INFORMATION TO USERS

This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large-sheet and to continue photoing from le ft to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silvèr prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms

A Xerox Education Company LISTON, Ann Elizabeth, 1937- F. C. RIVES: DIPLOMAT AND POLITICIAN, 1829-53.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1972 History, modern

University Microfilms, A XERDK Company, Ann Arbor. Michigan

© Copyright by Ann Elizabeth Liston 1972

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN' MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED W. c. BIVES: DIPLOMAT AND POLITICIAN,

1829-53

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Ann Elizabeth Liston, B.A., M.A.

The Ohio State University 1972

Approved by

Adviser Department of %^tory PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages may have

indistinct print.

Filmed as received.

University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No dissertation is researched and written in complete seclusion, although it sometimes seems that way, and this one is no exception. And the time has come for this author to express her gratitude to those who were instrumental in developing the final product. First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Marvin Zahniser of the Department of History of The Ohio State University, who first sug­ gested a study of the diplomatic missions of William Cabell Rives, and who has guided the dissertation to its conclusion. His suggestions for improvement of the study have been greatly appreciated. In addition, the task of tracking down the needed information for the study was made much easier by the kind assistance of numerous librarians at the Library of Congress, the Virginia Historical Society, Perkins Library at Duke University, the University of Virginia Library, The Ohio State University Library and Forsyth Library at Fort Hays Kansas State College.

ii ill And finally, one must acknowledge the indirect assistance which goes into the final product: my sister, Susan, a graduate student in French, helped with French translation, on occasion, and proofread many pages of the rough drafts ; my “dogsltters", Chuck and Tom Deuth, were kind enough at critical times in the writing of the dissertation to take charge of my neurotic Dachshund, Hermann, who resented the whole project; and my Labrador Hetriever, Samantha, constantly gave me her mute encouragement by lying patiently behind my chair while I typed. VITA

August 6, 1937• • • 3orn— Harlan, Iowa 1959...... B.A., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

1962...... M.A., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

1966-1968 ...... Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1968-present, . . , Assistant Professor, Department of History, Port Hays Kansas State College, Hays, Kansas

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History American diplomatic history: Professors Marvin Zahniser and Foster Bhea Dulles American social and intellectual history: Professor Robert Bremner History of Latin America* Professor John TePaske History of the Far East: Professor Jerome Grieder History of the Middle East: Professor Sydney Fisher TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOV/LEDGMENTS...... ii V I T A ...... iv Chapter I. THE TRAINING OF A DIPLOMAT...... 1 II. THE DEMOCRAT GOES TO PARIS...... ?2 III. THE DEMOCRAT BECOMES A WH I G ...... 203 IV. THE WHIG GOES TO PARIS...... 331 EPILOGUE...... ^05 APPENDIX A ...... 413 B. . . . : ...... 417 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 421 THE TRAINING OF A DIPLOMAT

When Martin Van Buren arrived in Washington in late March, 1829, to assume his duties as Secretary of State, he found a situation which disturbed him. Presi­ dent Andrew Jackson had, without consulting Van Buren, appointed Littleton W. Tazewell minister to England and Edward Livingston (of the New York Livingston clan) minister to France. Van Buren no doubt resented not being consulted by the President on these two key appoint­ ments. When he met with Jackson he pointed out that questions pending with England and France were "greatly complicated" and perhaps younger, lesser known men might be better suited to the posts. In Van Buren's words, they "would be sufficiently ambitious to encounter and resist the rebuffs to which . . . they must expect to be exposed, . . ." The President agreed.^ Van Buren got his younger men. By forcing Tazewell and Livingston to refuse their appointments.

•^Autobiography of Martin Van Buren, edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, American Historical Association, Annual Report, 1918 (Vol. II; Washington: Government Printing Office, 1920), 251-52. 2 Van Buren gained the freedom of action he desired.^ Louis McLane accepted the English mission and William Cabell Rives became minister to France,^ It was perhaps a justification of Van Buren*s ideas concerning these two missions that the younger and lesser known man, William C, Rives, was to achieve greater success in his mission. On July 4, 1831, a treaty was signed by French and American representatives in Paris. This treaty resolved at long last the spoliation claims of the United States against France which dated from the Napoleonic era. A question which had baffled and frustrated more seasoned diplomats had been solved by a "younger active" man chosen by Martin Van Buren.

For his appointment to the French mission William Cabell Rives was indebted to his friend Martin Van Buren. However, the' success of his mission during the Jackson

^Ibid.. 258, 260. 4 Richard A. McLemore, Franco-Amerlcan Diplomatic Relations I8I6-I836 (University, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1941), p. 88. 3 presidency, and a later mission to France under the Taylor-Fillmore administration,.was undoubtedly due in part to his outstanding family background and educational and political experience. William Cabell Rives was born at "Union Hill," in Nelson County, Virginia, on May 4, 1793. He was the third (second son) of eleven children b o m to Robert and Margaret Jordan Cabell Rives, and he could be proud of his heritage,^ His father was the son of William Rives of Sussex County, Virginia, The Rives family traced its ancestry to Blandford in England and was part of the cavalier emigration of 16^9-1659, The family first settled in Surry County, Virginia, and branched out from there, Robert Rives was born on March 11, 1?64, in Sussex County,

2nd ed.; Richmond: Garrett and Massie, 1939h P. 238, William Cabell was undoubtedly the most prominent of the Rives children. The oldest son, Landon Cabell, was born October 24, 1790, and became a physician, prac­ ticing and teaching in Cincinnati, Ohio. The oldest daughter, Margaret Jordan, was born January 17, 1792, and served as mistress of "Oak Ridge" after her mother’s death in I8I5. The other children were: Robert Jr., who served in the legislature; George, a successful planter and businessman; Alexander, a distinguished lawyer, appointed to a federal judgship by President Grant; Lucy Shands, who married Col, Alexander Brown; Pauline Cabell, who married Maj, Richard Pollard; Henry, who died as a young man; James B,, who died in boyhood ; and Elizabeth, who died in infancy. See Brown, Cabells, pp, 246, 437-38, 443, 464, 4?3, 478-80, 48'2-’8r,' ■ 4 Little is known of his life until he joined the army in

I78 I and served as a private at Yorktown. When the war ended, he entered the business world, reportedly against his mother*s wishes. He worked first in the store of Col. Richard Baker at South Quay, but moved in a few years to

Charlotte Court House and the firm of Blow & Barksdale, Although he “worked very faithfully and energetically" at these positions, the real turning point in his successful commercial career came as a result of a move to Warminster where he established his own business.^ Near Warminster was "Union Hill," the home of Margaret Cabell. There Rives courted, and, on January 25»

1790, married "Peggy," the daughter of Col, William Cabell, Sr. This union, perhaps Rives*s most astute move, provided an opportunity for Robert Rives to ensure his success in the commercial world and provide financial security for his family. In 1789 Mr. Alexander Donald, of the London firm of Donald & Burton, visited "Union Hill." The quality of tobacco grown in the neighborhood impressed him and he . persuaded Col, Cabell to act as tobacco purchasing agent for his firm. In the spring of 1790 Cabell turned this valuable agency over to his new son-in-law, Robert Rives, With this agency as the starting point Rives expanded his business operations, eventually establishing stores at New

^Ibid., pp. 239-40. 5 Market, Diguidsville and Lynchburg, and in Albemarle and Cumberland counties. In 179^ he joined with Donald & Burton*s agent in Richmond, James Brown, in forming the firm of Brown and Rives.This became one of the most outstanding commission houses in the state and did "an especially large business"® in the three years between the repeal of the embargo in I8O9 and. the beginning of the War of 1812, The firm carried on an active trade with the West Indies, England, Scotland and Spain, This proved to be the high point of Rives*s business career,^ In 1812 James Brown personally made a large shipment of flour to Cadiz, Spain, which was lost. This unfortunate event coincided with the declaration of war by the United States against Great Britain, and caused Brown's failure. As a result, the firm of Brown and Rives was dissolved on August 1, 1812, Although Robert Rives retained an interest in his stores and commission business in Richmond, he gradually retired from active participation in the business world. This was especially true after the death of his wife in I8I5, From that

^Ibid,. pp. 240-41, ^Ibid,. p, 421. point on he devoted increasing attention to his plan­ tations.^® The growth of Robert Hives’s agricultural interests was also due in part to his fortunate marriage.

In 1798 Margaret Rives inherited part of the "Oak Ridge" estate in Nelson County when her father, Col. William Cabell, Sr., died. Her husband later bought the rest and in 1801-02 built a home for his family on the land. In addition to the "Oak Ridge" plantation, containing twenty- five hundred acres. Rives bought land in Nelson and Albe­ marle counties. In Nelson county alone he ovmed between ten and fifteen thousand acres. Through these commercial and agricultural ventures Robert Rives was able to provide financial security for his family. It must also be assumed that he provided a favorable spiritual atmosphere; he was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church and in I833 or 183^ he donated land and built an Episcopal Church just west of Oak Ridge, which was called Rives’ Church. In addition to his business activities Robert Rives served as one of the first justices of Nelson county

December 26, 1821. William Cabell Rives Papers, Library of Congress [hereafter cited as WCR Papers, L.cT) . ^^Brown, Cabells. pp. 238, 2^3. ^^Ibid.. p. 242. 7 and for many years was the presiding magistrate of the county, Although he refused to become a candidate for public office, he took an active interest in political affairs. In the opinion of his contemporaries, "he would have been more successful in politics even than his son William, Robert Rives died at his home, "Oak Ridge," on March 4, 184-5,^^ He had lived to see his most distin­ guished son, William Cabell Rives, serve a successful mission to France and participate in the activities of the Senate of the United States for a number of years. The favorable financial circumstances, the prestige of his position, and the training in political matters he provided for his children undoubtedly contributed to this son's success.

The role of Margaret Jordan Cabell in shaping her son's destiny is rather vague. The Cabell family was prominent in eighteenth century Virginia, It could also, like the Rives, trace its background to England, where the

^^IMd,, 243, ^^Ibid, 8 Cabells had belonged to the landed gentry. The first Cabell, Dr. William, emigrated from Warminster, Wiltshire, in the year l?23t after having served, according to family tradition, as a surgeon in the British Wavy. He was a "man of uncommon strength of mind and body, . . . a man of thought and reading as well as a man of action, ..." says the family historian. Of his five children, Col. William Cabell of Union Hill was the most prominent. He served in the Virginia House of Burgesses and was an important member of the Virginia Conventions of 1775-76,^^ Margaret Jordan Cabell, the daughter of Col.

William Cabell and Margaret Jordan, was b o m late in I769

or early in 1770 .^^ Her father provided private tutors for her education, which was completed early in 1789.^^ In January of the following year she married Robert Rives. When she died on August 19, 1815, the Richmond Enquirer published the following obituary: Departed this life on the 45th year of her âge on Saturday morning the 19th inst. Mrs, Margaret Rives, daughter of the late Col. William Cabell and consort of Mr. Robert Rives of the County of Nelson. The endowments of the deceased were of superior order. Her mind was masculine

^^Ibid.. p. 34. ^^GenealOKV of the Descendents of Doctor William Cabell. the Elder. Pamphlet published approximately 1859 or isS'O, WCR Papers, L.C. ^Jprown, Cabells. p. 235. Ibid., PP- 235-37 . and sentimental, her heart generous, benevolent and kind. Charity, too, had its place in her bosoïù. Although surrounded by wealth, although abounding in affluence, 8elf-enjcyment was the least of her con­ siderations. How to be useful to her family, how to render services to the indi­ gent, were the first wishes of her soul. She was the most affectionate of mothers, the most devoted of wives, and among the best of friends to the poor. The superiority of her intellect did not desert her in her afflicting and incurable disease. She evinced in her last moments a résolut and fortitude seldom witnessed in her sex. She was resigned to the will of God and recon­ ciled to the mandate of death. At the time of his mother’s death William Cabell Rives was twenty-two years old. He rarely mentioned ' her, but one must assume that her outstanding character, as reflected in this obituary, had its impact on his development. Jînd perhaps her father’s participation in the events leading to the Revolution influenced his decision to enter the political arenai a proud heritage was assumed to require some embellishment from succeeding generations.

Into this family William Cabell Rives was b o m on May 4, 1793. His early development was not promising.

^^Richmond Enquirer, August 30, 1815. 10 however. His father, who lacked an extensive formal education, provided his children with the "best education which the times afforded." The best education in turn- of-the-century Virginia was, of course, conducted by private tutors. Rives later recalled that a "number" of private tutors had been provided for his elder brother and him. He remembered two in particular: Mr. Reuben Grigsby and Dr. George Washington Varnum. Their effect on the young Rives was minimal. By his own admission, he was "a very wayward and idle boy . . , too idle and full of play to profit in any essential degree of their instruction. At the age of twelve or thirteen. Rives and his brother were sent to Hampden Sidney College, where they resided with Dr. Archibald Alexander, the President of the College.A year or two later they were both sent to Milton in Albemarle County to attend the school of Mr. Ogilvie. For the first time in his life Rives was

William Cabell Rives [hereafter cited as WC^ to Hugh B. Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C. This letter, written in response to a request from Grigsby, is an invaluable source of infor­ mation about Rivesfs early life. ^^Ibid. Rives states in this letter that he entered Hampden-Sidney at the age of twelve or thirteen (1805-07). He had to enter no later than the early fall of 1806, since Dr. Alexander resigned in November of that year. Alfred J. Korrison, The College of Hamnden- Sidney. Calendar of Board Minutes 177o-l§76~TRlchmond: 1912), p."gll 11 intellectually stimulated. He experienced "a waking up of the faculties, and a desire of mental improvement,” under the direction of Mr. Ogilvie, This eccentric Scotsman employed a rather unusual method of teaching. The instruction was entirely oral: each day he delivered a lecture, followed on the next day by an examination and another lecture. This "novel and attractive method of instruction” aroused the young Rives. While a student at Ogilvie’s school. Rives formed friendships with his fellow students, Thomas Jefferson Randolph (grandson of Thomas Jefferson), Thomas Walker Gilmer, and others. Frequently the boys, including Rives, would accompany "Jeff” Randolph to nearby Monti- cello. Rives usually served as mediator and peacemaker among the boys, according to Jefferson’s overseer, Edmund Bacon. On one visit to Monticello, however, he almost failed. On Saturday a group of uninvited students arrived and helped themselves to fruit, causing a great deal of damage. A fight ensued and when the overseer arrived on the scene some of Jeff’s group "were a good deal hurt," When asked why he did not settle the problem without all the fighting, "Willie" Rives replied: "Why

WCR to Hugh B. Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C. Richard Beale mvls. Intellectual Life in Jefferson’s Virginia 1790-1830 (Chapel Hill: University of Worth Carolina Press, 1964), pp. 40-42, discusses Ogilvie’s skill as a teacher and writer. 1 2 sir, you know that I am a little fellow and couldn*t do much fighting, but I called them all the hard names I could think of, and then I started to turn Rompo [jeff's do^ loose on them, and they all ran off. Bacon also sheds light on Rives * s moral character at this stage of his development. Jeff and his friends often spent the entire weekend at Monticello. The over­ seer would provide the keys to the house, but Rives would often "come down and stay all night at my house. . . . The other boys were too intimate with the Negro women to suit him." And on one occasion when one of the boys made a vulgar remark, Rives replied, "Such talk as that ought not to be thought, much less spoken out." In view of this remark, one wonders what "hard names" Rives used to chase off his attackers. At any rate Rives was well thought of by Jefferson and the entire family at Monti­ cello. He was even spoken of as a possible suitor for Ellen Randolph, Thomas Jefferson's granddaughter and Jeff's sister. She, however, dismissed him as "too much of a runt to make anybody a husband.

^[Èeverendj Hamilton Wilcox Pierson, Jefferson at Monticello; The*Private Life of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by James A. Bear, Jr. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 196?)» PP. 87-88. ^^Ibld.. pp. 88-89. Bear notes that Thomas Jefferson Randolph, in his "The Last Days of Jefferson," denied the Rives stories, particularly Hives's "taking shelter in his [^con'0 house from the libertine contam­ ination of Mr. Jeffersorfs Grandsons." Ibid.. p. 88. 13 Following his intellectual awakening under the instruction of Mr. Ogilvie, Rives enrolled at the College of William and Mary in the fall of 1808,^^ His stay there was brief. In the spring of 1809 he was involved in "a boyish affair of honor" for which he was expelled.In dismissing him, however. Bishop James îfedison, president of the College, wrote a very revealing letter to his friend Thomas Jefferson, who had recently retired from the presidency of the United States. The letter indicated that Rives was maturing: Mr. Wm. Rives, the son of Mr. Rives of Nelson County, will present this to you. He has lately been obliged to leave College, on acct. of his yielding to that false notion of Honour, which is, unfortunately, so prevalent. The sentence of the College was unavoidable, tho passed with sincere Regret ; & I take a particular Pleasure in giving you the full assurance, that I believe him to be not only a youth of the best Dis­ position, & of manners always polite & engaging; but also, that he has been richly gifted by nature with fine Genius, & with that mental Energy, which merits the highest cultivation. His Father, as well as himself, is anxious that the Expulsion should not operate against him, in your decision with Respect to a Proposition, which will be

^^WCR to Hugh B. Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^Ibld. It is impossible to determine the exact offense, since the faculty minutes for this period are missing. His son, William C. Rives, Jr., in writing a biography of his father, reported that the offense was dueling. WCR Papers, L.C. 14 submitted to you; & therefore it is that I have made this Representation, I feel also a warm interest in his future Welfare; and am persuaded, that under your auspices, we may ezpect that he will become one of the ornaments of his Country.27

The "proposition" to which Madison referred was that Rives read law under Jefferson's direction. The proposition was accepted and in the autumn of 1809 Rives took up residence in Milton, some two and one half miles from Monticello, For the next two years he visited with Jefferson at least weekly and sometimes more often. Two hours a day were devoted to the study of the law.^® Under Jefferson's direction, Hives developed thorough habits of study which were to last the rest of his life. As he himself related later in life: "I . . , formed the habit

1809, "Letters of Rev. James Madison, President of William and Mary College, to Thomas Jefferson," William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine (2nd ser., 23 vols., Williamsburg, 1921-4 3), 7”(1925)', 156-57 . This letter is also to be found in the Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress. Bishop Madison had been a childhood friend of Jefferson. Merrill D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson and the Mew Mation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970TTpTF: ^®WCR to Hugh B. Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C. Hives's list of reading included Locke, Essay on Human Understanding, Joyce, Scientifical Dialogues. Chemical Conservations. Vattel, Law of Mations. Turgot, Reflexions sur la formation & la distribution des Richesses. Dalrymple, Essay on Feudal Prouerty. Mitford, History of Greece, and other histori­ cal works, particularly on English history. See "Course of Reading begun 24th Aug. I8O9 under the direction of T. J. Esq.," WCR Papers, L.C. 15 of studying very closely and thoroughly whatever I read— a habit which I have ever since retained, though it has its disadvantages as well as its advantages. Bacon tells us that 'some books are to be tasted; others to be swallowed; and some few to be chewed and digested,* My habit has been to 'chew and digest' all that I read; and the consequence has been that I have read less than many of my contemporaries.”^^ In addition, during his two years at Monticello, Rives formed a close friendship with Jefferson which was to last until the latter's death in 1826. By 1811 Hives's suspension from William and Mary had been lifted. In the fall of that year, with Jeffer­ son's advice and approval, he returned to Williamsburg.^® He remained until the summer of 1812. The outbreak of the War of 1812 caused ”no small degree of disturbance" in his plans.His first thought was to join the army, but his father was opposed. Instead, in the autumn of

to Hugh B. Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C. ^®Ibld. See also Jefferson's advice in Thomas Jefferson to WCR, September 18, 1811, Jefferson Papers, L.C. ^^WCR to Hugh B. Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C. 16 1812, young Rives went to Richmond to continue his study of the law.^^ Nominally Rives entered the office of George Hay, the attorney who had served as prosecutor in Aaron Burr’s trial for treason.Rives spent very little time in Hay’s office, however; and when he was there the time was devoted to leisurely discussions. He was "as much a companion as a patron" to Rives. The connection with Hay did provide him with a contact in the legal circles of Richmond, The years of study with Jefferson and discussion with Hay paid off. On May 2, I8l4, William Cahell Rives was admitted to the bar of the state of Virginia. Before he had an opportunity to establish his practice, however, the war threatened the security of his home state. In the summer of 1814- the governor issued a pro­ clamation calling for the formation of a volunteer militia

^^Ibid, ^^Ibid. A brief sketch of Hay’s life by Robert S, Cotterill is found in Dictionary of American Biography, ed. by Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone (20 vols, and index. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928-37), VIII, 429-30, ^^WCR to Hugh B. Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L,C, ^^Document authorizing WCR to practice law. May 2, I8l4, WCR Papers, L,C. 17 to proTide for the defense of the state,Elves, who had yielded to his father’s wishes concerning military service two years earlier, Joined the militia and became aide-de-camp to General John Hartwell Cocke. He served in this capacity until the spring of 1815, when the militia was disbanded. He then returned to his native county of Nelson to begin the practice of law.^® Rives was twenty two years old. His education had been completed and he was about to embark upon his political career.

