From John Jay to Robert Goodloe Harper, 19 January 1796
To Robert Goodloe Harper
New York 19th. Jany 1796
Sir
A Friend of mine lately sent me your address to your constituents relative to the Treaty.1 I have read it with Pleasure— Had all the publications on that Subject been written with with equal Knowledge and Attention, or with equal Candor and Decorum, more Truth would have been disseminated, and less Irritation excited.2
I observe in it the following Paragraph—vizt. “Objections both personal and constitutional have been made to Mr. Jay. He has been said to be prepossessed in Favor of Britain, and an avowed Enemy to France. If this had been true, it would have been a sufficient reason for rejecting him—but it is not true. I can contradict it, and do, on my own knowledge. I heard Mr. Jay express in public and private, and those who have been much more and much longer acquainted with him, assure me that he always has expressed the utmost Pleasure in the french Revolution, and the warmest wishes for its Success. the greatest Dislike for the former Government, and Sentiments of the highest Esteem and Respect for the Nation”
I am much obliged to you Sir for this vindication, but it being summary and in general Terms, and comprehending only one of the Points, I think it best in order to obviate ^all^ further Questions, to state particularly my Sentiments relative to them both.
It has for obvious Reasons been judged convenient to represent me as being strongly attached to the Interests of Britain, and as being equally hostile to those of France. Before I take notice of either, I will premise—that as it is my Duty, so it is my Inclination and Resolution never to be a Partizan of any foreign Court or Nation; but to be and remain with those independent and genuine americans who think it unwise and improper to meddle in foreign Politics; and who regard all foreign Interference in our Counsels, as derogatory to the Honor and dangerous to the best Interests of the united States.
Not being of british Descent, I cannot be influenced by that Delicacy towards their national Character, nor feel that Interest in ^Partiality for^ it, which ^not being unnatural,^ might otherwise be supposed ^not to be unat ural^ unnatural. I nevertheless continue to concur in and to express those Sentiments of Esteem for that nation which are expressed, and I believe with great Sincerity, in the early Journals of Congress.3
It is not from the Characters of this or that administration, or prevailing Party in the Government, that the character of a Nation is to be inferred. A true Judgment of it can no otherwise be formed, than by observing the general Tenor of their Dispositions and Conduct viewed under all their Circumstances, and in all their Relations, during a long Course of Time. It certainly is chiefly owing to Institutions Laws and Principles of Policy & Government originally derived to us as british colonists, that with the Favor of Heaven the People of this Country are what they are.
Notwithstanding the Tendency which all arbitrary Governments and particularly the long Reign of such a monarch as Louis the fifteenth, have to debase and corrupt their Subjects, the People of France continued to be highly distinguished by their Talents and by their Progress in the arts both of Peace and of War. I experienced their Hospitality and ^It is true that I^ returned from that country to this, not only ^with opinions unfavorable to their court; but not only^ without a wish unfriendly to them, but on the contrary with Sentiments of goodwill and Regard. That I have from early Life expressed a strong Dislike to the former arbitrary Government of France is well known — the more I became acquainted with it, the more it appeared to
me to be a Government always dreadful in Theory; and always more or less ^so^ in Practice, according to the characters of those by whom its powers were exercised—
In the Revolution which put a Period to it, I did cordially rejoice, I mean the one which limited the Power of the King & restored Liberty to the People. Tje able and patriotic Assembly which concerted and accomplished that Revolution, and the People and Army who concurred in and supported it, did themselves immortal Honor; and impressed me, (altho my Judgment did not accord with all4 their Acts) with great Respect and Esteem for them, and with the warmest wishes for the ultimate Success and Perfection of the Constitution and Government which they established—
The Successors of that memorable Assembly found occasion in the im proper Conduct of the king to produced another Revolution. ^ey abolished the Constitution and Government which had been just established, and brought the King to the Scaffold.
