1790-95. Reply of Innis and Nicholas. 431 ! finitely more advantageous, in every point of view, than that in which they would find themselves were the treaty to be carried into effect. THOMAS POWER. REPLY. Sir :-We have seen the communication made by you to Mr. Sebastian. In answer thereto, we declare unequivocally, that we will not be concerned either directly or indirectly, in any attempt that may be made to separate the western country from the United States. That whatever part we may at any time be induced to take in the politics of our country, that her welfare will be our only inducement, and that we will never receive any pecuniary, or any other reward, for any personal exertions made by us, to promote that welfare. The free navigation of the Mississippi must always be the favorite object of the inhabitants of the western country; they cannot be contented without it; and will not be deprived of it longer than necessity shall compel them to submit to its being withheld from them. We flatter ourselves that every thing will be set right, by the governments of the two nations; but if this should not be the case, it appears to us that it must be the policy of Spain to encourage by every possible means, the free intercourse with the inhabitants of the western country, as this will be the most efficient means to conciliate their good will, and to obtain without hazard, and at reduced prices, those supplies which are indispensably necessary to the Spanish Government and its subjects.* Whether Sebastian signed this reply, is not known; but upon proof that he had for years afterwards received two thousand dollars annually as a pension from Spain for services rendered,† it was unanimously adjudged by the House of Representatives in Kentucky, on the 6th of December, 1806, that he had been guilty, while holding the place of Judge of the Court of Appeals, of carrying on a criminal intercourse with the agents of the Spanish Government, and disgracing his country for pay. Before this decision, however, Sebastian had resigned his place, and thenceforward was lost to the councils of the State. * American State Papers, xx. 928, 929.-In August, 1796, Spain allied herself with France. In December, France quarrelled with the United States, so that Spain at the time of Power's visit in 1797, was still holding the posts east of the Mississippi, which, by the treaty of 1795, were to be given up, and was in a half hostile attitude towards the United States. + Testimony of Thomas Bullitt, Charles Wilkins, &c. See entire documents, American State Papers, xx. Do. 933. Also, the account in Marshall, ii. 377 to 384. (American State Papers, xx. 924.) 922 to 934.-Vote of the House. See Hall's Sketches, ii. 28 to 35. The writer appears to refer entirely to the transactions of 1795-6, and to be unaware of the propositions made in 1797. The best argument in Sebastian's favor is that put so well by Wilkinson in his own defence; (Memoirs, ii. 65. 66.) viz:-no evidence was offered to show that he ever did any thing to favor disunion; he never earned his pay. 432 Factions in the United States. 1790-95. We have so far said nothing of those political parties which divided the United States during the administration of Washington; for though it is not to be doubted that the contests of those parties gave Genet cause to trust in his plans of conquest, and supported the hopes of Sebastian and his Spanish employers, yet their operations were not directly dependent upon the factions which rent the country. We have now, however, to speak of an event that derived its importance from its real or supposed connection with those factions, and which it seems proper to introduce by a brief sketch of their origin and character; we refer to the popular movement in western Pennsylvania, growing out of the excise on domestic spirits; commonly known as the whiskey insurrection. When the united colonies of Great Britain had won their independence, and the rule of George the 3d over them ended, the question, of course, arose as to the nature of the gov ernment which was to succeed. Two fears prevailed among the people of the freed Provinces. On the one hand a tendency to monarchy and ultimate tyranny, was dreaded: it was thought that a foreign despot had been warred with in vain, if by the erection of a strong central or Federal power the foundations of domestic despotism were laid instead; the sovereignty of the several States, balancing one another, and each easily controlled by the voice of the people was, with this party of thinkers, to be the security of the freedom that had been achieved. In Europe, republicanism had been overthrown by the centralizing process which had substituted the great monarchies for the Feudal system, and the Italian and Flemish commonwealths; and in America the danger, it was thought, would be of too great a concentration of power in the hands of a central Federal sovereignty.* While these views prevailed among one portion of the American people, another portion dreaded the excess of popular democratic passions, tending constantly to anarchy. To this party a strong central power seemed essential, not only for financial and commercial purposes, but also to restrain the inevitable disposition of popular governments to the abandonment of all law, all reverence, and all social unity. History and reflection, in short, showed men on the one side, that *Governor Harrison, of Virginia, said even of the Constitution, as adopted, that it "must sooner or later establish a tyranny not inferior to the triumvirate or centumviri of Rome." See his letter, Sparks' Washington, ix. 267, note. George Mason also said of it, that it would cause the Government to "commence in a moderate aristocracy," and would finally" produce a monarchy, or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy." See his paper, Sparks' Washington, ix. 547. See also Elliott's Debates, ii. 52. 213. Washington's own 1790-95. Federal and Anti-Federal Views. 433 human rulers are readily converted into despots; on the other, that human subjects were impatient of even wholesome control, and readily converted into licentious, selfish anarchists.