Armistead C, Gordon, William Fitzhugh Gordon, a Virginian of the old school ; his life, times and contemporaries TI787-1858) {New York; The Neale Pub­ lishing Company, 1909J, pp, 77-82, has a description of the military preparations in Virginia. ^^His service was evidently satisfactory. Cocke wrote the following to Joseph C. Cabell; "My staff promises to do credit to themselves & afford me the greatest satisfaction. My choice of an aid I shall enumerate among the lucky moments of my life. I think Rives is one of the very finest young men I have ever knovm," Cocke to Cabell, September 21, I8l4, Joseph C, Cabell Papers, University of Virginia Library, Manuscript Division. ^®WCR to Hugh B, Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C, In addition to the practice of law Rives assumed the responsibility of owning land. His father deeded him 991 acres in Nelson County on August 1, 181$, Deed, WCR Papers, L,C, At the end of the War of 1812 the people of Virginia were able to turn their attention to immediate and pressing problems. In particular, the West had a grievance.With justification, that section felt that it was unfairly represented in the legislature. When the General Assembly failed to take action, a meeting was held in Winchester in the spring of I8l6 , The participants asked the counties of the state to send delegates to convene in Staunton in August, It was hoped that the Staunton gathering would take the necessary steps to call a convention to amend the constitution,^^ Since he favored this proposal and Nelson, as a western county, was inadequately represented in the legislature

^^"West" refers to that part of Virginia west of the Blue Eidge Mountains, ^®The population of the West was two-thirds that of the eastern section; yet it had only four senators compared to the east's twenty. In the House of Dele­ gates, forty-nine counties with less than half of the white population furnished a majority of the members, Julian A, C, Chandler, Représentâtion in Virginia in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. Fourteenth Series (Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press, I896), 23, ^^Ibid,, 18-24-, summarizes the events leading to the Staunton convention. 19 Rives addressed the people of his county on the subject on July 4, I8l6. In keeping with the significance of the day they were commemorating, Rives reminded his audience that the Revolution had been fought for the right of the majority to govern. He noted the unequal representation in the legislature and asked for support for the Staunton meeting. Rives’s speech must have appealed to his listeners. He and Landon Cabell were elected as delegates to the Staunton convention, which assembled on August 19 and continued until August 24. The gathering included some of the most prominent Virginians and chose General James Breckinridge of Botetourt as president. All agreed that reform was needed, but they disagreed on the method, A minority of the delegation felt the proposed convention should be limited to amending the Constitution with respect to representation. At first Rives favored this position. Later, however, he switched to the majority opinion, which felt the Convention should be empowered to amend all inequities in the Constitution. When a final vote was taken Rives supported the latter proposal. The final action of the Staunton convention was to draw up and pass two memorials: one to the General Assembly

^^Draft of Speech by WCR to people of Nelson, July 4, I8l6, WCR Papers, L.C. 20 requesting it to call a convention to amend the Consti­ tution, and a second addressed to the people of Virginia asking for the establishment of a standing committee to take action if the legislature did not. The next legis­ lature did not call a constitutional convention, but it did pacify the West temporarily by reapportioning the Senate, alloting that section nine instead of four sena­ tor s. While Rives had not been a leader in the Staunton meeting, he had gained public attention through his participation. And in the spring of 181? William Cabell .Hives was elected a representative from Nelson County Lh to the House of Delegates of Virginia, Before this event took place, however, Rives visited the nation’s capital. If the detailed and criti­ cal diary he kept of this trip is any indication of his interest in the affairs of Washington, Rives had already fixed his sights on the United States Congress. His reaction to Washington’s political and social life was mixed. On New Year’s Day, 1817, he attended a gathering at the White House, attended by foreign ministers.

^Niles’ Weekly Register. XI, 17-23, September 7, I8l6, carried the proceedings of the Staunton convention. ^^Richmond Enquirer. May 6, 1817. 21

government officers, members of Congress, "etc," At this gathering he met the Spanish minister, the Chevalier Luis de Onis, for the first time, "a low protuberant and clumsy figure" with "a dark, treacherous and vindictive countenance" reminding Rives of "the horrible scenes of assassination with which the streets of his native Madrid have been so often polluted." He was more favorably impressed with the British minister and his wife. Hr. and Mrs. Charles Bagot, who seemed "to cultivate a good understanding with the people and government of this country." Two days later he dined with Senator James Barbour of Virginia and his mess, which included Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, Judge Charles Tait of Georgia, and John C, Calhoxm of South Carolina, among others. There he observed the height of the "genius of dulness [slcQ." He recalled that after the dinner Tait, Calhoun and Thomas Telfair, a member of the House of Representatives from Georgia, fell asleep and snored in "horrible discord,"

And. even more disgusting, the rest of the group seemed not to notice! He observed that Calhoun was "a very silent, and apparently unsociable man," although Rives admitted that on that particular occasion he seemed to

^5iipragment of a Journal Jan*y. I8I7 ," entry for January 1, 1817, WCR Papers, L.C. 22 ’’labour under considerable languor, . . . I think his character would be improved by infusing a little more ardour and vivacity into it.” Following this rather dull dinner, he attended a ball. There he observed ”an artificial system of court manners” which was not alto­ gether pleasing to the young gentleman from Virginia. Again, however, he noted the behavior of Mr. and Mrs. Bagot, who seemed to be more accommodating to American customs. Although the social life of Washington was interesting. Rives took a more serious interest in the debates in the House of Representatives. On January 2, 1817, he heard the ’’celebrated” John Randolph for the first time and was ’’greatly disappointed. ” Rives found the ’’Anglo-mania of Mr. Randolph” especially repulsive and characterized it as ”a species of political idolatry and paganism.Randolph had not improved much by the nezt day and Rives found it impossible to recall his argiments. All he could remember was ”a few brilliant and sparkling sentences . . . which have no bearing on the merits of the subject.” Nonetheless, Rives admitted

^^Ibid.. entry for January 3. 1817. ^^Ibid. 23 that his fellow Virginian excited the audience although he said "nothing at all."^® During this visit Rives also observed the ora­ torical skills of John C. Calhoun, whose "conceptions seemed to be very clear, his arrangements lucid, and his manner quite earnest," and Henry Clay, who "spoke with a great deal of animation and what would generally be called eloquence," although "there was very little energy llQ of reasoning or force of argument in his speech." Most appalling to Rives in his observation of the House of Representatives was the insensitivity of the speakers to the principles of grammar. He heard the most clever commit errors for which even a school boy would be punished. He cited these examples: ’Arriv* instead of arrived, ’adapt’ instead of adopt. The days spent in Washington were undoubtedly informative and interesting for Rives and provided him with a preview of his life in later years.

^^Ibid.. entry for January 4, 1817. ^^Ibid. ^^Ibid. 24

In the spring of 181? William C. Eives presented his political beliefs to the people of Nelson County in his campaign for the Virginia House of Delegates. The major points which he presented were: education for all, since a well-informed citizenry was the essential ingred­ ient for a republican form of government; a concern for agricultural interests; and a unified code of laws for Virginia, He also felt it desirable to speak on national affairs. In this connection he praised the administrations of Jefferson and Madison and supported their foreign policies, including the War of 1812. He justified the war by pointing to the agricultural prosperity, extension of commerce and increased respect for the United States which had resulted from the war. In closing he called for a continuation of the political harmony in the United States and expressed the hope that the emerging sectional differences in the country would never make its people forget they were still parts of the same nation and members of the same family.Hives was thus identifying himself quite clearly with the republican ideals of Jeffer­ son and Madison, a posture he was to maintain for the

^^Draft of a Speech by WCE to People of Nelson, Spring, 1817, WCE Papers, L.C, 25 the rest of his political life. It was, however, not a surprising development in view of the legal, and one must assume political, training Rives had received from Jefferson, At any rate, his statements must have pleased his constituents. In May Rives and John Martin, with no opposition, were elected to the House of Delegates from Nelson C o u n t y . ^2

Before he moved on to the national scene in Washington Rives was to serve four terms in the House of Delegates, the first three running consecutively from 1817 to 1820 and the fourth in 1822-23, His participation in these sessions was to provide Rives with an opportunity to develop his speaking ability and his political beliefs. The Virginia House of Delegates convened in December, 1817. Although he was a novice Rives was immediately appointed to four standing committees,More important, however, was his appointment as chairman of a special committee to investigate charges against the

^ Richmond Enquirer. May 6, 1817. That Rives was well thought of In Virginia is indicated by the fact that George Hay was instructed to offer him the position of private secretary to President James Monroe. Rives, however, turned down this position to serve in the Assembly. James Monroe to WCR, Washington, November 24, 1817, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^Richmond Enquirer, December 4, 1817. Rives was appointed to the Committee of Finance, Committee of Courts and Justice, Committee to Examine the Register’s Office, and Committee to Examine Executive Expenditures. 26 James River Company for non-compliance with its charter. The company had been originally chartered to improve the navigation of the James River, with the eventual goal of connecting the James and I^nawha Rivers. The company had made very slow progress and numerous complaints had been voiced.^^ Since his district was very interested in this project (the James River runs along the south­ eastern boundary of Nelson County), Rives had requested the appointment of the special committee»^^ When his committee concluded that the complaints were warranted and proposed a legal trial of the facts and a proceeding by quo warranto to forfeit the company's charter, oppo­ sition developed. Led by Archibald Thweatt of Chesterfield, this group vehemently attacked the report presented by Rives on behalf of his Committee for its "conservative adherence to the forms and safeguards of legal justice." Thweatt also referred to Rives as "the quo warranto gentleman," although in a good-humored manner. In spite of this attack Rives's recommendations were passed by the House of Delegates and legal proceedings were started.In 1819 the Assembly authorized purchase of ^ The company's inefficiency is discussed in Wayland Fuller Dunaway, History of the James River and Kanawha Company. Columbia University Studies in History. Economics and Public Law. Vol. CIV, No. 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1922), 4o-^3 ff. ^^Rlchmond Enquirer, December 23, 181?. ^^Ibid., February 26, I8l8; WCR to Hugh B. Grigs­ by, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, WCR Papers, L.C. 27 the rights of the James River Company and the James River and Kanawha Company was formed, the state assuming responsibility for supervising and partially funding the continued improvement of the James and Kanawha Rivers, During the same session debate developed around the extent of the power and privileges of the House. The Farmer's Bank of Virginia was being investigated on charges of mismanagement of funds. One witness refused to answer a question put to him by a joint committee of the House and Senate appointed to investigate the charges against the Bank. An anti-bank minority moved that a warrant be issued against this reluctant witness and that he be kept in custody until the investigation was finished. This proposal aroused opposition from conservative and moneyed interests, as well as those who felt the House was exceeding its authority. A substitute resolution was proposed which stated that the committee’s instructions did not allow it to inquire into the private affairs of any of the directors. Therefore the witness's refusal to answer did not constitute contempt of the House, Rives took an active part in the ensuing debate, , and supported the substitute resolution. He recognized the popularity of the idea of an all powerful legislature. from 1776 to l86l (Chicago; University of Chicago Press, i m ) T ^ ÏÔ61 28 but maintained that the legislature had no right to inquire into private affairs, as the committee was attempting to do. More importantly, he emphasized the idea that the privileges of the House ought to be defined. The substitute motion passed by a vote of 123 to 44. Rives had seized an opportunity to state his belief in the limited power of government, 58 During the next session of the legislature Rives was able to prove his interest in education. The issue concerned establishment of the University of Virginia, On the second day of the session, a report, almost exclusively the work of Thomas Jefferson, was presented to the House, It promoted Central College, which had been established in iBlo at Charlottesville, as the location 59 for the University of Virginia. Soon Samuel Taylor of Chesterfield introduced a bill incorporating the recommen- 60 dations contained in Jefferson’s report. Needless to say, opposition developed. The reasons for opposition varied. Some individuals were hostile to the establish­ ment of any university, others disliked Jefferson, others felt that the state capital would follow the University, ^ Richmond Enquirer. January 17, 1818, ^^Philip Alexander Bruce, History of the University of Virginia, the Lengthened Shadow of One Man (5 vols,, New York: Macmillan, 1920-22), I, 211. ^°Ibid,, 221-26. 29 and still others opposed public support of education entirely. The supporters of the bill thus faced serious obstacles in promoting the Jefferson plan.^^ While Joseph C, Cabell in the Senate and William F. Gordon in the House led the fight for the University, Jefferson*s young friend from Nelson became a powerful force in the struggle. Both Rives and his father were subscribers to Central College, and now he was in a position to help Jefferson and Central College.Rives, a member of the Committee on Schools and Colleges, was logically appointed to the special committee to which the University Bill was referred. As it developed the battle to locate the University at Charlottesville was bitter. However, two days before the final vote on the bill, Rives spoke on behalf of Jefferson's proposed location. His efforts must have impressed some members of the House, since a motion to strike out Charlottesville as the location was defeated by a vote of 69 to ll4.^^ More impressive was the final vote on the University

^^Ibid.. 226-35. ^^Robert Hives subscribed $500 and William C. Rives #200. Nathaniel F. Cabell, ed., Early History of the University of Virginia, as Contained in the Letters of Thomas Jefferson and Joseph C. Cabell. . . . (Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1B5ÏÏ), Appendix, p. 411.

^^Richmond Enquirer, December 10, I8I8. ^Ibid.. January 19, 1819. 30 bill: 143 to 28 for the proposal, reflecting the strong sentiment in favor of a state university rather than the disagreement over location.Rives was able to inform Jefferson of the victory: I have it in my power to congratulate you, at last, on an event, which constitutes a proud epoch in the history of Virginia, . , , Altho' the previous votes taken in the committee of the whole had left little doubt as to the final success of the measure, yet the result was much more decisively favorable than the most sanguine of us had allowed our­ selves to hope for. The Bill, in every stage of its progress, encountered a vehement, active & persevering opposition, on the floor of the house; and a system of intrigue & cabal was employed against it, out of doors, which, as being bottomed on feelings of local jealousy & conducted with great secrecy, it was much more difficult to counteract. To triumph, under such circumstances is a double victory, which must be peculiarly gratifying to every friend of science in Virginia. The "triumph" was undoubtedly pleasing to Rives and certainly made his service in the House of Delegates worthwhile. As he left Richmond at the end of his second term as a member of the House, however, it is highly unlikely that he was looking backward. More probably he was looking forward to an event scheduled for March 24, 1819. On that day he was to marry Judith Page Walker.

Ibid.. January 21, 1819,

^^WCR to Thomas Jefferson, January 20, 1819, Jefferson Papers, L.C. 31

The friendship "between William Cabell Bives and the younger daughter of Francis Walker and Jane Byrd Nelson dated back to Hives's student days at William and Mary. The two had met in Hichmond where Judith and her elder sister Jane Francis, orphaned at an early age, lived with their grandmother. There Bives had been pestered by a young girl of ten who would substitute his "grave" book with the "marriage of Cock Bobin and Jenny Wren. The two met again in the winter of 1814-15. By that time the student had exchanged his books for a sword and epaulette and the child had entered her "teens.Again the encounter was brief and lacking in romantic overtones. A change had taken place, however, by the next time they met. In the spring of 1818 Judy was living with her sister at the "Castle Hill" estate of her grandfather in Albemarle County. She was sixteen and a popular young lady in local society. Young Hives for her Grandchildren," p. 15 [hereafter cited as JPH Autobiography, WCE Papers, L.C.

^^Ibid.. pp. 22-23. 32 had become a "barrister and a legislator,” and he took a new look at Judy. Very soon he proposed. Judy, however, rejected him, since she "did not like to resign her free­ dom so early.” She was sad and was afraid he would never return. Fortunately, her fears were in vain.^^ In June, Judy and her close friend Mildred Nelson visited Judy’s aunt, Mrs. George Divers, at the "Farming­ ton” plantation. Their only male companion was Tom Divers, George Divers’ brother. The two young ladies made such demands on his time that he soon desired relief. He thus called on a young friend to visit "Farmington.” The two young ladies, especially Judy, were amazed when the friend turned out to be William C. Rives. The courtship, apparently nipped in the bud in the spring, bloomed under the watchful eyes of Tom Divers and Mildred Nelson. The two provided ample opportunities for William and Judy to be alone and the expected event took place. Taking his cue from a romantic Italian story which the group had read together. Rives secretly presented Judy with a rosebud. When she accepted it, she indicated her interest in him. On the next evening when he gave her a half blosm rose, his "hand trembled visibly." She also accepted this token of his affection. On the next evening two full blown roses were given to

^Ibld.. p. 32. 33 Judy, When she placed them in the belt of her corsage she signalled her acceptance of Hives’s second proposal.

As Judy recalled later, "those roses settled my earthly destiny.

As soon as his proposal had been accepted. Hives was anxious for the wedding to take place. Judy, however, insisted that she could not be married until she had reached the "respectable age of seventeen." Hives, taking her at her word, set the day for March 24, 1819, Judy’s seventeenth birthday, Although she "ridiculed the idea of a bridal in the stormy month of March," Rives persisted and prevailed. When the day came, Judy’s predictions came true. Rain flooded the countryside, and the bridegroom nearly lost his life while crossing a river on horseback. Luck was with the couple, however, and the ceremony was carried out as scheduled, regardless of the weather. Judy remembered very little about the ceremony itself, but did recall her bridesmaid telling the bridegroom, through her tears, "if I [jud^ was now be-reaved in name, she was bereaved indeed. As soon as the weather permitted, the young honeymooning couple returned to Hives’s home at Oak Ridge, During the following summer they traveled through the

^°Ibid.. pp. 37-40. 34 mountains in western Virginia. When fall came they traveled first to Oak Ridge and then to Castle Hill, where they were reunited with friends and relatives. Judy met Thomas Jefferson for the first time when he visited them at Castle Hill. When Rives returned to Richmond in December,

1819, to take his place in the House of Delegates, his bride accompanied him. They stayed at a fashionable hotel and enjoyed the company of the most prominent families of Richmond.While the romantic nature of his proposal and his impatience to be married, combined with the obvious dedication expressed by Rives toward his wife from the day of the marriage until his death in 1868, indicate that he truly loved her, he must also have been aware that a union with one of the oldest and most respected families of Piedmont Virginia would undoubtedly enhance his social and political future. Young Rives interesting description of Jefferson: "Hr. Jefferson was far advanced in life at this period, but his manners were pleasing, his voice and general conversation very attractive, his eye bright, and his tall figure had lost none of its uprightness. With his back turned, and especially on horseback, no one would have sus­ pected that nearly eighty years had passed over such a form." Ibid.. p. 46. 73Ibid.. p. 49. 35 was proud and happy to return to Richmond with his bride.

The legislative session of 1819-20 was concerned with several questions of extreme importance to Virginia and the nation. In February, 1819, a bill requesting the admission of Missouri as a slave state had come before the House of Representatives of the United States. Southerners became alarmed when James Tallmadge of New York proposed an amendment which would have prohibited further importation of slaves into Missouri, and would have required all children born thereafter to slave parents to be freed when they reached the age of twenty- five. With this amendment attached, the bill passed the House. When the measure reached the Senate, however, the Tallmadge amendments were defeated. The House refused to

The hundreds of letters exchanged between Judith and William Cabell Rives attest to the sincere affection which existed between them. See WCR Papers, L.C. Judith Page Rives was the granddaughter of Thomas Walker, "surveyor, explorer, physician, and merchant," prominent in the affairs of western Virginia. See Brown, Cabell s. pp. #9-52. 36 concur in this action, and when Congress adjourned in March, the Missouri question was left undecided. When the Virginia Legislature convened in December, 1819, it expressed its concern over the Missouri question, Virginia, along with the rest of the South, denied that Congress had authority to limit slavery in a territory. The legislature passed resolutions to this effect.While the members agreed that the protest should be registered, they were not unanimous as to how this sentiment should be presented. Debate centered around the resolution which requested the state's repre­ sentatives and instructed her senators in Congress to devote their efforts to getting Missouri admitted on

equal terms. Â motion was made by Henry Carrington of Charlotte to replace the word instruct. in relation to senators, with request. The distinction was important. The doctrine of instruction, which required that senators follow the instructions of the legislature or resign, was being questioned. Rives supported the Carrington motion, and "strongly opposed" the right of instruction, which he interpreted as the right of the legislature to

Nationalism 1815-1828 (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p p . 107-11.

^^Richmond Enquirer, January 13, 1820. 37 command a senator and expect his obedience.This was perhaps his first political misjudgment. In opposing the doctrine of instruction Rives was running counter to one of the basic tenets of the Democratic party in Virginia, and his statement on that occasion was to be used against him later.The Carrington motion was

defeated by the wide margin of 38 to 142.^^ The second question of importance to face the legislature was John Marshall*s decision in the case of

■McCulloch V. Maryland. In his decision Marshall deter­ mined that the power of Congress to establish a bank was implied in the Constitution and thus the Bank of the United States was constitutional. He also determined that states could not tax it or hinder its operation by discriminatory legislation.^^ When this issue reached the legislature Rives assumed a much more orthodox position than he had on the right of instruction. As a

Ibid., January 1 3, 1820. Unfortunately, the paper provides only a brief summary of Rives’s remarks. And no record was left of this speech in his papers. It is therefore difficult to determine the degree of his opposition to the doctrine of instruction. "^^Rasrmond C. Dingledine, Jr., "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of Virginia, 194?), p. 49. 79Ibid.

The American Constitution Its Origins and Development Tïjëw York: W. W. Norton, 19?0), pp.“2ÏÏ9^90. 38 member of the select committee concerned with anti-bank resolutions, he opposed the decision of the Supreme Court as a threat to states rights. The members of his committee jointly appealed to the stand which Virginia had taken in 1799 in defense of the Constitution,®^ Rives supported a resolution proposed and passed by the House which instructed Virginia's senators to support a con­ stitutional amendment prohibiting Congress from estab­ lishing a national bank or any other monied institution.

