Chapter II: Political Entanglements and Hysteria (1)

1. THE SITUATION PRIOR TO 1798

Party history in New England, as elsewhere throughout the Union, began with the inauguration of the new government in 1789.[224] Such differences of opinion concerning matters of public policy as had previously existed were confined to unorganized groups whose leaders depended chiefly on the devotion of their personal following to mould popular opinion. But the setting up of the Federal government and the fixing of national standards brought to light issues which challenged fundamental conceptions and interests, and a definite rift in public sentiment was not long in appearing. By 1793 the main line of political cleavage was plainly visible. The Federalists, who stood for the importance of a strong central government, found themselves confronted with an organized opposition to which in time the terms Anti-Federalists, Republicans, and Democrats were applied.[225]

In 1793 the war between England and France came into American politics, providing issues for party controversy for years to come. The sympathies of the Federalists, who numbered in their ranks the conservative and aristocratic elements in the population, inclined strongly toward England; whereas the sympathies of Republicans, who attracted to their standard the radicals of the country concerned in the democratization of government, were disposed with equal warmth toward France.

The promulgation of the Neutrality Proclamation[226] of President Washington, April 22, 1793, seemed to settle the question of foreign alliances before the matter had become acute. On the whole, the response which New England gave to the President’s proclamation was gratifying. Messages of cordial approval came pouring in from many quarters.[227] The majority of the people rejoiced in the course of prudence and foresight which the national government had been led to pursue.

Still New England was not wholly satisfied. The sentiments of all her people had not been served. An opposition of respectable proportions developed. The columns of the public press carried numerous articles[228] voicing various degrees of hostility to the President’s cause of neutrality and affording ample evidence that instead of solidifying the sentiments of the people on the subject of foreign alliances, the proclamation had the effect of widening the breach between the political forces of the country.

This aspect of the case was much aggravated by two important circumstances, one of which developed simultaneously with the publication of the proclamation of neutrality, and the other came to light soon after. These two circumstances were the coming of Genet and the rise of the Democratic Societies.

In no part of the country was the news of the arrival of the French minister received with less suspicion than in New England.[229] Republican newspapers were, of course, loud in their exclamations of satisfaction over the word that came out of the south concerning the arrival and subsequent activities of the amazing French diplomat, so young, so ardent, so eloquent, and so absurd. Editors of Federalist journals, while in no mood to be swept off their feet by the latest excitement of the hour, yet showed no disposition to cavil or express distrust.

Such, however, were the exceptional performances of this altogether exceptional diplomat, who insisted on comporting himself more like a ruler of the people of this nation than an accredited representative to their government, that the day of revulsion and deep resentment could not long be postponed.[230]

The stir created by the activities of Genet, great as it was, soon was swallowed up in the excitement produced by the sudden emergence of a new factor in American politics; _viz._, indigenous political organizations that were secret. Coincident with the arrival of Genet, and with a view to capitalizing the state of public feeling that his arrival and reception brought to a head, there sprang up in various parts of the country a group of organizations devoted to the propagation of ultra-democratic ideals. These Democratic Societies, or Clubs, were destined to exert a degree of baneful influence upon political feeling out of all proportion to their actual number and weight.[231] Needless to say, the excited state of public feeling, together with the total unfamiliarity of American citizens with political agencies of a secret character, were responsible for this result. The embarrassments under which the French cause in America momentarily suffered on account of reports concerning the multiplied atrocities of the Reign of Terror and the swelling tide of popular resentment because of the indiscretions of Minister Genet, might induce the judgment that the times were unpropitious for the development of organizations whose sympathy for the principles of the French Revolution was notorious.[232] But there was another side to the situation. The heated public discussions provoked by Madison’s Commercial Resolutions, Clark’s Non-Intercourse Resolution, and the appointment of John Jay as Minister Extraordinary to Great Britain, set free such a torrent of anti-British feeling that the spirit of republicanism lifted its head with renewed vigor and stimulated a public sentiment decidedly favorable to the rapid formation and spread of the new organizations. From the day that the first of these sinister Societies was established, and its statement of principles blazoned forth in a multitude of newspapers throughout the country,[233] the public mind found itself wrought upon by a new species of excitement, by suggestions of tricks and plots, by appeals to passion and unreasoning fear, all conspiring to inject into the national spirit an element of haunting suspicion from which it was not soon to be cleared.

The fact that at least five of these Democratic Societies were located in New England strongly suggests the immediate concern which the people of that section were bound to have because of these unexpected and ominous secret political associations.[234] The creation of the Boston Society became at once the occasion of virulent opposition and infuriated comment. Organized in the late fall of 1793[235] under the innocent title, the Constitutional Club, the principles and alliances of the organization became quickly known, with the result that the already agitated waters of local party feeling were disturbed beyond all previous experience. Citizens whose sympathies were fully with the conduct of affairs under the Federalist régime were quick to believe that henceforth they might expect to be threatened, brow-beaten, and checkmated in a ruthless and scandalous fashion because of the activities of this pernicious Club.[236] They anticipated an amount of secret and dastardly political interference on the part of the Club, because of which the lives of their public officials would be filled with distraction and the minds of decent men aspiring to public office would be thrown into a state of disinclination and repugnance.

