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]

3. 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]
4. 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] [Read more…]

by Noah Hammond

Letter from Hamilton to Burr before their duel.

Originally found on Wikisource:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamilton%E2%80%93Burr_duel_correspondences

N York 20 June 1804

Sir:

I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of the 18th Instant, and the more I have reflected, the more I have become convinced that I could not without manifest impropriety make the avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary.

The clause pointed out by Mr. Van Ness is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” To endeavor to discover the meaning of this declaration, I was obliged to seek in the antecedent part of the letter for the opinion to which it referred, as having been already disclosed. I found it in these words: “Genl. Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared in substance that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of Government.” The language of Dr. Cooper plainly implies that he considered this opinion of you, which he attributes to me, as a despicable one; but he affirms that I have expressed some other still more despicable; without, however, mentioning to whom, when or where. ‘Tis evident that the phrase “still more despicable” admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended. Or how should I annex any precise idea to language so vague?

Between Gentlemen despicable and still more despicable are not worth the pains of a distinction. When, therefore, you do not interrogate me as to the opinion which is specifically ascribed to me, I must conclude that you view it as within the limits to which the animadversions of political opponents, upon each other, may justifiably extend; and consequently as not warranting the idea of it which Dr. Cooper appears to entertain. If so, what precise inference could you draw as a guide for your future conduct, were I to acknowledge that I had expressed an opinion of you, still more despicable than the one which is particularized? How could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible between political opponents?

But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads. The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy than to pursue it.

Repeating that I can not reconcile it with propriety to make the acknowledgment or denial you desire, I will add that I deem it inadmissible on principle, to consent to be interrogated as to the justness of the inferences which may be drawn by others, from whatever I may have said of a political opponent in the course of a fifteen years competition. If there were no other objection to it, this is sufficient, that it would tend to expose my sincerity and delicacy to injurious imputations from every person who may at any time have conceived that import of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended, or may afterwards recollect.

I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly and explicitly any precise or definite opinion which I may be charged with having declared to any gentleman. More than this can not fitly be expected from me; and especially it can not reasonably be expected that I shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague as that which you have adopted. I trust upon more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences.

The publication of Dr. Cooper was never seen by me ‘till after the receipt of your letter.

Sir, I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. S^t

A. Hamilton