A second resolution, also supported by Rives, instructed the senators to oppose any legislation not "necessary or proper" to carry into effect the powers "expressly" granted by the Constitution. Again reference was made to the resolutions and report adopted by the General Assembly of Virginia in 1798 and 1799.^^ In supporting these resolutions Rives affirmed his position as a staunch believer in "states rights," a stance he was to maintain during the entire course of his political career. While the people of Virginia were interested in the slavery question and the bank issue, a much more pressing and immediate problem loomed. This, of course, was the financial crisis which struck the nation in the

®^Richmond Enquirer. February 12, 1820.

^^Ibid.. February 15, 1820. 39 spring of 1819. The period of inflation preceding the panic had led to extensive indebtedness for land and property, and an Execution Law was introduced into the legislature to relieve the suffering of the citizens of Virginia. The Execution Law would have prevented the sale of property "under execution, deeds of trust, decrees of chancery courts etc. unless the property should sell for 3/4ths of its value, as ascertained by commissioners, and provided the debtor gives a replevin bond with good security, for the benefit of his creditor,Opponents of the bill questioned the legislature's constitutional right to pass it, and the^ expediency of enforcing it even if the right did exist.^ Rives, as a representative of a region of landowners who were in debt and who had suffered in the panic, supported the Execution Law. He presented his views in "a comprehensive, forcible and ingenious speech" of six hours, and supported the con­ stitutionality and expediency of the bill. In spite of the diligent efforts of Rives and other supporters of the bill, however, it failed passage by a majority of thirty-eight votes.

^^Ibid.. February 1, 1820.

^^Ibid..r^- February 5, 1820. ko In the closing days of the legislative session of 1819-20 electors were chosen for the coming presi­ dential election. Meeting in joint session, the Senate and House of Delegates selected William C, Bives of Kelson County as one of Virginia's twenty-five electors. Fortunately, since his selection prevented his election to the nezt session of the legislature, he had already been considering alternate plans. The eight thousand acre estate of Francis Walker had been left to his two daughters. The land had been divided by lot and Judy Rives had received the part which contained Castle Hill. The couple had debated the advantages of staying at Oak Ridge, home of the Hives, or moving to Castle Hill. After weighing Hives's political future at the two loca­ tions, they decided to move to Castle Hill in Albemarle County, where Rives had indications of political support for the House of Representatives.®"^ In addition, Judy would be near her friends and her sister, who had built a home on her share of the Walker estate. Thus, in 1820

Ibid.. February 19, 1820. ^^JPR Autobiography, pp. 47-48, WCR Papers, . L.C. There was also some indication that there would be opposition to anyone trying to enter the national arena from Nelson County, since this might conflict with the ambition of Joseph C. Cabell. See William W. Southall to WCR, January 13, 1819, WCR Papers, L.C, the Sireses moved to Castle Hill where they were to live the rest of their lives. Aside from casting his electoral vote for incimbent and fellow Virginian James Monroe, Bives returned to his legal practice and occupied himself with domestic affairs. And in the spring of 1822 he became a candidate once more for the House of Delegates, The outcome of the election, with Rives receiving the highest number of votes among four candidates, indicated that he had not made an unwise decision in moving to Castle Hill.®^ When Rives returned to Richmond in December, 1822, he made arrangements for his family to join him,®^ He managed to rent rooms from Mrs. Kep, referred to as go "Madame Malaprop" by her boarders.^ Although he had been absent from the House for two years, it was not difficult for Rives to resume a position of importance. The most exciting debate of the session, from Rives * s point of view, concerned a disagreement between

Richmond Enquirer, April 5» 1822. Rives received 395 votes ; W. F. Gordon, 320; C. Everett, 296; and C. Cocke, l6l.. ^^The Rives‘s first child, Francis Robert, was born on February 16, 1822. 90 JPR Autobiography, p. 51, WCR Papers, L.C. 42 the House and Senate over a bill providing for a board of commissioners to decide the territorial dispute between Virginia and Kentucky, The House supported a ’’clause of guarantee".in the bill, while the Senate wished to have this stricken,In order to resolve the differences of opinion a committee of conference, composed of members from both branches of the legislature, was appointed to discuss the issue before the entire Assembly,Rives was selected as one of the spokesmen for the House and played a prominent role in the debates which lasted for several days. Rives, of course, defended the position of the House, and his speech in reply to Henry St, George Tucker, a member of the Senate, brought forth spontaneous applause from the audience and the congratulations of Tucker himself,Although the two branches of the Assembly could not reach a compromise and the bill was rejected,Rives later remembered that there was "no event of my public life which, for various reasons, brings back to me, in the recollection, more gratifying

^ A brief record of this debate will be found in the Richmond Enquirer, January 25, 28, 30 and February 1, 1823, ^^Ibid,. January 25, 1823. 93 Undated note in WCR’s handwriting giving summary of his experiences in the Legislature, WCR Papers, L,C.

^^Richmond Enquirer. February 8, 1823. 4 3 reflections,”^^ Although Rives never elaborated on those "various reasons" for being so pleased, it is reasonable to assume that the display of public approval must have been promising to a young man who had not yet reached his thirtieth birthday, especially one who had already set his sights on representing his state in the national legislature. This hope was soon to be realized. When the session of 1822-23 ended, Hives was to leave the House permanently. As the move to Castle Hill indicated, he had for some time been interested in moving into the national political arena. In the spring of 1823 an opening appeared, Albemarle’s representative. Judge Hugh Nelson, was appointed minister to Spain, Hives immediately presented himself to the people as a man of Jeffersonian principles. In an address to the people of Amherst in March, 1823, William C, Rives summarized his political beliefs, gained through an association with Thomas Jefferson and four years’ experience as a member of the House of Delegates: The division of power between the governments of the states & the union is

^WCH to Hugh B, Grigsby, Castle Hill, April 6, 1866, Mrs, Hives also noted, "It was the first and the last time I ever saw him C-.'ClQ elated by his own effort," JPE Autobiography, p, 53» WCH Papers, L,C, the peculiar feature, which distinguishes . our political system from all others. In making this division, the wise men who framed our constitution retained to the state governments the exclusive controul of their oxm municipal concerns, compre­ hending in a general view, whatever relates to the protection of life, liberty & property, & gave to the federal govern­ ment the superintendence only of certain specific objects of common interest to all the states, arising out of their intercourse with foreign nations & with one another. Rives then discussed the powers of the federal govern­ ment and the limitations on those powers. While he admitted that the national legislature must be respon­ sible for foreign relations and national defense, he felt that wisdom should be exercised in determining the "precise line where a just & prudent expenditure ends, & beyond which the application of public money becomes a wanton breach of trust." Therefore, except in times of national emergency, the existing tariff would be sufficient to provide for the defense of the nation, without either levying an internal tax or increasing the tariff. This line of reasoning provided Hives with an opportunity to discuss the question of the tariff. Reflecting the sentiments of a predominantly agricultural region, of which he himself was a part. Rives noted that some parts of the country had been urging higher tariffs to protect manufacturing. He ^5 left no doubt in the minds of his audience that he opposed such a move» He concluded that such action would in fact discourage the importation of foreign goods and necessitate other forms of taxation. In addition it would "make one class of the community tributary to another." His most significant argument against a protective tariff, however, 'was that while the Constitution had given Congress the power to "lay & collect duties," it had not empowered the legislature to levy a tariff as a "medium for arbitrarily trans­ ferring wealth & property from one class of the community to another— to make the rich, richer & the poor, poorer." Rives then stressed that he would, if elected, join the ranks of the "friends of justice & free trade, throughout the union." Having fully expressed his views on the tariff. Rives then turned his attention to another issue which involved the limitation of congressional power: internal improvements. While he felt internal improvements were necessary, for the most part they benefited local interests and should be supported by the states, rather than absorbing "all the resources of the nation in making roads and canals thro* the territories of favored states." Such a position was not surprising; as Rives was well aware, Virginia had already undertaken a program of 46 subsidizing improvements at state expense. Rives then closed his address by statingi Believing the state governments to be the surest bulwarks against the anti- republican tendencies, resulting from the vast patronage and extensive influence of the federal authority, I shall always be ready to contribute my best efforts to maintain them unimpaired in the exercise of all their legitimate & constitutional powers.9° Thus this young republican expressed his states-rights principles. Such sentiments were not surprising. Presumably he was trying to convince the electorate in his congressional district that he could best represent their interests. But nothing in his speech ran counter to ideas which he had expressed earlier in his political career. As an extensive landowner (he had received 991 acres from his father in 1815 and had assumed control over his wife's property of several thousand acres by his move to Castle Hill), it was logical that he would oppose a protective tariff. Internal improvements had been undertaken on a state level; therefore, it would be foolish to jeopardize

96 "Notes on an address to the people of Amherst," March, 1823, NCR Papers, L.C. This is only one of several addresses he prepared during his campaign, but the sentiments expressed in all the addresses are similar to this.

WCR Papers, L.C. 4? his financial interests by encouraging aid to other states on the national level. And finally, the general themes of fiscal responsibility and limitations on the power of Congress well suited a close friend and poli­ tical disciple of Thomas Jefferson. In any case Rives's position apparently appealed to his audiences: in April he was elected, without opposition, to the House of Q8 Representatives.

The young Virginian set out for Washington in early December, 1823. The trip was disagreeable: the accommodations at Fredericksburg were particularly "odious & offensive, . . . the servants . . . the most surly, dilatory & unaccommodating. ..." After several days he arrived in Washington and engaged a room at Mrs. Arguelles', where the mess consisted of George Tucker of Virginia, Timothy Fuller and Henry W. Dwight of Massachusetts, and Philip S. Markle of Pennsylvania, all members of the House. A few hours after his arrival he qualified for and took his seat in the House of

^^Richmond Enquirer. April 11, 1823. 48 Representatives, a position he was to occupy for the go X years. ^ The House of Representatives of the Eighteenth Congress, scene of Rives's debut on the national scene, was superior to the Senate in its ability. Henry Clay was the speaker, and its membership included such prominent politicians as Daniel Webster, Louis McLane, James Buchanan, Edward Livingston, P. P. Barbour, and John Randolph. These men of talent were to deal with two significant issues during Hives's first year in their midst; the General Survey Bill and the tariff. The General Survey Bill, which gave the presi­ dent the power to order surveys for roads and canals which he considered in the national interest, provided Rives with his first opportunity to speak in the House. The Bill was apparently intended to pave the way for appropriations for a system of internal improvements and for subscriptions to the stock of companies occupied in these improvements As such it of course ran

WCR to Judith Page Rives [hereafter cited as JPR], December 8, 10, 1823, WCR Papers, L.C. He also noted, "A gentleman from Maine of the name Lon.ocfellow qualified at the same time that I did, whose name presented an amusing contrast to his own stumny figure, as well as to the brevity of my name & person." WCR to JPR, December 10, 1823, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Dangerfield. The Awakening of American Nationalism, p. 200. 49 counter to Rires*s concept of states rights. He felt that the federal government could only be involved in projects which involved all of the states. He there­ fore questioned the constitutionality of the General Survey Bill. Even the most.extensive projects of inter­ nal improvement, such as a road from Maine to New Orleans or the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi, only involved some of the states, not all of them. Such projects, according to Rives, should be accomplished by mutual consent among the states involved, not by the federal government. In examining the Constitution he could find no power granted to Congress for the present project. And in conclusion he warned that the state governments might eventually become useless, if people looked to the federal, instead of the state, government for improvements in travel and transportation, Although Rives's position was generally agreeable to the Virginia delegation in the House, the bill passed by a vote of 115 to 86.^®^ The result was disappointing to this supporter of states rights, but he had been

'Annals of Congress (42 vols.; Washington * Gales & Seaton, l85?-56), ïbth Congress, 1st Session, 1344, 1347, 1361. Hives's full speech, delivered February 4, 1824, will be found in ibid.. 1344-61. ^^^Ibid,. 1467-68, Six Virginians voted for the bill, three from the western part of the state, one from the north, and two from the east. 50 provided with an opportunity to show his constituents that he remained true to his principles. On the issue of the tariff Rives remained silent. He had definite views on the effect of a pro­ tective tariff, views which he had elaborated during his campaign: it would reduce the importation of foreign goods, reduce the revenue obtained from this source and make it necessary to turn to other, more "objectionable," forms of taxation. It would also have the effect of making one class of the community "tributary" to another by forcing the agricultural segment of society to pay higher prices for the protected manufactured goods. Nonetheless, he apparently felt other members of the House were able to point out the objections to the tariff bill as well as he could. When the issue came to a vote, he joined the Virginia delegation (with one IQJ^ exception) and the South in voting against it. Another interesting development took place during the Congressional session of 1823-24, although not in the halls of Congress. On February l4. Rives joined sixty-six members of Congress, almost half of whom were from Virginia and New York, in a caucus to

"Notes on an address to the people of Amherst," March, 1823, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Annals. 18th, 1st, 2429-30. 51 select candidates for the upcoming presidential election. The congressional caucus was "an antiquated piece of

machinery," which had been under attack in I816 and had not been used in 1820 when Monroe sought a second term.^^^ Nonetheless, it was revived in 1824, in spite of the refusal of a majority of congressmen to attend. The chief engineer of the caucus was Martin Van Buren, senator from New York, and a proponent of Jeffersonian principles. In making use of the caucus to nominate the candidate whom he hoped would be the next president of the United States, Van Buren was motivated by a desire for party unity and felt that use of the Jeffersonian tactic of the caucus would provide legiti­ macy for his candidate. He also seemed to be determined to strengthen the ties between the Richmond Junto, controlled by Thomas Ritchie, editor of the Richmond Enquirer, and the Albany Regency, which he himself con- 0. I-, ^ 106

^^^Dangerfield. Awakening of American Nationalism, pp. 212-14. James C. Curtis, The Fox at Bay Martin Van Buren and the Presidency, 1837-184-1 TTexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1970), pp. 17-21, discusses Van Buren's reasons for devotion to Jeffersonian princi­ ples and his connection with the Richmond Junto. Robert V. Remini, Martin Van Buren and the Making of the Democratic Party (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951), should also be consulted on this topic. 52 Under Van Buren*s leadership, the caucus nomi­ nated William H, Crawford of Georgia for president and Albert Gallatin for vice-president. The caucus was a fiasco. For months opposition to this "undemocratic" and "unconstitutional" tactic had been developing. Forty-eight of the sizty-siz members of Congress in attendance represented only four states : New York, Vir­ ginia, Georgia, and North Carolina. The choice of a candidate was a mistake : in September, 1823, Crawford had suffered a strike and although efforts were made to conceal his condition from the public, it was apparent he was not well. Most significant of all, however, was the fact that the use of the caucus failed to recognize the growing interest throughout the country in the choice of a presidential candidate and the increasing complexity of the political scene. Although Rives might be criticized for parti­ cipating in this outmoded and suspect process, his

107 See Charles S. Sydnor, "The One-Party Period of American History," American Historical Review. LI No. 3 (April, 194-6), 4-39-51, for a discussion of the opposition to the caucus. Sydnor, however, also justifies the use of the caucus before 1824 as a use­ ful device for selection of presidential candidates. ^Eugene H. Roseboom, A History of Presidential Elections (New York; Macmillan, 1964),pp. 32-83. 53 attendance was to be expected. The process was part of the Jeffersonian tradition and Jefferson himself had privately expressed his support for Crawford for the presidency,It would have been very much out of character for Rives to develop an independent spirit at this stage of his political career. In addition, Crawford was the candidate selected by the Richmond Junto, whose support was essential for Hives’s political career.

As a result of his participation, he had aligned himself with the New York politicians, in particular Van Buren, and had, in effect, taken the first step which would lead to his appointment as minister to France,

While the primary business of Congress was politics, a social life for the members was not neglected. When Rives arrived in Washington, alone, he was deter­ mined to attend only enough parties to make his letters

Merrill D, Peterson, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation (New York; Oxford University Press, 1970), p, 1002, Peterson also refers to the passing of the Virginia dynasty, another factor in loss of control over the nominating procedure,

^^^By I823 the Richmond Enquirer had come out in support of Crawford’s candidacy, Ambler, Ritchie, p, 129. 5^ to Judy interesting.Very shortly the young Virginian found the life of a recluse to be more than he could bear and his wife joined him in enjoying the excitement of Washington society. She remained until the first of April, when the social season ended and the husbands lingered to wind up the business of the country.

The election for a president took place in the autumn of 1824-, but the outcome was still in doubt when Rives returned to Washington in December, 1824. At one of the first social gatherings, he met Mrs. Andrew Jackson, whom he referred to as "our next Presidentess." He found her dressed "in a black canton-crape, put together in the coarsest style of back-woods milinery." This woman with the "low, squat, bunchy figure" was hardly the type one would choose for first lady. None­ theless, he found her to be unconscious of her appearance, and in all a rather charming w o m a n . H e was a bit

WCR to JPR, December 24, 1823, WCR Papers, L.C. The Rives were adding on to the house at Castle Hill and hoped to save money for this project.

^^^WCR to JPR, December 11, 1824, ibid. 55 premature in his prediction of Jackson’s election, but his generally favorable impression of Mrs. Jackson might have influenced his decision to support the General several years later. Before the House decided the presidential ques­ tion, however, an exciting event occurred in the opening days of the congressional session of 1824-25. Lafayette, the Revolutionary hero, had arrived in the United States the previous summer, and on December 10, he appeared in ll4 the House of Representatives. ' Rives had met the Frenchman in the fall when he had visited Jefferson at Monticello. In fact. Rives had delivered the speech of welcome tendered Lafayette at the Albemarle county line, and had, with Thomas Jefferson Randolph, escorted him to Monticello.^^^ Observing Lafayette in Washington society, the Virginian was somewhat surprised that he was not "the object of exclusive & undivided attention," but he admitted that it might be a relief to the hero. The reception in the House of Representatives, however, was all one could hope for. Lafayette was escorted to

^^\cR to JPR, December 11, 1824, ibid. ■ ^^^Mary Rawlings, The Albemarle of Other Days (Charlottesville; The Michie Co., 1925), pp. 81-87 . Lafayette’s appearance in Charlottesville marked the beginning of a friendship between the hero and Rives which was to last for some years and to be helpful in Hives’s later negotiations with the French government. 56 his seat ty twenty-five representatives, one from each state. Meanwhile the Senate, "by invitation," took their seats in the hall. Henry Clay, as Speaker, delivered a welcome to which Lafayette "delivered a handsome & eloquent reply." So impressive was the event that a "religious solemnity” prevailed. Hives's participation in his second session of Congress was interrupted by the illness and death of his second son, William Cabell Rives, Jr., an event 117 which had a profound effect on him. Only after an absence of three weeks did he return to Washington to participate in the election of a president. In the election held in the autumn of 1824, none of the four candidates, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, William H. Crawford, or Andrew Jackson, received a majority of the electoral vote. The election was thus thrown into the House of Representatives, as stipulated

^^^WCR to JPR, December 11, 1824, WCR Papers, L.C, 117,William C. Rives, Jr., was born on October 6, 1824, and died in January, 1825. The Riveses had another son on December 19, 1825, whom they also named William C. Rives, Jr. The death of this son intensified Hives's religious convictions. While he had been raised in a religious atmosphere and had strong moral convictions, it was not until after this event that he was confirmed in the Episcopal Church. Notes of W. C. Rives, Jr., WCR Papers, L.C. 57 in the Constitution. Rives seemed determined to remain aloof from the political intrigues taking place in the capital in determining this question,Although this was a sentiment he was to express on numerous occasions, with questionable sincerity, on this occasion his distaste for political manipulation seems to have been genuine. The death of his son had been a disturbing event and he seemed reluctant to engage in the more dis­ tasteful aspects of political life. When the vote was finally taken, the Virginia delegation, including Bives, voted for William H. Crawford, although Crawford was ill and out of the running.Again, as in his participation in the caucus. Rives displayed his party loyalty. John Quincy Adams, with the help of the Clay votes, was elected president, in spite of the plurality of popular votes received by Jackson the previous fall. The most important work of the session completed. Rives returned to his sad family at Castle Hill. In the spring of 1825 he was returned to the House of Repre­ sentatives by the voters of his district, again without

^^^Charles H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861 (Chicago ; University of Chicago Press, I9IÏÏT, p. 132. 58 opposition,The next two years were to be unplea­ sant for the young Virginian. Possibly as a result of the mental strain connected with the death of his infant son, he began to experience poor health, which was to plague him periodically for the rest of his life. He described his condition in this way: Almost all the morbid symptoms which I felt had their immediate seat in the stomach, & were referrible to indigestion— a sense of weight and oppression in the stomach, after eating the lightest meal, a consequent heaviness & confusion in the head, a most distressing fulness & distension from the whole cavity of the body arising from wind, & a general prostration of strength. . . . I experienced for a short time & in a slight degree two other symp­ toms, (pain in the shoulder & in the right side), which are considered as indicating more specifically a disordered state of the liver; but these s^rmptoms were very transient in their duration, & never very distressing. . . . The symptoms which have lingered longest with me have been the distressing flatulence & distension described above, & a general debility of the whole system. I never experienced any very sensible remission of these symptoms till within two or three months, since which time they have rapidly abated; but even now they occasionally recur upon me from any error of diet or bad weather, & for three or four days at a time, prostrate me completely.^22

^^^Richmond Enquirer, April 8, 1825; he was re-elected in 182?. Ibid.. April 13, 182?. 1826, McDowell Family Papers, University of Virginia Library, Manuscript Division. 59 Although he tried various remedies, the most satis­ factory was a plan of "gentle exercise, especially on horseback, & never prosecuted to fatigue, & tranquillity & agreeable occupation of mind," in addition to the proper diet. Thus, when the House of Representatives convened in December, 1825, Rives was not well. Again leaving his wife and child at Castle Hill, he took a room at Mrs. Fendall’s, ate his meals in his room, daily rode 12^ his horse, and limited his social engagements." Again, finding this solitary life too much for him, he brought Judy to Washington, where the two engaged rooms at Mrs. Rouckendorff's on Pennsylvania Avenue. The most important issue in the House during the session of 1825-26, from Hives's point of view, was the Panama Mission. The Panama Congress, originally proposed by Simon Bolivar, was intended to promote the unification of Latin America. Initially the United States was not included in these plans and was not invited to attend. However, late in 1825, an invitation was issued

^^^Ibid. 124 WCR to JPR, December 31» 1825, January 8, 1826, and February 4, 1826, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^%CR to JPR, January 31, 1826, WCR Papers, 60 by the government of Colombia,In his message to Congress in December President Adams observed that the Panama Congress would consider "objects of the highest importance . . . bearing directly upon the special interests of this Union," and urged participation by the United States. While Adams did not want the United States to "contract alliances, nor to engage in any undertaking or project importing hostility to any other nation," he did see the country as having a special rela­ tionship to Latin America. Not surprisingly, the presidential message provided the anti-administration forces with a rallying point. The South, in particular, was afraid anti-slavery. measures would be adopted by the Congress, and was also disturbed by the fact that Haiti, a nation founded on a slave revolt, would be represented by a black man and the representatives from the United States would be obligated to treat him as an equalIAfter an extensive debate, the Senate approved the appointment of the

Arthur P. Whitaker, The United States and the Independence of Latin America, I8OO-I83O (New York* W. W. Norton, 196^7, p. 572. "^American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V, 883, 834. ^^^Whitaker, U.S. and Independence, p. 573. 61

House to approve an appropriation for the necessary funds. The House debate provided Rives with his first opportunity to speak on an issue directly related to the foreign policy of the country. Essentially the debate revolved around an amendment proposed by Louis McLane. The amendment would prohibit the commissioners from discussing or entering into any agreement or alliance requiring the United States to resist foreign inter­ ference in South America. It would also prevent the commissioners from compromising the country's neutrality 130 in any way. The discussion over the amendment divided the House into three groups : the first opposed the amendment and approved the appropriation; the second favored the amendment and, when that was approved, would vote for the appropriation; and the third group dis­ approved of the mission, even with the amendment. Rives fell into the last group. The first speech delivered by Rives on the Panama Mission, and the first speech his precarious

Register of Debates in Congress (l4 vols.; Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1825-3?) II, 19th Congress, 1st Session, 2010.