Nor in this did they prove to be false prophets. Newspaper innuendoes, sharp and poisonous as deadly arrows, were let fly with abandon; town meetings were disturbed and the opponents of democracy and French republicanism put to rout; the public mind was so altered that Democrats who sought to deprive Federalists of their hold upon the “Boston Seat” in the legislature were completely successful in their efforts. In these and similar ways the citizens of Boston were given tangible proofs of how effective an instrument of political action such an organization as the Constitutional Club could be.[237]

The address which President Washington delivered before both houses of Congress, November 19, 1794, wherein he traced a causal connection between the Democratic Societies and the Whiskey Rebellion, characterizing the former as “self-created societies” which had “assumed a tone of condemnation” of measures adopted by the government, being actuated by “a belief that, by a more formal concert” they would be able to defeat those measures,[238] proved to be a mortal blow to these secret organizations, and in New England, as elsewhere throughout the country, had consequences beyond the disappearance of the Clubs. Eagerly and with unconcealed joy, Federalist editors and orators seized upon the President’s denunciation and turned it to immediate political account.[239] A flood of condemnation and answering vituperation was instantly released. The champions of Federalism were at pains to secure publication of the discussions which took place in the national congress respecting the precise character of the response to be made to the President’s address, with special reference to his condemnation of the Democratic Clubs.[240] They were at equal pains, also, to lay hold of the President’s pregnant phrase, “self-created societies,” and turn it to account: that phrase should be regarded as a designation equally applicable to the odious Jacobin Clubs of France.[241] Henceforth the whole democratic faction might reasonably be expected to work under cover “to unhinge the whole order of government, and introduce confusion, so that union, the constitution, the laws, public order and private right would be all the sport of violence or chance.”[242]

Mortified and discomfited Republican editors made such response as they could. The members of the Clubs were declared to be independent citizens who were acting within their rights in so banding together. They were “proceeding in the paths of patriotic virtue with a composure and dignity which become men engaged in such important and timely services”;[243] whereas their opponents were men who hungered for the loaves and fishes of the government and who shared the secret fear that they would be discovered or have their plans deranged.[244]

The continual harping of the Federalist press on the phrase “self-created societies” particularly touched the raw. Was not the Society of the Cincinnati self-created? And are not many of the members of that organization war-worn soldiers of the American Republic? In a state of society in which we see such veterans toiling for their daily sustenance, while other men, enjoying the hard-earned property of the former, riot in all the luxuries of life, how can one but exclaim, _O Tempora! O Mores!_[245] The national congress, moreover, might well be expected to be engaged in much more serious and timely business than to be burdening its sessions with discussions respecting the affairs of private societies.[246]

The hostile attitude that the Federalist clergy took toward the Democratic Societies gave special irritation to the editors of the _Independent Chronicle_. Because he ventured in his thanksgiving sermon of November 20 (1794) to denounce all Constitutional Societies, the rector of the Episcopal congregation in Boston was held up to ridicule in the columns of the _Chronicle_ as a “_ci-devant_ lawyer” and “a certain Episcopalian ‘thumper of the pulpit drum,’” whose pastoral care many of his substantial members had already renounced because of his injection of political discussion into the sacred sphere of the pulpit; while others had given evidence of their disposition to follow the example of the more courageous members of the flock, “if virulence is to take the place of religion.”[247] But the Reverend David Osgood, Medford’s “monk,” on account of his more extended and violent treatment of the Democratic Societies in his thanksgiving day sermon,[248] gave much deeper offence. That he should have represented these organizations as controlled by the same principles as the incendiary French Jacobin Clubs, and as set to watch the Federal government and plot its overthrow through the support of pernicious and inveterate faction, was more than ardent democratic patriots could endure. “A Friend to the Clergy and an Enemy to Ecclesiastical Presumption,” together with “A Friend of Decency and Free Inquiry,” sought entrance to the willing columns of the _Chronicle_ in order to express their contempt for “a Rev. gentleman” who could lend himself to the peddling of such illiberal sentiments and could show himself capable of acting in a manner unbecoming the character of a Christian and a gentleman, and also in order to draw conclusions derogatory to his reputation as a scholar.[249] The castigations of “Stentor” were not less caustic. The red-hot anathemas of the Reverend Parson Osgood, whining preacher of politics that he was, had no other effect than to singe and sear the reputation of their author. “On the Constitutional Society their influence has been as small as though they had been issued in the form of a BULL from the Chancery of the Pope.”[250]

Thus were protracted for a time the frantic efforts of Democratic editors and scribblers to repair the damage which “the clownish Bishop of Medford”[251] and his clerical confederates were supposed to have effected.[252] But the main injury had by no means come from that quarter. Such was the veneration for the name and person of the great Washington throughout New England that few men had the hardihood to launch their resentment and abuse against him; yet it was his hand, and none other, that wrote the word _Ichabod_ across the brow of these secret political associations. From the day that his address reproaching them was made, their doom was sealed. That doom might tarry for a season, but it could not long be averted. The apologists and defenders of these organizations which the presidential censure had made odious, might fiercely exert themselves to show how innocent they were of the offences charged and how unimpaired in usefulness they remained after the thrust had been made. This was but whistling to keep up their courage. The prestige of the Societies had been effectually destroyed by the President’s denunciation; in a surprisingly short time these ambitious and troublemaking organizations sank into desuetude and were lost to view.

