Document Title: The Pacificus-Helvidius Debate
Authors: Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
Date of Origin: Published in a series of articles between June 29, 1793 and September 18, 1793
Source: TeachingAmericanHistory.org at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-pacificus-helvidius-debate/
Full Text:
Pacificus:
As attempts are making very dangerous to the peace, and it is to be feared not very friendly to the constitution of the UStates[1]–it becomes the duty of those who wish well to both to endeavour to prevent their success.[2]
The objections which have been raised against[3] the Proclamation of Neutrality[4] lately issued by the President[5] have been urged in a spirit of acrimony and invective, which demonstrates, that more was in view than merely a free discussion of an important public measure; that the discussion covers a design of weakening the confidence of the People in the author of the measure[6]; in order to remove or lessen a powerful obstacle to the success of an opposition to the Government[7], which however it may change its form, according to circumstances, seems still to be adhered to and pursued with persevering Industry.[8]
This Reflection adds to the motives connected with the measure itself to recommend endeavours by proper explanations to place it in a just light.[9] Such explanations at least cannot but be satisfactory to those who may not have leisure or opportunity for pursuing themselves an investigation of the subject, and who may wish to perceive that the policy of the Government[10] is not inconsistent with its obligations or its honor.
The objections in question fall under three heads-
1 That the Proclamation was without authority no .[11]
2 That it was contrary to our treaties with France no .[12]
- That it was contrary to the gratitude which is due from this to that country; for the succours rendered us in our own Revolution.[13]
- That it was out of time and unnecessary.[14]
In order to judge of the solidity of the first of these objection[s], it is necessary to examine what is the nature and design of a proclamation of neutrality.[15]
The true nature & design of such an act[16] is-to make known to the powers at War [17]and to the Citizens of the Country[18], whose Government does the Act that such country is in the condition of a Nation at Peace with the belligerent parties, and under no obligations of Treaty, to become an associate in the war with either of them; that this being its situation its intention is to observe a conduct comfortable with it and to perform towards each the duties of neutrality[19]; and as a consequence of this state of things, to give warning to all within its jurisdiction to abstain from acts that shall contravene those duties, under the penalties which the laws of the land (of which the law of Nations is a part) annexes to acts of contravention.[20]
This, and no more, is conceived to be the true import[21] of a Proclamation of Neutrality.
It does not imply, that the Nation which makes the declaration will forbear[22] to perform to any of the warring Powers any stipulations in Treaties which can be performed without rendering it an associate or party in the War.[23] It therefore does not imply in our case, that the UStates will not make those distinctions, between the present belligerent powers, which are stipulated in the 17th and 22d articles[24] of our Treaty with France[25]; because these distinctions are not incompatible with a state of neutrality; they will in no shape render the UStates an associate or party in the War[26]. This must be evident, when it is considered, that even to furnish determinatesuccours[27], of a certain number of Ships or troops, to a Power at War, in consequence of antecedent treaties[28] having no particular reference to the existing war, is not inconsistent with neutrality; a position well established by the doctrines of Writers and the practice of Nations.[29]
But no special aids, succours or favors having relation to war, not positively and precisely stipulated by some Treaty of the above description, can be afforded to either party, without a breach of neutrality.[30]
In stating that the Proclamation of Neutrality does not imply the non performance of any stipulations of Treaties which are not of a nature to make the Nation an associate or party in the war, it is conceded that an execution of the clause of Guaruntee contained in the 11th article of our Treaty of Alliance with France[31] would be contrary to the sense and spirit of the Proclamation; because it would engage us with our whole force as an associate or auxiliary[32] in the War; it would be much more than the case of a definite limited succour[33], previously ascertained.
It follows that the Proclamation is virtually a manifestation of the sense of the Government that the UStates are, under the circumstances of the case, not bound to execute the clause of Guarantee.
If this be a just view of the true force and import of the Proclamation, it will remain to see whether the President in issuing it acted within his proper sphere, or stepped beyond the bounds of his constitutional authority and duty.[34]
1. Here Alexander Hamilton is referring to objections and protests in response to George Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality. (see later annotations) Many are angry because they believe that the proclamation is outside the bounds of the president’s constitutional powers.
In an essay written in May of 1793, just before the Pacificus-Helvidius Debate
Alexander Hamilton provides more detail on these attempts on peace. Hamilton writes that opponents of the constitution are “ now meditating a more direct and destructive war against it—and embodying and arranging their forces and systematising their efforts.”
