He was loyal to his party, but not to the president who appointed him.

M. Thiers, the French historian, represents Monroe as arguing against a French-American war on the ground that such a contest would compel the United States to make an alliance with Great Britain. "By patiently enduring, on the contrary," he continues, "the wrongs of the present President, you will leave him without excuse, you will enlighten the Americans and decide a contrary choice at the next election. All the wrongs of which France may have to complain will then be repaired." Under the circumstances, there was nothing for Washington to do but to recall him, which he did on the 22d of August, 1796; and at a later time he passed some very severe strictures upon his conduct. "The truth is," said Washington, "Mr. Monroe was cajoled, flattered, and made to believe strange things. In return he did, or was disposed to do, whatever was pleasant to that nation-reluctantly urging the rights of his own." The whole affair was unfortunate in the extreme. Monroe, angry because of his recall, demanded the reasons for the action. Not being given a satisfactory reply, he proceeded to prepare and to publish a book of more than four hundred pages for his vindication. His resentment even led him to transgress the bounds of official propriety by publishing confidential correspondence.

In the course of the book he made a bitter attack upon Washington and his administration. An elaborate memorandum was found among the papers of Washington at Mount Vernon, containing comments upon the "View" of Monroe, and in a letter to John Nicholas, Washington spoke of the impropriety "of exposing to public view his private instructions and correspondence with his own government."

Washington cannot be entirely acquitted. The appointment was an error of judgment on his part. It is now seen that unity and effectiveness in administration cannot be secured by enlisting the services even of the most

eminent of the opposing party. There was good reason to believe that Monroe could not fairly represent the administration at that time. Writing some years later he said: "I was at this time a member of the Senate of the United States, for the State of Virginia, which station I had held for several years before. It had been, too, my fortune to differ from the administration upon many of our most important public measures. It is not necessary to specify here the several instances in which this variance in political sentiment took place between the administration and myself. I think proper, however, to notice two examples

The first took place when Mr. Morris was nominated Minister Plenipotentiary to the French Republic; which nomination I opposed, because I was persuaded, from Mr. Morris's known political character and principles, that his appointment-especially at a period when the French nation was in a course of revolution from an arbitrary to a free government-would tend to discountenance the republican cause there and at home, and otherwise weaken, and greatly to our prejudice, the connection subsisting between the two countries. The second took place when Mr. Jay was nominated to Great Britain; which nomination, too, I opposed, because I was of opinion we could not adopt such a measure consistently either with propriety or any reasonable prospect of adequate success.

and, lastly, because I also thought from a variety of considerations, that it would be difficult to find, within the limits of the United States, a person who was more likely to improve, to the greatest possible extent, the mischief to which the measure naturally exposed us. This last example took place only a few weeks before my appointUnder these circumstances, satisfactory results could hardly be expected from the Monroe mission; yet it is but fair to state that Washington offered the post to others before the selection of Monroe, and that the latter lost his head to a degree which could not have been anticipated.

ment

In the choice of his successor, Washington was more fortunate. General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was a man from whom good results might well be expected. He was able, honest, inflexible, and in sympathy with the administration. His instructions are interesting. After a brief sketch of the relations existing between France and the United States, the object of the mission is stated as follows: "Faithfully to represent the disposition of the government and people of the United States (for their disposition is one), to remove jealousies, and to obviate complaints, by showing that they are groundless, to restore that mutual confidence which has been so unfortunately and injudiciously impaired, and to explain the relative interests of both countries, and the real sentiment of your own, are the immediate objects of your mission."

With these good intentions, General Pinckney arrived in France on November 15, 1796. The French government, however, declined to receive him. On the 11th of December, 1796, Mr. Monroe received notice that the Directory would "not acknowledge nor receive another minister plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of grievances demanded of the American government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it." This was a clap of thunder from a clear sky, but the worst, as far as Minister Pinckney was personally concerned, was yet to come. General Pinckney was subsequently informed by M. Geraudet, chief secretary in the department of foreign affairs, that there was a law forbidding strangers to remain in France without the permission of the government. He further assured Mr. Pinckney that the necessary permission would not be granted in his case, and that as a consequence it would be imperative for him to quit France. No time limit was set for his departure, yet the secretary did intimate that the minister of police, who had charge of such matters, would probably take the case in hand. It is almost unnecessary to state that the action of France was not only discourteous but entirely without the warrant of law.

General Pinckney was not a "stranger" in France, but the accredited representative of a foreign country, and as such, whether received or not, was entitled to the protection of international law. He was not a subject for the cognizance of the minister of police.

Early in February, 1797, Pinckney received formal notice to leave France. On the 5th of that month he set out for Holland, after having passed two months of humiliation in Paris.

The reasons for this discourtesy toward Pinckney and the United States are not far to seek. France, for obvious reasons, was much attached to Monroe, and was not pleased that he was superseded by a man in sympathy with the Washington administration. This feeling was evident when the news of Monroe's recall reached Paris. On his departure from official life, the Directory tendered him a farewell which was an insult to the United States. Then, too, the election of Adams over Jefferson was highly displeasing to the Directory, and, in addition to refusing to receive our minister, that body proceeded to pass additional oppressive decrees against American commerce.

Intelligence travelled slowly in those days, but rumors came to the United States early in March that Pinckney would not be received. Soon more definite intelligence began to arrive. When it was known that Pinckney had been commanded to leave France, and that our vessels were being seized under the authority of the French government, President Adams called a special session of Congress to meet on the 15th of May, 1797. His message delivered to Congress on the 16th is decidedly more interesting than his inaugural address of two months before. He recited to Congress the humiliating facts connected with the Pinckney mission and warned that body that there was grave danger of a war with France. In condemning the action. of that country, he said: "The refusal on the part of France to receive our minister, is then the denial of a right; but the refusal to receive him until we have acceded to

their demands without discussion and without investigation, is to treat us neither as allies, nor as friends, nor as a sovereign State." He referred also to the leave-taking of Monroe, and declared that the sentiments of the French President on that occasion were "more alarming than the refusal of a minister, more dangerous to our independence and union, and at the same time studiously marked with indignities towards the government of the United States." He saw in this speech an attempt to alienate the people of the United States from the government. Then he flashed out thus: "Such attempts ought to be repelled with a decision which shall convince France and the world that we are not a degraded people, humiliated under a colonial spirit of fear and sense of inferiority, fitted to be the miserable instruments of foreign influence, and regardless of national honor, character, and interest." Notwithstanding these national insults, the President said that he was desirous of maintaining peace if possible, and to that end he would send a commission to France. "If we have committed errors," he continued, "and these can be demonstrated, we shall be willing to correct them and equal measures of justice, we have a right to expect from France, and every other nation." In the meantime he was not unmindful of the fact that war might result despite his best efforts to the contrary. To meet this possible contingency, he advocated the construction of a navy, additions to the regular artillery and cavalry, and arrangements for forming a provisional army. He also urged the "revision of the laws for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." He believed, evidently, that the best way to secure peace was to prepare for war. He also advocated neutrality, and asked the support of the people in the crisis. The message was a strong paper and aroused no little enthusiasm.

The most interesting part of the message to us at the present moment is that in which the President expressed his determination to appoint a commission to France. When it became known that in all probability Pinckney