Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT. - The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799)

Return to Title Page for The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

TO THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT. - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 8 (Letters and State Papers 1782-1799) [1853]

Edition used:

The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856). 10 volumes. Vol. 8.

Part of: The Works of John Adams, 10 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.


TO THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT.

Philadelphia, 14 April, 1797.

The President of the United States requests the Secretary of State1 to take into his consideration the following questions,2 and make report of his opinion in writing, viz.:

1. Whether the refusal to receive Mr. Pinckney, and the rude orders to quit Paris and the territory of the republic, with such circumstances of indignity, insult, and hostility, as we have been informed of, are bars to all further measures of negotiation. Or, in other words, will a fresh mission to Paris be too great a humiliation of the American people in their own sense and that of the world?

2. If another mission be admissible, can any part, and what parts, or articles, of the treaty of amity and commerce with Great Britain be offered to France, or ultimately conceded to that power in case of necessity, if demanded by her?

3. What articles of the treaty of alliance, and of the treaty of commerce, with France, should be proposed to be abolished?

4. Whether it will be prudent to say anything concerning the consular convention with that power, and, if it will, what alterations in it should be proposed?

5. Whether any new articles, such as are not contained in either of our treaties with France or England, shall be proposed, or can be agreed to, if proposed by the French government?

6. What documents shall be prepared to send to France, as evidence of insult and injuries committed against the commerce of the United States by French ships of war or privateers, or by French commissioners, agents, officers, or citizens?

7. In what terms shall remonstrances against spoliations of property, capture of vessels, imprisonment of masters and mariners, cruelties, insults, and abuses of every kind to our citizens, be made?

8. In what terms shall restitution, reparation, compensation, and satisfaction, be demanded for such insults and injuries?

9. Shall demand be made of payment to our citizens for property purchased by the French government in Europe, or in the East and West Indies?

10. Shall demand be made of the French government of payment for vessels and cargoes captured and seized, whether by ships of war or private ships?

11. Shall any commission of inquiry and examination, like that with England, be agreed to?

12. What articles in the British treaty can be offered to France without compensation, and what with compensation, and what compensation shall be demanded?

13. Shall a project of a new treaty, abolishing the old treaties and consular convention, be proposed to France?

14. Shall such a project, with a project of instructions to the minister, be proposed and laid before the Senate for their advice and consent before they be sent to Europe?1

John Adams.

[1 ]The same form addressed to the Secretaries of the Treasury and of War, and the Attorney-General.

[2 ]It has been affirmed that Mr. Adams decided all questions with little regard to his cabinet. The sequel will show that although he settled principles for himself, he was elaborate in the submission of all the details to their consideration, and ready to follow their advice so long as his confidence in them lasted.

[1 ]It is to be regretted that the limits of this work will not permit of the insertion of the opinions of the cabinet officers, often quite long, upon the various topics on which they were consulted by Mr. Adams. In the present instance, in particular, though the first to develop the difference of policy between the President and the two principal ministers, which afterwards caused the disruption of the cabinet, it is only possible to give a meagre abstract of their views. It should be borne in mind, that they had been at first decidedly opposed to any further measures of a conciliatory character towards France, that in this they had been overruled by the President, and that they had found no support for their opinion in the quarter to which they habitually looked for direction—Mr. Hamilton. But for this accidental coincidence in the views of the President and Mr. Hamilton, it is not unlikely that the breach would have commenced at this moment, so little did the ministers feel under any obligations to sympathise with the responsible head of the administration.

Mr. Wolcott’s answer to the above questions is to be found at large in Mr. Gibbs’s “Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams,” vol. i. pp. 502-517, a work more valuable for the original documents it contains, than for the spirit in which it is written.

The answer of Mr. Pickering is equally long, but much less ambiguous. It advocates further negotiation, as decidedly demanded by the country, but it would dispense with all “fraternizing words.” It points out certain alterations in the former treaties with France, which might be made as concessions, to place her more on the same footing on which Great Britain had been placed by Jay’s treaty; and specifies others, as demands to be made of her. The 9th, 10th, and 11th questions are answered affirmatively; the following ones in the negative. To the 14th and last, involving an important principle, he says:

“A project of instructions for negotiating a treaty with Spain, was laid before the Senate in 1792, and approved. The peculiar situation of the United States, and especially of the executive branch of the government, in relation to France, would render our adoption of that precedent highly expedient, if we could trust to the fidelity of all the members of the Senate. There was no inducement of passions or interest to betray the instructions to Spain; but any instructions, alike communicated, for negotiating a new treaty with France, would reach the Directory sooner than we could send them to our minister.”

Mr. McHenry is still more decided for further negotiation, and for an offer to modify every commercial inequality between France and England. He is adverse to any changes in the old treaties with France, excepting only the mutual guaranties. He answers the 4th question in the negative. To the 6th, he proposes the same course pursued in the case of Great Britain. To the 7th, he recommends mild and calm terms. He proposes in the ninth case, that the claims be urged, but not demanded. He takes the affirmative of the 10th and 11th, the negative of the 13th and 14th questions, and concludes by saying:

“In the exercise of this branch of executive power, it will be found the best course to reduce the coöperation of the Senate to the appointment of the negotiator and the ultimate fiat or negative. Much, I believe, has been already done to this end, and it may not, for any partial reason, be expedient to relinquish the ground which has been gained.”

Mr. Lee favors a new mission, and every equalization of commercial rights between the United States and France and England, even to the surrender of the principle of free ships, free goods, in the French treaty. He also suggests changes in the old treaties; thinks a discussion of the consular convention not necessary, but, if entered into at all, proposes modifications. He thinks the terms used in remonstrance should be those of candor and conciliation, but explicit, argumentative, and independent. The demands for reparation should also be moderate and reasonable. The 9th question is answered in the negative. The 10th and 11th, in the affirmative. In reply to the 12th, he suggests the offer made in his answer to the first, France retaining her priority of date as to all articles in the treaties of 1778 not modified. He favors the idea of abolishing these treaties, but would not propose it to France. Lastly he says “no” to the 14th question, for three reasons, the third of which is,—

“Because no project consistent with the honor and interest of this country can be proposed at this time, which will be satisfactory to the Senate and to France too. They are so wide in their ideas and principles, that if ever they meet it must be in process of time, which is constantly producing new events. A project of this kind, then, if laid before the Senate and approved by them, would increase the chance of disappointment in the mission, in proportion as the powers of negotiation are restrained and the sentiments of the Senate are publicly known.”

“In the critical situation of things the best mode seems to be to communicate, in explicit instructions, what stipulations the envoy may make, and what he must not agree to, if proposed by France.”

The aversion of two of the cabinet officers to the very proposal of a mission is now clearly seen in their own letters. Mr. Hamilton was obliged to speak plainly, to check them. On the 30th of March he wrote thus to Wolcott:

“I ought, my good friend, to apprise you, for you may learn it from no other, that a suspicion begins to dawn among the friends of the government, that the actual administration is not much averse from war with France. How very important to obviate this!”

It also appears from the Hamilton papers that Mr. Pickering had already received from the President a check upon his eagerness to accumulate matter for irritation with France in advance of the assembling of Congress; that he immediately and secretly appealed from this judgment to Mr. Hamilton, who in reply hesitatingly counselled acquiescence. This was done in less than four weeks after Mr. Adams’s induction into office. See the letters between these parties, indicating their disposition at this time. Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. pp. 219, 226, 229, 239, 246, 249.