George Washington Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Carrington, Edward" AND Correspondent="Washington, George"
sorted by: date (descending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0065

To George Washington from Edward Carrington, 27 April 1796

From Edward Carrington

Richmond April 27. 1796

Dear Sir

The meeting of the people of this City & vicinity, of which I did myself the Honor to inform you a few days ago, as being in agitation,1 took place the day before yesterday, the 25th Inst. and the enclosed paper of Davis of this date, contains the proceedings of the day, also a very correct statement of the manner in which they were conducted.2 While I enjoy the satisfaction of being enabled to give you this evidence of the popular sentiment, expressed in a very numerous meeting, in opposition to the declaration of a thin one in the same place on a former occasion, I feel it incumbent on me, on the score of exhibiting the true complexion of our political situation to apprise you that the Enemies of the Treaty, or rather of Government, are putting in practice every art and effort to obtain subscriptions to a counteracting paper—as a sample of the means they descend to for the purpose of imposing on the people at a distance, I also enclose a paper of Dixon of yesterday (the 26th), in which, under the Richmond head, you will find a Representation of the proceedings of the day which exhibits, by the suppression of truth, a most absolute falshood.3 The Resolutions annexed to his representation are those mentioned in Davis’s paper as proposed by the opposers of the Treaty, and were eventually rejected by the adoption of that which they were offered in opposition to, yet, from the representation, it would appear that the one really carried by a considerable majority was not even listened in the meeting—corresponding committees you see are announced by that party, & there will doubtless be great activity on that side, while, unfortunately, as usual, great lassitude will prevail on the other. I trust & hope they will not succeed, but under such circumstances evil is certainly to be apprehended. there never was a crisis at which the activity of the Friends of Government was more urgently called for—some of us here have endeavoured to make this impression in different parts of the Country—the events of a few days will shew how successfully. I shall endeavor to give you as frequent & correct information as events shall enable me,4 and have the Honor to be, with unfeigned attachment Dear Sir Your Most Obedt Humble servt

Ed. Carrington

P.S. the statement in Davis’s Paper is I believe a little incorrect as to School Boys & apprentices Signing the Petition of the supporters of the Treaty—how it is on the other side I know not.

ALS, DLC:GW.

2Augustine Davis (c.1752–1825) printed The Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser (Richmond). According to the account that paper published on 27 April, “a very numerous meeting of the inhabitants of the City of Richmond and its vicinity” approved “by a large majority” this resolution: “That the peace, happiness, and welfare, not less than the national honor of these United States depend, in a great degree, upon giving, with good faith, full effect, to the treaty lately negociated with Great-Britain.”

The same newspaper reported that former Jay Treaty opponent Henry Banks presented the supportive resolution. “He observed that while the treaty was unratified, disliking some of its parts, he thought himself justifiable in opposing it, but after it had received all the constitutional sanctions of a law of the land, he conceived it to be a violation of national faith to defeat its operation, and from the present circumstances of affairs, he thought it the true interest of the nation that it should be carried into effect … The opponents made a proposition that no person should be permitted to sign the measures to be adopted but those qualified to vote for a Representative—it was observed by the other side that instructions should be signed by freeholders only, but that every citizen had a right to petition, and might with propriety sign it. These preliminaries being understood some amendments were proposed to the resolution, and other resolutions offered by the opposers to the treaty, but they barely ensued without the question being put upon them … the arguments were lengthy, and towards the conclusion warm, and some small disorder appeared in the meeting, but, upon a call of order it subsided … the question was put on the resolution proposed by Mr. Banks, and was carried by a majority I think of about five to three—It might be more or it might be less, but the majority was so evident that it was admitted.”

The same newspaper then reported that the clerk had read a petition to the U.S. House of Representatives (also printed in the Gazette), but “the minority” interrupted the proceedings to announce that “they should lay a paper, containing their sentiments, upon the table, for the signature of those who chose to sign, and the other side might do the same—They also gave notice that they would open committees of correspondence. The meeting was now more numerous than I ever saw one at this place upon similar occasions—it consisted of inhabitants of the town, of the county, and most of the adjacent counties, and of strangers—After the votes were taken, many went off without signing on either side—but both sides of the question I have reason to believe, were signed by some of every description of citizens above, and by the young gentlemen students of law, school boys, apprentices, &c and many signatures were obtained on both sides out of doors after the meeting broke up.” In consequence, Davis doubted “whether their numbers of subscribers be a fair criteria to judge of the sense of the meeting.”

3John Dixon (1768–1805), the son of Virginia printer John Dixon, Sr. (d. 1791), published a number of newspapers in Richmond between 1791 and 1799.

Dixon’s newspaper at this time was the Richmond Chronicle. The 26 April 1796 issue included this item: “Yesterday, at the instance of some friends to the British Treaty, a Meeting, (on short notice) was held at the Capitol in this City, when a Resolution was proposed, expressing the wish of the People, that Congress would carry that Treaty into full effect, without any reservation as to Constitutional impediments:—In opposition to that Resolution, the following were offered, and subscribed by a vast number of the Meeting, and are now circulated thro’ this City and county of Henrico, for the subscription of all those who concur in the sentiments therein expressed, and who are willing to leave the Representatives of the People in Congress to the free exercise of their Rights, till they shall be explained or altered in a Constitutional mode.”

The same newspaper then printed three resolutions: “That no reason, as yet presents itself to justify an apprehension that those Representatives will abuse the confidence of their Constituents, or will be unmindful of the great interests of their Country. … That when any difference may arise between the co[-]ordinate departments of government respecting their several functions, it is unsafe for the people to decide between them, except in those Constitutional modes, which combining a just representation of the people, with the means of free enquiry and of full information, will be most likely to ensure the Peace of our Country and the improvement of its Constitution. … That it is not necessary or expedient, at this time, for the People of this District to offer any Instructions to their Representatives in the Congress of the United States, and that they do firmly rely, that he will heartily co-operate with the Representatives of the good People of these States in Congress, to preserve the sacred Principles of the Constitution, and to promote the best Interests of our common Country.”

Index Entries