to employ, and endeavour to bring the subject before you in a less complicated point of view.
The censure of Franklin has three principal objects; the treating with Great Britain at all, the terms of the treaty, and the conduct of the President relative to the negotiation.
I. He asserts, that to form a commercial treaty with Great Britain is a step, at once unnecessary, impolitic, dangerous and dishonourable.
II. That, if forming a treaty with Great Britain were consistent with sound policy, the terms of the present treaty are disadvantageous, humiliating and disgraceful to the United States.
III. That supposing the terms of the treaty to be what every good American ought to approve, yet the conduct of the President, relative to the negotiation and promulgation of it, has been highly improper, and even monarchical, and for which he deserves to be impeached.
If Franklin has made out any one of these assertions; if he has proved, that to treat with Great Britain is unnecessary, impolitic, dangerous and dishonourable, that the terms of the present treaty are disadvantageous, humiliating and disgraceful, or that the President has pursued a conduct in the negotiation for which he deserves to be impeached, you will all do well to join the remonstrating throng, that are now hunting the President to his retreat at Mount Vernon; but if he has proved none of these; if all that he has said on the subject be mere cavilling and abuse, scolding, reviling, and execrating; if he be every where detected of misrepresentation, inconsistency, and flat contradiction; if, in short, it appears, that his ultimate object is to stir up the unwary to an indecent and even violent opposition against the Federal Government, then, if you consult your own interests, you will be upon your guard, and weigh well the consequences, before you determine on such an opposition.
I. Franklin asserts, that to form a commercial treaty with Great Britain is a step, at once unnecessary, impolitic, dangerous and dishonourable.
1. It is unnecessary, because “commercial treaties are an artificial means to obtain a natural end. They are the swathing bands of commerce, that impede the free operations of nature.” This will not detain us long; it is one of those chimerical notions that so well characterize the Parisian school. Nobody but a set of philosophical politicians ever imagined the plan of opening all the ports in the world to all the vessels in the world, “of interweaving and confounding the interests of all nations, of forming the inhabitants of the earth into one vast republic, of rendering the whole family of mankind enlightened, free and happy.” When this plan shall be put in execution with success, I will allow that commercial treaties are unnecessary, but, till then, I must contend for the contrary.
“The two countries,” says Franklin, “if necessary in their products to each other, will seek an intercourse.” This is all I wanted him to admit, to prove that an exchange of commodities between our countries is necessary; for that they have sought an intercourse with each other, and that they do now seek that intercourse more than ever, is most certain; so much so with respect to this country, that about one-half of her exports are now made to Great Britain and her dominions. But, says he, “this exchange ought to be left to itself; for the commerce of nations ought to be like the trade between individuals, who deal with those who give them the best treatment, and the best bargains.” I subscribe to the justice of the latter part of this remark with all my heart; nothing could be more convenient for my purpose; for if nations, like individuals, trade with those who treat them best, and give them the best bargains, how much better treatment and better bargains must you receive from Great Britain than from other nations, when you purchase from her three times as much as from all the rest of the world put together? But, that this extensive exchange, however necessary to both parties, should be left to regulate itself, I cannot believe; for, keeping up the comparison, the commerce of nations being like the trade between individuals, it will ever be found, I believe, that treaties are as necessary to a continuance of good understanding in the former as written contracts are in the latter.
An observation presents itself here, which must not be omitted. Franklin objects to forming a treaty with Great Britain, because, says he, “She is famed for perfidy and double dealing, her polar star is interest, artifice with her is a substitute for nature, &c. &c.” God knows if all this, and much more that he has said, be true; but, if it be, I am sure it makes strongly for a treaty, in place of against one; for proceeding still upon his own comparison, “that commerce between nations is like trade between individuals,” certainly no individual would ever think of dealing to any amount with a person famed for perfidy and double dealing, without binding him down by written articles.
Out of this observation grows another of not less importance. Franklin has taken an infinite deal of pains to persuade you that the President should have formed a treaty with France instead of Great Britain! Your commerce with France, even in the fairest days of her prosperity, never amounted to more than a fifth part of your commerce with Great Britain; and, if what Franklin says be true, France is the most magnanimous, generous, just, honourable, (humane!) rich, and powerful nation upon the earth; and can you then want a written bargain with France, when a mere trifle is the object, and none with Great Britain, when half you have is at stake? Shall it be said that you distrust France, that honourable, that rich nation? that you bind her down with “hard biting laws,” while you admit Great Britain, “whose days,” Franklin assures you, “are numbered,” to a kind of family intercourse, where the bands of affection are supposed to supply the place of law?
Franklin incautiously acknowledges, “that you repeatedly solicited a commercial treaty with Great Britain,” and this is very true. The first question put to Mr. Hammond, Ref 036 on his arrival here, was to know, if he was authorized to treat on that subject. This was also the ostensible object of Mr. Madison’s famous resolutions. “To force the nations of Europe, and particularly Great Britain, to enter into commercial treaties with you.” The words, nations of Europe, were afterwards changed for Great Britain. These resolutions were a long time and are still a favourite theme of panegyric among the French faction; all the democratic societies in the Union have passed resolves in approbation of them; they have been toasted at every patriotic dinner, every civic feast, and even our Franklin himself sings forth their praises. How comes it then, that all these people now deprecate the idea of making a treaty with Great Britain? This will be no longer a secret, when patriot Madison’s real object is known, and to know this you have only to compare his resolutions with a passage in citizen Genet’s instructions. The fact is, patriot Madison had no such thing as a treaty in view; nothing on earth was further from his wishes. War was his object; but this he could not propose in direct terms, and therefore, he proposed such restrictions on the British commerce, as he was sure, if adopted, would produce a war. He failed, and Great Britain, in consenting to what he pretended was the object of his resolutions, and the President and Senate in ratifying it, are now loaded with the execrations of all his partisans. But what must be the patriot’s remorse? What will he be able to say against treating with a nation, whom he wished to force to a treaty with you?
2nd. Treaties are impolitic, because they lead to war; and, consequently a treaty with Great Britain is exceptionable on that account. This is another idea borrowed from the legislators of your sister republic, and surely it is not, for that reason, less whimsical. “Treaties lead to war,” says Franklin, “and war is the bane of republican government.” Treaties of alliance offensive and defensive lead to war, it is their object; but how treaties of amity, commerce and navigation, can lead to war; how a treaty like that under consideration, made expressly to terminate all differences in an amicable manner, to produce satisfaction and good understanding, to establish universal peace and true friendship between the parties, how a treaty like this can lead to war, is to me inconceivable. With just as much reason might it be said, that treaties of peace lead to war, that independence leads to subjugation, that liberty leads to slavery, and that good leads to evil.
“Treaties,” says our demagogue, “are like partnerships, they establish intimacies, which sometimes end in profligacy, and sometimes in ruin and bankruptcy, distrust, strife and quarrel;” and then on he goes with an abusive apostrophe (which decency prevents me from copying here) inferring that you ought, on this account, to avoid a connection, as he terms it, with Great Britain. This comparison is not so good as the last we quoted; treaties of amity and commerce do not