was in fact what it claimed to be was not settled until the short-lived Whisky Insurrection was suppressed. Then it became clear that the laws of the government were not mere pieces of advice but commands that must be obeyed. Alexander Johnson calls attention to the contrast between the debates in Congress before and after the Whisky Insurrection. "Before 1794," he says, "there is in many of the speakers almost an affectation of voluntary obedience to Federal laws, and of monition to others not to provoke resistance. After this year, this characteristic disappears almost entirely, and the debates have no longer the background of possible club law."* QUESTIONS. 1. In his life of Madison, Rivest quotes Hamilton as saying at a cabinet meeting, "A government can never be said to be established until some signal display has manifested its power of military coercion." Was Hamilton right? 2. Washington wrote a letter to Henry Lee, commander of the forces against the Whisky Insurrection, containing the following paragraph: "No citizen of the United States can ever be engaged in a service more important to his country. It is nothing less than to consolidate and to preserve the blessings of that revolution, which at much expense of blood and treasure, constituted us a free and independent nation." Explain and justify this strong language. 3. Conway, in his life of Edmund Randolph, page 243 says: "When insurrection flamed out on the Ohio, the British party attributed it to the seditious influences of the societies *Lalor's Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy and United States History, vol. III, page 1111. †Vol. III, 452. (Democratic,) the French party to machinations of the English." Account for such conflicting explanations. 4. In a letter to Madison written December 28, 1794,* Jefferson said: "1 expected to have some justification of arming one part of society against another; of declaring a civil war before the meeting of that body which has the sole right of declaring war; of being so patient at the kicks and scoffs of our enemies, and rising at a feather against our friends; of adding a million to the public debt and deriding us with recommendations to pay it if we can." Account for Jefferson's dissatisfaction with the conduct of the administration in suppressing the Whisky Insurrection, and discuss the italicized clauses. 5. Henry Adams (in his Life of Gallatin, page 175) says "The Hamiltonian doctrine was that the United States should be a strong government, ready and able to maintain its dignity abroad and its authority at home by arms; Mr. Gallatin maintained that its dignity would protect itself if its resources were carefully used for self development, while its domestic authority should rest only on consent." Discuss the clause in italics; can authority rest on consent? 6. Contrast the conduct of the government with reference to Shays' Insurrection and the Whisky Insurrection. What does the contrast show? 7. Describe the prejudice of English and Americans against an excise. 8. Contrast the attitude of the Congress of the Confederation with that of the government created by the constitution towards the people of the states? 9. Why did they not appreciate the change? 10. What was Hamilton's object in recommending an excise? 11. When did the Whisky Insurrection begin and under what circumstances? 12. What was Randolph's opinion as to the propriety of calling out the militia? 13. State the facts upon which his opinion was based. *Works, vol. IV, pages 110-113. 15. He is accused by his enemies of having purposely incited the Whisky Rebellion; suppose the charge true, do you think he was justified in doing it? 16. What do you think would have been the consequence if a man of indecision, like Buchanan, had been President in 1794? 17. In what respect does the Whisky Insurrection constitute an epoch in the history of the United States? CHAPTER XV. MONROE IN FRANCE. OSEPH FAUCHET, who succeeded Genet as JOSEPH Fauchet on the treaty of 1778. minister from France to this country, comported himself with comparative propriety. He did, indeed, take sharp issue with the United States in its interpretation of the treaty of 1778. But it is difficult not to believe that in this instance France had a good case. The 19th article of that treaty said that no shelter should be given in the ports of the United States or France "to such ships as shall have made prizes of the subjects, people, or property of either of the parties." The United States construed the clause as though it read, "To such ships as shall bring in their prizes." Fauchet insisted on construing it literally, and also urged that "capturing vessels meant the whole fleet, and not the particular vessels that had made the capture. But Adet, who succeeded Fauchet, in the summer of 1795, did not conduct himself with so much moderation. In a letter written shortly after his arrival Adet's letter to in this country (September 28, 1795), he complained bitterly that the United States did not take effective measures to prevent England from seizing American vessels laden with provisions for the Pickering. ports of France. He quoted to Timothy Pickering, who had succeeded Edmund Randolph, as Secretary of State, the following passage in a letter from Jefferson to Pinckney, September 7, 1793: "This act, too, tends directly to withdraw us from the state of peace in which we are wishing to remain. It is an essential character of neutrality to furnish no aids (not stipulated by treaty) to one party which we are not equally ready to furnish to the other. If we permit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we are equally bound to permit it to France. To restrain it would be a partiality which might lead to war with France. And between restraining it ourselves, and permitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully is no difference. She would consider this as a mere pretext of which she would not be the dupe and on what honorable ground could we otherwise explain it? Thus we should see ourselves plunged by this unauthorized act of Great Britain, into a war with which we meddle not and which we wish to avoid, if justice to all parties and from all parties will enable us to avoid it." And then he ventured to characterize the conduct of the United States in the following language: "It cannot, therefore, be doubted that the French Republic has a right to complain if the American government suffers the English to interrupt the commercial relations which exist between her and the United States; if, by a perfidious condescension, it permitted the English to violate a right, which it ought to defend for its honor |