The deep impression they had made upon the public mind was, however, much less readily effaced. That impression resolved itself into a memory most unpleasant and disturbing. For us the significance of these organizations is found chiefly in the fact that, appearing at a time when the two great opposing political parties were developing, and having vehemently espoused the cause of France in a rabidly democratic spirit, they consequently added enormously to the passion and the suspicion of the day. To the Federalists they were dangerous intruders, groups of unprincipled demagogues organized for unpatriotic purposes, working in the dark, ashamed to stoop at nothing in the way of duplicity and subterfuge, of deception and intrigue, if by any means the vicious designs of their hearts could be furthered. Thus they not only helped to make the strife of parties vituperative and bitter; in addition they made familiar to the thought of a great body of citizens in America the idea that the intrigues of secret organizations must needs be reckoned with as one of the constant perils of the times. Henceforth it would be easier to fill the public mind with uneasiness and gloomy forebodings on account of the supposed presence of hidden hostile forces working beneath the surface of the nation’s life. Should inexperienced and unsuspecting souls profess their incredulity, the appeal to the example of the Democratic Societies might be expected to go far toward dissolving all indifference and trusting unconcern.[253]

To trace in detail the increasingly bitter party strife in New England would not only call for the canvassing of material already well known, but would lead us far afield from the special object of this investigation. Only the main features of the case need to be noted.

The temporary check the Democrats suffered on account of the suppression of the secret political clubs was soon removed by the wave of anti-British sentiment that swept the country upon the publication of the treaty which John Jay negotiated between Great Britain and the United States, late in the autumn of 1794.[254]

The truth is, nothing less than a howl of rage went up from the throats of the people of the United States, and the voices of the men of New England were by no means lost in the chorus.[255] Nothing that could have been said to inflame the blind and passionate anger of the people was omitted. The United States, it was asserted, had been resolved back into the colonies of Great Britain.[256] The Senate had bargained away the blood-bought privileges of the people for less than the proverbial mess of pottage. It had signed the death-warrant of the country’s trade and entailed beggary on its inhabitants and their posterity forever.[257] The people’s cause had been most perfidiously betrayed. The trading class, whose pecuniary interests would be jeopardized if England were to be left free to prey upon our commerce, especially if the way should remain open for the two countries to drift into actual war, might show itself disposed to make a choice of the lesser of two evils and accept the treaty; but the great mass of the people were indignantly hostile, it must be added, to the point of unreason.[258]

The promulgation of the treaty by Washington, February 29, 1796, as the law of the land, had the effect of bringing to a close a period of agitation which deeply affected the national life.[259] For one thing, the violence of party spirit had been so augmented that henceforth there were to be no limits to which men would not go in the expression of their antipathies and prejudices. Even the great Washington had not been able to escape the venom of the tongue of the partisan in the controversy which had raged over the treaty.[260] A condition of the public mind which not only permitted but supported the burning in effigy of its public servants; which consented to brutal campaigns of newspaper calumniation, so unrestrained and indecent that the reader looks back upon them with shame; to the circulation of incendiary handbills and scurrilous pamphlets; to participation in lawless gatherings in which riotous utterances of the most violent character were freely made and disgraceful actions taken[261]—this could not possibly make for a wholesome discipline of the passions of the people.[262]

For another thing, the spirit of devotion to the cause of France had been greatly refreshed and quickened by the agitation over the treaty. From the moment that information concerning the nature of the treaty began to circulate, the cry of “British faction” was taken up by the Democrats and used with telling effect. That the treaty was an infamous instrument arranged for no other purpose than to injure the French cause was generally believed.[263] From beginning to end, Democrats could find nothing in the treaty which had not been directly inspired by hostility to France. Apart from the damage that would ensue to American commerce, the treaty would work for the elevation of monarchical and the undoing of republican principles.[264] Once again George the Third had become the master of the citizens of America, and thus the great accomplishments of the American Revolution had been made to count for nought. British gold had succeeded in effecting the betrayal of the republican cause in this country, and thus had worked itself into a strategic position where it could more easily strangle the life out of the spirit of republicanism in Europe, now so sorely beset in France.[265]

One other by-product of the agitation that arose over the treaty has been dwelt upon at length in another connection, but it should be adverted to briefly here. It was inevitable that a discussion so vital, so heated, and so protracted as that of which we have just been taking account, should draw into it those guardians of morals and mentors of public spirit in New England, the Federalist clergy.[266] The disturbance of the public mind over the treaty had been marked by two features full of grave import in the clerical view: vicious attacks upon the officers and measures of the existing government, and a reinvigorated crying-up of French political and religious notions.

The offices of government were all, or nearly all, in the hands of Federalists. This being the case, their occupants were doomed to be the chief targets of resentment and villification by men who found such a measure of government as Jay’s Treaty obnoxious in the extreme. But if officers of government were to be pilloried in the stocks of public slander and abuse, how then was the government itself to command the respect and obedience of its citizens? The Federalist clergy of New England saw the pathway of duty shining clear: they must hold up the hands of government at any hazard. Hence it happened that the outcry against “political preaching” grew rapidly in volume from 1795 on.[267]

As for the renewed zeal of the Democrats in the interests of French revolutionary ideals, that found a special point of interest and concern for the Federalist clergy in the prominence which the rapid growth of republicanism secured for Thomas Jefferson. An ardent friend of the French Revolution, a lover of French philosophy, the enemy of religious intolerance, in personal faith a deist—were not these sufficient to damn the man as an unbeliever and an atheist in the eyes of New England clergymen, to whom the faintest breath of rationalism was abhorrent and the very notion of toleration suspect? Accordingly the New England clergy launched a fierce attack upon him as the arch-apostle of the cause of irreligion and free-thought.[268] In language carefully guarded, his name usually being omitted, Jefferson was pointed out as the leader of the hosts of infidelity whose object was the extermination of the institutions of religion and the inauguration of an era wherein every man should think and do that which was right in his own eyes.[269]

FOOTNOTES:

[224] Robinson, _Jeffersonian Democracy in New England_, p. i; Channing, _History of the United States_, vol. iv, p. 150.

