Mathew Carey published the Olive Branch on November 8, 1814. The full title was The Olive Branch: or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic, A Serious Appeal on the Necessity of Mutual Forgiveness & Harmony, to Save our Common Country from Ruin.
He wrote:
“I believe the country to be in imminent danger of a convulsion, of the result whereof the human mind cannot calculate the consequences. The nation is divided into two hostile parties, whose animosity towards each other is daily increased by inflammatory publications. Each charges the other with the guilt of having produced the present alarming state of affairs.” [1]
When two people argue, he wrote, if they can be convinced that “the errors are mutual” then they can “open their ears to the voice of reason, and are willing to meet each other half way.” He reasoned that the same was true for public affairs.[2]
To recap: He devoted his second chapter of the Olive Branch to faults of the Democratic-Republicans. (See previous posts.) He listed the faults of the Federalists in the following chapters.
Faults of the Federalists
1. Promoting a Strong Central Government During the Constitutional Convention
Fearing anarchy, the Federalists sought to give the federal government as much power as possible. The alternatives were the states or the people. The Federalists were divided. Some members of the convention were monarchists, while others were “genuine republicans” who embraced enlightenment ideals. Both factions compromised. Representatives from their party governed the United States for twelve years. Those who opposed the administration were called “Jacobins.” That label implied they opposed social order, property rights, religion and morality. Carey wrote “[the Federalists] fenced round the constituted authorities” with the Alien and Sedition Acts. While he admitted the Alien Law was not enforced, the Sedition Law was. When Thomas Jefferson was elected, the Alien and Sedition laws were repealed. Federalist newspapers attacked the administrations of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalists opposed every measure of those administrations. Enforcing America’s neutrality, while Britain and France were at war, Carey wrote, was difficult. National unity was essential.[3]
2. Reaction to British Attacks on America’s Ships
Beginning in 1805, merchants from seaports sent Congress many petitions. They plead for measures to protect America’s merchant marine from British attacks. In the Olive Branch Carey reprinted extracts of memorials from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Haven, Newburyport, and Salem Massachusetts. Merchants, he wrote, “urged, I might say goaded” the federal government into war, pledging their support. The Senate responded with two strongly worded resolutions. New England Federalist Senators Pickering, Hillhouse, Bayard and Tracy voted for both resolutions. Senator Pickering, however, changed his mind after the British passed a new policy, the Orders in Council of 1807. They proclaimed that American vessels bound for French or European ports would be seized. Pickering stated the British “had done our commerce no essential injury.” Carey considered the new policy an outrage that needed action. He examined four responses: negotiation, non-intercourse, embargo, and war. Jefferson sent William Pinckney to join James Monroe, who represented the United States at the Court of St. James. Congress passed a non-intercourse act barring many British imports. The act gave the British seven months to weigh its effects before implementation. The law was suspended again from December 1806 until July 1807, giving the British even more time to reconsider. Carey wrote “…never was greater forbearance shewn—never was forbearance so ill requited.” Why? On June 22, 1807, off the Chesapeake Bay a fifty-gun British warship, the HMS Leopard, asked to board the American frigate, USS Chesapeake. The British were searching for deserters. The American captain refused. The British fired on the Chesapeake, killing three sailors inflicting wounds on sixteen more. Then the British flagrantly boarded the Chesapeake. They impressed four sailors, claiming they were British. Actually, only one sailor was British.[4] Americans were outraged.
Next: Faults on both sides, continued: More Faults by the Federalists
Can the House of Representatives Refuse to Fund Obamacare?
Some bloggers are advancing the idea the House of Representatives can refuse to fund Obamacare.
This is what happened when Mathew Carey, among others, urged the House of Representatives to withhold funds to prevent ratification of the Jay Treaty:
In 1794, a year after the British went to war with the French, President Washington sent John Jay to London. Jay negotiated a treaty to stop British depredation of American ships and impressment of its seamen. The treaty was just as controversial as Obamacare. Jay’s treaty did not stop attacks on American ships or impressments. Throughout the United States, citizens criticized Jay for conceding too much to the British.
In 1796, Carey wrote an Address to the House of Representatives. He urged the “political Barque steer the middle course” avoiding both despotism and anarchy. He argued that America’s new government would end if the President and the Senate could overrule the House, which represented the voice of the people. Carey drew on Alexander Dallas’ Features of Mr. Jay’s Treaty, which he published in 1795. Carey wrote the President and Senate had power to make treaties, but the House regulated trade. The Jay Treaty was commercial. Funds were necessary for ratification. The House, Carey argued, had the power to prevent ratification by refusing to appropriate funding.[5]
Issues raised by the Jay Treaty had no precedent. Washington, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans engaged in an important debate. How should the government handle treaties according to the Constitution? The House, Carey argued, had constitutionally delegated responsibility to appropriate funds. The House could accept or reject a treaty by withholding funds.
Next: How President Washington and the House of Representatives Responded to Arguments to Prevent Funding for Ratification of the Jay Treaty.
Look for both posts Monday, April 1.
[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia: M. Carey November 8, 1814) 21.
[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 21-2.
[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 53-7.
[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 58-89; Information on Leopard-Chesapeake Affair from Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) 647.
[5] Edward C. Carter, II, “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey, Nationalist, 1760-1814,” PhD Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1962, 228-9.
