Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow GALLATIN TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER. - The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1

Return to Title Page for The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Economics
Subject Area: Political Theory

GALLATIN TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER. - Albert Gallatin, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1 [1879]

Edition used:

The Writings of Albert Gallatin, ed. Henry Adams (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1879). 3 vols.

Part of: The Writings of Albert Gallatin, 3 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


GALLATIN TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.

21st April, 1810.

Amongst the papers lately laid before the British Parliament respecting American affairs is a despatch from Mr. Erskine to Mr. Canning, dated 4th December, 1808, which principally relates to a conversation between Mr. Erskine and myself. This took place at my house, and without any previous appointment; but, as Mr. Erskine had during the previous week conversed with Mr. Madison, I was prepared for the subjects, and every sentiment I uttered was in perfect unison with those of the President and of the Secretary of State. What was meant by colonial trade has already been explained by Mr. Erskine; but as his own share in those conversations with several members of the Administration is in his despatches altogether omitted, and the conditions expected by the United States from Great Britain are not distinctly explained, it is proper to state briefly the general grounds which were considered here as forming a proper basis for an adjustment of differences, if a conciliatory disposition was found to exist on the part of the British government.

1. Reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake. The President’s proclamation merging in the proposed Non-Intercourse Act, by which the public ships of both Great Britain and France would be excluded from the ports of the United States, the ostensible obstacle to making the reparation acknowledged to be due was removed.

2. Orders of council. To be repealed simply on the ground of the Non-Intercourse Act applying in that event exclusively to France, so long as her decrees violating the neutral rights of the United States continued in force.

3. Impressment of seamen. To be entirely abandoned, America agreeing to exclude from her navigation seamen not citizens of the United States, on the principle contained in the instructions of the 20th May, 1807, to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, which, on account of the rupture of the negotiations, were not in that respect acted upon.

4. Colonial trade. The right to the direct trade, viz., that carried directly from the colonies to the belligerents in Europe, to be waived by the United States, provided that the trade between the United States and the colonies, and that in colonial articles between the United States and other countries, was formally recognized, according to the principles contained in the same instructions.

5. Commercial relations. The partial Non-Importation Act of the United States, and the convoy and other extra duties of Great Britain, to be repealed; and generally every source of collision, arising from that species of commercial warfare, to cease by a mutual repeal of all discriminating duties, in conformity with the instructions to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney before mentioned. The two nations to place each other in every other respect on the footing of the most favored nation.

On this last point my observations were general and equally applying to both countries, the system of restrictions which those of Great Britain had forced the United States to adopt being equally injurious to both. And Mr. Erskine is mistaken in supposing that I would have preferred at first measures of a more decided nature to the embargo.

Mr. Erskine appears, so far as can be inferred from the correspondence now published, to have supposed that in order to induce his government to take into consideration those propositions, and to adopt a conduct consistent with just principles and with the great and permanent interests of Great Britain, it was absolutely necessary to dissipate the prejudices they had imbibed; and his efforts seem accordingly to have been principally used in trying to convince them of the sincere disposition of the members of the American Administration to adjust the differences between the two countries. Knowing the earnestness of his endeavors in promoting that object, the difficulties he had to encounter in his attempts to induce the British Ministry to take a comprehensive and correct view of the subject, and the sanguine temper which he discovered throughout the whole transaction, I feel no disposition to cavil at the general coloring of the language ascribed either to other members of the Administration or to myself. But there is part of the despatch in which I cannot for a moment acquiesce.

From casual expressions imperfectly understood and incorrectly stated, and from what he calls “my manner and slight insinuations,” Mr. Erskine infers that I thought that the President (Mr. Jefferson) had acted with partiality towards France, and that I had attempted to contrast Mr. Madison’s sentiments in that respect with those of the President.

That Mr. Erskine’s object was to use the change of Presidency as an argument to induce the British Ministry to alter their measures towards America, and that the opinions thus ascribed to me were his own, is sufficiently obvious from the whole tenor of his despatch. But the inference as it relates to me is totally erroneous; and Mr. Erskine must have mistaken my assent to the existence of surmises of partiality in Mr. Jefferson towards France for an acquiescence in the truth of them.

I might with truth have spoken of Mr. Madison, not as feeling any particular admiration for the British Constitution and institutions, but as having neither bias nor enmity towards France or England. But I never could or did contrast his sentiments in that respect, or ascribe to him opinions on the subject of our foreign relations at variance with those of Mr. Jefferson.

I know those surmises respecting Mr. Jefferson to be altogether destitute of foundation. To have in the most indirect manner suggested or countenanced a belief in them would have been direct falsehood. So far from having, even by my silence, acquiesced in insinuations of that nature, when Mr. Erskine once, and once only, dropped a hint to that effect, intimating a supposed hostility to England, and that the President had not placed her conduct in a fair light before the public, I immediately repelled the charge, and, amongst other observations, reminded him that the only time when the British government had by the proposed equalization of duties made an approach of a liberal and conciliatory nature towards America, it was immediately met by the President, who had expressly recommended the subject to Congress in his message; and that the plan had been defeated by the clamor of that party in America which was considered the best disposed towards Great Britain. That on that occasion a change took place in my manner is very probable; but Mr. Erskine has ascribed it to a source very different from that which occasioned it. I had very lately been zealously employed in repelling the charge,—a charge which I never could hear without indignation. Eight years of the most intimate intercourse, during which not an act nor hardly a thought respecting the foreign relations of America was concealed, enable me confidently to say that Mr. Jefferson never had in that respect any other object in view but the protection of the rights of the United States against every foreign aggression or injury, from whatever nation it proceeded, and has in every instance observed towards all the belligerents the most strict justice and the most scrupulous impartiality. His character stands not in need of this declaration; it is due to myself.

The groundless accusations of foreign bias and influence have been generated solely by the virulence of party spirit; and they were adopted abroad as an apology or pretence for unprovoked aggressions. A just sense of the injuries received, and the most temperate efforts to obtain redress, constitute what has been called partiality. And it seems to have been forgotten that from the time when Mr. Jefferson became President till the month of August, 1807, no actual aggression on the neutral rights of America had been committed by France; whilst during the same period the nominal blockades of enemies’ ports by England, and the annual actual blockades, as they may be called, of our own; the renewal, contrary to express and mutual explanations, of the depredations on the indirect colonial trade; the continued impressments of our seamen, and the attack on the Chesapeake; had actually taken place.

During that period the laws, the executive acts, the negotiations of the American government could have been directed to that government alone from whom injuries had been received. But from the time when the rights of the United States were invaded by both the belligerents, every public measure has equally embraced both; the like efforts, founded on the same basis, have uniformly, though without success, been made to obtain redress from both; and the correspondence now published furnishes at least irrefragable proofs of the earnest desire of Mr. Jefferson’s Administration to adjust the differences with Great Britain, and of their disposition to remove for that purpose whatever might serve as the shadow of a pretence for a denial of justice on her part.