This Revolution did not give me pleasure. I derived no Satisfaction from the misfortunes ^disastrous Fate^ of a Prince who (from whatever motives) had done us essential Services, and to whom we had frequently presented the strongest assurances of our attachment and affection. This Revolution had in my Eye more the appearance of a woe than a Blessing.— It has caused Torrents of Blood and of Tears, and been marked in its Progress by atrocities very injurious to the Cause of Liberty, and offensive to morality and Humanity. But this Revolution having abolished the monarchy, declared France a Republic, and recieved the general Concurrence of the nation, a new Constitution became indispensable: and as, in case this Revolution should be overthrown by the combined powers, they would doubtless dictate what that new Constitution should be, (an Interference not to be submitted to) I wished Success to the Revolution so far as it had for its Object, not the disorganizing and managing of other States, which ought neither to be attempted nor permitted, but the exclusive ordering of all internal affairs, and the Establishm[en]t. of any Constitution which the Nation should prefer. It gives me Pleasure to find that one has lately been so established; and I sincerely wish it may be the means of giving permanent Peace Liberty and good Government to France.—5
As to the Issue of the War— I am far from desiring that either France Britain or Germany, or any other Power, should acquire a decided Preponderancy in Europe. In my opinion it would conduce more to the Welfare and Peace of those nations, and also of the united States, that they should remain in capacity to limit and repress the ambition of each other.
I will conclude this letter with an Extract from one which I wrote to the late Secretary of State, dated at London on the 21 November 17946—vizt.
“I daily become more and more convinced of the general friendly Disposition of this Country towards our’s— Let us cherish it.— Let us cultivate Friendship with all nations.— By treating them all with Justice and Kindness, and by preserving that Self Respect which forbids our yielding to the Influence or Policy of any of them, we shall, with the Divine Blessing, secure Peace union and Respectability”— with Sentiments of Esteem & Regard I have the Honor to be Sir Your most obt. & hble Servt
Robert Goodloe Harper Esqr
Dft, NNC (EJ: 90212; EJ: 12778). Endorsed. , 2: 261–65, with notation “This letter was published by Mr. Harper, at Mr. Jay’s request”; , 4: 198–203. For the printed texts, see below. On the relationship of this letter to the defense of the Jay Treaty, see the editorial note “Aftermath of the Jay Treaty: Responses, Ratification, and Implementation,” above.
1. Robert Goodloe Harper (1765–1825) was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina, 1795–1801. Failing reelection in 1800, he moved to Maryland, where he practiced law, served in the War of 1812 as a major general, and was a Federalist senator from Maryland and an unsuccessful Federalist vice-presidential candidate in 1816. Joseph Cox, Champion of Southern Federalism: Robert Goodloe Harper of South Carolina (Port Washington, 1972), 61–65, 80n13.
Harper sent periodic reports on his congressional activities to his constituents. His address dated 17 Dec. 1795, justifying his support of the Jay Treaty and responding to the vociferous attacks on it in South Carolina, especially one by John Rutledge, included a defense of JJ and his role in negotiating the treaty. An Address from Robert Goodloe Harper, of South-Carolina, to His Constituents, containing his Reasons for approving the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, with Great-Britain was printed in Philadelphia at the end of 1795 and reprinted in Boston in 1796 (, series 1, nos. 28802, 30538). Harper’s address succeeded in placating his constituents, who, following a meeting of the leading citizens at the county court house on 2 Apr. 1796, responded with an address confirming their support, despite their continued reservations about the treaty. They also reelected Harper for two more terms. See the address of Newberry County, S.C., to Harper, 12 Apr. 1796, printed in the South Carolina State Gazette (Charleston), 6 May, City Gazette (Charleston), 12 May, and Minerva (New York), 26 May 1796.
The unidentified friend who sent JJ a copy of Harper’s address was probably RK, but no letter forwarding it has been found. On 19 Jan. 1796, JJ sent RK his letter to Harper and a copy of it originally intended for publication by John Fenno in the Philadelphia-based Gazette of the United States, ALS, NHi: King (EJ: 00866). In letters to RK (not found), Harper advised against publication of JJ’s letter in the newspapers and suggested addition of a note in a new edition of his address. Instead JJ proposed, and RK and Harper agreed to, the inclusion of the letter in an appendix to the pamphlet. See JJ to RK, 19 Jan., ALS, NHi: King (EJ: 00866); 27 Jan., ALS, NHi: King (EJ: 00867); and 2 Feb. 1796, ALS, NHi: King (EJ: 00868); RK to JJ, 29 Jan., below; and Harper to JJ, 30 Jan. 1796, ALS, NNC (EJ: 08640); and , 2: 55–56.
