Volume II Part 14 (1/2)

[311] ”I believe the intention is to draw the United States into it [war] merely to make tools of them.... The conduct of the British government is so well adapted to increasing our danger of war, that I cannot but suppose they are secretly inclined to produce it.” (J. Q.

Adams to his father, The Hague, Sept. 12, 1795; _ib._, 409.)

[312] Marshall, ii, 194.

[313] Marshall, ii, 337.

[314] _Ib._, 195; and see Beard: _Econ. O. J. D._, 279.

[315] See this speech in Rives, iii, footnote to 418-19. It is curious that Marshall, in his _Life of Was.h.i.+ngton_, makes the error of a.s.serting that the account of Dorchester's speech was ”not authentic.” It is one of the very few mistakes in Marshall's careful book. (Marshall, ii, 320.)

[316] Marshall to Stuart, May 28, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.

[317] It must not be forgotten that we were not so well prepared for war in 1794 as the colonies had been in 1776, or as we were a few years after Jay was sent on his mission. And on the traditional policy of Great Britain when intending to make war on any country, see J. Q. Adams to his father, June 24, 1796; _Writings, J. Q. A._: Ford, i, 499-500.

Also, see same to same, The Hague, June 9, 1796; _ib._, 493, predicting dissolution of the Union in case of war with Great Britain. ”I confess it made me doubly desirous to quit a country where the malevolence that is so common against America was exulting in triumph.” (_Ib._)

”The truth is that the American _Government_ ... have not upon earth more rancorous enemies, than the springs which move the machine of this Country [England] ... Between Great Britain and the United States no _cordiality_ can exist.” (Same to same, London, Feb. 10, 1796; _ib._, 477; also, March 24, 1794; _ib._, 18, 183, 187.)

[318] Marshall, ii, 363.

[319] _American Remembrancer_, i, 9.

[320] Resolution of Wythe County (Va.) Democratic Society, quoted in Anderson, 32.

[321] Ames to Dwight, Feb. 3, 1795; _Works_: Ames, i, 166.

[322] Marshall, ii, 362-64.

[323] _Ib._, 366.

[324] The Boston men, it appears, had not even read the treaty, as was the case with other meetings which adopted resolutions of protest.

(Marshall, ii, 365 _et seq._) Thereupon the Boston satirists lampooned the hasty denunciators of the treaty as follows:--

”I've never read it, but I say 'tis bad.

If it goes down, I'll bet my ears and eyes, It will the people all unpopularize; b.o.o.bies may hear it read ere they decide, I move it quickly be unratified.”

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

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

[326] Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795; _Works_: Lodge, x, 103.

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

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

[329] Present-day detraction of our public men is gentle reproof contrasted with the savagery with which Was.h.i.+ngton was, thenceforth, a.s.sailed.

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

[331] Was.h.i.+ngton almost determined to withhold ratification. (Marshall, ii, 362.) The treaty was signed November 19, 1794; received by the President, March 7, 1795; submitted to the Senate June 8, 1795; ratified by the Senate June 24; and signed by Was.h.i.+ngton August 12, 1795. (_Ib._, 360, 361, 368.)