Marshall, on the contrary, painted in rich colors his picture of this town-hall contest. He thus reports to Hamilton: "I had been informed of the temper of the House of Representatives and we [Richmond Federalists]
had promptly taken such measures as appeared to us fitted to the occasion. We could not venture an expression of the public mind under the violent prejudices with which it has been impressed, so long as a hope remained, that the House of Representatives might ultimately consult the interest or honor of the nation.... But now, when all hope of this has vanished, it was deemed advisable to make the experiment, however hazardous it might be.
"A meeting was called," continues Marshall, "which was more numerous than I have ever seen at this place; and after a very ardent and zealous discussion which consumed the day, a decided majority declared in favor of a resolution that the wellfare and honor of the nation required us to give full effect to the treaty negotiated with Britain. This resolution, with a pet.i.tion drawn by an original opponent of the treaty, will be forwarded by the next post to Congress."[435]
The resolution which Marshall"s speech caused an "original opponent"[436] of the treaty to draw was "that the Peace, Happiness, & Wellfare, not less than the National Honor of the United States, depend in a great degree upon giving, with good faith, Full effect to the Treaty lately negotiated with Great Britain." The same newspaper that printed this resolution, in another account of the meeting "which was held at the instance of some friends of the British Treaty," says that "in opposition to that resolution a vast number of the meeting"
subscribed to counter-declarations which "are now circulated throughout this City and the county of Henrico for the subscription of all those who" are opposed to the treaty.[437] Even the exultant Carrington reported "that the enemies of the Treaty or rather of the Government, are putting in practice every part and effort to obtain subscriptions to a counteracting paper."
Carrington denounced the unfavorable newspaper account as "a most absolute falsehood." He tells Washington that the opposition resolution "was not even listened [to] in the meeting." But still he is very apprehensive--he beholds the politician"s customary "crisis" and strives to make the people see it: "There never was a crisis at which the activity of the Friends of Government was more urgently called for--some of us here have endeavored to make this impression in different parts of the Country."[438] The newspaper reported that the Federalists had induced "school boys & apprentices" to sign the pet.i.tion in favor of the treaty; Carrington adds a postscript stating that this was, "I believe, a little incorrect."
Marshall foresaw that the Republicans would make this accusation and hastened to antic.i.p.ate it by advancing the same charge against his opponents. The Republicans, says Marshall, secured the signatures to their pet.i.tion not only "of many respectable persons but of still a greater number of mere boys.... Altho" some caution has been used by us in excluding those who might not be considered as authorized to vote,"
yet, Marshall advises King, "they [Republicans] will not fail to charge us with having collected a number of names belonging to foreigners and to persons having no property in the place. The charge is as far untrue," a.s.serts Marshall, "as has perhaps ever happened on any occasion of the sort. We could, by resorting to that measure, have doubled our list of pet.i.tioners." And he adds that "the ruling party [Republican] of Virginia are extremely irritated at the vote of to-day, and will spare no exertion to obtain a majority in other counties. Even here they will affect to have the greater number of freeholders."[439]
It was in this wise that pet.i.tions favorable to the Jay Treaty and to Washington were procured in the President"s own State. It was thus that the remainder of the country was a.s.sured that the Administration was not without support among the people of Virginia. Unsuspected and wholly unforeseen was the influence on Marshall"s future which his ardent championship of this despised treaty was to exercise.
The Federalists were wise to follow the Republican practice of pet.i.tion to Congress; for, "nothing ... but the torrent of pet.i.tions and remonstrances ... would have produced a division (fifty-one to forty-eight) in favor of the appropriation."[440] So great was the joy of the commercial cla.s.ses that in Philadelphia, the financial heart of the country, a holiday was celebrated when the House voted the money.[441]
Marshall"s activity, skill, courage, ability, and determination in the Legislature and before the people at this critical hour lifted him higher than ever, not only in the regard of Washington, but in the opinion of the Federalist leaders throughout the country.[442] They were casting about for a successor to Washington who could be most easily elected. The Hamiltonian Federalists were already distrustful of Adams for the presidency, and, even then, were warily searching for some other candidate. Why not Patrick Henry? Great changes had occurred in the old patriot"s mind and manner of thinking. He was now a man of wealth and had come to lean strongly toward the Government. His friendship for Washington, Marshall, and other Virginia Federalists had grown; while for Jefferson and other Virginia Republicans it had turned to dislike.
Still, with Henry"s lifelong record, the Federalists could not be sure of him.
To Marshall"s cautious hands the Federalist leaders committed the delicate business of sounding Henry. King of New York had written Marshall on the subject. "Having never been in habits of correspondence with Mr. H.[enry]," replies Marshall, "I cou"d not by letter ask from him a decision on the proposition I was requested to make him without giving him at the same time a full statement of the whole conversation & of the persons with whom that conversation was held." Marshall did not think this wise, for "I am not positively certain what course that Gentleman might take. The proposition might not only have been rejected but mentioned publickly to others in such manner as to have become an unpleasant circ.u.mstance."
