To Shining Sea - Chapter 7
The Publication of the ‘XYZ Affair’ Despatches, April 19th 1798
The Unveiling of Canadian History, Volume 4.
To Shining Sea – Ireland, Haiti, and Louisiana, and the Idea of a Continental Republic, 1797 – 1804.
On November 7th 1805, Lewis and Clark, and the Corps of Discovery Expedition, would reach the Pacific Ocean – thus asserting the reason for ‘the very name given to those fighters for independence: the Continental army’.
Part 1 – The Irish Frontier
Chapter 7 - The Publication of the ‘XYZ Affair’ Despatches, April 19th 1798
A debate over preparation for war or peace with France was begun. The ‘republicans’ demanded to see the despatches, hoping and believing that they would show that President Adams was at fault, and not the ‘immaculate’ French Directory! Hamilton would respond, and not with a call for war, but with a call for defense and neutrality.
Alexander Hamilton
On January 18th 1798, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to provide the means of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and was objected to by the ‘republican’ party, led by Albert Gallatin, due to what it perceived to be the danger of executive influence – from its power to appoint foreign ministers. The ‘federalist’ party charged that the ‘republican’ opposition was based on their faulty belief that the House ‘by its power over appropriations, has a right to control and direct the Executive in the appointment of foreign ministers’.
This debate extended for 7 days, until an altercation on January 30th between Matthew Lyon (Vermont), and Roger Griswold (Connecticut) – during an argument, Lyon spit tobacco juice on Griswold’s face; and Griswold attacked Lyon with a wooden cane while Lyon defended himself with the metal tongs from the fire. After the House voted against the expulsion of Griswold and Lyon (by a vote of 73 to 21), the debate was begun again on February 27th, and continued for 4 more days until March 5th, when the Congress received President Adam’s message containing the 5th despatch from the commissioners. The House continued the debate of amending the foreign intercourse bill, which was defeated 52 to 48. The next day the bill was approved by the House.
On March 19th, President Adams sent another message to Congress, that:
“… knowing it to be my duty, and believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great body of the people, to avoid, by all reasonable concessions, any participation in the contentions of Europe … I can discern nothing which could have insured or contributed to success, that has been omitted on my part, and nothing further which can be attempted, consistently with maxims for which our country has contended at every hazard, and which constitute the basis of national sovereignty …
[I] exhort you to adopt, with promptitude, decision, and unanimity, such measures as the ample resources of the country afford, for the protection of our seafaring and commercial citizens; for the defense of any exposed portions of our territory; for replenishing our arsenals, establishing foundries, and military manufactories; and to provide such sufficient revenue as will be necessary to defray extraordinary expenses, and supply the deficiencies which may be occasioned by depredations on our commerce.”
On March 27th, President Adams signed into law an act for an additional appropriation to provide and support a naval armament – to complete the 3 frigates: the United States, the Constitution and the Constellation.
On March 27th, the ‘republican’ party then tried to propose a resolution that ‘it is not expedient for the United States to resort to war against the French Republic’.
The ‘federalist’ party objected –
“that the only subjects fit for discussion were active measures, and that it was not regular to declare when they would not do a thing”, and that “all [they] had heard of war was from gentlemen who were so loudly opposed to it, as if they were the only men in the country who had any value for its peace and happiness. Was any part of this alarm made by men who fought eight years for the independence of this country? No such thing; they wished the country to remain in peace; but they wished it also to be prepared for war.”
The ‘republicans’ responded that:
“when gentlemen say that all has been done by this Government that could have been done, he should consider it as treason to his country not to show, that the present misunderstanding with the French Republic was founded in our own misconduct.” [!?!]
On March 29th, Mr. Giles gave a speech, saying that:
“though he thought France had just ground of complaint against this country, he did not mean to justify her conduct towards us. He thought she ought to have received our ministers; and, if they had not agreed, to have taken such measures as they thought proper. But this is supposing our minsters clothed with sufficient powers; if they were not, there would be some ground of justification for their conduct. The President of the United States is in possession of information which would satisfy the Congress and the people in this respect, but he has thought proper to withhold it, and therefore he alone is responsible … when party rage shall subside, and it shall be seen that the Executive is pursuing hostile measures, and keeping all information from Congress, this conduct would be deemed extraordinary … but it has left a strong impression on his mind that something was not correct, which was the reason the expected papers were not sent.”
The next day, it was then proposed that:
“the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House the despatches from the Envoys Extraordinary of the United States to the French Republic, mentioned in his message of the 19th instant”,
and it was passed by the House on April 2nd.
Agreeing to the resolution, the following day, on April 3rd, President Adams sent to Congress the executive’s instructions to the Envoys Extraordinary that had been sent to France, and also sent to Congress their first 4 (decoded) despatches of October 22nd, November 8th and 27th, and December 24th, 1797.
On March 25th, Secretary of State Pickering had written two letters to Hamilton concerning the despatches received from the three American envoys in France, stating that he was preparing ‘a firm communication from the President to the two Houses of Congress, on the state of our affairs with France’. He asked for Hamilton’s advice on Britain –
“What shall we say to the British Government? … The opposition party have often insinuated that a treaty offensive & defensive has doubtless been already concluded with Great Britain … The truth is, that not one syllable has been written to Mr. King or any one else upon the subject.”