It is important to remember how young the Constitution is at this point in time. The Constitution became the law of the land on June 21, 1788 so at the time of this debate it is just five year olds. While it seems very strong and permanent the Constitution was on much more fragile footing at this time. Any efforts to undermine it are very dangerous. In the same essay mentioned abouve Hamilton says these efforts “tend to disturb the tranquillity order and prosperity of this now peaceable flourishing and truly happy land.”
2. Alexander Hamilton feels it is anyone with good intentions duty to fight the dangerous attempts on peace mentioned in the previous line and annotation. In this case he will fight them himself using the pen name “Pacificus”. In a series of seven essays Hamilton defends the President’s Proclamation of Neutrality.
The pseudonym Pacificus is a play on the root word pacify which means “to bring peace to”. This name fits the message of his essays which support the president declaring peace with France. Most Americans favored staying out of conflict for the young nation so using a pseudonym which essentially means peace is a shrewd move which puts any opponents at an immediate disadvantage. Using pseudonyms was common practice in the 18th century and Hamilton himself used a variety of them derived from Plutarch’s writings.
3. The Proclamation received backlash because it was an unprecedented use of presidential power which many believed to be contrary to the constitution. The power to declare war is given to Congress by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution. The president’s proclamation seems to directly interfere with this.
James Madison responding to Hamilton under his alias Helvidius disagrees with the president’s use of power. He writes, “If we consult for a moment, the nature and operation of the two powers to declare war and make treaties, it will be impossible not to see that they can never fall within a proper definition of executive powers.” Madison goes on to argue that because treaties carry the weight of law the power lies with the legislature rather than executive.
4. The Proclamation of Neutrality was issued on April 22, 1793 by President George Washington. In short the Proclamation states that the United States will not be a party to the war between France and Britain.
The conflict between France and Britain came during the violent French Revolution. On February 1, 1793 the new republican government of France declared war on Great Britain. This put George Washington and his young country in a precarious situation. France was an ally that aided the colonies during their own revolution while Great Britain was the primary trading partner for the United States. Alexander Hamilton argued that Washington should issue the proclamation. Thomas Jefferson opposed proclamation. George Washington sided with Hamilton and issued the proclamation which is linked here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/neutra93.asp .
5. This of course refers to George Washington. Washington was born on February 22, 1732 in Virginia. He worked as a surveyor before making a name for myself as a soldier in the French and Indian War. He then led the colonists to victory against Britain as the commander of the Continental Army. After presiding over the Constitutional convention he reluctantly accepted the role as the first President of the United States. Washington expected to have a quiet retirement and had no intentions of being president but the public opinion was overwhelming so he emerged “from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years” to be President.(Note: quote taken from inaugural address) Washington was inaugurated on April 10, 1789. As president Washington helped set the nations course. After his second four year term Washington retired to Mount Vernon where he died roughly two years later
6. When he was elected president George Washington was already an American hero. During his presidency however, he did face criticisms for many things. One of his biggest critics (all though he did the criticizing behind the scenes) was Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Washington tended to lean Federalist while Jefferson was staunchly anti-federalist. Jefferson and other like-minded men used the newspapers to spread their criticisms of Washington. To these men Washington was too much like aristocracy from which they had recently been freed. Newspapers attacked his administration and later Washington himself. So while Washington is regarded as a hero it is important to remember he was not without his enemies.
7. Similar to the previous annotation this line has to with opposition to the government. Not everyone agreed with how the government was handling things and the first political parties were beginning to form. Washington warned about these parties in his farewell address: “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
8. The success of the U.S. Constitution took an enormous effort. Ratification took a long 10 months and the document was under constant attack. Washington strove to follow the Constitution as best he could and countless people were willing to defend the document. Take Alexander Hamilton for example, he wrote many essays along with James Madison and John Jay to defend the document. All of these men continued to see that the constitution was followed after ratification. If it wasn’t they would take up their pens and defend it just as they do in this debate.
9. As stated earlier in his essay Hamilton believes that there are sinister motives behind the criticisms of the proclamation so he intends to put it in a “just light”. That is the purpose of all of his Pacificus essays and he begins his task shortly after this line.