[225] The term “Anti-Federalist” was born out of the struggle which developed over the adoption of the national constitution. The term “Republican” was one of the by-products of the discussion which arose in this country, from 1792 on, over French revolutionary ideals. _Cf._ Johnston, _American Political History_, pt. i, p. 207.

[226] _American State Papers: Foreign Relations_, vol. i, p. 140.

[227] The issues of the _Columbian Centinel_ for 1793 abound in addresses of this character.

[228] _Cf._ for example, the issues of the _Connecticut Courant_ for July 29, Aug. 5 and 26, 1793, and of the _Independent Chronicle_ for May 7, 16 and 23, 1793. _Cf._ Channing, _History of the United States_, vol. iv, p. 128.

[229] The _Connecticut Courant_ of May 13, 1793, contains the first announcements of Genet’s arrival which that paper made. Subsequent issues are fairly well occupied with accounts of Genet’s arrival in Philadelphia, the unconfirmed expressions of cordiality and heated enthusiasm which he encountered there, the congratulatory address which the citizens of that place presented him, Genet’s response, _etc._ In the issue of August 12 mention is made of the Frenchman’s arrival in New York. Thus far not the slightest trace of a suspecting attitude of mind is discoverable.

[230] The issues of the _Connecticut Courant_ for August 19 and 26, and November 11, 1793, contain articles that admirably illustrate the rising temper of the New England Federalists as they contemplated Genet’s absurdities and improprieties.

[231] Luetscher, in his _Early Political Machinery in the United States_, p. 33, asserts that not more than twenty-four separate organizations of this character were formed within the two years which followed their first appearance. These were fairly well distributed throughout the Union. One was in Maine, one in Massachusetts (Boston), three in Vermont, two in New York, one in New Jersey, five in Pennsylvania, one in Delaware, one in Maryland, two in Virginia, one in North Carolina, four in South Carolina, and two in Kentucky.

[232] McMaster, _A History of the People of the United States_, vol. ii, pp. 175 _et seq._

[233] Hazen, _Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution_, pp. 189 _et seq._

[234] Robinson, _Jeffersonian Democracy in New England_, p. 10, for significant comments upon the effect of the establishment of the Democratic Societies on general political interest. The vote was appreciably increased and elections were more hotly contested on account of the emergence of the Clubs. _Cf._ also _New England Magazine_, January, 1890, p. 488.

[235] Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, p. 75; _Wolcott Papers_, vol. vii, 5, letter of Jedediah Morse to Oliver Wolcott. The _Independent Chronicle_ of Jan. 16, 1794, contains the Rules and Regulations and the Declaration of this Society.

[236] _Massachusetts Mercury_, Nov. 29, 1793. _Cf._ _Works of Fisher Ames_, vol. ii, pp. 146 _et seq._

[237] Jedediah Morse did not fail to observe the appearance of the Boston organization nor to divine its character and general scope of action. In a letter to Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury, and Morse’s intimate friend, a letter written close to the date of the organization of the Constitutional Club, Morse wrote optimistically but seriously of the situation:

“Charlestown, Dec. 16th, 1793

... The body of the people repose great confidence in the Wisdom of
the President—of Congress, & of the heads of Departments. May they
have Wisdom to direct them! The President’s speech meets with much
approbation—It is worthy of himself—We have some _grumbletonians_
among us—who, when the French are victorious, speak loud &
saucy—but when they meet with a check—sing small.—They form a
sort of political Thermometer, by whh we can pretty accurately
determine, what is, _in their opinion_, the state of French
politics.—The French _cause_ has no enemies here,—their conduct
has many.—There are some who undistinguishly [_sic_] & unboundedly
approve both—& most bitterly denounce, as _Aristocrats_, all who
do not think as they do.—This party, whh is not numerous—nor as
respectable as it is numerous—are about forming a Democratic
Club—whh I think they call “the Massts. Constitutional Society”—I
don’t know their design, but suppose they consider themselves as
_guardians_ of the _Rights of Man_—& overseers of the President,
Congress, & you gentlemen in the several principal departments of
State—to see that you don’t infringe upon the Constitution.—They
don’t like, nor see through your borrowing so much money of
Holland—They are very suspicious about all money matters....

Your friend,
Jed^h Morse.”
_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 5.

[238] _Annals of Congress_, vol. iv, p. 787.

[239] The President’s address was printed in full in leading New England journals. _Cf._ for example, _Columbian Centinel_, Nov. 29, 1794; _Independent Chronicle_, Dec. 1, 1794; _Connecticut Courant_, Dec. 1, 1794.

[240] _Columbian Centinel_, Dec. 6, 10, 1794; _Connecticut Courant_, Dec. 8, 24, 1794.

[241] _Columbian Centinel_, Dec. 13, 1794.

[242] _Ibid._, Dec. 20, 1794.

[243] _Independent Chronicle_, Sept. 18, 1794. _Cf._ also issues of this paper for Sept. 1, 4, 8, and 15, Dec. 4, 8, and 15, 1794.

[244] _Ibid._, Aug. 25, 1794.

[245] _Ibid._, Dec. 8, 1794.

[246] _Independent Chronicle_, Dec. 11, 1794.

