently affected. You can barely distinguish them across the [Court] room." John Quincy Adams noted in his Memoirs, February 9, 1832, that at the meeting of the House Committee, John Bell of Tennessee expressed the opinion that if Marshall should decline, "there was but one other person to whom with any sort of propriety, application could be made," viz. Adams himself; but on February 10, on motion of Drayton of South Carolina, the committee resolved that it was inexpedient to have any oration and that the celebration be confined to a divine service, "also that the members of Congress should unite with their fellow citizens in other festivities [a ball]." 10. Washington Globe, March 3, 1832. 11. John Quincy Adams wrote in his Memoirs, February 20: "I had received an invitation from E. F. Chambers and others, a Committee of a party for a public dinner at Barnard's on the Centennial day, to attend the dinner as a guest. J. S. Johnston told me that they wanted me not only to attend but to make toasts for them, and a speech. I said my health would not permit me to attend and that I was a bad toast-maker, as he knew. I might have added that I was a worse speech-maker." The National Intelligencer of March 5, 1832, published Webster's oration in full; and see Boston Daily Advertiser, March 2, 16, 1832. 12. National Intelligencer, February 25, 1832; New York Evening Post, February 24, 28, 1832; Boston Daily Advertiser, February 20, 24, 25, 27, 1832; the New York American said, February 23, 1832: "The celebration was favored by a clear, bright sky and went off satisfactorily. Even the ridicule of exhibiting some old clothes could not impair the general feeling of respect." 13. "Holidays" in North American Review (April, 1857), vol· LXXXIV. On February 15, 1832, the Boston Advertiser stated that on Wednesday evening, February 22, at the Boston Lyceum, there would

NOTES TO CHAPTER XII

263

be a discussion of the question: "Ought the birthday of Washington to be celebrated as a public holiday?" CHAPTER TWELVE

1. Boudinot to Bayard, February 24, 1795, Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., LX, 380; Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I. 2. Massachusetts Mercury, June 19, 1798; Columbian Centinel, July 28, 1798; see also Charles Warren, Jacobin and Junto (1931). 3. Annals of Congress, 12th Cong., ist Sess., in Senate, June 26, 27, 1812; in House, June 30, 1812; Joint Resolution of June 30, 1812 (2 Stat. 786) ; Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I. 4. Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 2d Sess., a resolution introduced in the House by Clopton of Virginia, October 29, 1814, passed the House, October 31, and the Senate, November 3. See 3 Stat. 246. 5. By July 6, 1832, there had been in N e w York City 19 deaths from cholera; by July 18, 82 deaths. 6. Washington Globe, June 30, July 2, 16, 17, 1832; United States Telegraph, July 4, 19, 1832; Albany Argus, June 26, 1832, quoting Huntsville [Ala.] Democrat. 7. "J. Q. Adams in the Twenty-second Congress," Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 2d Series, vol. XIX. 8. President Taylor in 1850 and President Buchanan in i860 proclaimed Fast Days, without the request of Congress. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., ist Sess., in the Senate, July 31, August i, 1861; in the House, August 3, 1861. A c t of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat. 328). Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, V I , 36-37. Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., in the Senate, March 2, 1863. Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 164-165. Congressional Globe, 38th Cong., ist Sess., in the Senate, June 24, 1864; in the House, July i, 1864. Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 221-222. A c t of July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 415),

INDEX

INDEX Adams, President John, 3, 30, 79, 105, 138, 150, 157; Fast Dayproclamations by, 224-225. Adams, President John Quincy, 5, 8, II, 20, 31-34, 179; in Congress, 188, 191, 197, 204, 206, 232, 235. 237. 241-243. Adams, John Quincy, Jr., 31. Adams, Samuel, 55, 57. Algiers, Dey of, 4. Alien Bill, 103, 106, 115, 116. Allen, Chilton, 42-43. André, Major John, 81-82. Arabian Horses, 6-8, 9-11, 12, 18, 23, 24-25. Archer, William S., lo, 230. Arnold, Thomas D., 239. Bache, Benjamin Franklin, 106, 115. Barbour, Phüip P., 185. Bayard, James Α., 109, i i i , 114. Bell, John, 239, 240. Benton, Thomas H., 34. Billiard Table, 31-43. Birthday Celebrations, 192, 196, 214-218. Boudinot, Elias, 54, 58, 221. Bourne, George, 68. Briggs, George H., 233. Buchanan, James, 40-41, Buchanan, W . W., 95. Bunker Hill, Battie of, reminiscences of, 92. Burges, Tristam, 183, 189-190, 196. Burke, Aedanus, 222. Callet, François, 64. Camels, 26. Capitol Paintings, 68-71, 177-191.

Carroll, Charles, 214. Carson, Samuel P., 32, 38, 231. Cherokee Indians, 216, 218, 226. Clay, Clement C., 239. Clay, Henry, 12, 198, 199, 226228. Coke, Richard, Jr., 201. Cobbett, William, 104, 107, 146. Cooke, David, 70. Crawford, Thomas H., 239. Curwen, Samuel, 82. Custis, George W . C., 206, 214. Daveiss, Joseph H., 172, 173. Davis, Warren R., 230. Drayton, William, 202, 204. Dupont de Nemours, Pierre Samuel, 134. Elephants, 26-29. Everett, Edw^ard, 4, 11, 22, 33, 39, 41, 182, 184. Fairman, Charles, 70. Fast Days, 224-226; struggle in Congress over, 227-241; in Civil War, 243. Federalists and Antifederalists, 102-106, 117, 125-126, 127-128, 132-133, 151-156, 159-167. Floumoy, Francis, 170-174. Forsyth, John, 32, 195. Fourth of July Celebrations, 132133. France, Treaty with, 51-52; fear of plots by, 102-117; war with urged, 159-167. Franklin, Benjamin, 90. Freeman, Nathaniel, 149. Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 13.