10. It was not uncommon for writers to avoid directly naming the president. Freedom of press was a new idea contained in the Bill of Rights (1791). Many writers were still unaccustomed to speaking freely about a “ruler” and this seems to be why acts are attributed to the government or people around the president. A similar strategy was used when newspapers would attack the president. They never directly named Washington they always blamed his influencers or government as a whole.
11. Hamilton will spend pretty much the rest of Pacificus I attempting to prove this point and provides several different arguments to do so. The first argument he makes is that the executive is the “organ of intercourse between the nation and foreign nations”. He then references Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution which states, “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” to provide proof of the president’s authority. He concludes, “since also the general executive power of the Union is vested in the president, the conclusion is, that the step, which has been taken by him, is liable to no just exception on the score of authority.”
An alternative argument Hamilton provides is that if the legislature makes war it is the executives duty to preserve peace until war is declared.
12. This refers to both the Treaty of Alliance and Treaty of Amity and Commerce. Both of these treaties were signed on February 6, 1778. The Treaty of Alliance calls for mutual defense between the U.S. and France. Hamilton later argues that since France is on the offensive Washington’s Proclamation doesn’t violate the Treaty of Alliance because it is a defensive treaty.
13. France aided the colonies in the Revolutionary War in order to hurt its main rival Great Britain. (Reminds me of “an enemy of an enemy is my friend”) In later essays Hamilton argues that France acted out of its own self-interest rather than just wanting to help the colonies.
14. To get a sense of time some important dates are listed below:
February 1, 1793- French revolutionaries declare war on all monarchies of Europe
April 22, 1793- Proclamation of Neutrality is issued
June 29, 1793- first ‘Pacificus’ essay published
August 24, 1793- first ‘Helvidius’ essay published
15. At this point Hamilton is just telling readers where the essay is going. Before addressing the first objection, “That the Proclamation is without authority no”, he needs to answer the question, “What are the implications and purpose of the Proclamation?” He does this in the remainder of the excerpt which ends just before he responds to the first objection.
16. The purpose of the Proclamation can best be summarized but its first few lines. It says, “Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, of the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerant Powers”.
17. As stated in previous annotations French revolutionaries declared was on all the monarchies of Europe. The biggest among these was Great Britain. Due to the declaration however, France was at war with Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands. All of this came in a several decade period where France was almost constantly at war. From 1792-1799 is referred to as the French Revolutionary Wars and from 1799-1815 is referred to as the Napoleonic Wars.
18. The Proclamation of Neutrality not only signaled the United States’ peaceful position to other countries but also to its citizens. In fact, a majority of the Proclamation is spent warning citizens of the consequences for interfering with neutrality. This may be because many Americans were sympathetic towards the French revolutionaries because the Americans had just recently had their own revolution.
19. The United States plans to stay neutral and an example of this is the annulling the 11th article of the Treaty of Alliance. The 11th articles states the following: The two Parties guarantee mutually from the present time and forever, against all other powers, to wit, the united states to his most Christian Majesty the present Possessions of the Crown of france in America as well as those which it may acquire by the future Treaty of peace: and his most Christian Majesty guarantees on his part to the united states, their liberty, Sovereignty, and Independence absolute, and unlimited, as well in Matters of Government as commerce and also their Possessions, and the additions or conquests that their Confederation may obtain during the war, from any of the Dominions now or heretofore possessed by Great Britain in North America, conformable to the 5th & 6th articles above written, the whole as their Possessions shall be fixed and assured to the said States at the moment of the cessation of their present War with England.
20. The Proclamation sends a strong warning to all citizens that will be punished if they commit any act that threatens the peace between America and European powers.
Washington says in the Proclamation, “And I do hereby also make known, that whatsoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said Powers.”
Attempts were made by Frenchman Citizen Edmond Charles Genet to enlist privateers to seize British ships. When informed of the illegality of his actions Genet was shocked and apologetic. Nonetheless it was a fiasco for the United States and supporters of the French Revolution.
