The Life of John Marshall (Volume 2 of 4). Beveridge Albert Jeremiah
British conduct, concluded that: "A war at present with Great Britain must be total destruction to the commerce of our country; for there is no maritime power on earth that can contend with the existing naval British force." (J. Q. Adams to Sargent, The Hague, Oct. 12, 1795;
311
"I believe the intention is to draw the United States into it [war] merely to make tools of them… The conduct of the British government is so well adapted to increasing our danger of war, that I cannot but suppose they are secretly inclined to produce it." (J. Q. Adams to his father, The Hague, Sept. 12, 1795;
312
Marshall, ii, 194.
313
Marshall, ii, 337.
314
315
See this speech in Rives, iii, footnote to 418-19. It is curious that Marshall, in his
316
Marshall to Stuart, May 28, 1794; MS., Va. Hist. Soc.
317
It must not be forgotten that we were not so well prepared for war in 1794 as the colonies had been in 1776, or as we were a few years after Jay was sent on his mission. And on the traditional policy of Great Britain when intending to make war on any country, see J. Q. Adams to his father, June 24, 1796;
Also, see same to same, The Hague, June 9, 1796;
"The truth is that the American
318
Marshall, ii, 363.
319
320
Resolution of Wythe County (Va.) Democratic Society, quoted in Anderson, 32.
321
Ames to Dwight, Feb. 3, 1795;
322
Marshall, ii, 362-64.
323
324
The Boston men, it appears, had not even read the treaty, as was the case with other meetings which adopted resolutions of protest. (Marshall, ii, 365
On Dr. Jarvis's speech at Faneuil Hall against the Jay Treaty; Loring:
325
See Marshall's vivid description of the popular reception of the treaty; Marshall, ii, 365-66.
326
Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795;
327
"An Emetic for Aristocrats… Also a History of the Life and Death of Independence; Boston, 1795." Copies of such attacks were scattered broadcast – "Emissaries flew through the country spreading alarm and discontent." (Camillus, no. 1;
328
McMaster, ii, 213-20; Gibbs, i, 207; and Hildreth, iv, 548.
329
Present-day detraction of our public men is gentle reproof contrasted with the savagery with which Washington was, thenceforth, assailed.
330
Marshall, ii, 370. Of the innumerable accounts of the abuse of Washington, Weld may be cited as the most moderate. After testifying to Washington's unpopularity this acute traveler says: "It is the spirit of dissatisfaction which forms a leading trait in the character of the Americans as a people, which produces this malevolence [against Washington]; if their public affairs were regulated by a person sent from heaven, I firmly believe his acts, instead of meeting with universal approbation, would by many be considered as deceitful and flagitious." (Weld, i, 108-09.)
331
Washington almost determined to withhold ratification. (Marshall, ii, 362.) The treaty was signed November 19, 1794; received by the President, March 7, 1795; submitted to the Senate June 8, 1795; ratified by the Senate June 24; and signed by Washington August 12, 1795. (
332
"Washington now defies the whole Sovereign that made him what he is – and can unmake him again. Better his hand had been cut off when his glory was at its height before he blasted all his Laurels!" (Dr. Nathaniel Ames's Diary, Aug. 14, 1795;
333
Washington to Jay, May 8, 1796;
334
335
Journal, H.D. (1795), 54-55; and see Anderson, 43.
336
337
Ames to Gore, Jan. 10, 1795;
338
339
Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795;
340
341
Jefferson to Tazewell, Sept. 13, 1795;
342
Charles Pinckney's Speech;