268

INDEX

Gallatin, James, 114, n6. Genet, Edmund, iio. Gerard de Rayneval, Conrad Α., 53-62.

Giles, William В., 149, 150. Gold Spoons, 46-50. Gordon, Wiñiam F., 202, 203. Griswold, Rufus W., 96. Hamüton, James, Jr., 40, 181-183. Harper, Robert Goodloe, 108, 149. Harrison, William Henry, 44, 50. Holmes, John, i8o, 200. Holten, Samuel, 53. Independence ^xu^p^ixu^..^.. Hall, 56. Irishmen, Society of United, 104107. Irving, Washington, 96. Jackson, President, 9, 11, 42, 43, 207-213, 228. Jay, John, 64-65. Jefferson, Thomas, 6-8, 105, 108; reported death of, 128-135; message of, 137, 154-157. 165, 171 Jenifer, Daniel, 233, 238. Jones, Walter, 208, 212, 213, 230. Keim, George M., 47. Kentucky, 157, 167-174. Kremer, George, 182. LaLuzeme, Anne Caesar de, 62. Latrobe, Benjamin H., 69. Laurens, Henry, 54, 62, 80. Lee, Richard Henry, 57, 58. L'Enfant, Pierre Charles, 63. Letcher, Robert P., 36. Lieb, James R., 11, 15-17. Lincoln, Levi, 48-49. Lincoln, President, 25, 28-29. Lions, Moroccan, 11-15, 16-17, 2t.

Livingston, Edward, 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 , 149. Logan Act, 172-175. Logan, Dr. George, 107, 108, 109, no. Louis XVI, 61; portrait of, 6371· Loyalists, American, 82, 83. Lyons, Mathew, 152, 153. Maclay, WiUiam, 66, 138, 140, Ч^· Madison, James, 225-226. Marbois, 64-65. Marie Antoinette, portrait of, 6371· Marshall, Chief Justice John, 205. May, Col. John, 66 McDowell, Joseph, 112. Melli-Melli, Suleiman, 6-8. Mercer, Charles F., 203. Miner, Charles, 36, 183. Monarchical Customs, 142-143, 145. Monroe, James, of New York, 22, 31. Monroe, President James, 236237· Morocco, Emperor of, 3, 11. Morris, Robert, 65. Morton, Eliza Susan, 97. Muscat, Imaum of, 17-19, 22, 24. Nelson, Thomas Forsythe, 70. Neilson, John, 68. New Orleans, Battle of, painting of, 181-191. Ogle, Charles, 45-47. Orphan Asylums, 14. Otis, Harrison Gray, 113.

109-112,

Palmer, Miss Mary Hunt, 98-101. Parker, Josiah, 148, 149. Petrikin, David, 19. Pickens, Francis W., 19-21. Pierce, Edward L., 92.

INDEX Pinckney, Gen. Charles Cotesworth, 124. Pinckney, Thomas, 5. Plumer, William, 6, 7. Poindexter, George, 13. Polk, James K., 234, 237. Porter, Alexander, 13. Porter, David, 10. Portraits, French, 63-71. Presents of Governments, 4-5, 25-26. Quincy, Mrs. Josiah, 97. Randolph, John, 39, 95, 186-187. Reminiscences, unreliability of, 92-93, lOI. Rhind, Charles, 8-11. Rives, William C., 39. Roberts, Edmund, 17. Ross, James, 161-164. Rutledge, John, 105. Secret Service Fund, 5-6. Shepley, Ether, 13. Sherman, Roger, 222. Siam, King of, 25-29. Smith, Samuel, 113. Smith, Mrs. Samuel Harrison, 14. Spies, American, 90-91. Stanbery, William, 234, 238, 242. State House, condition of, 56. Stevenson, Andrew W., 232, 235. Storrs, Henry R., 10, 182, 183. Tangiers, 11, 15. Tazewell, Henry, 147. Tazewell, Littleton Waller, 199, 229. Temple, John, 73-75, 84-85. Thacher, George, 106. Thanksgiving Days, 221-224. Thompson, Benjamin, 83. Thompson, Wiley, 201, 203. Thornton, Mrs. William, 68.

269

Treaties, 4-6. Tripoli, 4. Trumbull, John, 72-76, 81-87, 177-181. Tub Plot, 117-126. Tucker, Thomas T., 222. Tunis, Bashaw of, 4, 6. Turkey, Treaty with, 8-11. Tyler, John Steele, 75, 84-85. Tyler, Mrs. Royall, 98-101. Van Buren, President, 15, 17-18, 44-49, 198. Vance, Joseph, 234. Van Rensselaer, Stephen, 37. Verplanck, Julian C., 232, 241. Volney, C., 110, 113. Walpole, Horace, 78, 80, 84. Warren, General James, 57. Warren, Winslow, 80, 81, 84, 8891. Washington, President, inauguration of, 92-99,138-140; speeches of, to Congress, 141; monuments to, 193-200, 219; centenary celebrations of, 197-218; Thanksgiving proclamation by, 223. Washington, Mary, 217. Weather at Inauguration, 92-101. Webster, Daniel, 208-214. Webster, Noah, 103, 118. West, Benjamin, 75, 87. White House, 30-31, 42-50. WickliiFe, Charles Α., 35, 202. Wilkes, John, 78. Williams, Robert, 109. Wilson, President, 158. Wise, Henry Α., 188-189, 190. Wolcott, Oliver, 102. X . Y . Z. Letters, 103. Zanzibar, Consul at, 24.