21. This an archaic use of the word ‘import’. The definition via Oxford English Dictionary:
Import (archaic)- express or make known
Example: ‘they passed a resolution importing that they relied on His Majesty’s gracious promise’
22. Forbear- politely or patiently restrain an impulse to do something; refrain
23. The United States will continue to perform its responsibilities under treaties as long it doesn’t get them involved in the war. In other words the U.S. will remain “unbiased” as the Proclamation says. To do this the U.S. will not perform the 11th article of their Treaty of Alliance with France. (see earlier annotation)
24. Hamilton argues that the U.S. can perform the 17th and 22nd articles of the Treaty of Commerce without becoming a “party” to the war. Article 17 states that prizes captured by either party or their privateers may be carries into each others ports freely. Neither party can grant shelter to a ship with goods of the other party.
Article 22 states that foreign privateers can not sell their cargo from French or American ports and can only be sold supplies to make it to the next port.
25. Both articles mentioned are reproduced here:
Article XVII
It shall be lawful for the Ships of War of either Party & Privateers freely to carry whithersoever they please the Ships and Goods taken from their Enemies, without being obliged to pay any Duty to the Officers of the Admiralty or any other Judges; nor shall such Prizes be arrested or seized, when they come to and enter the Ports of either Party; nor shall the Searchers or other Officers of those Places search the same or make examination concerning the lawfulness of such Prizes, but they may hoist Sail at any time and depart and carry their Prizes to the Places express’d in their Commissions, which the Commanders of such Ships of War shall be obliged to shew: On the contrary no Shelter or Refuge shall be given in their Ports to such as shall have made Prize of the Subjects, People or Property of either of the Parties; but if such shall come in, being forced by Stress of Weather or the Danger of the Sea, all proper means shall be vigorously used that they go out and retire from thence as soon as possible.
Article XXII
It shall not be lawful for any foreign Privateers, not belonging to Subjects of the most Christian King nor Citizens of the said United States, who have Commissions from any other Prince or State in enmity with either Nation to fit their Ships in the Ports of either the one or the other of the aforesaid Parties, to sell what they have taken or in any other manner whatsoever to exchange their Ships, Merchandizes or any other lading; neither shall they be allowed even to purchase victuals except such as shall be necessary for their going to the next Port of that Prince or State from which they have Commissions.
26. Hamilton believes it would be detrimental for the United States to become part of this European war. In a later essay titled Americanus II he elaborates on the consequences. He writes that a majority of America’s income comes from the export of agricultural products and that without a strong navy the U.S. wouldn’t be able to protect its exports. This would devastate the economy. Hamilton sees no reason to interrupt the prosperity the country now enjoys. Furthermore he warns against angering European powers. He writes, “It is highly probable that the resentment of the combined powers against us if we should take part in the war would be if possible still more violent than it is against France. Our interference would be regarded as altogether officious and wanton.”
27. Hamilton argues that the U.S. could continue to provide aid or what he calls “determinate succours” under previous treaties without entering the war. His example of determinate succours here is a certain number of ships. Neither the Treaty of Alliance or Treaty of Commerce contain provisions that call for the furnishing of “determinate succours” so it seems that Hamilton is just trying to make a point.
28. It is important to remember that this refers to both the Treaty of Alliance and Treaty of Commerce which were signed in 1778. Links to both are below:
Treaty of Alliance- https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=19
Treaty of Commerce- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr1788-1.asp
29. Two such “writers of nations” were John Locke(1632-1704) and Montesquieu(1689-1755).
In 1690 Locke published Two Treatises of Government which asserted that government depended on the “consent of the governed”. This was a radical idea for the time. Locke published a plethora of material on nations which influenced many of our own founding fathers including Hamilton.
Montesquieu was a French jurist and political thinker who is viewed as a successor of Locke. Montesquieu advocated for a separation of powers between the branches of government; and idea that made it into the U.S. Constitution.
30. Any aid given that is not provided for under an antecedent treaty which means a treaty existing before the outbreak of war would constitute a “breach of neutrality” and involve the U.S. in the war.
31. The Proclamation annuls the 11th article of the Treaty of Alliance. The article is referred to as the clause of Guaruntee because France and the U.S. guarantee to defend each other’s possessions now and in the future. For convenience the 11th article is once again reproduced here:
The two Parties guarantee mutually from the present time and forever, against all other powers, to wit, the united states to his most Christian Majesty the present Possessions of the Crown of france in America as well as those which it may acquire by the future Treaty of peace: and his most Christian Majesty guarantees on his part to the united states, their liberty, Sovereignty, and Independence absolute, and unlimited, as well in Matters of Government as commerce and also their Possessions, and the additions or conquests that their Confederation may obtain during the war, from any of the Dominions now or heretofore possessed by Great Britain in North America, conformable to the 5th & 6th articles above written, the whole as their Possessions shall be fixed and assured to the said States at the moment of the cessation of their present War with England.
