States, and is supposed to be yet living in the state of New York. He was succeeded by Mr. Fauchet, whose agency was no less conspicuous, though conducted with more regard to diplomatic usage than Mr. Genet's.

In the prosecution of the war, between France and England, in 1793, two serious difficulties arose. The French having immense armies on foot, and the laboring population having been drawn forth by military conscriptions, the want of provisions became very pressing. France depended, to some extent, on supplies from America. The English had the command of the ocean, and, in June, issued an order to stop all vessels bound to France, loaded with flour, corn, or meal; and to take them into port, unload them, pay for the cargoes, and freight, and then liberate the vessels. There was no doubt, that this was a strong measure, and whether defensible, or not, on any construction of the law of nations, it is not the present purpose to inquire. The order gave great dissatisfaction in the United States.

The other difficulty was, that the British then began to impress seamen from American vessels. Impressment has been an immemorial usage in England; and she asserts the right of taking her own subjects, wherever found, in time of war. The difficulty of distinguishing between her own, and other subjects, often led to the impressment of Americans. This became a subject of very serious and just complaint. Whether England might take persons out of American vessels, who were born British subjects, but who had been naturalized in the United States, was another point of difference. England contended that her subjects can never abandon their allegiance, and may be taken on the high seas from any but a national vessel of war. During the administration of Mr. Jefferson, and that of Mr. Madison, the protection, not only of naturalized persons, but of all persons sailing in merchant vessels, bearing the

American flag, was contended for, and was fostered into one of the causes for declaring war. This point remains as it was, forty years ago, though rather worse for the war, undertaken to sustain the American pretension. From the national similarity of the English, and Americans, it is apparent, that it is a subject of intrinsic difficulty; and one that can be settled only by a course of negotiation, little likely to occur.

LETTER XIV.

MARCH 6, 1833.

There

THE effect of the aggressions of England during the year 1793, and the partiality for France, were apparent, at the next meeting of Congress, on the 4th of December. was a majority of about ten votes against the administration, as appeared in the choice of speaker. The opposition supported Mr. Muhlenberg, the federalists Mr. Sedgwick. Thus it may be considered, that the federal administration was destined to fall, and that the political system which the federalists had founded, would, "ere long," pass into the hands of those who had always been its enemies.

The speech of Washington, at the opening of the session, was comprehensive and luminious, and well deserves the study of all who would understand the elements of the great political events which followed. Mr. Jefferson (Secretary of State) presented his detailed and ingenious report on commercial relations. This also deserves an attentive study, since it shows the principles of the policy which was carried into effect under his presidency. As these are matters of history, ably set forth in Marshall's fifth volume, it would be only transcription to notice them more fully; nor would it be expedient to do so, in these hasty sketches. Mr. Jeffer

son had intimated his intention to resign his office some months before this time. He was prevailed on (as he says) to remain, until the 31st of December, 1793, and then withdrew. The most favorable account of Mr. Jefferson's official conduct, by any judicious and impartial writer, is that given by Chief Justice Marshall, who is incapable of doing injustice to any man, even when a political opponent. On this occasion he was telling truth, with the sanction of his own high reputation, and on as interesting a subject as ever engaged the attention of any historian-The Life of Washington. It is rather to be supposed, from his well known character, that he was careful not to make himself liable to the imputation of having performed a trust, unfavorably to one, whose opinions he might not have approved.

This able historian's view of Mr. Jefferson at this period should be considered, because it gives a key to his subsequent political life. Chief Justice Marshall says, at a time when Mr. Jefferson was living, (vol. v. 488,) among other things: "This gentleman withdrew from political station, at a "moment when he stood particularly high in the esteem of "his countrymen. His fixed opposition to the financial "schemes proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and "approved by the legislative and executive departments of "the government; his ardent and undisguised attachment to "the revolutionary party in France; the dispositions which “he was declared to possess in regard to Great Britain; "and the popularity of his opinions respecting the constitu"tion of the United States; had devoted to him that immense "party whose sentiments were supposed to comport with his "on most, or all these interesting subjects. To the opposite "party, he had, of course, become particularly unacceptable. "But the publication of his correspondence with Mr. Genet, "dissipated much of the prejudice which had been excited against him. He had, in that correspondence, maintained, "with great ability, the opinions maintained by the federal

"ists on those points of difference, which had arisen between "the two republics. The partiality for France, which was "conspicuous through the whole of it, detracted nothing "from its merits, in the opinion of the friends of the admin"istration, because, however decided they might be to sup"port their own government in a controversy with any nation "whatever, they felt all the partiality for that nation which "the correspondence expressed. The hostility of his "enemies, therefore, was for a time considerably lessened, "without a corresponding diminution of the attachment of "his friends. In office it would have been impracticable "long to preserve these dispositions. And it would have. "been difficult to maintain that ascendency which he held "over the minds who had supported (and would probably "continue to support) every pretension of the French Re"public, without departing from principles and measures "which he had openly and ably defended."

It may not then have been Mr. Jefferson's love of his "clover fields," and desire of retirement, that carried him back (31st December, 1793,) to Monticello; but his perception of the same truths which were obvious to the historian. It is well remembered that Genet openly charged Mr. Jefferson with having "a language official, and a language "confidential." He may have entertained very different opinions as secretary, from those which he entertained as a man, and which he might fearlessly act upon when he attained to the presidency.

Mr. Jefferson mentions Chief Justice Marshall several times, in his volumes, with some sensibility. In writing to his old friend John Adams, under date of January 15, 1813, (vol. iv. 195,) he remarks: "Marshall has written libels on

* Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to Mr. G. Morris, says: "If our citizens "have not already been shedding each other's blood, it is not owing "to the moderation of Mr. Genet, but to the forbearance of the gov"ernment."

66

one side; others, I suppose, will be written on the other "side; and the world will sift both, and separate the truth as well as they can."

The session of Congress commenced on the 4th of December, 1793, was one of the most important and interesting that had hitherto occurred. It intimated the motives of parties, as they have since been developed, in public affairs. Both branches were composed of able men, and among them were some of the most eminent. The House of Representatives was nearly equally divided on great questions. The members who might be regarded as the most prominent in the Senate, were George Cabot, Caleb Strong, Oliver Ellsworth, Aaron Burr, Rufus King, Robert Morris, Albert Gallatin. In the House of Representatives, were Abraham Baldwin, William B. Giles, William B. Grove, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, F. A. Muhlenberg, Josiah Parker, Thomas Sumpter, Abraham Venable, Alexander White, who voted generally together. And on the other side, were Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, John Laurence, Samuel Livermore, William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, who on most occasions voted together; and sometimes Elbridge Gerry voted with them.

To such men fell the duty of investigating the principles which ought to regulate commercial relations with all foreign countries, at a time when all Europe was in the paroxysm of revolution; and when the Mediterranean commerce was at the mercy of the Algerines; and the citizens of this country divided almost to the line of civil war, among themselves. In this high excitement the fortress which was to be demolished, or protected, was the Washington adminis tration.