Harper’s address and JJ’s letter were printed by Thomas Bradford in a pamphlet published in Philadelphia in February 1796 under the title An address from Robert Goodloe Harper, of South Carolina, to his constituents, containing his reasons for approving of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, with Great Britain. To which is annexed a letter from Governor Jay to the author, printed from the original (Early Am. Imprints, series 1, no. 30540). In March it was published by James Rivington in a New York edition by printers Thomas and James Swords (, series 1, nos. 30539, 47796). Several newspapers, including the Salem Gazette, Rural Repository (Leonmister), Courier of New Hampshire (Concord), and the South Carolina State Gazette (Charleston), also published it in serial form. For notices of the publication and sale of the pamphlets, see, for example, Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia), 12, 18 and 19 Feb.; Massachusetts Mercury (Boston), 12 and 23 Feb.; Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), 17 Feb.; Columbian Centinel (Boston), 13 and 24 Feb.; Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser, 19, 23, 25 Feb., 2 and 3 Mar.; American Minerva, 5–25 Mar. 1796.
Following publication of the pamphlet, JJ’s letter was reprinted in numerous newspapers, largely in northern states, including the Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), 16 Feb.; American Minerva (New York), 18 Feb.; Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia), 20 Feb.; Herald (New York), 20 Feb.; Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser, 23 Feb.; New-Jersey Journal (Elizabethtown), 24 Feb.; Massachusetts Spy (Worcester), 24 Feb.; Federal Orrery (Boston), 25 Feb.; Albany Gazette, 26 Feb.; Impartial Herald (Newburyport), 26 Feb.; Columbian Centinel (Boston), 27 Feb.; Connecticut Courant (Hartford), 29 Feb.; State Gazette (Providence), 29 Feb.; Hampshire Gazette (Northampton), 2 Mar.; Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth), 2 Mar.; Rural Repository (Leominster), 3 Mar.; Virginia Gazette (Richmond), 4 Mar.; Amherst Village Messenger, 8 Mar.; New Hampshire and Vermont Journal (Walpole), 8 Mar.; Courier of New Hampshire (Concord), 14 Mar.; North-Carolina Journal (Halifax), 14 Mar.; Otsego Herald; or Western Advertiser (Cooperstown), 24 Mar.; Federal Mirror (Concord), 26 Apr. 1796. Pieces supporting the sentiments expressed in JJ’s letter and Harper’s address appeared in the Salem Gazette, 1 Mar. and Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth), 2 Mar. 1796.
Some responses to JJ’s letter challenging his positive portrayal of Great Britain appeared in the newspapers, particularly the “The Mask Thrown Off,” in the Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia), 4 Mar. 1796; “An Enemy to Oppression,” Argus, Greenleaf’s New Daily Advertiser (New York), 8 Mar.; Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia), 17 Mar.; and “Publius”, nos. 1–6, in Greenleaf’s New-York Journal, 29 Mar., 1 Apr. and 5 Apr.; and Argus, Greenleaf’s New Daily Advertiser (New York), 29, 30, 31 Mar., and 2 Apr. 1796. Such comments also interpreted JJ’s letter as indicating he was in fact a royalist, at best a supporter of limited monarchy, and not of a representative republic.
2. This sentence does not appear in the published text.
3. Probably a reference to pieces like the “Address to the People of Great Britain,” 21 Oct. 1774, drafted by JJ, on which see , 1: 95–107; , 1: 82–90.
4. The word “all” was omitted in the version of JJ’s letter printed in the American Minerva (New York), an error reported as a source of confusion by “A Federalist” in that newspaper on 4 Mar.
5. For additional comments on the French Revolution, see, for example, JJ to David Hartley, 14 Dec. 1789; to AH, 11 Apr. 1793; and to Grenville, 7 Sept. 1794; and, for the background, the editorial notes “John Jay and the Issue of Neutrality” and “John Jay and the Genet Affair,” , 5: 479–90, 546–61; JJ to Ferdinand Grand, 1 Mar. 1790, Dft, NNC (EJ: 12787); and to PAJ, 25 Nov. 1797, ALS, NNGL (EJ: 90551).
6. See JJ to ER, 21 Nov. 1794, above.