32. auxiliary (adj)- Providing supplementary or additional help and support
Auxiliary(noun)- an auxiliary person or thing
33. Recall Hamilton’s previous argument about providing “definite succours” under existing treaties. The 11th article existed under an antecedent treaty but it is in no way definite. It calls for mutual defense but offers no specifics. It doesn’t just call for a certain number of ships or guns. Because of this the U.S. cannot perform the 11th article without becoming an “auxiliary” to the war.
34. This is what most of the Pacificus-Helvidius Debate is about. Hamilton argues that the president did not overstep his authority while Madison argues he did. Both invoke the constitution but Hamilton seems to have argued more effectively because his view has prevailed and is used to this day. Just after this excerpt Hamilton examines the president’s constitutional authority in detail.
Works Cited
- Colleen A. Sheehan. “Madison v. Hamilton: The Battle over Republicanism and the Role of Public Opinion” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 3 (Aug., 2004), pp. 405-424 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145337 Accessed 10 June 2018
- Quincy Wright. “The Power to Declare Neutrality Under American Law” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1940), pp. 302-310. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2193004 Accessed 10 June 2018
- John C. Koritansky. “Alexander Hamilton’s Philosophy of Government and Administration” Publius, Vol. 9, No. 2, Republicanism, Representation, and Consent: Views of the Founding Era (Spring, 1979), pp. 99-122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3329736 Accessed 10 June 2018
- “A Note on Certain of Hamilton’s Pseudonyms” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander Hamilton: 1755-1804 (Apr., 1955), pp. 282-297 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1920509 Accessed 10 June 2018
- Albert H. Bowman. “Jefferson, Hamilton and American Foreign Policy” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Mar., 1956), pp. 18-41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2144997 Accessed 10 June 2018
- David Gray Adler. “The Law: Presidential Power and Foreign Affairs in the Bush Administration: The Use and Abuse of Alexander Hamilton” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, The 2008 Presidential Election, Part II (September 2010), pp. 531-544. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23044924 Accesed 10 June 2018.
- No Author. “Analysis: Proclamation of Neutrality” Defining Documents Online Edition. Date Accessed 09 June 2018
- Online Library of Liberty. “Toward the Completion of the American Founding [1793]”, Liberty Fund Inc., oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hamilton-the-pacificus-helvidius-debates-of-1793-1794/simple.
- “Proclamation of Neutrality.” United States History, www.u-s-history.com/pages/h453.html.
- Patrick J. Garrity. “The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates” The Claremont Review of Books. 23 September 2013. http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-pacificus-helvidius-debates/ Accessed 11 June 2018
- William R Casto. “Pacificus and Helvidius Reconsidered”Kentucky Law Review. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/10601/474/casto1.pdf?sequence=1 Accessed 11 June 2018
- com Staff. “U.S. Constitution Ratified” 2009. A+E Networks. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified Accessed 14 June 2018
- com Staff. “George Washington” 2009. A+E Networks. https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/george-washington Accessed 12 June 2018
- George Washington. Inaugural Adress of 1789. National Archives and Records Administration. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/inaugtxt.html Accessed 11 June 2018
- George Washington Digital Encyclopedia. Mount Vernon Estate. Web. Accessed 10 June 2018.
- “The French Revolutionary Wars” 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards. http://www.qdg.org.uk/pages/History-and-Research-147.php Accessed 10 June 2018
- Gerard et al. Treaty of Alliance. www.ourdocuments.org https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=4&page=transcript Accessed 12 June 2018
- Jeanne S. Holden. “Locke and Montesquieu” U.S. State Department International Information. https://web-archive 2017.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/whatsdem/whatdm11.htm Accessed 15 June 2018
- Speer, Emory. “Alexander Hamilton.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, 1906, pp. 94–109. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/785473.
- Leibiger, Stuart. “‘NEUTRALITY.’” Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic, University of Virginia Press, 1999, pp. 169–181. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wrhmc.13.
- “John Locke”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke Accessed 14 June 2018
- “Proclamation of Neutrality” Wikipedia. Wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Neutrality Accessed 14 June 2018