* When at length the business sufferings of the country, and the worthlessness of the old confederacy, led to the formation of the present constitution, the two bodies of whom we have spoken, were forced to compromise, and while the strong Executive, and complete centralization of Hamilton, Jay and Adams had to be abandoned by them and their friends, the complete independence of the States, and the corresponding nullity of Congress, which Patrick Henry, Mason, and Harrison preferred, had also to begiven up, or greater evils follow. In this same spirit of compromise upon which our constitution rested, Washington framed his cabinet, and directed his administration, and it seemed possible that in time the bitterness of feeling which had shown itself before and during the discussion of the great Bond of Union, would die away. But the difficulties of the first administration were enormous, such as no man but Washington could have met with success, and even he could not secure the unanimity he wished for. Among those difficulties none were greater than the payment of the public debt, and the arrangement of a proper system of finance. The party which dreaded anarchy, which favored a strong central rule, an efficient Federal Government, the Federalists, feeling that the whole country, as such, had contracted debts, felt bound in honor and honesty to do every thing to procure their payment; it also felt that the future stability and power of the Federal Government views on the point referred to in the text, may be found in the same volume, pp. 11. 167.187. 203. 211. 258: in a letter to Doctor Gordon, in the North American Review, vol. xxv. p. 254. (October, 1827.) For the views of Hamilton, see North American Review, xxv. 266. Journal of Convention at Phil Jay, Henry, adelphia, May 14, 1787, p. 130. "Sparks' Washington, ix. 510. North American Review, xxv. 263. Madison, "Sparks' Washington, ix. 516. North American Review, xxv. 264. See Washington's opinions relative to the wickedness of the popular leaders. Sparks' Washington, ix. 156. 167. 210. + Jefferson rightly called the constitution "an accommodation of interests." Jefferson's Works, ii. 449. See Sparks' Washington, x. 515 to 526. 434 Federal and Anti-Federal Views. 1790-95 depended greatly upon the establishment of its credit at the outset of its career. The dreaders of centralization, the anti-Federalists, on the other hand, favoring State sovereignty, and wishing but a slight national union, neither desired the creation of a national credit, nor felt the obligation of a national debt in the same degree as their opponents, and feared the creation of a moneyed aristocracy by speculations in the public stocks. When, therefore, Mr. Hamilton, upon whom it devolved, as Secretary of the Treasury, to offer a plan for liquidating the debts of the confederation, attempted the solution of the financial problem, he was certain to displease one party or the other. In generalities compromises had been found possible, but in details they were not readily admitted. Hamilton, moreover, was one of the most extreme friends of centralization, and any measure emanating from him was sure to be resisted. When he brought forward his celebrated series of financial measures, accordingly, the whole strength of the two divisions of which we have been speaking, appeared for and against his plans. And it is to be noted, that the question was not a mere question of Finance; it involved the vital principles for and against which the Federal and Anti-federal parties were struggling. The former actually hoped by means of the Funding and Bank systems, to found a class whose interests would so bind them to the Government as to give it permanency,* while their opponents actually anticipated the formation of a moneyed aristocracy, which would overthrow the power and liberties of the people; they felt they were "sold to stock-holders," and like the Roman debtors condemned to slavery.† In the West the opponents of the Central Government were numerous. Its formation had been resisted, and its measures were almost all unpopular. The Indian War was a cause of complaint, because Harmar and St. Clair had been defeated; the army was a cause of complaint, because it was the beginning of a system of standing armies. The funding system was hated because of its injustice, inasmuch as it aided speculation, and because it would lead to the growth of a favored class; the western posts were held * See letter of Oliver Wolcott, dated March 27, 1790, in Gibbs i. 43. + Address of Democratic Club of Wythe county, Virginia, dated July 4, 1794; it is in the Boston Independent Chronicle of August, 11th, 1794. Jefferson's letter to Washington. (Sparks' Washington, x. 519-521.) In the Democratic newspapers of the time, the Funding system, the Excise, the Bank, and the Indian war are all equally condemned. See, for example, a series of letters on Hamilton's financial measures in the Independent Chronicle of Boston, July, August and September, 1794. 1790-95. First Steps in Opposition to the Excise. 435 by England, the Mississippi closed by Spain, and the frontier ravaged by the savages, and against all the Federal Government i did what? Nothing.* So said the leaders of popular feeling. It was not strange, therefore, that the people of western Pennsylvania, à especially those of foreign birth and descent, should object to the payment of the most unpopular kind of tax for the support of a government which they disliked and had no faith in. Unable readily to reach a market with their produce, they concentrated it into whiskey,† and upon this, while all other agricultural wealth was untouched, the hated tax gatherer was sent to lay his excise. Nor was it the producer only who complained; the consumers also felt aggrieved by the duty laid upon domestic spirits, for they were the common drink of the nation; the star of temperance had not then arisen. It was in December, 1790, that General Hamilton advised the excise on spirits; upon the 3d of the ensuing March the law was passed;§ and instantly the spirit of opposition showed itself. At first this opposition was confined to efforts to discourage persons from holding offices connected with the excise; next associations were formed of those who were ready to "forbear" compliance with the law; ¶ but as men talked with one another, and the excise became more and more identified with the tyranny of Federalism, stronger demonstrations were inevitable, and upon the 27th of July, 1791, a meeting was called at Brownsville, (Redstone,) to consider the growing troubles of the western district of Pennsylvania.** This meeting, which was attended by influential and able men, agreed to a gathering of representatives from the five counties included in the fourth survey under the law in question,ff to be held at Washington, upon the 23d of August. The gathering took place, and we extract from Hamilton's report, of August, 1794, the following sentence in relation to it: The abandonment of the works at Presquile (see ante) excited the western Pennsylvanians especially. + American Pioneer, ii. 215. A horse could carry only four bushels of rye, but the whiskey made from twenty-four. Such was the language of the Pittsburg meeting of August, 1792. American State Papers, vii. 64. § American State Papers, vii. 110. ** American State Papers, xx. 107. ++These counties were Washington, Alleghany, Westmoreland, Fayette and Bedford. (Letter of George Clymer, supervisor of the District in Gibbs, i. 148. See American State Papers, vii. 110.) |