A prudent man was Marshall. He thought that Lee, who "corresponds familiarly with Mr. H. & is in the habit of proposing offices to him,"
was the man to do the work; and he asked Lee "to sound Mr. H. as from himself or in such manner as might in any event be perfectly safe." Lee did so, but got no answer. However, writes Marshall, "Mr. H.[enry] will be in Richmond on the 22^d of May. I can then sound him myself & if I find him (as I suspect I shall) totally unwilling to engage in the contest, I can stop where prudence may direct. I trust it will not then be too late to bring forward to public view Mr. H. or any other gentleman who may be thought of in his stead. Shou"d anything occur to render it improper to have any communication with M^r. H. on this subject, or shou"d you wish the communication to take any particular shape you will be so obliging as to drop me a line concerning it."[443]
Marshall finally saw Henry and at once wrote the New York lieutenant of Hamilton the result of the interview. "Mr. Henry has at length been sounded on the subject you communicated to my charge," Marshall advises King. "Gen^l. Lee and myself have each conversed with him on it, tho"
without informing him particularly of the persons who authorized the communication. He is unwilling to embark in the business. His unwillingness, I think, proceeds from an apprehension of the difficulties to be encountered by those who shall fill high Executive offices."[444]
The autumn of 1796 was at hand. Washington"s second term was closing in Republican cloudbursts and downpours of abuse of him. He was, said the Republicans, an aristocrat, a "monocrat," a miser, an oppressor of the many for the enrichment of the few. Nay, more! Washington was a thief, even a murderer, charged the Republicans. His personal habits were low and base, said these champions of purity.[445] Washington had not even been true to the cause of the Revolution, they declared; and to prove this, an ancient slander, supported by forged letters alleged to have been written by Washington during the war, was revived.[446]
Marshall, outraged and insulted by these a.s.saults on the great American, the friend of his father and himself and the commander of the patriots who had, by arms, won liberty and independence for the very men who were now befouling Washington"s name, earnestly defended the President.
Although his law practice and private business called for all his strength and time, Marshall, in order to serve the President more effectively, again stood for the Legislature, and again he was elected.
In the Virginia House of Delegates, Marshall and the other friends of Washington took the initiative. On November 17, 1796, they carried a motion for an address to the President, declaratory of Virginia"s "grat.i.tude for the services of their most excellent fellow citizen"; who "has so wisely and prosperously administrated the national concerns."[447] But how should the address be worded? The Republicans controlled the committee to which the resolution was referred. Two days later that body reported a cold and formal collection of sentences as Virginia"s address to Washington upon his leaving, apparently forever, the service of America. Even Lee, who headed the committee, could not secure a declaration that Washington was or had been wise.
This stiff "address" to Washington, reported by the committee, left out the word "wisdom." Commendation of Washington"s conduct of the Government was carefully omitted. Should his friends submit to this? No!
Better to be beaten in a manly contest. Marshall and the other supporters of the President resolved to try for a warmer expression. On December 10, they introduced a subst.i.tute declaring that, if Washington had not declined, the people would have reelected him; that his whole life had been "strongly marked by wisdom, valor, and patriotism"; that "posterity to the most remote generations and the friends of true and genuine liberty and of the rights of man throughout the world, and in all succeeding ages, will unite" in acclaiming "that you have never ceased to deserve well of your country"; that Washington"s "valor and wisdom ... had essentially contributed to establish and maintain the happiness and prosperity of the nation."[448]
But the Republicans would have none of it. After an acrid debate and in spite of personal appeals made to the members of the House, the subst.i.tute was defeated by a majority of three votes. John Marshall was the busiest and most persistent of Washington"s friends, and of course voted for the subst.i.tute,[449] which, almost certainly, he drew. Cold as was the original address which the Federalists had failed to amend, the Republicans now made it still more frigid. They would not admit that Washington deserved well of the whole country. They moved to strike out the word "country" and in lieu thereof insert "native state."[450]
Many years afterward Marshall told Justice Story his recollection of this bitter fight: "In the session of 1796 ... which," said Marshall, "called forth all the strength and violence of party, some Federalist moved a resolution expressing the high confidence of the House in the virtue, patriotism, and wisdom of the President of the United States. A motion was made to strike out the word _wisdom_. In the debate the whole course of the Administration was reviewed, and the whole talent of each party was brought into action. Will it be believed that the word was retained by a very small majority? A very small majority in the legislature of Virginia acknowledged the wisdom of General Washington!"[451]
Dazed for a moment, the Federalists did not resist. But, their courage quickly returning, they moved a brief amendment of twenty words declaring that Washington"s life had been "strongly marked by wisdom, in the cabinet, by valor, in the field, and by the purest patriotism in both." Futile effort! The Republicans would not yield. By a majority of nine votes[452] they flatly declined to declare that Washington had been wise in council, brave in battle, or patriotic in either; and the original address, which, by these repeated refusals to endorse either Washington"s sagacity, patriotism, or even courage, had now been made a dagger of ice, was sent to Washington as the final comment of his native State upon his lifetime of unbearable suffering and incalculable service to the Nation.