[247] _Ibid._, Nov. 27, 1794.

[248] _Cf. supra_, pp. 89 _et seq._

[249] _Cf._ _Independent Chronicle_, Dec. 22, 25, and 29, 1794; Jan. 8 and 15, 1795.

[250] _Ibid._, Jan. 12, 1795.

[251] _Ibid._, Jan. 15, 1795.

[252] A more detached and better balanced judgment of the importance of the part played by the clergy in the suppression of the Democratic Societies is that recorded by William Bentley: “When I consider the rash zeal with which the clergy have embarked in the controversy respecting Constitution & Clubs, I could not help thinking of a place in this Town, called Curtis’ folly. The good man attempting to descend a steep place, thought it best to take off one pair of his oxen & tackle them behind. But while the other cattle drove down hill, they drew the others down hill backwards & broke their necks. Had the French clergy continued with the people & meliorated their tempers they would have served them & the nobility.” (_Diary_, vol. ii, p. 130.)

[253] That a certain depth of impression was made upon the mind of Jedediah Morse by the agitation that developed over these secret organizations will appear from the following letter which he wrote to Oliver Wolcott, late in 1794. It is quite true that the letter shows no trace of apprehension as respects the future; but the man’s interest had been keenly solicited and the future was to have suggestions and appeals of its own.

“Charlestown, Dec. 17th, 1794

My dear Sir:

I take the liberty to enclose you Mr. Osgood’s Thanksgiving sermon,
with whh I think you will be pleased. It will evince that the
sentiments of the clergy this way (for so far as I am acquainted
he (Mr. Osgood) speaks the sentiments of nine out of ten of the
clergy) agree with those of the President, Senate, & house of
Representatives, in respect to the Self-created Societies. The
Thanksgiving sermons in Boston & its vicinity, with only two or
three exceptions, all breathed the same spirit—though their manner
was not so particular & pointed as Mr. Osgood’s. His sermon is now
the general topic of conversation—it has grievously offended the
Jacobins.—Poor fellows! they seem to be attacked on all sides. They
must I think feel it to be a truth—that “there is no peace for
the wicked.”—They still make a noise—but it is like the groans of
despair.

I could wish, if you think it proper, that the sermon might,
in a suitable way, be put into the hands of our _most worthy
President_, with this remark accompanying it, that the clergy in
this Commonwealth generally approve of the same sentiments. I wish
it because it may possibly add to his satisfaction—& will certainly
to our honor in his view....

Your friend,
Jed^h Morse.

To Oliver Wolcott, Comptroller of the U. S. Treas^y.
Philadelphia, Pa.”

_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 9. The explicit proof that the mind of this man, whose personality is of large importance for the purpose in hand, received permanent impressions from the activities of the Democratic Societies, on account of which he found it not difficult to conceive of like secret combinations a few years later, is found in his references to the political clubs in his Fast Day sermon of May 9, 1798, p. 24. _Cf._ also “Note F,” p. 67, of his _Thanksgiving Sermon_ of Nov. 29, 1798.

[254] An interesting coincidence appears in this connection. The treaty was actually concluded on the very day that President Washington made his address dealing with the uprising in western Pennsylvania (November 19, 1794). It was not submitted to the Senate, however, until June 8 of the following year. On June 24, 1795, it was recommended by that body for ratification, with a special reservation as to the twelfth article. _Cf._ Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book of American History_, p. 244. The promulgation of the treaty came later, as will appear. For comment on the popular resentment which the public announcement of the provisions of the treaty stirred up, _cf._ McMaster, _A History of the People of the United States_, vol. ii, pp. 212 _et seq._ For contemporary newspaper reports of the situation, _cf._ the _Independent Chronicle_, July 9, 13, 16, 23 and 27, 1795. For pertinent observations by Jedediah Morse regarding the apprehensions which the vehement popular disapproval of the treaty awakened in his mind, _cf._ _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 11.

[255] William Bentley, whose Democratic leanings must not be overlooked, delivered himself in characteristic fashion: “The public indignation is roused, & the papers begin to talk of lost liberties.... The Secrecy under which this business has been covered has served to exasperate the public mind, upon the discovery.... The bells tolled on the 4 of July instead of ringing, & a mournful silence prevailed through the City. In this Town the men who hold securities under the government are sufficiently influential against the disquiets & angry expressions of more dependent people.” (_Diary_, vol. ii, p. 146.)

[256] _Independent Chronicle_, July 16, 1795.

[257] _Cf._ reprint of the handbill circulated at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in the _Independent Chronicle_ of July 20, 1795.

[258] _Cf._ extracts from the speech of Fisher Ames in the House of Representatives, April 28, 1796. Quoted by Channing, _History of the United States_, vol. iv, pp. 145 _et seq._

[259] As a matter of fact, as far as Congress was concerned, the discussion over the treaty was continued for some time to come, because of the measures that were necessary to be taken to put the treaty into effect. _Cf._ Bassett, _The Federalist System_, p. 134. The country, however, showed a disposition to accept the treaty as inevitable when the President’s signature was finally affixed.

[260] McMaster, _A History of the People of the United States_, vol. ii, pp. 248 _et seq._ _Cf._ _Works of Fisher Ames_, vol. i, p. 161.

