Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO DAVID STUART. - The Writings of George Washington, vol. XI (1785-1790)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. XI (1785-1790)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

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

TO DAVID STUART. - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XI (1785-1790) [1891]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890). Vol. XI (1785-1790).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 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 DAVID STUART.

New York, 28 March, 1790.

Dear Sir,

* * * * * *

I am sorry such jealousies as you speak of should be gaining ground, and are poisoning the minds of the southern people;1 but admit the fact, which is alleged as the cause of them, and give it full scope, does it amount to more than what was known to every man of information before, at, and since the adoption of the constitution? Was it not always believed, that there are some points which peculiarly interest the eastern States? And did any one, who reads human nature, and more especially the character of the eastern people, conceive that they would not pursue them steadily by a combination of their force? Are there not other points, which equally concern the southern States? If these States are less tenacious of their interest, or if, whilst the eastern move in a solid phalanx to effect their views, the southern are always divided, which of the two is most to be blamed? That there is a diversity of interests in the Union none has denied. That this is the case, also, in every State is equally certain; and that it even extends to the counties of individual States can be as readily proved. Instance the southern and northern parts of Virginia, the upper and lower parts of South Carolina, &c. Have not the interests of these always been at variance? Witness the county of Fairfax. Have not the interests of the people of that county varied, or the inhabitants been taught to believe so? These are well known truths, and yet it did not follow, that separation was to result from the disagreement.

To constitute a dispute there must be two parties. To understand it well, both parties, and all the circumstances, must be fully heard; and, to accommodate differences, temper and mutual forbearance are requisite. Common danger brought the States into confederacy, and on their union our safety and importance depend. A spirit of accommodation was the basis of the present constitution. Can it be expected, then, that the southern or the eastern parts of the empire will succeed in all their measures? Certainly not. But I will readily grant, that more points will be carried by the latter than the former, and for the reason which has been mentioned, namely, that, in all great national questions, they move in unison, whilst the others are divided. But I ask again, which is most blameworthy, those who see, and will steadily pursue their interest, or those who cannot see, or, seeing, will not act wisely? And I will ask another question, of the highest magnitude in my mind, to wit, if the eastern and northern States are dangerous in union, will they be less so in separation? If self-interest is their governing principle, will it forsake them, or be less restrained by such an event? I hardly think it would. Then, independent of other considerations, what would Virginia, (and such other States as might be inclined to join her,) gain by a separation? Would they not, most unquestionably, be the weaker party?

Men, who go from hence without feeling themselves of so much consequence as they wished to be considered, and disappointed expectants, added to malignant, designing characters, who miss no opportunity of aiming a blow at the constitution, paint highly on one side, without bringing into view the arguments, which are offered on the other.

It is to be lamented, that the editors of the different gazettes in the Union do not more generally and more correctly (instead of stuffing their papers with scurrility and nonsensical declamation, which few would read if they were apprized of the contents,) publish the debates in Congress on all great national questions. And this, with no uncommon pains, every one of them might do. The principles upon which the difference of opinion arises, as well as the decisions, would then come fully before the public, and afford the best data for its judgment.

Mr. Madison on the question of discrimination was actuated, I am convinced, by the purest motives and most heart-felt conviction; but the subject was delicate, and perhaps had better never been stirred.

The assumption of the State debts by the United States is another subject, that has given rise to long and labored debates, without having yet taken a final form.

The memorial of the Quakers (and a very malapropos one it was) has at length been put to sleep, and will scarcely awake before the year 1808.1

I am, dear Sir, &c.

[1 ]From Dr. Stuart’s Letter.—“A spirit of jealousy, which may become dangerous to the Union, towards the eastern States, seems to be growing fast among us. It is represented, that the northern phalanx is so firmly united, as to bear down all opposition, while Virginia is unsupported, even by those whose interests are similar to hers. It is the language of all I have seen on their return from New York. Colonel Lee tells me, that many, who were warm supporters of the government, are changing their sentiments, from a conviction of the impracticability of union with States, whose interests are so dissimilar to those of Virginia. I fear the Colonel is one of the number. The late applications to Congress, respecting the slaves, will certainly tend to promote this spirit. It gives particular umbrage, that the Quakers should be so busy in this business. That they will raise up a storm against themselves, appears to me very certain. Mr. Madison’s sentiments are variously spoken of; so much so, that it is impossible to ascertain whether they are approved of by a majority or not. The commercial and most noisy part is certainly against them. It appears to me to be such a deviation from the plain and beaten track, as must make every creditor of the public tremble. His plan of discrimination is founded too much on principles of equity to please even those, who have advocated always a discrimination. If the public was to gain what the original holders lost in their sales, I believe it would have pleased this description of citizens better.”—Abingdon, Virginia, March 15th.

[1 ]At the annual meetings of the Quakers, held at Philadelphia and New York, in the year 1789, they had sent memorials to Congress, praying that measures might be adopted for the abolition of the slave-trade. These memorials were referred to a committee, who brought in a report, which was debated from time to time, and after various amendments was reported by the committee of the whole House as follows:

“That the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.

“That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require.

“That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African trade, for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by proper regulations for the humane treatment, during their passage, of slaves imported by the said citizens into the States admitting such importation.”

Such was considered by a majority of Congress as a just interpretation of the Constitution on this subject. The first paragraph is a recital of the clause in the Constitution, which refers to the slave-trade as then existing. By a prospective legislation Congress prohibited the importation of slaves by an act, which took effect in the year 1808. By a subsequent act, passed in the year 1820, the slave-trade was declared to be piracy, and punishable with death.—Story’s Commentaries, vol. iii., p. 205. For a condensed history of slavery in the United States, and of the progress of emancipation, see Kent’s Commentaries, vol. i., p. 347, 2d edition. [Von Holst, Constitutional History of the United States.] Much information respecting colonial slavery, drawn from the best authorities, and judiciously arranged, is contained in Bancroft’s History of the United States, vol. i., chap. 5. See also Walsh’s Appeal, p. 306.—Sparks.