2010-2514. 62 state of health allowed him to make in the session, supported a resolution asking the President for infor­ mation on the Congress. He did not feel, as Webster and others did, that this was interfering with the executive,' ^ After looking at the correspondence betw Clay and the ministers of the Spanish American states, he expressed his views to his friend and relative by marriage, Thomas Walker Gilmer, He concluded that: . . , the real object of the mission to Panama, however disguised, is to enter into a political partnership with these nations of yesterday, in which we are to put in all the cauital. sustain all the losses, and receive none of the profits. There is not a dolt in the country who would not revolt at the inequality of such a bargain. But this scheme is conceived not in stupidity, but in "vaulting ambition which overleaps itself, "— It is the dazzling idea of a great American System in opposition to the Holy Alliance of Europe, which has bewildered and seduced the imaginations of our statesmen,^33 Rives was very clearly assuming the stance of a con­ tinental 1st in the affairs of the Western hemisphere.

^^^Ibid,. II, 1248-50, ^^^WCR to Thomas Walker Gilmer, March 2?, 1826, "Letters of William C. Rives," Tyler's Quarterly, V, 22?, Gilmer was a cousin of Judy Hives and had attended Ogilvie's school with WCR, The two men carried on a correspondence for several years and the letters are a valubie source for Hives's thought during this period. While copies of some of the letters are to be found in WCR Papers, L.C,, the most complete source is Tyler's Quarterly, 63 Having come to this conclusion about the mission, it was not surprising that Hives should have opposed McLane*s amendment which would have allowed restricted participation in the Panama Congress, In a lengthy speech before the House he proposed another condition to McLane’s amendment which would have pro­ hibited the commissioners from binding the United States '•to maintain, by force, the principle that no part of the American Continents is henceforth subject to colonization by any European power," In support of this condition he maintained that any participation by the United States in the Congress was dangerous to the country's policy. He viewed the threatened connection between the United States and the nations of old Spanish America as a departure from the traditional foreign policy of the nation.Hives was thus rejecting the ideas presented by President James Monroe in his state of the union message in December, 1823, He was also joining forces with the anti-administration group led by Martin Van Buren, Hives continued by outlining two possible policies toward Latin America. The first was to treat them with respect, but to remain independent of their problems, in other words, "the system of Washington,"

^^^Heglster of Debates. II, 2059-2060, 2066. 64 The second was the "new school" or the "American System" of closer political involvement. He of course supported the first approach. In closing, he rejected the idea that the interests of the United States were connected to those of South Jimerica. He believed rather that the United States could accomplish more in the cause of liberty by maintaining her independence and serving as an example of freedom, Although the appropriation was approved by the House, the arguments of Elves and his colleagues brought about the passage of McLane*s amendment, Much of the effort seemed in vain, as the dele^tes never reached the Congress. Nonetheless, Elves was able to proclaim publicly his views on the responsibility of the United States in foreign policy. In expressing his ideas he found himself aligned with the traditional policy of Washington and Jefferson, not a surprising development. In addition, although he had rejected a policy of one of Virginia's presidents, he had drawn closer to the anti-administration forces of Van Buren, a move which would significantly influence his politi­ cal career.

^^^Ibid.. II, 2514, 2457. 65 When this eventful session came to a close, Hives attempted to recover his health. In the summer he toured the resorts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, searching for a way to regain the eighteen pounds he had lost during his illness. After experimentation he found the spring and hath which seemed most beneficial and began to gain weight at the rate of half a pound a day.^^^ By the time Rives returned to Washington in December, 1826, Andrew Jackson had announced his candi­ dacy for the presidency and the campaign for his election had begun.Rives, as an opponent of the Adams policies, had no problem in aligning himself with the General. In the second session of the Nineteenth Con­ gress he became an even more outspoken critic of the administration and began to develop his reasons for supporting Jackson, privately at first in order to assure himself that Jackson would uphold Jeffersonian principles. The Military Appropriations Bill gave Rives an opportunity to attack the administration. The essential question was executive authority over internal improve­ ments. On December 29, he questioned the policy of

^^’^WCR to JPR, August 11, 16, 20, 24, 29, 1826, WCR Papers, L.C. He visited Bath and Bedford Springs in his travels. ■ ^ Robert V. Remini, The Election of Andrew Jackson (Philadelphia and New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1963), provides a discussion of this campaign. 66 including the annual appropriations for surveys of roads and canals in the Military Appropriations Bill, and introduced a resolution instructing the Committee on Ways and Means to investigate the possibility of substituting specific appropriations for routes author­ ized by Congress, He felt that the present system was "an unwarrantable and dangerous delegation of our powers." Indeed, the president might survey for projects which Congress would not deem important.In addition he later opposed the allocation in the Bill of #30,000 for the surveys undertaken under the General Survey Act of 1824 (which he had considered unconstitutional). In this connection he brought up another constitutional problem. Even if one assumed that the national govern­ ment were empowered to make internal improvements, the provisions of the act were unconstitutional. The Bill allowed the president the power of deciding which pro­ jects should be carried out. This clearly was a legis­ lative decision and the bill therefore was unconstitutional. Stating that the Survey Act increased the power of the executive and weakened the other branches of govern­ ment, he continued: , , . there is, in the practice of this Government, a strong, steady, and increasing

^^^Hegister of Debates. Ill, 571-?4, 67 proclivity to monarchy! Let not gentlemen start at the name. In the qualified form in which it is presented to us by modern examples, it is nothing but a strong Exec­ utive power, wielded by a single hand. Now, sir, have we not a strong Executive power, wielded by a single hand, which has fearfulljy increased, and is still increasing?*-^® While he was attacking the administration in the halls of Congress, Rives spent at least part of his time outside Congress corresponding with friends and developing his support of Jackson. He began to feel that the General was the “one man in this country, whose hold upon the affections of the people is so strong as to enable him to prevail against the overwhelming patronage wielded by the incumbents."' ' In the initial stage of his support for Jackson, Rives stressed the idea that Jackson would only serve one term. If this were true, and Jackson’s friends were making such assurances, then the nation would not be neglected to "the single object of procuring his re-election, by means of patronage & other electioneering expedients.

140 Ibid.. Ill, 1270. 141 ‘ WCR to John Rutherfoord, April 28, 1827, William Cabell Rives Deposit, University of "Virginia Library, Manuscript Division. ^^^Ibid. The enthusiasm for Jackson increased as the months passed, and Hives began to find other reasons for supporting him. In July, 1827, he attempted to bring his friend Thomas Walker Gilmer into the fold of Jackson supporters. By this time he concluded that Jackson's views on the tariff and internal improvements were acceptable. The election of Jackson would also eliminate the problem of overspending and dangerous diplomacy on the part of the government; and he again stressed the expectation that Jackson would only serve one term. Most significantly. Rives considered Jackson to be a Jeffersonian Republican: We all look back to the administration of Mr. Jefferson as the golden age of the republic, & would eagerly catch at the faintest prospect of restoring it, and bringing back the maxims of his policy. Here we have them all from the pen, & I should hope, from the heart of Gen, Jackson; & that the observance of them was never more called for, than at present, is, I believe, generally admitted in Virginia, at least,1^3 By the autumn of 182? Hives's support of Jackson had progressed to such a point that he prepared an address and resolutions adopted by the citizens of Albemarle at a meeting on December 3, 1827, in support of the General. Although Hives had left for Washington

lZf3 WCE to Thomas Walker Gilmer, July 22, 1827, "Letters of Hives," Tyler's Quarterly, V, 231-36, 69 by the time the meeting was held, his words condemned the administration and praised the principles Jackson represented. Upon his return to Washington Rives continued his attack on the administration by calling for.retrench­ ment in governmental expenditures in order to pay the national debt. He compared the expenditures of Adams with those of Jefferson and concluded that the adminis­ tration was responsible for the deteriorating state of the nation.This approach aroused the Adams men in 14-6 his district, but it apparently appealed to the supporters of Jackson in Virginia, and Rives was spoken of in some circles as a possible candidate for governor or senator. Although he could not deny that he had greater political ambitions, he rejected both these possibilities for the time being. He thought the Senate was beyond his reach at the time and felt the governorship

"Albemarle Address & Resolutions favoring the Selection of Andrew Jackson," WCR Papers, L.C. The address and proceedings were published in the Richmond Enquirer. December 13, 182?. ^^^Register of Debates. IV, 20th, 1st, 1692. ^^^Rives was forced to defend himself in the Richmond Enquirer. May 6, 1828, June 7, 1828. 70 was desired by older and better men.^^^ Nonetheless, the interest of his friends in his political future indicated Eives*s political progress in his party and his state. The efforts of Elves and others in Virginia on behalf of Jackson resulted in a victory for the General in the fall; Jackson carried Virginia by a majority of more than two to one.^^^ Although Virginia's electoral votes were not absolutely essential for Jackson's victory, its support would have to be rewarded, as recognition of the prominence of the state as the home of Jefferson and Madison as well as its support of Jackson in the election. Although Elves's name was mentioned for the French mission as early-as December, 1828,^^^ he had to wait some time before the post was actually offered to him. And ultimately the choice of Elves depended on a combination of circumstances: when Virginia was not represented in the cabinet of Jackson, discontent

^WCE to Gilmer, April 22, 1828, September 25, 1828, December 5, 1828, Tyler's Quarterly. VI, 6-10, 13-15» 99-100. 1^8 Henry H. Simms, The Else of the Whigs in Virginia. 1824-1840 (Eichmond: The William Byrd Press, 1929), pp. 32-33. ^^^WGE to JPE, December l4, 1828, WCE Papers, 71 developed within the state Van Bur en, who was to offer the appointment to Rives, entertained a personal friendship for the Virginian and his wife and most importantly, Van Buren was resentful of Jackson’s usurpation of what he considered the responsibility of the secretary of state to make appointments for foreign missions. Finally, on May 5, 1829, Martin Van Buren wrote the letter which offered William Cabell Rives the French mission. Rives was ready: he had served his apprentice­ ship in the Virginia legislature and the House of Repre­ sentatives, and had campaigned hard for the right candi­ date. Rives’s diplomatic career was about to begin.

^^^Ambler, Ritchie, p. 129. ^^^Van Buren to JPR, February 21, 1829, WCR Papers, L.C. He noted that there were "few persons in this world for whom I entertain sentiments of more sincere & warm friendship than I do for yourself, & your worthy husband." See above, p. 1. It should also be mentioned that James A. Hamilton, who had acted as secretary of state until Van Buren arrived in Washington, stated in his Reminiscences. . . . (New York: C. Scribner & Co., 1869), that he had suggested Rives to Van Buren. As in the case of Van Buren's autobiography, however, Hamilton's memory might be questioned. On July I6 , 1829, Hamilton wrote to Van Buren that his confidence in Rives had decreased after he found cut how Rives had "intrigued" himself into the appointment. Hamilton to Van Buren, July I6 , 1829, Van Buren Papers, L.C. TEE DEMOCRAT GOES TO PARIS

The appointment of William Cabell Rives met with approval. William M. Rives wrote that the Jack- sonians around Lsrnchburg, Virginia, were pleased and the Adams men were satisfied.^ Samuel Smith, Maryland senator whose Baltimore constituents had an interest in the French question, felt that Rives was the best Virginian to be found for the job.^ William H. Crawford of Georgia, who had himself served as Minister to France, told Van Buren that he had "formed a favorable opinion of Mr. Rives & of his talents. Probably he may be as successful as any citizen who could have been selected.The Richmond Enquirer summed up the feeling about the appointment by saying that it had been "received with great eclat.

^Wm. M. Rives to WCR, June 1, 1829, WCR Papers, L.C. ^Samuel Smith to Van Buren, May l4, 1829, Van Buren Papers, L.C. %m. M. Crawford to Van Buren, September 9» 1829, ibid. ^Richmond Enquirer. May 19, 1829.

72 73 Rives lost no time in accepting the appointment and traveling to Washington to discuss his task with Van Buren, No doubt he felt that such a position would enhance his political future, especially if the mission were successful.^ In addition, he seems to have har­ bored hopes that a change of climate might improve his still weakened physical condition,^ At any rate. Rives arrived in Washington in the middle of May and conferred not only with Van Buren but also with President Jackson and James A. Hamilton of New York, Rives informed his wife, who had stayed at Castle Hill, of these meetings, reporting that Jackson planned to "republicanise the diplomatic uniform— so that you need not entertain any apprehensions of my littleness being rendered more con­ spicuous by superfluous & glaring finery,"^ That he should have chosen such a seemingly insignificant and frivolous bit of information to relay to Mrs. Rives is not surprising; the questions pending with the French government were complex and of long duration. Van Buren

^There is no doubt that Rives had political ambitions. Although Van Buren’s autobiography is less than reliable on the subject of Rives, due to their later estrangement over the Independent Treasury issue, Van Buren did observe that both Rives and McLane, in accepting their appointments, were as ambitious as their contempor­ aries to achieve the presidency. Van Buren, Autobiography. p. 274. ^WCR to Thomas P. Moore, March 18, 1829» Van Buren Papers, L.C. 74 himself was just beginning to familiarize himself with the matters and in fact did not complete Eives’s instructions until July 12.

In spite of frequent references made to the "ancient friendship"^ between the United States and France, the relationship between the two countries in the early years of the American republic was not always friendly. Although early differences had been recon­ ciled in the Convention of 1800, the outbreak of another European war in 1803 caused serious problems for the United States. In maintaining her traditional position regarding the rights of neutrals during wartime, the United States attempted to trade with the belligerents. This course of action became difficult when Napoleon announced the Berlin Decree of November 21, 1806, which declared the British Isles in blockade and prohibited all trade in British goods or with Englishmen. Aimed at destroying British commerce and ultimately the British economy, this decree was followed by the Milan Decree on November 11, 1807, which expanded on the earlier declaration by announcing that ships which

This term was used frequently in despatches from the ministers to France to the State Department. 75 conformed to the British Orders in Council or allowed themselves to be searched at sea by the British would lose their neutrality and be subject to seizure by the French. Napoleon’s Continental System, as it affected American shipping, culminated in the Eambouillet Decree of March 23, 1810, which provided that all Jimerican ships entering French ports were to be seized, whether they had touched at British ports or had been visited by the Hoyal Navy, Although Napoleon might have been better advised to use the neutral shipping of the United States to his own advantage in his war with England, by July 6, 1812, over three hundred American ships had been seized by the French, using these decrees as cation.^ While the United States pressed Napoleon for compensation for these losses, the Emperor refused to admit the legality of the American case. At one time, however, he estimated the total value of goods confis­ cated by the French stood at $7,000,000.^^

Perkins, Prolosrue to War: Ena:land and the United States, 180^-1812 (Berkeley; University of California Press, 19o8), especially, pp. 6?-71, 132-33, 244-43. ^^Richard A. McLemore, Franco-Amer1can Dlulomatic Relations I8I6-I836 (University: Louisiana State Uni­ versity Press, 1941), p. 1. One American representative, Joel Barlow, lost his life pursuing Napoleon to discuss the claims. Henry Blumenthal, France and the United States, Their Dinlomatic Relations 1789-191^ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), p. 227. 76 In I8l6, after the final exile of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, Albert Gallatin was entrusted with the responsibility of presenting the American claims before the French Government. Gallatin arrived in Paris on July 9, I816, and spent the next seven years pleading the American cause. Although his mission was a failure, the main points of the Franco- American controversy were given definition, The most significant issue, from the American point of view, was of course the spoliation claims. Although this issue became even more complicated as the negotiations dragged on, essentially it was a question of whether the French government would admit responsi­ bility for all seizures of American ships and goods committed by the Napoleonic regime. At no time was Gallatin able to get the French to admit their liability for these American losses. In the early stages of the negotiations, the major complication was the financial embarrassment of the French, due to the reclamations

imposed on them by the Treaty of Paris of I8I5. VIhen this debt was paid, however, Gallatin enjoyed no more success. In spite of his persistent efforts, the French government would not admit, officially, either its

^^For a discussion of Gallatin’s efforts, see McLemore, Franco-American Relations. pp. 2-14, 28-34. 77 responsibility for the activities of the First Empire or the illegality of the Napoleonic Decrees.And in 1822 a new problem, "wholly unconnected with the subject in question," developed. This second issue to plague Franco-American relations concerned French interpretation of the eighth article of the Louisiana Treaty. According to the Treaty, Prance was entitled to "be treated upon the footing of the most favoured nation" in the ports of the ceded

the French government had not officially admitted responsibility for the actions of the Napoleonic govern­ ment, they had on the other had "studiously avoided committing the honor of their Government by a distinct denial, either of the justice of our claims or their binding obligation upon the present Government, in their official communications." In fact Van Buren noted that it had become increasingly difficult for the French to delay further the settlement of the claims without explicitly denying their validity. And he added that "although such has been the course of the French govern­ ment, in its official communications with this, it is, nevertheless true, that her public functionaries have repeatedly in their informal conferences, attempted to weaken, if not wholly to impeach the justice of the claims of our citizens." Van Buren to WCR, July 20, 1829, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, XIV. ^^Albert Gallatin to Viscount Malthieu J. F, Montmorency, June 13, 1822, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXI. ^^"The Treaty for the Cession of Louisiana by France to the United States, April 30, 1803," Article VIII. The full text of the treaty may be found in Hunter Miller (ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931-36), II, 498-511. 78 the War of 1812, the United States reached reciprocal agreements with Britain and other nations which allowed reductions on tariff duties. Although the French govern­ ment did not accept the American offer of reciprocity, it interpreted the eighth article of the Louisiana Treaty unconditionally, in accordance with accepted European practice, and maintained that it was entitled to reduced rates at the port of New Orleans on the basis of the "most favored nation" clause. The United States, however, adopted a conditional interpretation of the treaty, maintaining that tariff privileges enjoyed by England had not been granted gratuitously. As Secretary of State John Quincy Adams indicated in a note to Hyde de Neuville, French Minister to the United States, in l8l?, the United States would extend to France "every advantage enjoyed by the vessels of Great Britain, upon the fair and just equivalent of reciprocity.The French government would not accept this conditional interpretation of the Louisiana Treaty, and, although a Commercial Treaty was concluded between the two nations in Washington in 1822,

■ ^McLemore, Franco-American Relations, pp. l6-l?, quotes John Quincy Adams to Neuville, December 23, 1817, National Archives, Notes to Foreign Legations from the Department of State, France, II. See also Van Buren to WCR, July 20, 1829, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, Prance, XIV, for a discussion of this issue. 79 the question of the interpretation of the Louisiana Treaty was returned to Paris for special negotiation. With the completion of the Commercial Treaty, Gallatin made another attempt at negotiation in Paris, In mid-September, 1822, he met with Count Joseph de Villele, who had recently become Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this conference Villele introduced the third question pending between the two governments. He stated that his government would discuss "the reclamations of the United States for spoliations on their trade, those of France on account of Beaumarchais’ claim, and of the vessels captured on the coast of Africa, and the question arising under the Louisiana Treaty.The Beaumarchais claim, based on aid extended to the United States by Caron de Beaumarchais during the War for Independence, had earlier been the subject of negotiation between the two governments, but had never been satis­ factorily resolved. And thus this question was intro­ duced into the already frustrating negotiations entrusted to Gallatin. It has been speculated that if Gallatin were empowered to discuss all these questions, his chances

^^Gallatin to John Quincy Adams, September 24, 1822, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXI. 80 of success would have been much greater. However, John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State and later as Presi­ dent, refused to allow the spoliations claims of the United States to be linked to the Louisiana Treaty issue. Thus the negotiations were doomed to failure. After seven frustrating years in France, Albert Gallatin returned to the United States in 1823. His replacement was James Brown of Louisiana, who apparently owed his appointment to Henry Clay (Brown had married Mrs. Clay's sister).Since Brown received essentially the same instructions as Gallatin, he met with no more success than had his predecessor. The French Government refused to separate the question of American claims from the Louisiana Treaty question, and the American govern­ ment refused to discuss the two questions together. And so the matter stood when William Cabell Rives received his appointment in 1829. Although Brown's mission could be termed a failure, potentially significant developments were taking place in the United States while he was pleading his cause in Prance. Gallatin, in one of his last despatches from Paris, suggested to Adams that public opinion should

^"^McLemore, Franco-American Relations, pp. 31- 32, 40. 18 Ibid.. p. 35. 81 be ezcited on the claims question. Presumably this would impress upon the French government the serious­ ness of the question. This advice was followed: the House of Representatives studied Gallatin's edited version of his correspondence on the claims question; the issue received coverage in the press ; and meetings of interested citizens were held in several cities. By 1829 the public was much better informed about the problem. There was another bright spot on the horizon

in 1829. With the election of Andrew Jackson, it was possible for the United States to adopt new tactics in dealing with the French. This new administration realized that while the French had never admitted the validity of the American claims, neither had it denied them. With a new president, a new secretary of state and a new minister to France, it was possible to try new approaches to an irritating situation.