[261] Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, pp. 153 _et seq._

[262] Travelers from abroad who were in the country at this time remarked the extreme virulence of public and private discussion. De La Rochefoucault-Liancourt, _Travels through the United States of North America_, vol. ii, pp. 231 _et seq._ _Cf. ibid._, pp. 75 _et seq._, 256, 359, 381; vol. iii, pp. 23, 33 _et seq._, 74 _et seq._, 156, 163 _et seq._, 250, 274, 366 _et seq._ _Cf._ Weld, _Travels through the States of North America ... during the years 1795, 1796, and 1797_, p. 62. Writing specifically of the excited state of the public mind in February, 1796, the latter observer of our national life said: “It is scarcely possible for a dozen Americans to sit together without quarrelling about politics, and the British treaty, which had just been ratified, now gave rise to a long and acrimonious debate. The farmers were of one opinion, and gabbled away for a long time; the lawyers and the judge were of another, and in turns they rose to answer their opponents with all the power of rhetoric they possessed. Neither party could say anything to change the sentiments of the other one; the noisy contest lasted till late at night, when getting heartily tired they withdrew, not to their respective chambers, but to the general one that held five or six beds, and in which they laid down in pairs. Here the conversation was again revived, and pursued with as much noise as below, till at last sleep closed their eyes, and happily their mouths at the same time....” (_Ibid._, pp. 58 _et seq._) Such unfavorable reflections are not to be dismissed as representing prejudiced views of the case. A habit of intolerance toward political opponents and of all men who shared contrary opinions, had become one of the characteristics of the times. The agitation over the treaty went far toward fixing this habit. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which came a little later, were the result of an unrestrained freedom of discussion scarcely more perceptible when they were passed in 1798 than at the time of the heat produced by the treaty.

[263] Gibbs, _Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams_, vol. i, p. 226, Oliver Ellsworth’s letter to Oliver Wolcott. Ellsworth reports that the “argument and explanation [of the treaty], that ‘’tis a damned thing made to plague the French,’ has by repetition, lost its power.” This could have been true only in a local sense.

[264] _Cf._ McMaster, _A History of the People of the United States_, vol. ii, pp. 227 _et seq._, for an ample discussion of this view of the situation.

[265] That this fierce indictment of “British faction” and appeal to republican sentiment was by no means without practical effect, is shown in the result of the general election of 1796. The outcome of that election gave ground for great encouragement to the Democrats; for while their hero and idol, Thomas Jefferson, was not summoned to the presidency, none the less, to the deep chagrin of the Federalists, his opponent, John Adams, received his commission to succeed Washington on the basis of a majority in the electoral college of only three votes. There could be no question that a spirit of confident and undaunted republicanism was abroad in the land, and the good ship Federalism was destined to encounter foul weather. The state contest held in Massachusetts that same year was even more ominous. After a campaign marked by great vigor on the part of the Federalists, in an effort to rally popular support to their candidate, Increase Sumner, it developed that Samuel Adams, whose enemies had stressed the charge that he desired to enjoy a life tenure of the gubernatorial office, was reelected by a handsome Democratic majority of 5,000 votes. _Cf._ Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, p. 161. Jedediah Morse showed himself to be a fairly astute prognosticator in connection with this election. He is found writing Wolcott, in October, 1795, to the effect that he is conscious of the fact that a severe storm is brewing. It is his conviction that the storm has been gathering for some time and is now about to burst forth. “Disorganizers” have been behind the opposition to the treaty. They have worked subterraneanly, trying to keep opposition alive. _Cf._ _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 14.

[266] _Cf. supra_, p. 93.

[267] As early as the winter of 1795 William Bentley made the disgusted comment: “The Clergy are now the Tools of the Federalists.” _Diary_, vol. ii, p. 129. Commencing with the participation of the clergy in the discussion over the treaty, Democrat newspapers like the _Independent Chronicle_ began to administer mild rebukes to the clergy for the unwisdom of their conduct in favoring the British. _Cf._ the issue of the _Chronicle_ for July 20, 1795, for one of the earliest utterances of this sort. The spirit of resentment grew apace. Three years later this spirit of moderation had been fully discarded, and the clergy were being lashed unmercifully for their folly. For typical outbursts of this character, _cf._ the _Independent Chronicle_ of Dec. 3, 1798. Jedediah Morse paid tribute to the political concern and service of the clergy in a letter to Wolcott, written Dec. 23, 1796: “Very few of ye Clergy of my acquaintance seem disposed to pray for the success of the French, since they have so insidiously and wickedly interferred in the management of our political affairs, & I apprehend the complexion of the thanksgiving sermons throughout N Engd. this year, are different from those of the last, in respect to this particular. I can speak of more than one with authority.” (_Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 20.)

[268] Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, p. 121.

