power of the United States into an invincible alliance with that of Britain. Equally fortunate it was for America that this pseudo-war at sea came when England and France were grappling. Otherwise the French marine would have tasted a rare morsel. The new commissioners faced in many ways a harder problem than did their predecessors. Had Pinckney and his associates been recognized at all, they would have dealt upon the basis of existing treaties. But in 1798 the treaty of alliance formally expired after twenty years of existence chiefly nominal. In the heat of passion all treaties with France were denounced in Congress. The new commissioners must build a new foundation. To procure new treaties was a task more formidable than to negotiate under treaties already functioning. Negotiations therefore dragged, and it was not till September 30, 1800, that a convention was finally signed as the temporary substitute for a treaty. In very general terms it undertook to regulate abuses respecting captured vessels, recognized a right to convoy, assured to France most-favored-nation treatment respecting asylum for her privateers, declared for the principle that free ships make free goods, and provided for the reëstablishment of consuls. More important, the French gave up their rights under the Treaty of 1778 in return for abandonment by the United States of claims for damages growing out of seizures of American ships and goods in the Revolutionary and early Napoleonic period. These were chiefly private claims. When the government bartered them away in order to secure a public benefit, it was in honor bound to assume a corresponding obligation toward its own citizens as claimants. The obligations thus assumed, known as the French spoliation claims, have been met most tardily. Even a preliminary payment was deferred till 1891. By 1915, the Court of Claims had cleared its docket, but no payment has been authorized by Congress since 1905. There are sums still in arrears, though all through this long interval Congress has never lacked reminders of its obligation.13 13 Hill, Charles E., Leading American Treaties (New York, 1922). pages 60-75. Napoleon's interest in the success of the negotiations was proclaimed by the appointment of his brother Joseph to head the French delegation. The successful conclusion of a treaty was celebrated by a fête at Joseph's château at which the First Consul himself participated, declaring that the war that just preceded would soon seem nothing but a family quarrel. If Napoleon was satisfied, so too was Adams, who wished the treaty ratified precisely as the commissioners had framed it. The Senate took exception to one article, and stipulated that the treaty should operate for eight years only. But the instrument and its negotiators both fared better than did Jay and his treaty of 1794. The only serious malcontents were the Federalist chieftains who had bolted Adams' leadership. Hamilton objected privately but sustained the treaty publicly. Wolcott and Pickering could see no virtue in it. Pickering was so charitable, however, as to impute the action of his brother Federalist, Ellsworth, not to treachery-his character was too high for such an innuendo but to a mental breakdown. So bitter ran the feuds of partisanship in the electoral year of 1800.14 THE PRESIDENT CLEANS HOUSE A dramatic feature of the crisis which the French question precipitated within the Federalist party, an echo of the President's ill will toward Alexander Hamilton, was the somewhat belated decision of the President to rid himself of Hamilton's lieutenant, Timothy Pickering. On May 10, 1800, the President drafted a note which would seem clear enough to the simplest intelligence. It read as follows: Sir, Philadelphia, May 10th, 1800. As I perceive a necessity of introducing a change in the administration of the office of state, I think it proper to make this communication of it to the present Secretary of State, that he may have an opportunity of resigning if he chooses. I should wish the 14 The aggressive personality of Pickering is estimated favorably in the Life by his son-in-law, Charles W. Upham; unfavorably in the Memoirs and Writings of John Quincy Adams, who shared his father's feud against him. day on which his resignation is to take place to be named by himself. I wish for an answer to this letter on or before Monday morning, because the nomination of a successor must be sent to the Senate as soon as they sit. With esteem, I am, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant, Hon. Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State. JOHN ADAMS. The Honorable Timothy was not easily impressed. He seems to have regarded his position as similar to a cabinet portfolio in England, where the king reigns but does not govern, and ministers bow only to parliamentary majorities. His rather cool reply concluded with a statement that "after deliberately reflecting on the overture you have been pleased to make to me, I do not feel it to be my duty to resign." The "follow up" letter of the irate Adams should be cited in the texts on business correspondence. Sir, Philadelphia, May 12th, 1800. Divers causes and considerations essential to the administration of the government, in my judgment requiring a change in the department of state, you are hereby discharged from any further service as Secretary of State. JOHN ADAMS, President of the United States. Timothy Pickering, Esq., May 12th, 1800.15 The President's temper had been sorely tried. Revenge was sweet. In the last days of his term, Adams was served by a Secretary of other than Washington's choosing, and Hamilton's domination. His choice fell on John Marshall. If the French issue almost monopolized the diplomacy of Adams, at least it was ably handled. Fire-eaters wanted war. But common sense opposed. Adams properly resented the indignities of Talleyrand. His military preparations forced the Frenchman's hand. Thereupon Adams was great enough to extend his own. The Western gains of his predecessor suffered no loss under Adams, while the French 15 To be found, of course, in the Works of John Adams, with much other material pertinent to the case. situation, thanks to war, diplomacy, and a change of heart in France herself, gave evidence in 1801 of marked improvement over what had been the case four years before. American diplomacy was almost in equilibrium. Napoleon took care that it did not remain so long. CHAPTER VI LOUISIANA, THE CONQUEST OF A PACIFIST OR many years before he became president Thomas F interests in America. It was generally expected that his administration would prove friendly to France. Jefferson himself anticipated that this would be the case. He even objected in the spring of 1801 to the names of certain ministers from France on the ground that they were persons to whom it would be difficult for him to confide his inmost thoughts. The golden age now ushering in required candor in its diplomats, and Jefferson anticipated in his relations with France at any rate a series of open covenants openly arrived at. The President was doomed to speedy disillusionment. For he reckoned without knowledge of two of the craftiest men of the age, whom his own candor might baffle from its very unexpectedness, but whose own intentions defied all penetration. To match wits with Napoleon and Talleyrand, the American president would need his utmost guile. It was fortunate in such a contest that the tangle of European affairs worked to American advantage. On November 9, 1799, Napoleon had overthrown the discredited Directory and as First Consul had become the autocrat and arbiter of his country's destinies. On July 31, 1801, he signed the Treaty of Morfontaine by which the previous difficulties with America were set at rest. On the same date he signed another treaty which was as complete an undoing of the first as if expressly designed as such. In the American treaty, as we have seen, Napoleon agreed to discontinue all seizures of American property, and to recognize that all obligations imposed upon America by the Treaty of 1778 were at an end. The Americans in return were |