See ibid.. pp. 35-^01 for a more lengthy discussion of these developments. Although Rives was a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives, there is no evidence in his personal papers that the claims issue made any impression on him at the time. 82

By the middle of July, 1829, Martin Van Buren completed his "General Instructions" for Rives, As background for this task, Van Buren had of course studied the records of the earlier negotiations. He also con­ sulted certain individuals who were acq.uainted with the French problem. From them he received some interesting advice, Charles 0. Clapp advised uniting all differences in the same discussion, rather than differentiating between the spoliations claims and the Louisiana Treaty question, as the previous administration had done,^® James A, Hamilton, also called upon for advice, recom­ mended that Rives be given authority to unite the two questions if necessary. He also should be authorized to settle for a specific amount and Hamilton suggested four or five million dollars as sufficient,A second note from Hamilton indicated that Gallatin also felt Van Buren should "take five millions if he could get it,"^^ The third individual contacted by Van Buren was Samuel Smith, formerly secretary of state. He

^^Charles 0. Clapp to Van Buren, April 9, 1829, Van Buren Papers, L.C, James A. Hamilton to Van Buren, June 19, 1829, ibid, James A. Hamilton to Van Buren, June 27, 1829, ibid. 83 felt that the United States would have to "give way" in the discussions, and suggested that a confidential agent, a Frenchman, be appointed to keep Elves informed, as he had done for years. It was Smith who finally gave the most interesting advice: ", . . it is not well written notes, and long tedious descriptions, that can succeed in France; it is sociability, intercourse, pleasantry— in fine what the French call *Les manier s. ' The man must make himself acceptable to the ladies as well as the gentlemen. With these ideas in mind. Van Buren transmitted his instjTuctions to Rives.He noted that there were "many very interesting objects which will require your early and assiduous attention," and proceeded to a detailed discussion of these questions. Although he began his instructions with a discussion of the commercial regu­ lations between the two nations, it was apparent that the spoliation claims and the related issues must consume the major portion of Eives’s attention.

Samuel Smith to Van Buren, May l4, 1829, ibid. 24 Van Buren to WCE, July 20, 1829, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, XIV. The following information, unless Indicated otherwise, is contained in the Instructions. 84 First Van Buren mentioned the claims against the French government. He referred Hives to the corres­ pondence of his predecessors for information on the arguments used by the French in evading the claims. Specifically, he pointed out five objections offered by that government to the settlement of the issue. He also reminded Hives of the responses to be offered to these delaying tactics: (1) "That they are state claims and ought to have been pressed at an earlier time." Van Buren pointed out that the United States had con­ sistently, in vain, pressed the claims since the supposed revocation of the decrees of Napoleon in 1811. (2) "That we had similar claims upon England and Naples; and, not having enforced them, we ought not to insist upon their satisfaction by France." The United States had gone to war with England to redress grievances. The fact that spoliation claims were not included in the peace treaty was irrelevant. (3) "That the present Government is not responsible for the acts of what is called the Usurping Government." If this were true, "the consequences . . . would strike at the root of all confidence in the dealings between different nations." Of immediate significance in this connection was Van Buren’s contention that such a position would invalidate France’s claims under the eighth article of the Louisiana 85 Treaty; indeed, it would invalidate the transfer of Louisiana itself, (4) "That our claims are very large, and that their allowance would he acknowledging a responsibility, on the part of France, which she would not have the ability to discharge; and that as the European Powers have been satisfied with portions of their demands, only, and those received upon principles of compromise, we ought to do the same." This objection must only be taken into consideration "in fixing the amount of compensation to be made," No compromise should be made on the validity of the claims. (5) "That there is a distinction between two classes of cases since 1805, and that, for one of these, in particular, we have no ground of claims." The distinction referred to involved the line drawn between claims for property that was never condemned, and for that which was actually confis­ cated. The United States contended that compensation was due for both classes, while France had only been willing to admit discussion on the first class. The second class included confiscations supposedly justified by the Berlin and Milan decrees. Van Buren reiterated the position of the United States which said that the decrees were "a violation of the established Law of Nations," and added that confiscations which took place prior to July 31, 1809, were also in violation of the Treaty of 1800 between the United States and France. 86 Van Buren also touched on financial arrangements which would be agreeable to the United States. He indi­ cated that the United States would be understanding of France's financial embarrassments since the Restoration and would be willing to settle for a gross sum to be distributed by the American government among the claimants, "provided that sum shall bear a reasonable proportion to the actual extent of our claims," As to the actual amount. Van Buren told Ries that uncertainty as to the willingness of the French to admit certain classes of claims made it impossible for the President to "pronounce understandingly upon the lowest amount at which he would consent to conclude a final arrange­ ment." At any rate, it was France's responsibility to submit the first bid. Whatever arrangement was suggested by the French, Rives was instructed to submit the offer to his government for approval before reaching any final agreement. Van Buren also mentioned the problem of inter­ pretation of the Louisiana Treaty and firmly asserted that the United States would not change its position on this issue. In this connection he did, however, make a significant departure from the previous position assumed by the United States. While it would be desirable to deal with the two questions, spoliations and Louisiana 87 treaty, separately, "In the event of a failure to produce that result you shall a$ree to one embracing all matters in difference between the two countries." Elves was not to admit that the French interpretation was correct, but negotiations were possible without making this admission. To justify this position. Van Buren cited the letter of Baron de Damas to James Brown Î It were erroneous to believe that the consent to negotiate implied an ack­ nowledgment of the validity of those [the ümericai^ claims. Had this validity been acknowledged, no negotiation would have been necessary, and the only question would have been touching their liquidation. It is in order to discuss the rights of the American claims that the King’s Govern­ ment has declared its readiness to enter into communication with the Federal Government. 25 Van Buren also anticipated that the Beaumarchais claim would be introduced into the negotiations. Since Rives had been a member of the committee in the House of Representatives which had examined this issue, he said little about the matter.He did call it an "antiquated demand which can only find contenance in the absence of that complete knowledge of the fact, which has been lost through time and circumstances." However,

1825, quoted in ibid. 26, See Note 19, p. 81. 88 the President, in order to clear up all misunderstandings between the two nations, would be willing to deduct one million livres from the claims of the United States against France. This amount should surely satisfy the heirs of Beaumarchais. While Eives’s instructions indicated the administration’s willingness to negotiate. Van Buren’s summary of its position made it apparent that the United States meant business: It is the intent and the sincere desire of the United States, to live upon terms of peace and honest friendship with all Nations who respect their rights ; but it is equally their duty and their determination to protect these rights against encroachments from any, and every quarter. Our claims upon France have been already too long under discussion. She must, long since, have made up her mind in regard to them and it is due to the sincerity which ought to be observed between Friendly Powers, that she should communicate her final deter­ mination to this Government. The President wishes to be informed of that determination, whatever may be its character. Notwith­ standing the feeling of partiality to France with which the recollection of early friend­ ship and past favours have impressed the conduct of the French Government, in relation to the just claims of our Citizens, when contrasted with that of ours, gives tokens as little auspicious to the true interests of France, herself, as to the rights and just objects of the United States. The persevering evasions of the settlement of our claims, for such (whatever may have been the views of France) have been the facts, are not calculated to inspire confidence, or strengthen friendship. It will be your duty to jna.ke the French Government sensible of the influence which the disposition of existing questions must necessarily have upon the future. The United States are earnestly desirous of maintaining the most amicable relations with Prance, and are disposed to make many sacrifices to secure so desirable an object; but they can never abandon the claims of their citizens. The Public mind here is deeply impressed with the justice and validity of those claims; and you must make the French Government sensible of the very high dissatisfaction which a refusal to discharge them would produce with the Govern­ ment and people of these States.^7 There is no doubt, after reading Van Buren’s statement on the matter, that the Jackson administration was determined to press the French government to a final settlement of the issues at stake between the two governments, on a friendly and peaceful basis if possible. In this decision it seems to have been motivated by two factors: the renewed public attention to the sub­ ject and the pressure being placed on the American govern­ ment by its citizens involved in the claims; and, even more importantly, by the increased sense of nationalism and self-confidence characteristic of the Jacksonian approach to the role of the United States in foreign affairs. In any case, Van Buren stressed the deter­ mination of the United States to settle the matter as

Van Buren to WCR, July 20, 1829, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, XIV. 90 quicKLy as possible, and he gave the strong impression that his government would no longer tolerate the delaying tactics which had been practiced by the French in the past. Rives could have no doubt that his government would stand behind him in taking a firm approach to settling the outstanding difficulties between the two governments.

While Van Buren prepared his instructions. Rives was busy arranging his affairs in preparation for the trip to Paris. His plantations, "Castle Hill" and "Cobham," were left in the hands of overseers, supervised by Martin Dawson of Charlottesville.^^ Fortunately, his father, Robert Rives, was close enough to look after his son’s interests,Passage was booked for the Rives family on the frigate U. S. S. Constellation, which was due to leave New York late in July. Rives was assured by the captain, Alex Wadsworth, that all care would be taken to accommodate the family as

Martin Dawson to WCR, August 20, November 24, 1830, September 2, I83I, WCR Papers, L.C. The Cobham estate, about 775 acres, adjointed Castle Hill.

Papers, L.C. 91 comfortably as possible, but Wadsworth did admit that "the construction of a ship of War when she is to preserve her character as such will not admit of any convenient arrangement for passengers,"^® Also booked for passage aboard the Constellation was Louis KcLane, newly appointed, minister to England. Since Van Buren hoped the two men would "cultivate . . , friendly relations with each other,this was not surprising. The Rives' arrived in New York on July 14 to 32 await the arrival of the Constellation. When it became apparent that the ship's arrival would be delayed, the family took advantage of the opportunity to visit their friends, the Van Rennselaers, near Albany, proceed­ ing from there to Niagara Falls, "that great monumental wonder of our continent.They returned to New York on the 28th, but again were disappointed in the expec­ tation to leave for France. After another brief side trip, this time to Boston, the Rives’ sailed aboard

Van Buren to C. C. Cambreleng, August 5» 1829, Van Buren Papers, L.C. to Van Buren, July l6, 1829, ibid.

^\jCR to Van Buren, August 12, 1829, WCR Papers, 92 The voyage was anything but pleasant. For most of the trip to the Isle of Wight, which took a month, the weather was bad. The passengers were seasick, Judith Rives suffered so badly that she was unable to sit up during the entire trip.^^ It was a welcome relief to go ashore on the 12th of September, while Captain Wadsworth made preparations for resuming the voyage, While at Cowes, Rives learned that a change of ministry had taken place in Paris, which had installed Prince Jules Armand Polignac in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, This development, whether we regard the personal dispositions of the new minister, the auspices under which he is said to have been brought into power, or the natural effect of a violent and formidable opposition, (which, it appears, is arrayed against him), to beget timidity in the assumption of pecuniary responsi­ bilities, is, I fear, not very favourable to the present allowance of our claims,37 On September 20 the Constellation left Cowes and arrived at Havre on the 22nd. While Rives had planned to depart for Paris immediately to take up his station, he learned at Havre that James Brown, departing American minister, was

^^WCR to Thomas Maury, September 6, 1829, ibid. ^^WCR to Van Buren, September 12, 1829, ibid, ^^Ibld, ^\cR to Van Buren, September 2?, 1829, ibid. 93 scheduled to leave Paris on the 23rd for Havre. Elves thus decided to remain at Havre in order to discuss the latest developments with Brown,On September 28 the Rives family set out for Paris by coach, arriving 40 in the French capital on October 1, Rives was then able to observe the political situation in France firsthand.

As he had speculated while at Cowes, it did not appear that Rives had arrived at the most opportune time to complete his negotiations. In 1814 the Bourbons had been returned by the Allies to the throne of France as constitutional monarchs, supported by the Charter, on the basis of Talleyrand’s principle of ’’legitimacy.” Since that time Louis XVIII (1814-1824) and Charles X (1824-1830) had been faced with difficult problems. The acquired any significant information from Brown, other than being informed about rumors circulating in Paris about the ministry. Ibid.

Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV, 9^ Revolution and the reign of Napoleon had changed, inalterahly, the position of the monarchy. From its first days in power the Bourbon Restoration had had to contend with the broad spectrum of political views produced by the Revolution, To the far right stood the supporters of an absolute monarchy, the ultra-royalists as they were called. This group, composed of the country gentry, the emigres, and the old aristocracy, wished to ignore the Revolution, do away with the Charter, and return to the old regime. Their name was given to them because they were "more royalist than the king, and more Catholic than the pope," The "ultras" were definitely in the minority, but were active in circulating propaganda and had their own secret society, the Society of the Congregation of the Virgin,^^ In contrast to the Ultras stood a group which also wished to destroy the Charter. However, the inde­ pendents, liberals, or the party of the tricolor, as

The most complete work available in English on the Bourbon Restoration is Guillaume de Bertier de Sauvigny, The Bourbon Restoration, trans. by Lynn M, Case (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1966), 42 John B, Wolf, France 1814-1919 The Rise of a Liberal-Democratic Society' (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 38-4i, contains an especially good summary of this political division. 95 they were called, hated the Bourbons and hoped to develop more liberal institutions for France. They had been influenced by Voltaire and the Enlightenment, and saw in the Restoration a betrayal of the Revolution. Between these two groups were to be found the constitutional or moderate royalists. As the name implied, these men supported the monarchy and the Charter, believing that the combination of the two represented the best compromise between the old and the new in France. Although the Restoration experienced initial difficulties with the return of Napoleon, the White Terror and the ultra-royalist Chamber elected in 181$, these problems were apparently soon overcome. In I8l6 a moderate majority was elected to the Chambers and it appeared that the Restoration might be successful. This group remained in power until 1820 and was successful in removing foreign troops from French soil, repaying the indemnity imposed by the Allies after the One Hundred Days of Napoleon, and passing moderate legislation designed to reconcile critics on both the right and left. However, as is usually the case, such a moderate, middle- of-the-road course soon proved unsatisfactory to almost

^^Ibid.. pp. Zn_42. kh Ibid.. p. 43. 96 everyone. Discontent and suspicion developed gradually.

In 1820, as if to emphasize the xevolutionary movement gaining momentum throughout Europe, a fanatic murdered the Due de Berry, the only male Bourbon who might possibly produce an heir to the Bourbon throne for the nezt generation; Although Louis X7III continued to believe in a moderate course, he was an old man, shaken by the events of 1820, particularly the assassination of the Due de Berry, and was losing his control over the nation. The forces of reaction gathered and gained in strength. In 1824 Louis died and the ultra Comte d'Artois, who had resented Louis's moderation, succeeded to the throne as Charles X. The ultras were in control of France, and they attempted to ensure their position by the passage of reactionary legislation in the Chambers. Their policy, combined with Charles's successful attempt to pit the monarchy against the Charter, had an interesting result. The enemies of the Bourbon Restoration, who had been revolutionary in 1820, became by 1828 staunch supporters of the Charter, and were prepared to dethrone the King to preserve it. For a brief period, in 1828, Charles seemed to realize that the monarchy was on a collision course if it continued to support the ultra policies. The King 97 called upon Viscount Jean Baptiste Martignac, a moderate, to form a new ministry, "Colorless, weak, and unhomo- geneous," the Martignac ministry faced an impossible task. Formed to save the throne by returning to moderate policies, the ministry found in 1828 that there were few moderates left. Because of the excesses of the ultras, men had moved either to the left or the right, and Martignac lacked the imagination and perception to recon­ cile the extremes. Although the ministry attempted to make concessions to the left, the changes were made "so hesitantly and grudgingly" that they alienated Charles and of course antagonized the right,As Martignac himself admitted to his close friends, "We do what we can. But all we can do is lead the monarchy back to the bottom of the stairs, while the others would throw k7 it out the window." ^ The ministry was a failure. On August 8, 1829, a new list of ministers was drawn up, and on the next day the Moniteur officially announced J^8 the formation of a new government.

^^Bertier de Sauvigny, Bourbon Restoration. p. 405, ^^Ibid.. pp. 409, 413-18. 47 ^Ibid.. p. 418, 48 Ibid.. p. 419. Although Charles apparently hoped to form a ministry which would stop the spread of liberalism and ensure the monarchical interpretation of the Charter, he had instead selected "a ministerial team most likely to disturb and irritate the public and at the same time least likely to cope with the serious­ ness of the situation by intelligent and energetic action. When William Cabell Rives, newly appointed American minister to Prance, arrived in Paris, he found Prince Jules de Polignac installed as foreign minister in addition to being the chief minister of this unim­ pressive ministry: Jules de Polignac, who was its standard- bearer rather than its real leader, had already accumulated an exceptional number of causes for his unpopularity. Son of the former favorite of Marie Antoinette on whom the pamphleteers of the time had pounced, emigre, Ultra-Royalist, prince by the grace of the Holy See, congre- gatlonist, husband of an English-woman, and himself an Anglophile— there were few men in French history who have been so universally disliked. Some have resented him because of his blind devotion to monarchy; others have not been able to for give him for having ruined the cause which he was appointed to defend. . . . Two other character deficiencies are

^^Ibid.. p. 420. 99 likewise to be noted— an extraordinary stubbornness and an imperturbable con­ fidence in himself,50 This was the man with whom Rives would have to nego­

tiate. As he had observed earlier, there was nothing to be particularly optimistic about.

Although the political outlook was not promising for a settlement of the American claims. Rives lost no time in approaching Prince de Polignac. The day after his arrival in Paris he informed the Minister of Foreign Affairs of his presence and requested an inter­ view,^ Polignac granted the favor on the following day and received Rives "with easy and unostentatious civility." The conversation was "very general," since Rives felt it would be inappropriate to begin serious negotiation until he had been presented to King Charles X. He did, however, assure Polignac that the government of the United States wished to settle the differences existing between the two governments. In closing the

■ WCR to Van Buren, October 7, 1829, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 100 interview Polignac told Rives that the royal family would probably not return to Paris until the end of October. The time interval between his arrival in Paris and the return of Charles X provided Rives with an opportunity to prepare himself for his task. The prospects for a successful negotiation did not look promising. The Polignac ministry had aroused press opposition, which seemed to reflect the "popular sentiment. When Rives renewed his friendship with General Lafayette shortly after his arrival in Paris, he received no encouragement from that partisan of American interests. Lafayette informed him that the change in ministry would be unfavorable to the United States, stating that under the previous ministry American claims "were steadily gaining ground." With the change in ministries, however, the individuals connected with the Beaumarchais claims, who had sup­ ported a settlement with the United States, had lost their influence with the government. In addition, Lafayette seemed to see an English influence in the new ministry. The opposition press in Paris accused the Duke of Wellington of having a hand in the making

^^Ibid. 101 of the Polignac ministry, and Lafayette supported this belief. He cited the long residence of Polignac in England and assumed that the new minister would pro­ mote closer ties between France and England, at the expense of the United States. While Rives undoubtedly was disturbed by this assessment, he placed the greatest emphasis on the "extensive & violent opposition" to the Polignac ministry. The press was speculating that the next

Chamber, scheduled to meet early in I83O, would resort to a "refusal of the budget, " if necessary, to force, the resignation of the ministry. If the Chambers would not approve funds for ordinary expenses, it seemed extremely, unlikely that they would approve money for "extraordinary demands" to pay American claims. However, Rives told Van Buren that he would not let these considerations discourage me from an earnest & unremit­ ting prosecution of the matters entrusted

WCR to Van Buren (private), October 17, 1829, Personal Letterbook WCR Papers, L.C. While in Paris Rives kept very careful records of his correspondence, official and personal. His personal letterbook, in particular, is a valuable source of information, especially since Van Buren had asked him to communicate information through private letters as well as official despatches. It might also be noted that the original instructions are also in the Rives Papers, since Rives, in violation of his instructions to leave all such documents at the Legation in Paris, kept all documents. In his papers in the Library of Congress are also be be found carefully transcribed copies of all despatches sent to the State Department. to me. It will be my policy, as well as the pact of delicacy & propriety, to abstain from all interference in the family-qnarrels of France, & to address myself exclusively, with all possible courtesy and conciliation, to those whom I find invested with the actual adminis­ tration of the government. To this course of proceeding, I am happy to believe that I shall find every inducement in the bland and amiable deportment of the minister of foreign affairs, whatever may be the prin­ ciples of political action he shall pre­ scribe to himself. My intercourse with him has, as yet, been very limited, having met with him, since my first interview, but once, (at a grand diplomatic dinner given by the Ambassador of Spain in honor of the birthday of the sovereign); but the impression made upon me, in each instance, was altogether favorable to his personal character.55 Charles X finally returned to Paris and Hives was informed that he would be received at Court on Sunday, October 25.^^ Rives, in English, recalled to the King the "ancient" relations connecting the United States and France, and expressed President Jackson's hope that this friendly relationship would continue. In concluding the remarks he presented a letter from the President of the United States to the King of France.