[269] Pamphleteers and newspaper writers were much more explicit. _The Pretensions of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency Examined: and the Charges against John Adams Refuted_, was one of the well known political pamphlets of the day. According to Gibbs, in his _Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams_, vol. i, p. 379, it was prepared by Oliver Wolcott and William Smith, the latter of South Carolina. It marshalled the reasons why Jefferson should not be elected to the presidency. Among these “reasons” the charge of a close alliance between Jefferson and the men of the country who were notoriously interested in the cause of irreligion was boldly affirmed. _Cf._ page 36 _et seq._ This pamphlet was published in 1796. Later the charge of impiety was lodged against Jefferson with great frequency. Typical utterances of this nature may be found in the _Library of American Literature_, vol. iv, pp. 249–251: “The Imported French Philosophy” (from “The Lay Preacher” of Joseph Dennie). This disquisition was much quoted in the newspapers of the day. From the position that the leaders of the Democrats were irreligious, it was easy for the Federalists to glide over to the position that the spirit of infidelity, believed to be spreading far and wide through the country, was consciously and deliberately backed by the restless and unscrupulous elements which, in the view of the Federalists, formed the opposition. _The Connecticut Courant_ of January 19, 1795, reflects this attitude. “The French”, it is asserted, “are mad in their pursuit of every phantom which disordered intellects can image. Having set themselves free from all human control, they would gladly scale the ramparts of heaven, and dethrone ALMIGHTY JEHOVAH. Our own Democrats would do just so, _if they dare_.” _Cf._ also the issue of the _Courant_ for January 5, the same year, for a characterization of the program of the Democrats as “a crazy system of Anti-Christian politics.” The offence given to the Democrats by such accusations was great. No man, perhaps, stated the stinging resentment which they felt better than Benjamin Franklin Bache in his _Aurora_ of August 15, 1798: “No part of the perfidy of the faction, the insidious monarchical faction, which dishonors our country, and endangers our future peace, is so bare faced as their perpetual railing about a party acting in concert with France—a party of _democrats_ and _Jacobins_—a party of _disorganizers_ and _atheists_—a party inimical to our independence! What is the plain intent of these impudent and ignorant railings? It is to impose upon the ignorant, to collect and concentre in our focus all the _vice_, _pride_, _superstition_, _avarice_, and _ambition_ in the United States, in order to weigh down by the union of such a phalanx of iniquity, all that is virtuous and free in the nation.” Abraham Bishop, whose repudiation of the Federalist charge that Jefferson was to be the High Priest of Infidelity was particularly vehement, saw in this cry that an alliance had been made between the forces of democracy and the forces of infidelity, the evidences of a shameless hypocrisy that stripped its makers of all right to be styled Christians. The cry that infidelity abounded meant nothing more nor less than that new electioneering methods were being employed. _Oration Delivered in Wallingford on the 11th of March, 1801_ ... by Abraham Bishop, pp. 36, 37.

2. THE SITUATION FROM 1798 TO 1800

Very few of the events in our national affairs which link together the history of the last decade of the eighteenth century are significant for our purpose. Having sought to discover the chief occasions for the apprehension and distress which weighed upon the minds of the citizens of New England, we may now proceed to focus attention exclusively upon the last three years of the century, within which developed that special disturbance of the public mind with which we are primarily concerned.

And first let it be said, we are approaching a period of as intense strain and nervous excitability as this nation in all its history has known. When Thomas Jefferson, in November, 1796, wrote Edward Rutledge of his deep personal satisfaction that he had escaped the presidency, he may have been influenced by unworthy but certainly not by imaginary constraints. “The newspapers,” so his letter runs, “will permit me to plant my corn, peas, &c., in hills or drills as I please ... while our Eastern friend will be struggling with the storm which is gathering over us; perhaps be shipwrecked in it. This is certainly not a moment to covet the helm.”[270] Never has a defeated candidate for the presidency had more solid grounds for the justification of his fears, or shall we say, his hopes? The severe strain of domestic strife was about to be enormously augmented by a series of untoward and alarming events in the field of foreign relations, certain of which must receive our particular attention.

The complete change in the character of the relations between the United States and France is for us a matter of the first importance. The publication of the treaty negotiated between the United States and Great Britain by Jay produced definitive results as respects the attitude of France. With some reason that instrument was interpreted as inimical to the interests of the latter country, and the government and people of this nation were not long left in doubt of the fact.[271] By the employment toward her former ally of a policy of coercion, of which two chief instruments were the destruction of American commerce upon the high seas and the overbearing and insolent conduct of diplomatic negotiations, France speedily addressed herself to the task of attempting to gain by pressure what she conceived she had lost in the way of prestige and material advantage. The result was, to the discomfiture and disgrace of the Democrats in particular and to the alarm of the country in general, that the United States was made aware of the fact that its government was being driven into a corner from which, as far as a human mind could foresee, the only avenue of honorable escape would be recourse to arms.

The damage which American commerce sustained at the hands of French privateers is rendered appreciable when the following circumstances are taken into account. Within the year following the publication of the extraordinary decrees against the commerce of neutral nations, which the French Directory promulgated, beginning with June, 1796, something over three hundred American vessels had been captured. The crippling blow to American commerce was by no means the sole consideration in the case. In numerous instances the crews of captured vessels were treated in such an outrageous and brutal manner as to inflame and gall the American spirit beyond endurance. On account of abuses which American shipping and commerce had suffered previously, by virtue of methods adopted by England and France to gain control of the seas, the strain imposed upon the nation had been severe; but now that a sweeping and utterly ruthless policy of commerce-destruction had been inaugurated by the French, forbearance was no longer possible. In his maiden speech in the national congress, Harrison Gray Otis, Massachusetts’ gifted young representative, put the case with dramatic eloquence:

If any man doubted of the pernicious measures of the French
nation, and of the actual state of our commerce, let him inquire
of the ruined and unfortunate merchant, harassed with prosecutions
on account of revenue, which he so long and patiently toiled to
support. If any doubted of its effects upon agriculture, let him
inquire of the farmer whose produce is falling and will be exposed
to perish in his barns. Where ... are your sailors? Listen to the
passing gale of the ocean, and you will hear their groans issuing
from French prison-ships.[272]

It was not to be expected that a deeply injured people, to whose just sense of wrong and indignation the youthful Federalist orator had given such exact expression, could long be restrained from acts of reprisal and war.

