328

duct of the Executive in the Foreign Affairs of the United States, connected with the Mission to the French Republic, during the years 1794, 95 and 96. Regarding this View, Washington said:

"As to the propriety of exposing to public view his [Monroe's] private instructions and correspondence with his own government, nothing needs be said; for I should suppose that the measure must be reprobated by the well-informed and intelligent of all nations, and not less by his abettors in this country, if they were not blinded by party views, and determined at all hazard to catch at anything, that in their opinion will promote them. The mischievous and dangerous tendency of such a practice is too glaring to require a comment.” *

*Ford's ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. xiii., p. 451. See also Sparks' ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. x., pp. 226, 504; Gilman, Life of Monroe, pp. 65-73, 221-229; S. B. Washburn, Foreign Relations of the United States, p. 129 (1876); Rosenthal, America and France, p. 295. Among contemporary sketches of the progress of events as affecting the relations of United States and France are: William Duane, History

Perhaps the sharpest criticism of Monroe's conduct in France is contained in Washington's Farewell Address, in which we read:

"Constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in a condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet with being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more, there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

of the French Revolution, with a Free Examinetion of the Dispute between the French and American Republics (Philadelphia, 1798); J. Dennis, Address on the Origin, Progress, and Present State of French Aggression (Philadelphia, 1798); Robert Walsh, Enquiry with the Past and Present Relations of France and the United States (London, 1811); Camillus, History of French Influence in the United States (Philadelphia, 1812).

329

acts

But

On March 4, 1797, the second President of the United States was inaugurated. Washington had come into office as the unanimous choice of the people, and to a great extent had been free from party distinctions. Adams entered office as the candidate of a single party, and during his whole term was made to realize that his actions and the measures adopted by his party were closely watched by a well-organized and powerful opposition. He was closely watched also by political rivals in his own party; and the obstinacy of his character did not tend to bind the factions of his party closer together, but rather to alienate the confidence and respect of the party which had elected him. It is not necessary to discuss here whether Adams or his political rivals adopted a proper course of conduct; but the fact remains that, before two years of his term had elapsed, he had broken with the most powerful members of his own party, and was compelled also to reorganize his Cabinet

completely. Undoubtedly he was a man of wonderful ability and uprightness of character, but even his admirers admitted that he was too quick, too impatient of opposition, and highly inflammable. It is difficult to get a just estimate of his character either from the various biographies, the newspapers of the times, or the more extended histories of the period. Those who criticize Adams, speak of his fickleness and irritability, his obstinacy, his inconsistency and his inordinate vanity; they say that his administration was devoid of rule or precise object. His principal biographer, C. F. Adams, on the other hand, asserts that he was "a wise, an energetic, an independent, and an honest president;" that he was badly used by the Federalists, to say the least,- especially by Alexander Hamilton and that he was betrayed by his own party.*

* See also Morse's opinion, John Adams, p. 265 et seq.

330

After Jefferson had been installed as President of the Senate, the House assembled in the chamber of the Representatives where Adams was inaugurated, the oath being administered by Chief Justice Ellsworth of the Supreme Court.* He then delivered his inaugural address. At the beginning of his administration, Adams made the mistake of retaining Washington's Cabinet. A more unsuitable set of co-workers under such a President as Adams could hardly have been conceived. They were men without a public following; "unreliable gaugers as a whole of the public will and narrow interpreters of public duty;" and all looking for inspiration to Hamilton, of all men the one whom Adams especially disliked. The Cabinet did not regard

the new President as the one to whom they owed their places and whom they must faithfully serve, but rather as an erratic old man, whom they must pamper while they ran the government to suit themselves, or rather, to suit the dictates of Hamilton. It is difficult to see why Adams retained these men, unless he did not desire to make a change under existing conditions or was reluctant to set the first example of retiring high counsellors with the chief executive who

* Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 354–355. Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 228-232; John Adams, Works, vol. ix., pp. 107111; Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, 2d session, pp. 1582-1586; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i'., pp. 11-13.

had summoned them.* But it was not long before irreconcilable opinions forced a readjustment in the membership of the Cabinet, which will be explained later.

The state of foreign affairs at this time was perplexing to the administration. Pinckney had been driven out of France, American merchantmen had been plundered by French vessels, and relations with other countries were unsatisfactory.

When intelligence of Pinckney's failure reached America, the Federalists became exceedingly angry, and would have severed all relations with France, even if such action resulted in war. The majority of the Cabinet favored this course, but both Hamilton and Adams opposed it, as the United States was unprepared for war. There was no navy; the treasury was in no condition to withstand the additional strain; and Adams and Hamilton realized that such a step would throw the country into close dependence on England, which in itself was dangerous. They therefore preferred to settle the matter by further negotiations, and while these were in progress, to place the country in a better state of defence. Hamilton argued that the decision of the French Directory not to receive an American minister until all griev ances were redressed, did not mean that a special mission would not be received. If, on the other hand,

Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 357.