^^Ibid. Substance of discourse to the King on presentation etc.," WCR Papers, L.C. 103 With the formality of presentation at Court concluded, Rives was able to pursue his business in earnest. On October 28, he requested a "business- interview" with Polignac. The minister set Monday, November 2, for the meeting. The first subject approached was, of course, the spoliation claims. When Rives noted that the Bourbon government had never denied the justice of the claims, Polignac replied that he "feared it had been decided on— that they had nothing to do with the acts of Bonaparte." Rives replied that actions of an existing government "devolved . . . upon every succeeding government, " a point which had been admitted by the Bourbon government in its settlements with governments other than the United States. He added that previous ministries had had "favorable sentiments" toward the issue. Polignac admitted that he was not familiar with the entire subject, but said he would study the documents relating to American spoliation claims as soon as possible, and would hold another interview with Rives. Rives then proceeded to a second point of con­ tention between the tvjo governments: discriminating duties imposed on American cargoes which had "touched at intermediate ports in their voyage to France." This matter had been discussed by Van Buren in his "General 104 Instructions” for Rives, The Commercial Convention of

1822 had made no distinction between direct and indirect voyages. As a result the French government had levied higher tariffs (sometimes 100 per cent higher) on American cargoes coming into France which had stopped at an inter­ mediate port. As Polignac put it in his interview with Rives, there was "always danger of fraud,” and produce not American in origin might be added to the cargo. Rives noted that when higher tariffs had been charged, no fraud had been alleged, and, in fact, the cargoes were proven to be entirely of American origin and owner­ ship. Rives also pointed out that the United States had made special concessions to French goods, parti­ cularly silks and wines, coming into the United States. Polignac admitted that this did indicate the "friendly dispositions of the United States toward France.” He also promised to examine this question. In leaving Rives expressed his hope that the questions would be investigated as soon as possible, and he warned that "feelings of discontent" had developed 105 in the United States which might disrupt the friendly relationship between the two countries 58 In this first "business-interview" with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Fives did not push his ideas. He realized that Polignac, who was new in the office, was not intimately acquainted with the questions at hand. But he was determined to discuss the matters more fully and insistently in the next meeting. Rives waited for over a month before approach­ ing Polignac again. On December 10 he requested another interview, assuming that Polignac had had time to become familiar with the background of the questions discussed in the previous interview. The two men met again on December l4. Polignac opened the interview by informing Rives that he was not yet prepared to discuss the spoliation claims, since the question was compli­ cated and involved documents which were not available in Paris. Rives protested that the validity of the

^ WCR to Van Buren, October 29, 1829, November 7, 1829, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. Since Rives was determined to be methodical in performing his first diplomatic assignment, he kept detailed memoranda of his interviews of the French foreign ministers. For the most part, these notes vary little, except in wording, from the information transmitted to Van Buren in official despatches. They are interesting, however, in revealing'the thoroughness with which he reported to the Secretary of State. The memoranda are to be found in the WCR Papers, L.C. 106 principle involved could be decided by an examination of the correspondence between the two governments, and a search of all documents was not necessary, Polignac replied that, in a matter of such importance, he wanted to examine everything and put his views in writing. At this point Rives repeated his feeling that the future friendly relationship between the United States and France depended on a satisfactory settlement of the claims issue. When it appeared that the interview had come to an end, Polignac ventured to say that he did not view the claims in the "same favourable light" that Rives did. Rives took advantage of this opportunity to review the American position; that the French govern­ ment must be responsible for the actions of. Napoleon, He also reminded Polignac that France had settled reclamation claims presented by European governments,^^ The interview was obviously unsatisfactory from Rives’s point of view. It was apparent to him that Polignac had not studied the issue seriously, perhaps

Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV, 107 because of the uncertain future of the ministry.^® In any case, after two interviews and over two months * residence in Paris Rives had been no more successful than his predecessors in settling the American claims.

Rives also experienced disappointments in his personal affairs during the early months in Paris. The cost of living was much higher than anticipated. Lodging was expensive; the family finally rented a residence on the rue de Université for $1800 a year. Furniture for the house came to $5,000, Arrangements were made to rent a plain carriage and two horses at a cost of $1200 a year. Although food accounted for the smallest item in the budget, it too was much more costly than Rives

Ibid, Rives‘s pessimism was also reflected in a letter to Louis McLane: "Considering that the subject is altogether new to him [Poligna0 , & that his mind has recently been very much occupied by other affairs, particularly his own situation as minister, , , , I fear some time will yet elapse before the negotiation can be gotten under way; and then, perhaps, the matter will be turned over to new hands again, , . , Nothing can be done til there is a ministry of some permanence. Unfavorable as have been the first developments on the part of Prince Polignac, I would rather take my chances with him as an established minister, than with one of far more liberal sentiments who might supersede him with the prospect of being soon superseded himself by some other." WCR to Louis McLane, November 23, 1829, WCR Papers, L.C, 108 was accustomed to: e.g., "butcher's meat" cost seven­ teen cents a pound compared to three or four cents In Charlottesville. It appeared, even in these first months, that Rives would have to draw on his limited resources in Virginia, in spite of the fact that he was allowed a year's salary (#9,000) for his outfit. The weather also proved to be unpleasant. The climate of Paris was cold and damp, the temperature often dipping to twenty or more degrees below freezing. During the first weeks of December Rives reported siz to seven inches of snow on the ground. The Riveses missed the "bright sky and warmer sun" of their native Virginia. They did, however, console themselves by looking forward to spring, "which is said to be a delight­ ful season in France, & considerably earlier in its approach, than with us." Judith Rives especially suffered from the bad weather, but the birth of a third child to the couple on March 25, I83O, presumably compensated for her discomfort. Rives also found that his responsibilities were not limited to negotiation on the question of claims.

^^WCR to Robert Rives, October 30, 1829, WCR to Martin Dawson, December 18, 1829, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^WCR to Robert Rives December 28, 1829, WCR to Dr. Thomas Meriwether, June 11, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C. 109 He also was called upon to help a fellow Virginian in distress. Early in December he received a letter from Thomas Randolph, nephew of the former governor of Virginia, relating his difficulties as mate aboard the Helvitius. and requesting a loan of $200 from Rives so that he could return to the United States. Rives of course obliged Randolph, but he found that incidents such as this were to put an additional strain on his already inadequate budget.^^

Although it was necessary for Rives to tend to personal matters and Americans in distress, the claims negotiation was his primary concern and he continued to press the issue with Polignac. On January 7, I830, Rives requested an interview with Polignac, who set the date for January 11. This interview was to be the first breakthrough in the negotiations for Rives. While the two men repeated what they had said on earlier occasions, it became apparent to Rives that the Foreign Minister

Thomas Randolph to WCR, December 7, 1829, WCR to Thomas Randolph, December 10, 1829, WCR to R. Beasley, December 11, 1829, H, G. Beasley to WCR, December 12, 1829, WCR Papers, L.C. 110 was ‘becoming more aware of the importance of the subject and was at last studying it seriously. Polignac opened the discussion by questioning the principle justifying American claims for wrongs committed under the Berlin and Milan decrees. While he admitted that those decrees were unjust, they were nonetheless the law of the land. He contrasted these injuries with vessels burned at sea, which obviously fitted into another category. Hives replied that the decrees, admittedly the law of the land, were in "conflict with a superior law," the law of nations, and in addition were in violation of an existing treaty between the United States and France, the Convention of 1800. There­ fore, the decrees were "absolute nullities." Polignac then questioned the American position which held the Bourbon government responsible for the acts of Napoleon. If Napoleon's government was the legal government of France, surely the decrees must be respected, as well as the Louisiana Treaty. If any acts of a government were to be considered "null and void," all actions must be included. Rives countered by drawing a distinction between the subject matter of the acts. The Louisiana Treaty conveyed land, which a sovereign might rightfully do, but the decrees, Ill running counter to the law of nations, must be redressed by a succeeding government, Polignac had no direct response to this point but did mention that the Bourbon government had made no settlements with European powers for claims under the decrees, although the decrees had applied to them as well as to the United States. In reply Rives stated that the effect of the decrees had fallen almost entirely on the neutral trade of the United States, Polignac then said that it would be ”impossible to redress all the wrongs of Buonaparte.” Some acts could not be reversed, i.e. "what was done was done." Others could be redressed, and again he mentioned the vessels burned at sea, which Polignac called "acts of piracy."

As the interview drew to a close Rives emphasized that this distinction could not be admitted, and the United States would not give up this class of claims. He did, however, ask Polignac to state in writing the extent to which the French government would go in admitting American claims. Polignac, however, requested that he be furnished a written statement from Rives presenting the jàmerican claims before he committed himself While the interview was not entirely satis­ factory to the American minister, it did indicate that Polignac was more inclined to discuss the American claims. Rives accordingly formulated a general state­ ment of the American position, which he addressed to Polignac on January 13, In this note he emphasized that the United States would not abandon its claims, and he linked American honor to a satisfactory settle­ ment of the issue: "... the longer continuance of a subject of discussion in which so many delays and disappointments have already been experienced, must have a very unfavorable influence on the feelings and relations of the two countries. Although Rives was prompt in submitting his document to the Foreign Minister, he was not to be

6k WCR to Prince Polignac, January 7* 1830, WCR Papers, L.C. In his thorough manner, which has already been noted. Hives also kept journals contain­ ing all outgoing and incoming correspondence between the American Legation and the French Foreign Ministry. This makes the Hives Papers, from this standpoint, an even more valuable source of information than the records of the French Foreign Ministry. "Interview with Prince Polignac, January 11, I83O, ibid. WCR to Van Buren, January 16, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV.

^■^WCR to Prince Polignac, January 13, I830, WCR Papers, L.C. 113 rewarded by the same consideration from Polignac. After waiting some days for a written statement from the French point of view. Rives requested another inter­ view, which took place on January 28.^^ By that time a new element had entered the discussion* President Andrew Jackson’s reference to Franco-American relations in his State of the Union message of December, 1829. In keeping with the idea of arousing public opinion on the claims issue, Jackson emphasized the determination of the United States to settle the problem. In a somewhat threatening tone, Jackson stated that the "claims of our citizens . . . remain unsatis­ fied, and must therefore continue to furnish a subject of unpleasant discussion and possible collision between the two Governments." Jackson did hope, however, that "the injurious delays of the past will find redress in the equity of the future. In their meeting of January 28, Polignac immediately expressed to Rives the dissatisfaction of the French government with the President’s message.

WCR to Prince Polignac, January 24, I83O, Prince Polignac to WCR, January 23, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C. WCR to Van Buren, January 28, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. I789-I897 '(9 vols, and index; Washington, D.C.; Government Printing Office, 1898-99), II, 100?. 114 and hoped that Rives might be able to explain the language. He noted especially the words "possible collision," which he interpreted as "a menace." In reply Rives attempted to conciliate the Foreign Minister. He explained that the words expressed sorrow more than anger at the refusal of the French to satisfy the Ameri­ can claims. When Polignac admitted that the message "had been badly translated" in the French journals and had aroused some unfavourable sentiment among his colleagues, Rives expressed surprise that a "fair construction of the message," which he assumed Polignac would seek, should arouse such excitement. He also noted that the one French journal which had carried an inaccurate translation had taken its tone from "an English gazette of notoriously bad reputation." The two men then turned their attention to the claims, but Polignac again noted his lack of preparation on the subject. He was in the process of examining the documents and would soon prepare a "naked report of the facts" for the King's consideration. When that had taken place Rives would be invited to another interview. As Rives left the Prince, he delivered a warning of his own, as if to emphasize further the President's message. He mentioned that a crisis might occur in the relation­ ship between the two countries, since it was "inconsistent 115 with the dignity of both governments that the question should remain much longer in its present condition,” Special reference was made to the favorable comments expressed about En&land and Russia in the message. Rives was obviously concerned about the negative effect of the President's message on his negotiations. In an informal meeting at the Prince's house, he again mentioned the subject and observed that he had reviewed the text, Although Polignac did admit that the President expressed friendship toward France, he was still dis­ turbed by the words "possible collision." Rives then explained that the message was a communication from Jackson to Congress, which the President was required by the Constitution to present. It was not intended to be a message to foreign governments, and therefore should not be interpreted as "holding a menace over the head of a foreign power," Polignac evidently accepted this explanation, and the message was eliminated as a possible point of contention, A few days later Rives again turned to informal diplomacy to clear the way for a successful completion

WCR to Van Buren, January 28, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV, 69^CR, to Van Buren, February I6, I83O, ibid. 116 of his task, Bealizing that Polignac*s "precarious relations” with the Chambers, scheduled, to convene on March 2, might restrain him from making any settlement with the United States, Rives explained that his govern­ ment had no desire to "embarrass the finances of Prance." The United States was chiefly interested in an acknowledgment of the justness of its claims and would be willing to work out financial arrangements after this had taken place, Polignac was obviously relieved by these assurances, The next formal interview between the two men took place on February 12, From Hives’s point of view it was a rewarding discussion. In the course of the meeting Poligmc admitted French responsibility not only for the ships burned at sea, as he had on an earlier occasion, but also for cargoes destroyed at sea, and for "all cases where the property had not been definitively condemned," While the French Minister still refused to admit claims under the Milan and Berlin decrees, because they might subject France to unending claims from the European nations. Rives had made some progress in the negotiations. He made it clear to Polignac that the United States would not drop this category of claims, but would pursue a clarification

"^^Ibid, 117 and adjustment of the cases admitted by France, Hives then requested Polignac to put in writing the ideas which he had expressed. This Polignac agreed to do, as soon as he had the approval of the King and the ministers. He also indicated that he would recommend the formation of a mixed commission to "examine and liquidate the claims. Hives was encouraged by this interview. Polignac had gone further than any of his predecessors in admitting French responsibility for damages to jimerican shipping, and in fact Hives felt that the admission, as stated, included "an undefined portion of the cases of condemnations.Three days later, on February 15, he received even more encouraging news. While attending a social gathering at the Prince’s house, Polignac told him that the King and his colleagues had approved the plan discussed in their last interview. In a few days the two men would meet to discuss the details of adjust­ ment, including the formation of a mixed commission.^73

Polignac to ¥CE, February 9, I830, WCH Papers, L.C. WCR to Van Buren, February 16, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 118 Although Elves was relieved that serious nego­ tiation had finally begun, he did not deceive himself into believing that miracles were about to happen. He realized that the meeting of the Chambers on March 2 might pose a threat to the agreement, and thought that the more quietly he acted the better. He felt that Polignac might be inclined to settle with the United States before the Chambers met, "if it can be done without risking too great a reaction." He also informed Van Buren that it was encouraging that Polignac had not mentioned Beaumarchais's claims, and had only mentioned the French claims under the eighth article of the Louisiana Treaty once "historically." He assumed that those subjects were "all reserved for the closing scenes of the diplomatic drama," Optimism soon turned to disappointment. As Elves attempted to press his case with Polignac, the Prince became ill, thus preventing any further direct communication between the men before the meeting of the Chambers,In addition, the Paris Constitutionnel

^^Ibid, "^^WCE to Polignac, February 17, I83O, February 2 3, 1830, Polignac to WCE, February 2k, I83O, MCE Papers, L.C, WCE to Van Buren, February 25, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV, 119 able to prevent further attacks in Paris newspapers with the help of Lafayette, Instead, articles more favorable to the American cause were published in several papers including the Constitutionnnel. Although the stories were not exactly what Rives might have wished, they were, nonetheless, much more favorable toward the American case.^^ Although the Prince's illness prevented a personal meeting between the two chief diplomats, Rives kept busy. On the basis of the ideas which had been communicated by Polignac, the American minister drew up a proposal for a convention between France and the United States. In it Rives covered the categories of claims already admitted by Polignac, including vessels and cargoes destroyed but not condemned, and certain cases of condemnations (e.g., condemnations in violation of the Convention of 1800). He wisely avoided any mention of "oublie law" or law of nations, but left it to a mixed commission to decide what condemnations the French government would be ".justly bound" to compensate.

^^KcLemore, Franco-American Relations, p. 62.

"^^UCR to Van Bur en, March 3, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 120 The proposal also made no mention of the claims of France against the United States,^® The Chambers met on March 2 as scheduled. Polignac was, however, able to meet with Rives on March 4, as the Peers (of which Polignac was a member) were not meeting that day, and Rives transmitted his draft of a convention. When the Foreign Minister glanced over the proposal, he immediately noted that there was no mention of French claims and said that demands on both sides ought to be examined at the same time. Rives replied that he had not mentioned the French claims because he felt that Polignac himself ought to present them. He also noted that the United States would not object to a reciprocal agreement, as long as the French claims were "founded on the same principles» as the American claims. Polignac promised to study the proposed con­ vention and meet again with Rives in a few days. Before the convention could be discussed, an event of some significance took place. The Chambers, meeting on March 2, had been addressed by Charles X, In his speech, he made it clear that he would allow no

The text of the proposed convention was enclosed in WCR to Van Buren, February 25, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. Also see Appendix A.

^^WCR to Van Buren, March 21, I83O, ibid. 121 opposition to his government, and immediately opposition began to develop in the House of Deputies. In particular the Deputies criticized the ministry. Their attitude was expressed by Viscount Jean Andre Sebastiani; "The Crown’s appointments should necessarily be given to men who inspire enough confidence to rally the support of the chambers around the administration. . . . When the councillors of the crown do not enjoy this confidence, so necessary for the operation and strength of the govern­ ment, their duty is to resign their offices.A pro­ posal, passed by a vote of 221 to 181, appealed to the king to re-establish harmony in the government by a change in ministry. Since no one really expected the king to do this, the result was a dissolution of the Chambers, and the holding of new elections.On March 18 the Chambers were prorogued, and new elections were announced for late June and early July.^^ The critical situation indicated by these events undoubtedly occupied much of Polignac’s time, and Rives had to wait

80 Bertier de Sauvigny, Bourbon Restoration, pp. 427-28. ^^Ibid.. p. 428.

^^WCR to Van Buren, March 19, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to Prance, XXIV. 122 until March 18 to receive the minister’s opinion of the proposed convention, When Polignac’s note arrived. Rives received a shock. Although French claims under the eighth article of the Louisiana Treaty had not been seriously discussed previously, Polignac said that while he was not yet prepared to express an opinion on it, "to judge of it by the disposition you have expressed to me verbally on the part of your Government, to do justice to the reclamations of France, and particularly to that which she presents in virtue of the eighth article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, I cannot but hope for the prompt and happy solution of a question so long 84 continued." Rives protested to Van Buren that there was no basis for such an assumption, considering that the topic only had been "alluded to" in conversation. In order to clear up this misunderstanding with Polig­ nac, Rives requested a personal meeting, which was denied. As far as Polignac was concerned, the only

Prince Polignac to WCR, March 19, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C. WCR to Van Buren, March 21, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV.

^Prince Polignac to WCR, March 19, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C. 123 point of discussion in relation to the Louisiana Treaty was the amount of indemnity to be paid to France. With the introduction of the French claims under the Louisiana Treaty, Gives feared his negotiations might fail. He informed Polignac in writing that the United States had consistently denied the French inter­ pretation of the Treaty, and had always been convinced of its "incorrectness." He also reviewed, in detail, the American position toward French trade, and concluded that the Treaty had been properly executed.After Polignac had received these notes, he granted another interview to Hives. The two men met on April 5» 1830, and the discussion first turned to the American claims. Rives was informed that a committee of three had been appointed to examine the issue. When the committee had formulated its report, Polignac would be ready to submit a proposal for a convention. With this decision, Polignac had for the time being delayed any further discussion of the American claims. The conversation then turned to the eighth article of the Louisiana Treaty, and each diplomat reiterated his position.

^^WCR to Prince Polignac, March 20, I83O, Polignac to WCR, March 23, 1830, WCR Papers, L.C.