Arctic as was this sentiment of the Virginia Republicans for Washington, it was tropical compared with the feeling of the Republican Party toward the old hero as he retired from the Presidency. On Monday, March 5, 1797, the day after Washington"s second term expired, the princ.i.p.al Republican newspaper of America thus expressed the popular sentiment:--
""Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation," was the pious e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n of a man who beheld a flood of happiness rushing in upon mankind....
"If ever there was a time that would license the reiteration of the exclamation, that time is now arrived, for the man [Washington] who is the source of all the misfortunes of our country, is this day reduced to a level with his fellow citizens, and is no longer possessed of power to multiply evils upon the United States.
"If ever there was a period for rejoicing this is the moment--every heart, in unison with the freedom and happiness of the people ought to beat high with exultation, that the name of Washington from this day ceases to give a currency to political iniquity, and to legalize corruption....
"A new aera is now opening upon us, an aera which promises much to the people; for public measures must now stand upon their own merits, and nefarious projects can no longer be supported by a name.
"When a retrospect is taken of the Washingtonian administration for eight years, it is a subject of the greatest astonishment, that a single individual should have cankered the principles of republicanism in an enlightened people, just emerged from the gulph of despotism, and should have carried his designs against the public liberty so far as to have put in jeopardy its very existence.
"Such however are the facts, and with these staring us in the face, this day ought to be a JUBILEE in the United States."[453]
Such was Washington"s greeting from a great body of his fellow citizens when he resumed his private station among them after almost twenty years of labor for them in both war and peace. Here rational imagination must supply what record does not reveal. What must Marshall have thought? Was this the fruit of such sacrifice for the people"s welfare as no other man in America and few in any land throughout all history had ever made--this rebuke of Washington--Washington, who had been the soul as well as the sword of the Revolution; Washington, who alone had saved the land from anarchy; Washington, whose level sense, far-seeing vision, and mighty character had so guided the newborn Government that the American people had taken their place as a separate and independent Nation?
Could any but this question have been asked by Marshall?
He was not the only man to whom such reflections came. Patrick Henry thus expressed his feelings: "I see with concern our old commander-in-chief most abusively treated--nor are his long and great services remembered.... If he, whose character as our leader during the whole war, was above all praise, is so roughly handled in his old age, what may be expected by men of the common standard of character?"[454]
And Jefferson! Had he not become the voice of the majority?
Great as he was, restrained as he had arduously schooled himself to be, Washington personally resented the brutal a.s.saults upon his character with something of the fury of his unbridled youth: "I had no conception that parties would or even could go to the length I have been witness to; nor did I believe, until lately, that it was within the bounds of probability--hardly within those of possibility--that ... every act of my administration would be tortured and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of them be made ... and that too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero--a notorious defaulter--or even to a common pickpocket."[455]
Here, then, once more, we clearly trace the development of that antipathy between Marshall and Jefferson, the seeds of which were sown in those desolating years from 1776 to 1780, and in the not less trying period from the close of the Revolution to the end of Washington"s Administration. Thus does circ.u.mstance mould opinion and career far more than abstract thinking; and emotion quite as much as reason shape systems of government. The personal feud between Marshall and Jefferson, growing through the years and nourished by events, gave force and speed to their progress along highways which, starting at the same point, gradually diverged and finally ran in opposite directions.
FOOTNOTES:
[351] When Jefferson resigned, Randolph succeeded him as Secretary of State, and continued in that office until driven out of public life by the famous Fauchet disclosure. William Bradford of Pennsylvania succeeded Randolph as Attorney-General.
[352] Washington to Marshall, Aug. 26, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.
[353] Act of 1789, _Annals_, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 2238.
[354] For Randolph"s pathetic account of his struggles to subsist as Attorney-General, see Conway, chap. xv.
[355] The Fairfax purchase. See _infra_, chap. V.
[356] Marshall to Washington, Aug. 31, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.
[357] See _infra_, chap. V.
[358] Executive Journal, U.S. Senate, i, 81, 82. And see Washington"s _Diary_: Lossing, 166. Carrington held both of these offices at the same time.
[359] Referring to Marshall"s t.i.tle as General of Virginia Militia. He was called "General" from that time until he became Chief Justice of the United States.
[360] Washington to Carrington, Oct. 9, 1795; _Writings_: Ford, xiii, 116.
[361] Carrington to Washington, Oct. 2, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[362] _Ib._
[363] Carrington to Washington, Oct. 8, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.
[364] _Ib._, Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.