To the sense of injustice was added the burden of fear. The idea began to take possession of the minds of leaders of thought in America that France had darker and more terrible purposes in her councils than the blighting of American commerce in retaliation for the treaty-alliance which had recently been concluded with Great Britain; she sought _war_, war which would supply to her the opportunity to visit upon this nation the same overwhelming disasters which her armies had heaped upon the nations of Europe. The French, it was believed, were busy with schemes for employing the world in their favor and were drunk with the vision of universal dominion.[273] The true explanation of French violence and arrogance was to be sought in her aims at universal empire.[274] Her ravenous appetite could not be satisfied; she had resolved to make of the United States another mouthful.[275] What reason had the citizens of this country to claim exemption from the general deluge? Having fastened the chains of slavery upon nation after nation in Europe, the generals of France were now planning fresh triumphs; with our armies of the Mississippi and Ohio, of the Chesapeake and Delaware, her forces would contest the field on American soil.[276] Had not her geographers already partitioned the country according to the new system of government which would here be imposed?[277] Did not her agents and spies fill the land, constantly exerting themselves to thwart the purposes of the American government and to render fruitless its policies of administration?[278]

Such fears may not be brushed aside as silly and chimerical, in view of the steady stream of information which came across the Atlantic, announcing the downfall of one nation after another as the result of French intrigue and the prowess of French arms.[279] Besides, there was probably not a solitary Federalist leader in the United States who did not believe that French ministers and agents were in secret league with influential representatives of the Democratic party.

The bullying treatment which the French Directory accorded the ministers and envoys of this nation added much to the heat as well as to the dark suspicions which characterized public feeling in America. A government which boldly assumed to treat with impudent indifference and coldness one accredited minister of the United States, while at the same time it lavished the most extravagant expressions of friendship upon another whose disappointed executive had reluctantly summoned him home,[280] was obviously pursuing a course so high-handed and insolent as to stir the last dormant impulse of national honor. But the hot flame of public indignation which burst forth in this country when it became known that its Minister Plenipotentiary, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, after months of painful embarrassment and hazard, marked by neglect, evasions, and threats of arrest, was returning home, defeated in purpose, was as nothing to the lava-like stream of infuriated anger which swept through the land when it became known how treacherously the three envoys of the national government, Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry, had been used.

By common consent the publication of the X.Y.Z. despatches, early in April, 1798, put the top sheaf upon a long series of intolerable actions which this nation had suffered at the hands of the government of France. Like a flash it was made clear that not mere whimsicality and offended hauteur were at the bottom of the unsatisfactory dealings which our ministers had had with the French: we had sent our ambassadors to negotiate with men who knew how to add bribery to threats. Though the government of France might seek to save its face on the pretext that the mysterious French emissaries had acted without proper warrant, yet back of the negotiators was Talleyrand, and back of Talleyrand the Directory. The revulsion of feeling in the United States was complete. All innocent delusions were shattered; all veils torn away. What the French government desired in its negotiations was not political sympathy, not commercial cooperation, not a fraternal alliance between two sister republics in order that the flame of liberty might not perish from the earth; what it desired was _money_—money for the pockets of the Directory and its tools, “for the purpose of making the customary distribution in diplomatic affairs,” money for the public treasury that the Directory might find itself in a position to give a “softening turn” to certain irritating statements of which President Adams had delivered himself in his message to the Fifth Congress.[281]

The passion for war with France became the one passion of the hour. Only abandoned men, men whose desire for “disorganization” was the one yearning of their hearts, were unresponsive to the spirit of militant patriotism which swayed the people’s will:[282] such at least was the confident and boastful view of Federalist leaders, and for once they were able to gauge accurately the depth and power of the currents of popular sympathy. That hour had passed when men could say, as Jefferson had but a brief day before President Adams turned over to Congress the astounding despatches, “The scales of peace & war are very nearly in equilibrio.”[283] The heavy weight of the despatches had sent the bowl of war to the bottom with a resounding thud.

So it seemed at the moment; and yet, though there has seldom been an hour in our national history when all purely factional counsels were more effectually hushed and when the war fever mounted higher, an amazing period of uncertainty and of conflicting impulses and passions immediately set in.

Addresses and memorials to the President came pouring in, pledging to the government the full confidence of its citizens and unswerving loyalty and support. Volunteer military companies sprang into existence in every quarter over night. War vessels were purchased, or their construction provided for, by public subscription and presented to the government. The white cockade, new emblem of an aroused public spirit, generally appeared. The fierce slogan, “Millions for defence, but not one cent for tribute!” and the tuneful strains of “Hail Columbia” and “Adams and Liberty” went ringing through the land. Within a brief period of little more than three months, Congress passed no less than twenty acts for the strengthening of the national defence.[284]

This was one side of the matter; there was another, as events soon made clear. The President, it appeared, was not at one with the more ardent leaders in his own political camp, whose resolution for war was unbounded; he exhibited an attitude of indifference to the whole notion of open war with France that became increasingly manifest as the weeks went by. The President would temporize; he would try to avoid the crisis by sending new commissioners to France to reestablish friendly relations. Against such a policy many of his advisers protested furiously. Besides, the problem of supplying the army with leaders who should serve with Washington had resulted in an unseemly struggle as to whether this or that patriot should stand next to the great hero of Mount Vernon. The President’s policy of conciliation took on the appearance of shameless procrastination;[285] the imbroglios of the Federalist leaders aroused public suspicion, and invited to the garnished hearth the spirits of confusion and clamor.