^^WGR to Prince Polignac, March 26, 2?, I83O, 1 2 4 Polignac still insisted on an tmconditional inter­ pretation of the "most favored nation" clause, especially since he considered the treaty a "political treaty," and felt that "other nations might obtain commercial advantages in ^.8%] ports by stipulations of such a character on their part, that it would be physically impossible for France to render the same equivalent." Hives, on the other hand, insisted that "the terms of the article had an inherent and established meaning which did not admit of variation," regardless of France*s objections. If, as Polignac feared, reciprocal commercial arrangements were worked out with another power which France was not able to match identically, the two countries would be able to agree "upon some other equivalent as a substitute.Hives's fear tha.t the negotiations might be deadlocked over this issue was relieved, however, when Polignac Indicated that he would not insist on American agreement to the French position as a condition to the continuation of the discussion. He closed the interview by expressing the opinion that

See above, Ch. II, p. ?8; WCE to Van Buren, April 6, 1830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. ”we would be able to settle the whole subject satis­ factorily.”^® In informing Van Buren of this interview. Hives expressed his inability to predict what Polignac would do about the Louisiana Treaty question. His hopes of any concession seemed to be dimmed by a realization that the "enlightened people of France” supported the pretensions of the government. Not only were they con­ vinced that there should be repayment for the discrimin­ ating duties, but also "indemnities for the advantages of which their navigation has been deprived.” Hives did not think that the French would abandon their position without some compensation. This conviction prompted him to suggest a solution to the impasse. He proposed to Van Buren that the United States substitute "some other commercial easement" for French surrender of its claims under the Louisiana Treaty. He suggested a reduction of the duties on French wines, and noted that a proposal had been presented to the United States Senate for a repeal of all duties on wines, silks and other products of France. Rather than give away such

Prince Polignac to WCR, April 1, I83O, WCE Papers, L.C.; WCR to Van Buren, April 6, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 126 commercial advantages, he thought they could he made a part of his negotiation, since "the true policy of the United States is not to give away what fairly entitles us to an equivalent, and what may be the only means in the hands of the government, of peaceably obtaining justice to our citizens and reciprocity to our commerce, In the following weeks Rives grew pessimistic about the chances of success in his negotiation. On the several occasions when he met Polignac officially and informally, he was informed that nothing could be done until the committee had submitted a report on the American claims. He heard that the committee was examining the issue but by the middle of May he grew restless and requested a formal interview with Polignac. Instead he was received by Baron Deffandis, who was in charge of the division of the Foreign Department which supervised American affairs. Rives was informed that the Foreign Minister was quite busy with other affairs, including the Algerian expedition, and

^^Ibid. 127 nothing could be done anyway until the committee report was completed. Faced with the futility of formal diplomacy, Sives again resorted to informal discussion. At a reception for the diplomatic corps held by the King and Queen of Naples, Rives "snatched a moment of hurried conversation" with Polignac, and tried to impress upon him the importance of a continuation of their negotiations. It was on this occasion that Hives proposed his quid pro quo; a commercial advantage, e.g. the reduction of duties on French wines. Rives had taken a rather daring step in the negotiations. He had, of course.

NCR to Van Buren, May 8, 18, 1830, ibid. The Algerian expedition stemmed from financial misunder­ standings between the French government and the dey of Algiers, and an insult to the French consul, the dey having struck the Frenchman with his fly-swisher. For a summary of the undertaking, see Bertier de Sauvigny, Bourbon Restoration, pp. 434-39. Polignac explained the intervention in these terms : "Our aim is humanitar­ ian. We are seeking, in addition to our o:fn grievances, the abolition of the enslavement of Christians, the destruction of piracy, and the end of humiliating tributes that the European states are having to pay to the Regency." These noble sentiments were proclaimed in a circular issued by the Foreign Minister on March 12, I83O, quoted in ibid., p. 436. Bertier de Sauvigny summarizes the motivations and methods in this matter by saying that it proceeded "from an enter­ prising and firm policy relying on Russia and tipped slightly in the direction of concern for the general interests of Europe ; from a policy of prestige, looking less to augmenting the material powers of France than to re-enforcing her moral position before Europe and that of the monarchy before the nation." Ibid.. p. 434. In other words, Polignac was interested in bolstering the sagging popularity of the regime. 128 proposed this expedient to Van Buren but had not received any authorization from his government to make a concrete proposal to the French government. In informing Van Buren of his actions Rives admitted that he was assuming full "personal responsibility." He had, however, felt that it was expedient under the cir­ cumstances and was encouraged by Polignac*s response. While the Foreign Minister indicated that France would not abandon its position in regard to the Louisiana Treaty, he did seem to be favorably impressed by Rives's suggestion. He requested a written statement from Rives on this subject, which Rives of course prepared immed­ iately and submitted to the Foreign Minister. Since formal diplomacy seemed to be at a stand­ still until the committee report was submitted. Rives sought to exert his influence in that direction. It would, of course, be improper for him to have any direct communication with this group. Instead he enlisted the aid of Mr. Mechin, a French advocate of great intelligence and probity, who, by his marriage with an American lady, having a personal interest in the claims, and representing

National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. WCR to Prince Polignac, May 20, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C. 129 professionally the interests of some other claimants; and being already in relations with the same commission, con­ cerning other foreign claims referred to them, could properly communicate with them in those characters, without appearing to come from m e . 93 Mechin communicated with a member of the commission, and his reports to Rives were very favorable. He did indi­ cate, however, that no further progress in the negotia­ tions could take place until the report was completed, In early June the report was finished and presented to Polignac. Rives soon heard rumors about the contents, and to his chagrin learned that the committee had taken an unfavorable view of the American claims. The total amount for which the French government could be made responsible, they concluded, was eight million livres

Q l , 600,000], and this sum, inadequate from Rives * s point of view, was to be reduced by the counter claims

-f* 9 3

Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. ^^IMd. the French text of the report see "Commission chargée de l ’exécution des conventions, suite des traités de 1814 et de I8I5," Mai 31» 1830, Paris, Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Correspondance politique, Etats-Unis, 84 [hereafter cited as Paris, Aff. Etr., Cor. polit., Etats-Uni^. Although he heard reports of its contents Rives did not see the text until much later. 130 The intrepid American minister, however, was not deterred by these developments. He requested another interview with Polignac, but was again turned over to Baron Deffandis. In the interview, which took place on June 8, Rives received official notification that the commission's report had been unfavorable to the American claims, thus confirming the rumors which Rives had heard. Deffandis noted that the report "would, not control the opinions of the minister," but he would have to be more cautious in his negotiation since he would assume great responsibility if he adopted a course of action opposed to the commission. This discussion with Deffandis was obviously unsatisfactory, and Hives was undoubtedly growing more frustrated with Polignac*s refusal to commit himself in writing as to the state of the negotiations. He therefore called "unceremoniously" at the Foreign Office, hoping to catch Polignac in his office. Luck was with him on June 14, and he emphasized the "disagreeable impressions" being made on the United States by the "unfavorable . . . posture" of the negotiation. Polignac responded by stating that "every thing now depended upon the Louisiana question," and made it quite clear to

HCR to Van Buren, June 18, I83O, Rational Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 131 Rives that the French government was willing to pay an indemnity for the spoliation claims only in return for a satisfactory settlement of the Treaty question. Although the two men discussed the questions at some length( it was obvious to Rives that nothing could be accomplished without coming to terms with the French claims under the Louisiana Treaty, and of course the United States could not admit the validity of the French interpretation of this treaty. For the first time since undertaking his task. Rives appeared to be completely frustrated. In report­ ing this conversation to Van Buren, he asked for further instructions from the President. He was at a loss to explain the unfavorable change in the negotiations, but speculated that it might be caused by a sincere conviction of the justice of their claim under the Louisiana treaty, & an intention always entertained to insist upon it as the condition of an adjustment of our claims, or whether it be the unfavorable report of the commission, & the discovery made in the progress of their investigations of the number & extent of the injuries for which indemnity is demandable, their researches having, I understand, carried the number of Ameri­ can vessels destroyed or appropriated by the imperial government to about three hundred & fifty— whatever by the cause of 132 this change, the determination expressed has every appearance, at present, of being fixed & definitive.98 By the end of June the state of things in Paris, includ­ ing Hives’s negotiations, was "little short of an interregnum, In spite of his pessimism Rives was able to understand why the Foreign Minister might not be quite as concerned with the negotiations as he was. Through­ out the spring of I83O, the Bourbon government was on shaky ground. The elections scheduled for June and July, it was realized, would determine the fate of the ministry, and possibly the monarchy. Without doubt Polignac found it necessary to devote much of his time to this matter. In addition he was concerned about the Algerian expedition. Undertaken as a means of increasing France’s prestige in Europe and re-enforcing the

WCE to Van Buren, June 29, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. Not only Hives was becoming impatient. On July 1, I83O, Van Buren wrote a private letter to Rives: "Allow me to urge upon you the importance of making renewed efforts to bring your negotiation to a close in haste for the President’s Message. We hope to be able by that time to give a favourable view of the relations between the U.S. & other nations & should be highly gratified to include France in the number. "The Prince would not I would think be wholly insensible to that consideration if it was brought to his consideration with suitable delicacy," Van Buren to WCR, July 1, 1830, WCR Papers, L.C. 133 monarchy's position before the people of France, the conquest of Algeria was supervised by Polignac, serving not only as Foreign Minister but also as Minister of War.^^^ Needless to say, this project consumed much of his interest and time. Its success or failure would have a much greater impact on France than the negotiations with the United States. Strangely enough, it was this venture which provided Rives with hope once again that he might be able to reach agreement with the French government. News of the capture of Algiers reached Paris on July 10.^®^ Rives was convinced that there was some question as to how the European powers, especially England, would receive this information, and felt that the friendship of the United States might soon become more valuable to France. When he met with Polignac on the 12th, he indicated, without mentioning the Algerian question, that it might be wise for France to reach an agreement with Rives in order to "conciliate the friend­ ship" of the United States. Polignac again insisted

100 Bertier de Sauvigny, Bourbon Restoration, pp. 420-30, 434-38. WCR to Van Buren, June 18, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV.

^^^WCR to Van Buren, July 17, I83O, ibid. 13^ that no settlement was possible without satisfying Prance’s claims under the Louisiana Treaty. However, Hives, in informing the State Department of this inter­ view, continued to believe that there was a very real possibility of France's seeking the friendship of the United States, and settling the outstanding grievances in the process. He noted that the people of France were "decidedly in favour of keeping" Algeria, while England and Russia opposed it,^^^ Even before this despatch reached the United States, Hives's speculations ceased to have any sig­ nificance. In the last week of July, a "sudden and wonderful revolution" took place in Paris.

On July 26, Charles X, displeased by the election returns, issued four ordinances which further limited the freedom of the press, dissolved the newly elected chambers, substantially altered the voting qualifications and reduced the number of deputies, and called for

103WCR, to Van Buren, July 29, I83O, ibid. 135 elections in September.These ordinances "immediately produced a profound sensation through the whole popu­ lation of Paris. The Hiveses were, at the time the ordinances were announced, visiting Lafayette at La Grange. On

the evening of the 26th, as the ladies were "engaged in knitting, the gentlemen in looking over the news­ papers," the young people who had been taking an evening stroll returned with a "small note" for the General from his granddaughter in Paris. The note, of course, contained the substance of the King's ordinances. On the morning of the 2?th Lafayette left for Paris, and the following day the Riveses, "not without some little lurking anxiety" on Judith's part, also returned to the city. Despite reports of disturbances, and, inside Paris, warnings to turn back. Rives persisted in his efforts to return his family to its home. Finally, late in the evening of July 28, they reached their house. There they found things in an uproar. Rumors were

Restoration, p. 44-3.

■ ^WCR to Van Buren, July 29, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 136 circulating wildly, and one inhabitant of the hotel wanted Rives to hang the American flag outside for protection,'^®^ The next few days were exciting for Rives. In spite of his wife's fears he ventured forth on the 29th to witness events in Paris, He was able to report to Van Buren that the National Guard, which had been dis­ banded in 1827 (still in possession of their weapons), had been reorganized, with Lafayette as commander. A group of deputies, including Lafayette and the prominent bankers Jacques Laffltte and Casimir Périer, organized a "provisional civil government," and Rives speculated that after the meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, scheduled for-August 3, "the Bourbons will no longer reign. The most probable supposition is that the Duke 107 of Orleans will be called to the throne." Charles X, who was reassured by Polignac that the revolt would amount to nothing, attempted to save

Judith Page Walker Rives, "A Woman in the Paris Revolution of I83O," ed. by Thomas Walker Page, Harper's (New) Monthly Magazine, CIV (1901-02), 37-^0. Judith Hives's apprehension was somewhat justified. Even before her husband went out, a stray shot had come through a window of their residence. Ibid.. p. 4o. 107 WCR to Van Buren, July 29, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 137 the throne for the Bourbons by abdicating in favor of his grandson on August 2. He acted too late, however. The provisional government, after some discussion, had decided on a continuation of the monarchy for France, but under new leadership. On July 31 the Duke of Orleans was offered the position of lieutenant-general of France, and he accepted.When the Chamber of Deputies met on August 7» it adopted a declaration "almost unanimously" to call the Duke of Orleans to the throne as "king of the French," a title which implied 109 diminished powers for the monarchy.’

Bertier de Sauvigny, Bourbon Restoration, p. 431. Ibid., pp. 444-54, gives a day-by-day account of the events.

^^^WCR to Van Buren, August 8, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. Judith Rives seems to have had a pre­ monition of the coming events. The article, "A Woman in the Paris Revolution of I83O," was actually a series of letters which she wrote to her sister, Mrs. Mann Page. In a letter dated May, I83O, included in the article, she reported attending a "fête, given in honor of the Neapolitan King and Queen," and noted that "The fête was honored by the presence of the Kings of France and Naples, with their families and suites, but they really seemed to be quits in the background, and the family of the Due d’Orléans absorbed public attention. I could not help thinking they assumed rather too much the airs of royalty, so that if the Duke should one day or other take possession of the crown of France, I shall claim the credit of being a prophetess, for I had this idea in my mind all the evening." Whether Mrs. Rives had any inkling that the Duke would come to the throne through a revolution, she did not say. (Note continued on next page.) 138 Several days later the coronation of the Duke of Orleans as Louis Philippe, King of the French, took place. The Riveses received an invitation, in the name of the Duke, to attend the Chamber of Deputies where the ceremony was to take place. Although the confused state of affairs prevented them from obtaining the required billets of admission, they decided to try to get in anyway. Accompanied by Washington Irving, who thought the crowd would not refuse to admit a lady, the Riveses arrived at the Chamber, where they found a great crowd of citizens of every sort around the portal, looking at every one as they descended from their carriages with a degree of familiarity that was far from agreeable. "Ah, ha, monsieur," said one of them scrutinizing Mr. Rives, "you are quite fine with your habit brodé, but where is the tricolor?" pointing at the same time to a national cocarde which adorned his own rusty hat and a tricolored ribbon

(Continued from previous page.) Judith Page Walker Rives, "A Woman in the Paris Revolution of I83O," 34-35. Wolf explains the evasiveness inherent in the term "king of the French" in this way: "The legal justification for the July monarchy was never very clear. Louis Philippe became king of the French rather than king of France. but neither he nor his supporters would recognize the theory that he owed his throne to the popular will— and justly so, for no plebiscite, no election, had ever regularized his position. The Bourbons stood on their legitimacy; Kapoleon, on a popular election; but the Orléans dynasty was forced to occupy the slippery legal ground between the two." Wolf, France 1814-1919, pp. 78-79. The term itself was proclaimed by the Chambers and implied a weakened monarchy, responsible to the will of the people. 139 depending from his buttonhole. Mr. Rives smiled, "C'est dans mon coeur,” he said, putting his hand on his heart. "Bravo,” replied the patriotic bourgeois, and immediately the crowd parted to the right and left, leaving a space wide enough for a coach and six to pass.HO Judith Rives found the ceremony simle but imposing. The audience, however, seemed even more interesting: The persons below who attracted most atten­ tion were Prince Talleyrand and General Lafayette. Seated just opposite to each other, they presented as remarkable a contrast in their appearance as in their lives, and the open, honest countenance of the one, snugly invested in a full auburn wig, and the careworn, sharp features of the other, rendered paler by the silvery white of his hair, blanched by the snows of eighty winters, were uni­ versally observed. “There are two men,” said a gay young English officer who was with us, "whom I would recommend to the new King to bind hand and foot and put into the Seine without further delay, as there is certainly no security for any govern­ ment as long as they are extant, for the one has sworn fidelity to eight different governments and the other is a revolution in himself."IH

By attending the coronation Rives had taken a bold step: he had in effect implied that American recognition would be extended to the government of Louis Philippe. He felt that in view of the tradi­ tional policy of recognition practiced by the United

Judith Page Walker Hives, "A Woman in the Paris Revolution of I83O," p. 4-3. ^^^Ibid.. p. 44. 140 States there would, be nothing to be gained by awaiting specific instructions from his government. In addition he was convinced that "the change which has taken place here was a permanent one, left me without any hesitation as to the course I should adopt; which, I have been pleased to find, corrresponds with that pur­ sued by Mr. Crawford under similar circumstances. His wife noted, however, that not one representative of a European power was in attendance at the coronation, primarily because they were afraid to participate with­ out definite orders from their governments, an appre­ hension which Rives did not share.

. August 8, 1830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. Judith Page Walker Rives, "A Woman in the Paris Revolution of I83O,” 43-44. Rives had been invited to a meeting of the diplomatic corp to "con­ sult on the conduct to be observed towards the new government,” but he noted that "Having already taken my course by calling on the Duke d’Orléans, & deter­ mined for myself to enter at once into relations with the new government, I thought it most delicate towards my colleagues not to be present at their consultations, which must necessarily be influenced by other princi­ ples. This I explained to them, & they approved. ” WCR note written in his handwriting on the back of. a letter from Baron Werthu, Minister of Russia, dated August 4, 1830, WCE Papers, L.C. That the ministers from European nations were hesitant, to say the least, to give immediate recognition to the revolutionary government of Louis Philippe is understandable. They surely must have realized the events which had taken place in Paris at the end of July and beginning of August would have repercussions in other parts of Europe. 141

With Louis Philippe installed as King of the French under a more literal Charter, the prospects for settlement of the American claims appeared, on the sur­ face at least, more promising. The change in govern­ ment was hailed by the American press: with the removal of the Bourbons from power, it was hoped that Hives would finally be successful in settling the American claims. The Washington United States Telegram specifically referred to the presence of Lafayette in the government and felt that "with a freer gov’t a more liberal tone of feeling will prevail. Hives himself was guardedly optimistic about his chances of success as he reported dining with the

114 Quoted in McLemore, Franco-American Halations, pp. 70 -71 . While it was true that Lafayette was the real power in the French government during the early weeks of Louis Philippe’s reign, his influence in settling the American claims was of dubious signifi­ cance. As Hives was to report later, after Lafayette had left the government, "Whatever influence he might have possessed, with regard to our affairs, is, I presume, lost by the change in his situation. I do not believe, however, that it ever was much, for, in all questions relating to us, he was considered not merely partial, but interested, & asking France to make a return for favours which the U. States had bestowed on himself personally." WCH to Van Buren, December JO, 1830, Van Buren Papers, L.C. 142 King shortly after the coronation. Louis Philippe recalled the visit he had made to the United States some thirty years earlier, and seemed to have "a sincere desire to cultivate the most friendly relations with the United States." The King indicated that every effort would be made to settle the differences existing between the two countries. Although it was impossible for Rives to deal with the new government on a formal and official basis until he had received a new "letter of credence" and new instructions, he was not idle in the early days of the new government. In addition to developing a friend­ ship with Louis Philippe,he almost immediately requested an interview with Count Louis Mathieu Mole, appointed Foreign Minister by Louis Philippe shortly after the coronation.Rives described Mole as posses­ sing "great energy of mind and character, & very

^■^^WCR to Van Buren (private), September 8, 1830, Van Buren Papers, L.C. ^^^Rives and his wife became favorites at court and as close a relationship as possible, under the circumstances, developed between the royal family and the family of the American minister. When Hives’s first daughter was born on July 8, I832, she was named Amelie Louise after the queens of France and Belgium, and the queen of France was her godmother. See Raymond C. Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 145. appointed by Louis Philippe to the (continued on next page) Ik3 extensive information, tho* he has never been practi­ cally connected with foreign affairs. Although it was some time before Rives was granted an interview with Molê, in the interum he dis­ cussed the American issue with Louis Sêrurier, formerly minister to the United States and Director of the "first political division in the Department of foreign affairs. in an interview with Serurier on Septem­ ber 7, Rives was provided with a "striking illustration of the views & feelings of the new government." Sêrurier, who had discussed the claims issue with Molê on several occasions, told Rives that the new govern­ ment, as Rives had suspected, could not deny the "•principle of responsibility" for the acts of a pre­ vious government of "revolutionary origin" without denying its own legitimacy. However, Sêrurier warned Rives that, anxious as the new government was to culti­ vate friendly relations with the United States, any minister assuming responsibility for settlement of the

(continued from previous page) position. The first was Maréchal Jourdan, but his tenure in office lasted only from August 3 to August 11. Maréchal Jourdan to WCR, August 4, 1830, Molê to WCR, August 13, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C.

