To George Washington from Edward Carrington, 9 May 1796
From Edward Carrington
Richmond May 9. 1796
Dear Sir
I have been honored with your favor of the 1st Instant, and have the satisfaction of seeing in the papers, the decision of the House of Representatives on the Resolution for carrying into effect the British Treaty.1 I presume the struggle will not be renewed on the appearance of the Bill—the party in opposition has evidently been weakened by the memorials received before the passage of the Resolution, and this influence is certainly encreasing by the arrivals of other memorials.
With pleasure I can assure you of my confirmation in the opinion which I ventured to communicate to you, as to the will of Virginia on this subject.2 the apparent certainty of a decision of the question, before the acts of the people could arrive, have prevented their being numerous—enough has however been done to ground an opinion, that the popular wish of the Country is for the execution of the Treaty; nor would it be unreasonable to conclude, that there is a turn as to the general administration.
In mine of the 27th Ult. I suggested the possibility of evil, from efforts of opposition, by means of corresponding committees. the attempt has been made here, under the Guidance of Mr Campbell who, with a few others, nearly self elected assumed the office of a Committee for this place—their circular letters have been dispatched to all quarters; but, so far as we have heard, they met with little attention, and, in some instances, it is known, that they have been treated as presumptuous.
I have already done myself the pleasure of communicating to you, the proceedings of this City & its vicinity—you have also seen in the papers, those of fairfax & Frederick Counties, & the Town of Fredericksburg.3 the two Counties on the Eastern shore, I am undoubtedly informed have sent to their Representative Mr Page, an instruction to vote for appropriations. Strong Resolutions to the same effect are gone from King William County & the City of Williamsbg and meetings in Fauquier & Berkeley Counties, I have heard have done the same.4 But the most decisive mark of the popular opinion has been manifested at Petersburg, in a meeting of a great number of Citizens from the neighboring Counties, called for the avowed purpose of censuring the refusal of the papers, & advising the defeat of the Treaty. the history of this business is as follows—the Merchants of that Town, having, on Sunday the 24th of April, Assembled in the Court House, for the purpose of agreeing to an address similar to that of the Merchants of Philadelphia,5 a number of opposition characters, intruded on them for the purpose of intimidating them, or to over-rule their measures—the merchants withdrew to another place & compleated their business without further interruption; but after the departure of the merchants, the remaining persons organized themselves under a chairman & Secretary, & passed a Resolution for calling a meeting of the neighbouring Counties on the Sunday following (the 1st May)—the enclosed paper contains the proceedings of this Body on the 24th apl which carry on their Face, both the object of the call, & the confidence with which it was made6—for good reasons the Petersburg Press, which is in the hands of the Secretary of the first meeting, has never announced the issue of that held on the 1st May7—we are however well informed what it was; the Meeting was numerous, & those who called it presumed much on their Strength, having all the orators on their side, who it seems displayed great talents on a proposition for condemning the refusal of the papers—it was opposed by only one plain Man, and on a division was lost. the meeting then passed a Resolution expressive of their desire that the Treaty be executed and quietly adjourned, Sine die. I have been particular in relating this transaction, because it marks, in a striking manner the sense of our Farmers & Planters, who had been called together, under the name of a very popular Man, for an avowed contrary object, and an additional prejudice against coinciding with the Merchants of the place who were subjects of the usual slanders against that class of Man. another circumstance is worthy of consideration while appretiating the issue of this Meeting, as evidencing a change of public opinions generally—the Town of Petersburg & the Counties around it, have been distinguished for zeal & unanimity, in opposition to the government while depending, & its measures ever since its adoption.
I have heard of but one Meeting which issued in a determination against the appropriations—this was at Norfolk where it is said a majority of about ten so determined.8 I conclude that but little has been done in obtaining subscriptions to the circulating petitions of the opposition, from our having seen nothing of their successes published in the papers.
With pleasure I shall from time to time give you such information as events shall induce me to believe will be useful to you, neither requesting or expecting, any reply, but when it may consist with your leisure and inclination. your leisure can be but little. I have the Honor to be with unalterable attachment & confidence Dear Sir, Your Obt Servt
Ed. Carrington
ALS, DLC:GW.
1. After contentious votes on 30 April, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to a resolution “that it is expedient to pass the laws necessary for carrying into effect the treaty lately negotiated between the United States and Great-Britain” ( 8:378–82).