He also asked for his advice concerning Spain –
“What ought we to do, in respect to Louisiana? … that Gayoso has recd. orders to evacuate the posts … Perhaps these orders may have resulted from Spain’s seeing or fearing the necessity of ceding Louisiana to France – and hence concluding that she might as well do a grateful thing to us before the surrender.”
On March 27th, Hamilton replied that:
“I am against going into alliance with Great Britain. It is my opinion that her interest will ensure us her cooperation, to the extent of her power, and that a treaty will not secure her further. On the other hand, a treaty might entangle us ...
If Spain would cede Louisiana to the UStates I would accept it, absolutely if obtainable absolutely, or with an engagement to restore it if it cannot be obtained absolutely.”
Alexander Hamilton understand the importance of staying out of Britain’s web of entanglements, and also understood the importance of Louisiana for the United States - five years before the 1803 Louisiana Purchase!!!
Hamilton now began a series of published letters, called ‘The Stand’ written by ‘Titus Manlius’, to defend President Adam’s request of March 19th for defensive measures to be taken, and to attack the ‘republican’ apologists for France’s Directory.
On March 30th, in ‘The Stand #1’, Hamilton began his critique of the new French government, and wrote that:
“our nation, thro its official organs, has been treated with studied contempt and systematic insult; essential rights of the country are perseveringly violated, and its independence and liberty eventually threatened, by the most flagitious, despotic and vindictive government that ever disgraced the annals of mankind …
among those who divide our legislative councils, we perceive hitherto, on the one side unremitting efforts to justify or excuse the despots of France, to vilify and discredit our own government, of course to destroy its necessary vigor, and to distract the opinions and to damp the zeal of our citizens, what is worse, to divert their affections from their own to a foreign country …
But ’tis not enough to resist. Tis requisite to resist with energy … A respectable naval force, ought to protect our commerce, and a respectable army ought both to diminish the temptation to invasion.”
On April 4th, in ‘The Stand #2’, Hamilton wrote concerning France, that:
“in retracing the progress of a war which has immersed Europe in blood and calamity, it is an error as common as it is strange, to acquit France of responsibility, and to throw the whole blame upon her adversaries …
it was not only to scatter the embers of a general conflagration in Europe – it was to interfere coercively in the interior arrangements of other nations – it was to dictate to them, under the penalty of the vengeance of France, what form of government they should live under – it was to forbid them to pursue their political happiness in their own way – it was to set up the worst of all despotisms, a despotism over opinion, not against one nation, but against almost all nations.”
On April 7th, in ‘The Stand #3’, he wrote again on France, that:
“it has been seen that she commenced her career as the champion of universal liberty; and, proclaiming destruction to the governments which she was pleased to denominate despotic, made a tender of fraternity and assistance to the nation whom they oppressed. She, at the same time, disclaimed conquest and aggrandizement … but it has since clearly appeared, that at the very moment she was making these professions, and while her diplomatic agents were hypocritically amusing foreign courts with conciliatory explanations and promises of moderation, she was exerting every faculty, by force and fraud, to accomplish the very conquest and aggrandizement which she insidiously disavowed.”
On April 12th, in ‘The Stand #4’, he warns that:
“in the pursuit of her plan of universal empire, the two objects which now seem chiefly to occupy the attention of France, are a new organization of Germany favorable to her influence, and the demolition of Great Britain. The subversion and plunder, first of Portugal, next of Spain, will be merely collateral incidents in the great drama of iniquity … with the acquisition of Louisiana, the foundation will be laid for stripping her of South America and her mines; and perhaps for dismembering the United States …
the majority of the directory foresaw that Peace would not prove an element congenial with the duration of their power; or perhaps under the guidance of Sieyes, the conjuror of the scene, they judged it expedient to continue in motion the revolutionary wheel, till matters were better prepared for creating a new Dynasty and a new Aristocracy, to regenerate the exploded monarchy of France with due regard to their own interest.”
On April 16th, in ‘The Stand #5’, he wrote that:
“many of the most determined advocates of France among us appear latterly to admit that previous to the Treaty with Great Britain, the complaints of France against the United States were frivolous, those of the United States against France real and serious. But the Treaty with Great Britain, it is affirmed, has changed the ground. This, it is said, has given just cause of discontent to France – this has brought us to the verge of war with our first ally and best friend – to this fatal instrument are we indebted for the evils we feel and the still greater which impend over our heads ... These suggestions are without the shadow of foundation; they prove the infatuated devotion to a foreign power of those who invented them and the easy credulity of those with whom they have obtained currency ...
“in contempt of established usage and of the respect due to us as an independent people, with the deliberate design of humbling and mortifying our government, these special and extraordinary ministers have been refused to be received … instead of this, informal Agents, probably panders and mistresses, are appointed to intrigue with our envoys ... What is the misshapen result? Money, money is the burthen of the discordant song of these foul birds of prey.”