3. The Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette (Va.) for 21 April reported that citizens of Alexandria and its vicinity met twice on 20 April and agreed to support implementation of the Jay Treaty. The same newspaper for 23 April printed their memorial, which ended: “We view the peace of our country as its greatest blessing; and we deprecate any measure that, by defeating a compact which is founded upon the conclusion of former complaints, may open a contention which we are happy to see concluded.” A subsequent meeting of “Landholders and Farmers of Fairfax County” approved the memorial and agreed to distribute it for signatures (Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette, 30 April).
The Frederick County, Va., meeting at Winchester adopted a petition (with “upwards of 850” signatures) expressing alarm over reports that the treaty might “be impeded or lost for want of such appropriations as may be necessary … They, therefore, unequivocally delare, that as they were highly pleased and gratified at the formation of that treaty, entered into, as they conceive, most wisely to continue and promote the happiness of their country, advancing in prosperity with a pace before unexampled in the world, and rapidly encreasing by a well administered government, under the best of constitutions, do most earnestly pray, that no risque may be run by making new experiments, but that the said treaty … without loss of time be completed and confirmed, by making such appropriations of monies as may best conduce to this end—and thereby, that all those dangers and confusions which may result from a contrary conduct, may be avoided” (Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette, 3 May).
A meeting of Fredericksburg, Va., “merchants and traders” held on 22 April issued a memorial with the opinion “that a further delay of its operations would be injurious to the peace, happiness and prosperity of our country, and a breach of the national faith” (Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser, 3 May).
4. The addresses to U.S. Representative John Page from Accomack and Northampton counties, Va., were printed in the Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia) for 18 May. The Accomack address, dated 26 April, urged full implementation of the Jay Treaty despite conceding “a power in Congress to defeat the operation of the treaty by refusing to pass the laws necessary to carry it into effect.” The Northampton address, dated 23 April, arose because Page’s constituents disapproved of his opposition to the treaty. Addressing him “to exercise an inherent and constitutional right,” they sought a “proportional influence” on his future conduct. The constituents enclosed a statement calling the treaty “a politic and necessary measure,” condemning “the unremitting efforts of members of Congress to arrest this instrument,” demanding “necessary appropriations … to render the treaty efficient,” and asking that “the constitutional agency of the Federal Legislature with respect to the treaty” be postponed for later consideration.
The Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser (Richmond) for 4 May printed a memorial from “Freeholders” meeting in King William County, Va., on 25 April to the U.S. House of Representatives that expressed “great anxiety in consequence of the doubts that have arisen as to the execution of the Treaty.” The memorialists hoped for no further delay in “giving full and complete operation to the same.”
The meeting at Williamsburg on 28 April resolved that the Jay Treaty “ought to be carried into immediate effect” and agreed to an address requesting their congressmen’s “utmost endeavors for the attainment of this object” (Gazette of the United States, 17 May).
The Gazette of the United States for 30 April mentioned a petition in favor of the Jay Treaty “from the citizens of Frederick and Berkeley counties … signed by upwards of 400 persons.”
5. The Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia) for 20 April printed a memorial from merchants and traders of Philadelphia who met on 15 April. Being “seriously alarmed lest those measures” needed to implement the Jay Treaty “should be further delayed or entirely omitted,” the memorialists argued that the restitution of property seized by Great Britain, the safety of U.S. merchant vessels, and the preservation of peace and prosperity depended on the treaty. They urged the U.S. House “that no partial considerations of policy may influence their decision on this important question; but that the faith, the honor, and the interest of the nation may be preserved by making the necessary provisions for carrying the treaty into fair and honorable effect.”
6. The enclosure has not been identified, but the Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia) for 4 May reprinted the proceedings of the 24 April meeting in Petersburg, Va., apparently from a local newspaper or account dated 26 April.
7. The report of the proceedings of the Petersburg meeting on 24 April lists William Prentis as secretary of the gathering that remained after the merchants departed. The secretary of the original meeting has not been identified.
William Prentis (1762–1824) cofounded The Virginia Gazette, or Weekly Advertiser at Richmond in 1782. He left that paper in 1785 and published newspapers in Petersburg from 1786 to 1804, at this time the Virginia Gazette, & Petersburg Intelligencer. Prentis served four terms as mayor of Petersburg between 1793 and 1806.
8. A meeting of the citizens of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Va., on 26 April approved an address to the U.S. House stating that the Jay Treaty “could not be fully and completely carried into effect without the concurrence of your house” and their firm persuasion “that the faith, honor, interest, and happiness of the people of the U. States, will not be endangered by withholding the appropriations required to carry the treaty into effect.” A resolution to transmit the address won 90 to 83 (Aurora General Advertiser, 6 May).