On April 19th, in ‘The Stand #6’, he warns that:
“when the wonders achieved by the arms of France are duly considered the possibility of the overthrow of Great Britain seems not to be chimerical. If by any of those extraordinary coincidences of circumstances, which occasionally decide the fate of empires, the meditated expedition against England shall succeed, or if by the immense expence to which that country is driven and the derangement of her commerce by the powerful means employed to that end, her affairs shall be thrown into such disorder as may enable France to dictate to her the terms of peace; in either of these unfortunate events the probability is, that the United States will have to choose between the surrender of their sovereignty, the new modelling of their government according to the fancy of the Directory, the emptying of their wealth by contributions into the coffers of the greedy and insatiable monster – and resistance to invasion in order to compel submission to those ruinous conditions …
The question returns – what is to be done? Shall we declare war? No – there are still chances for avoiding a general rupture which ought to be taken … our true policy is, in the attitude of calm defiance, to meet the aggressions upon us by proportionate resistance, and to prepare vigorously for further resistance. To this end, the chief measures requisite are to invigorate our treasury by calling into activity the principal untouched resources of revenue – to fortify in earnest our chief sea ports – to establish foundries and increase our arsenals – to create a respectable naval force and to raise with the utmost diligence a considerable army.”
Earlier, on April 9th, Pickering, the Secretary of State, had written to Hamilton that ‘this morning the dispatches from our envoys are published, and I inclose a copy.’
He continued that:
“you will readily imagine what apologies our internal enemies make for the French Government. Jefferson says that the Directory are not implicated in the villainy and corruption displayed in these dispatches – or at least that these offer no proof against them. Bache’s paper of last saturday says ‘that M. Talleyrand is notoriously anti republican; that he was the intimate friend of Mr. Hamilton, Mr. King and other great federalists, and that it is probably owing to the determined hostility which he discovered in them towards France, that the Government of that country consider us only as objects of plunder’.”
On April 21st, in ‘The Stand #7’, Hamilton answered Bache and Jefferson, that:
“the dispatches from our envoys have at length made their appearance. They present a picture of the French government exceeding in turpitude whatever was anticipated from the previous intimations of their contents. It was natural to expect, that the perusal of them would have inspired a universal sentiment of indignation and disgust; and that no man, calling himself an American, would have had the hardihood to defend, or even to palliate a conduct so atrocious. But it is already apparent, that an expectation of this kind would not have been well founded …
the high-priest of this sect [i.e. Jefferson], with a tender regard for the honor of the immaculate Directory, has already imagined several ingenious distinctions to rescue them from the odium and corruption unfolded by the dispatches. Among these is the suggestion that there is no proof of the privity of the Directory – all may have been the mere contrivance of the minister for foreign relations … the inventor of the subterfuge, however, well knew, that the Executive organ of a nation never comes forward in person to negociate with foreign ministers; and that unless it be presumed to direct and adopt what is done by its agents, it may always be sheltered from responsibility or blame …
publications have appeared [i.e. Bache’s Aurora], endeavoring to justify or extenuate the demands upon our envoys, and to inculcate the slavish doctrine of compliance. The United States, it is said, are the aggressors, and ought to make atonement; France assisted them in their revolution with loans, and they ought to reciprocate the benefit; peace is a boon worth the price required for it, and it ought to be paid … to pay such a price for peace, is to prefer peace to independence. The nation which becomes tributary takes a master. Peace is doubtless precious, but it is a bauble compared with national independence, which includes national liberty. The evils of war to resist such a precedent, are insignificant, compared with the evil of the precedent ...
it is curious to remark, that in the conferences with our envoys this treaty [i.e. Jay’s treaty] was never once mentioned by the French agents … but the dispatches of our envoys, while they do not sanction the charge preferred by the Gallic faction [i.e. ‘republicans’] against the treaty, confirm a very serious charge which the friends of the government bring against that faction. They prove, by the unreserved confession of her agents, that France places absolute dependence on this party in every event, and counts upon their devotion to her as an encouragement to the hard conditions which they attempt to impose. The people of this country must be infatuated indeed, if after this plain confession they are at a loss for the true source of the evils they have suffered or may hereafter suffer from the despots of France. Tis the unnatural league of a portion of our citizens with the oppressors of their country.”
As Hamilton had anticipated, with the publication of the despatches in the press, the sentiment in the country would now change dramatically.
[next week - chapter 8 - The American Response to the Despatches]
*************
For those who may wish to support my continuing work on ‘The Unveiling of Canadian History’, you may purchase my books, that are available as PDFs and Paperback (on Amazon) at the Canadian Patriot Review :
Volume 1 – The Approaching Conflict, 1753 – 1774.
Volume 2 – Forlorn Hope – Quebec and Nova Scotia, and the War for Independence, 1775 – 1785.
And hopefully,
Volume 3 – The Storming of Hell – the War for the Territory Northwest of Ohio, 1786 – 1796, and
Volume 4 – Ireland, Haiti, and Louisiana – the Idea of a Continental Republic, 1797 – 1804,
may also appear in print, in the near future, while I continue to work on :
Volume 5 – On the Trail of the Treasonous, 1804 - 1814.