^^®WCR to Van Buren, August 18, I830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 119 WCR to Van Buren, September 8, I83O, ibid. 1 # claims would be extremely unpopular. He noted that Molê seemed inclined to ask for the appointment of another commission, composed of members from both Chambers, to examine the claims. Rives, in reply, expressed his regret about what he had heard, and stated that he had "hoped that the new government of France would have been animated with more liberal views. . . . He then told Sêrurier that while the admission of responsibility was appreciated, it was necessary for the two governments to discuss specific claims and arrive at a mutually agreeable amount to be paid, and "if France sought a reduction of the claims , it was incumbent upon her to say frankly what she was willing to pay, & if the offer approximated to justice, it would certainly be considered by the government of the U.S. with every proper feeling. . , .

As a result of this interview, and other indi­ cations of the sentiments of the new government, Rives soon realized that the "change of government, tho* most glorious & happy for the cause of liberty," was 1^5 not promising for settlement of the American claims, The problem was moneyj As he candidly wrote to Van

Nothing can exceed the reluctance of a French­ man. or of the French government, to pay money. This has grown into a proverb here; & when the demand comes in the shape of indemnities for -past wrongs, the effect upon them is still more revolting. They never will, therefore, pay our claims, to any thing like an adequate extent, unless they are made to believe that their interests. in some way or other, require it. Of the justice of our demands, they are well con­ vinced, but that is nothing to the purpose. That does not make it less grievous to them to part with their money, particularly for old scores. This negotiation, therefo;çe, is beset with every sort of difficulty.*"^-^ Two days after his conversation with Serurier, Rives obtained an interview with Mole and his suspicions were confirmed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs him­ self. While Molê was very polite, he made it clear that the difficulties would not be resolved immediately. He felt that the French government would admit responsi­ bility for some of the claims, but the "amount was a very complex question , . . requiring minute & detailed

WCR to R. G, Beasley (American consul at Havre), August 3, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C, He also wrote that his task would have been completed "in a short time with the late ministry." WCR to Robert Rives, August 8, I830, WCR to Thomas Ritchie, August 10, 1830, WCR Papers, L.C, ^^^WCR to Van Buren (private), September 8, 1830, Van Buren Papers, L.C, 146 examination," and would certainly meet great opposition from the Chambers. He then Informed Hives that he felt a commission should be formed to investigate the claims and report to the Chambers, Since It appeared to Elves that this was a very one-sided and biased approach to the situation, and since he also realized that Molê was chiefly Interested in sharing the responsibility for an ultimate settlement of the claims, he suggested two alternatives: the establishment of a mixed commission to examine the claims In detail, or agreement by the French and American ministers on a "round sum In total discharge of all the claims." When the interview was finished. Elves was left with the definite impression that Molê intended to follow through with his scheme of Involving the Chambers in sharing responsibility for the settlement of the claims.He was, however, to wait some time before the Foreign Minister took his next step. While waiting for Molê to act and for his new letter of credence and instructions to arrive. Elves summarized for Van Buren his first year in France. While he acknowledged that he had not accomplished all he had hoped, yet I think it is evident that the subject of our claims stands in a far better situation

^^^WCE to Van Buren, September 18, I83O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France. 14? than it has ever done heretofore. A nego­ tiation, which the government of France has heretofore refused to enter upon, has been opened and prosecuted almost to a conclusion. All the questions involved, both direct and collateral, have been fully discussed, and if the positions heretofore occupied by the French Government have not been formally and expressly renounced, they have been so materially modified, and in fact receded from, as to open the way, it is believed, to a final adjustment. The claimants & the nation, therefore, it is hoped, cannot fail to be satisfied with the industry and zeal, which have been enabled by the wise instructions of the government to accomplish, in a single year, more than the diplomacy of the twenty preceding years, and of four distinct missions had hitherto d o n e . ^25 He did recognize, however, that the greatest obstacle standing in his way was the reluctance of the French government to pay the amount demanded by the United States. Therefore, he suggested that additional pressure be put on the French government and people. Although the Presidential message of December, 1829, had alarmed them momentarily, "after they got over the fit of the pouts." they became convinced that the strong language of Jackson was meant only to pacify the claimants in the United States. Hives felt that the next presidential message should present the question as one of "national" interest, "with which the rights and honor of the whole nation are identified."

^^^WCH to Van Buren (private), September 18, 1830, WCR Papers, L.C. 148 Perhaps then the seriousness of the claims question would become apparent to the people of France and they would be impressed with the importance of bringing the issue to a speedy conclusion, Elves also suggested that Congress, or a committee of Congress, express its opinion on the "principle and justice of the claims." îilhile it would be premature to suggest any specific measures to be taken by the government against France should the negotiations lag. Hives mentioned commercial retaliation as a possible method of awakening France's self- interest in settlement of the claims. Although these suggestions sounded somewhat ominous. Rives informed Van Buren that In the mean time, every effort shall be used on my part, to avert by négociation the necessity of any legislative measures of coercion; but nothing, I think, will contribute more to the success of these efforts, than the exhibition of a firm and determined attitude on the part of every branch of the Government of the United States, combined, however, with the expres­ sion of a sincere wish to preserve friend­ ship with France, if it can be done on terms consistent with the national rights and honor.

Hives was determined to succeed in his mission to France, and his letter to Van Buren was an indication 149 of this sentiment. There can be no doubt that his first year in France had been an education. He had arrived on the scene in October 1829, an inexperienced diplomat, convinced of the justness of the American cause. In a year he had experienced the delaying tac­ tics and diplomatic maneuvering of Prince Polignac, had finally managed to gain an admission from the Foreign Minister of the French responsibility for at least some of the claims, and then had had this success negated by the July Revolution. That the prospect of facing the same delaying tactics under the new government was frustrating to Rives cannot be doubted. His summary report to Van Buren indicated that he was becoming a more experienced and seasoned diplomat.

Shortly after his report to Van Buren, Rives became aware of another complication in his negotiation. In a cold response to Hives's request for an interview, Mole indicated that the claims issue was considered important only by "some citizens" of the United States, Apparently, according to Rives, the communications from the French ministers in the United States had given the impression only some individuals were involved and 150 concerned. The significance of this was obvious: If only a few Jimericans were involved and concerned, then the French government need not worry about the atti­ tude of the American government, including Hives. This attitude, which had "taken deep root" in France, prompted Hives to reiterate his conviction that the Executive and Legislative branches of the American govern­ ment must take a strong stand on the matter and impress upon the French Government the "national" nature of the issue,In addition to this official advice, Hives privately suggested a more extreme approach: The passage of the President’s message last December, relating to our naval establish­ ment, while undoubtedly very wise in itself, lulled very much the apprehensions of these people as to any possible collision with us about the claims. Might it not be well, while adverting to that subject in the next message, to indicate that the system of the President does not contemplate any diminu­ tion of the efficiency of that arm of our national defence, but has really in view the best means of husbanding & increasing our naval resources for any crisis which may call them into action, A remark inci­ dentally introduced, that it was important to have our naval means in such a condition, in the present unsettled state of the world, that they could readily be brought into action to protect the rights & power of the nation, would, I think, have a good diplomatic effect h e r e .

to Van Buren, September 29, 1830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. to Van Buren (private), September 29, 1830, Van Buren Papers, L.C. 151 Even as he was advising the Secretary of State, Rives was attempting to put pressure on Mole. In a note of September 20th, he reiterated the American position on the claims and pointed out to the Foreign Minister that Congress would be meeting in December, At that time they would expect some word from the President on the progress of the negotiations. It would be desirable. Rives pointed out, if Jackson could report "the final & honorable adjustment of this subject.Molê, how­ ever, was determined to form another commission to examine the claims and coldly informed Rives that the issue would be submitted to the king. When His Majesty had made a decision Rives would be informed. Rives was, of course, very much dissatisfied with Mole's note. But, rather than confront the minister personally, he felt that an indirect approach in relaying his disapproval would be wise. He there­ fore talked with Lafayette and Sêrurier, who would be able to communicate with Mole and hopefully would be able to impress upon him the seriousness of the situation. They were informed that the United States had a right to expect better treatment from the new

^^^WCR to Molê, September 20, I83O, WCR Papers,

^^■\lolê to WCR, September 25, I83O, ibid. 152 government than it was receiving. The American minister also mentioned that the President in his next message might find it necessary to point out that while the United States had been able to resolve its difficulties with England and Denmark, among others, "our differences with France alone remained unadjusted. After waiting for some days for reaction to this indirect approach. Hives, on the 10th of October, requested an interview with Mole. The Foreign Minister set the time for meeting on the 15th. Almost immediately. after entering Mole's office, Hives was presented with the summary pages of a report Molê had just presented to the King. The Foreign Minister recommended, and Louis Philippe had approved, the selection of a commission composed of five members of both Chambers to re-examine the respective claims of the two governments. Mentioned specifically were the spoliation claims of the United States; the reclamations of France which included supplies (presumably the Beaumarchais affair), a French ship burned at Savannah, and claims of French citizens to lands in Louisiana; and the question of the eighth article of the Louisiana Treaty. The report also men­ tioned the possibility of withdrawing the claims under

WCH to Van Buren, October 19, I830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. 153 the Louisiana Treaty should the United States grant tariff reductions to some products of France (obviously a reference to Hives's suggestion to Polignac some months earlier). And finally the report raised the question of the method of. liquidation of the claims. After allowing Rives to read this document. Mole attempted to convince the American minister of the sincerity of the French government in desiring a speedy termination of the problems by telling Hives that consideration of the report had been given priority in the council meeting. He also agreed to write a letter to Rives which would officially commit the French government to consideration of the problems by a commission.Although the appointment of a commission appeared to be a delaying tactic, the promised letter

Ibid. The original French text of the report will be found in Paris, Aff. Etr., Cor. polit., Etats- Unis, 84. Hives did not have an opportunity to read the full text of the report until the next March, when he was able to obtain a copy from a member of the commission Molê appointed to investigate the claims issue. WCR to Van Buren, March l4, 1831, WCR Papers, L.C, (A copy of this letter, erroneously dated February 14, is located in the Van Buren Papers, L.C. Perhaps it was misdated when sent. The date, however, must be March since reference is made to a despatch sent by Hives on March 10.) An English version of the report is attached to WCR to Van Buren, March 10, 1831, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV. 134 WCR to Van Buren, October 19, 1830, ibid.. 15^ was a significant development in the negotiations. When it arrived at the American legation on October 20, it committed the French government, for the first time in writing, to the principle of responsibility for acts of a previous government. It also expressed the desire of the King to settle the issues and "to tighten the bonds of friendship" between the two countries. Rives was very much encouraged by this develop­ ment. While he recognized that several of the items mentioned in Mole's report to the King, especially the land claims, might be considered stumbling blocks, he felt that the main consideration was the amount of money which the French would have to pay. By intro­ ducing further bargaining points, the French might hope to force the United States into settling for a lesser amount. The most logical method of terminating the negotiation. Rives felt, would be "a transaction en bloc, " and he assumed that the French had that approach in mind. He did note, however, that the "staleness of the claims, the difficulties inseparable from their adjustment, the uncertain state of things here, the financial embarrassments of the country (there having been, . . . a falling off of 10 millions of francs

^^%ole to WCR, October 19, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C. 155 in the revenue of the last month, besides the universal derangement of credit & commercé)'* would have an effect on the negotiations,^^^ In a private letter to Van Buren on October 20, Rives revealed more fully his optimism about Mole's note. The admission of the principle of responsibility seemed to be the most significant development in his negotiations. The chief reason for the private communi­ cation, however, was to advise Van Buren that the tone of the President's message ought to be modified. While Jackson should still take a firm stand, he should also acknowledge the progress of the negotiation in a "cordial and friendly spirit." This approach seemed especially important to Rives since the King himself seemed "to have taken a personal interest in the measures adopted. . . . The first step toward a settlement of the claims by the July Monarchy had been taken. And Rives had every reason to be pleased. The French government had eliminated the chief stumbling block which had existed

WCR to Van Buren, October 19, 1830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV. ^^^WCR to Van Buren (private), October 20, 1830, copy, WCR Papers, L.C. 156 in the earlier negotiations, the principle of responsi­ bility, a somewhat remarkable development considering that Hives was not yet fully accredited to represent the American government at the court of Louis Philippe, The technicality of accreditation was soon solved, however. On November 1, Hives informed Mole that he had received a letter from President Jackson to King Louis Philippe, officially accrediting him as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, and requested an audience with the King to present the document.This act was accomplished on November 3 when Hives formally extended the "most cordial con­ gratulations" to the King on his accession to the throne, and stated that the United States would "now find a new motive for cherishing that friendship [with Franc^ in the affectionate recollections they retain of your Majesty’s personal virtues.With this ceremony completed, the path seemed to be clear for a speedy settlement of the differences existing between the two nations.

^^^WCH to Mole, November 1, I83O, ibid. 139 "Substance of discourse to King, on occasion of presentation 3rd, Nov. I83O," ibid. 157

By the time Rives had been officially accre­ dited as American minister to the court of Louis Philippe, the five-man commision appointed by Mole had begun its deliberations. Although Rives was opti­ mistic in the early weeks of its existence that the commission would soon reach a decision, he was to wait for five long frustrating months before its recommenda­ tions were finally presented to the' Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nonetheless, Rives seemed to realize that once a proposal for settlement had been made, the grievances of long duration between the two governments would be settled. This factor seemed to temper, to a large extent, the impatience he naturally felt at the delay Although it would have been improper for Rives to try to shape the opinion of the commission in too obvious a manner, he did consult personally with two members. Pichon and G, W, Lafayette. When Pichon was selected to examine documents relating to the American claims. Rives willingly supplied him with all available

^^%CR to Van Buren, November 8, 1830, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV, 158 information.^^^ Nonetheless, Hives was disappointed when he discovered, early in the deliberations, that some members of the commission were opposed to the American claims, and even those who favored the principle of payment were concerned with keeping the amount to be paid as low as possible. As Hives had realized earlier, the chief stumbling block to an early settle­ ment would be money. And as long as the commission deliberated, whether over the claims to be admitted or the amount to be paid, it was impossible for him to negotiate a treaty with the Foreign Minister. Hives still hoped, however, that by cooperating with the commission as much as possible in an unofficial manner, that a settlement could be reached in a reasonable period of time.^^^ Disturbing the scene in Paris, as far as Hives was concerned, were the changes in government which occurred in November, I83O. On November 3, the same day he had been received by the King, Hives was informed that Molê had been replaced by Marshal Maison as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Although the change was supposed

l4l ■ Marshal Maison to WCH, November 3, I83O, WCR Papers, L.C.

^^^WCB to Van Buren, November 8, I83O, Novem­ ber 18, 1830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV, 159 to faror "liberalism & a more rapid development of the consequences of the late revolution," Rives felt that even under the best of circumstances the develop­ ment would impede a speedy settlement of the American claims, since it would be necessary for another individual to study the issue.He was not encouraged by the one interview he had with Maison^^^ and thus was not unhappy when Maison was in turn replaced, less than two weeks later, by Count Horace Sebastiani.^^^ In his first interview with Sebastiani (on November 2?) Rives again confirmed his impression that the finances of the July Monarchy would prove to be the major stumbling block he would have to face. He immediately, in his usual determined manner, called the Foreign Minister's attention to the American claims and noted, as he had on numerous other occasions with other individuals who had held the same position, that it was "of the highest importance, in the interest of both countries, to terminate without further delay" the entire matter. Sebastiani replied, as Rives might have expected, that he was not intimately familiar with

■^^\cR to Van Buren, November 8, I83O, ibid. l4^ WCR to Van Buren, November 18, I83O, ibid. 160 the matter but would "earnestly” direct his attention to the matter. Then he noted that if Elves "would be reasonable, we could understand each other," a state­ ment which Rives interpreted as a reference to the amount of money to be paid. He also seemed to hint, so Rives thought, at a settlement "en bloc." desirable from Hives's point of view since it would eliminate debating the validity of each claim. Rives, taking the same strong stand he had previously, emphasized that "as the injuries sustained by our citizens were very great, the indemnity expected would be no trifle." Nevertheless, the United States would try to be under­ standing of the financial difficulties faced by the July Monarchy. Rives then suggested that Sebastiani might attempt to speed up the deliberations of the commission. Sebastiani replied that he would be seeing the president of the commission on the next day and would follow Hives’s suggestion. He also indicated that he thought eight days would be sufficient time for formulating a report. Rives then closed the interview by again indicating his hope that the matter would be settled soon. Until that happened the "relations between the two countries would be friendly in form only.

^^^WCR to Van Buren, November 29, I83O, ibid. 161

In the meantime, Andrew Jackson prepared his second State of the Union message. This address was presented to the Congress on December 6, I830. Since Hives*s official despatch and private letter of

October 30 indicating the favorable turn of the nego­ tiations had not yet reached Washington, Jackson’s comments on the state of affairs with France reflected only the earlier intelligence relayed by Rives. The President thus took the strong and determined stand which the minister in Paris had recommended. Jackson indicated he was satisfied with Hives’s handling of the negotiation but felt that: The amount of the claims, the length of time they have remained unsatisfied, and their

Daniel Brent to WCH, December 24, I830, WCH Papers, L.C. Brent, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, informed Hives that "when the Executive Message was prepared, at the present session of Congress, the President was altogether unacquainted with the favorable turn which now appears by the communi­ cations from you to have been given to the négociation with the French Government concerning the recognition and settlement of the claims of our Citizens upon that Government. Otherwise it would certainly have been noticed by him, in terms suitable to the occasion, and to the high satisfaction inspired by the intelli­ gence. It is the wish of Mr. Van Buren, therefore, that you make known in the proper quarter the cause of the omission." 162 incontrovertible justice make an earnest prosecution of them by this Government [the July Monarchy] an urgent duty. The illegality of the seizures and confisca­ tions out of which they have arisen is not disputed, and whatever distinctions may have heretofore been set up in regard to the liability of the existing Government it is quite clear that such considerations can not now be interposed. The commercial intercourse between the two countries is susceptible of highly advantageous improvements, but the sense of this injury has had, and must continue to have, a very unfavorable influence upon them. From its satisfactory adjustment not only a firm and cordial friendship, but a progressive development of all their relations, may be expected. It is, there­ fore, my earnest hope that this old and vexatious subject of difference may be speedily removed. I feel that my confidence in our appeal to the motives which should govern a just and magnanimous nation is alike warranted by the character of the French people and by the high voucher we possess for the enlarged views and pure integrity of the Monarch who now presides over their councils, and nothing shall be wanting on my part to meet any manifestation of the spirit we anticipate in one of correspond­ ing frankness and liberality. Thus Jackson did not disappoint his minister in his direct statements about the French negotiation. While Rives had also recommended a strong statement in relation to the naval preparedness of the nation, Jackson’s statement concerning the Department of the

Fred L Israel (ed.), The State of the Union Messages of the Presidents 179b-1966~T3 vols.j New York: Chelsea House, Robert Hector Publishers, 1966), I, 320-21. 163 Navy could hardly be considered menacing. He noted that the geographical location of the United States protected the nation from the threat of conquest and thus the chief concern should be protection of shipping and of the coastline. Therefore, the country should concentrate on preserving the existing vessels "and providing materials to be placed in depot for future use than to increasing their number. With the aid of Congress, jn a few years (emphasis adde^ the Government will be prepared in case of emergency to put afloat a powerful navy of new ships almost as soon as old ones could be repaired. This statement could hardly be considered dangerous from the French point of view. By January l4, when Hives was granted an audience with Louis Philippe, news of the presidential message had reached Paris. Louis Philippe expressed regret that the President had not seen fit to indicate that everything that could possibly be done to settle the problems was being done, and he asked Hives if the commission was not "in activity." After the American gave an "indefinite" answer, the King assured Hives that, in spite of the financial difficulties of the regime, he had urged the commission to act as

^^^Ibld.. I, 3^0-41. 164 speedily as possible,When Rives received (the day after his interview with the King) a note from Pichon which Indicated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had indeed been putting pressure on the commission, he seemed to believe that the regime was truly sincere in its stated desire to end as quickly as possible the difficulties existing between the two governments. Yet Rives was forced to continue his waiting game. The unofficial information he received about its deliberations seemed to indicate that the majority of the commission, and especially Pichon, who was charged with writing the report, was favorable to the American claims. This impression caused him to exercise patience. On several occasions in his despatches he advised Van Buren that it was his Judgment that any sign of impatience would adversely affect the commission's

^ WCR to Van Buren, January 18, I83O, Nation^ Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV, 165 ment in France that the United States would press its case while the French government faced financial difficulties,^^^ Thus he aided the commission as much as possible by supplying it with necessary information. And he waited. To add to Hives’s frustrations, he learned that news of the appointment of the commission had created the impression in the United States that the new and more liberal government in France was ready to deal with

152 For example, on December 29, I83O, Hives wrote: "It seems to be impossible to make any efficient advance in the negotiation, ’till the commission shall have made their report; & as long as there is a prospect that that report will be favorable, it would be bad policy, I think, to precipitate the affair by too much impatience, on our part." And on February 8, I83I, he again noted that, "Being con­ vinced, from my communications with Monsieur Pichon, that the researches in which he was engaged, & the views he was preparing to present our claims, were of much importance, & calculated to enforce upon his government . . . the obligation of discharging them, I thought it best, during the progress of his labours, to abstain from any measure, which might injuriously precipitate the presentation of his report; intending, so soon as he should be ready to make his report to the commission, to renew my pressure upon the minister, with a view to accelerate the action of the commission, when the work of Mr. Pichon should be before them." WCR to Van Buren, December 29, 1830, February 8, I83I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV. WCH to Van Buren, December 18, I83O, ibid. 166 15^ the United States. As the Niles * Neelcly Register reported, "We have expected a proceeding like this from regenerated France. It could not have heen hoped for under the late condition of things.Since rumors had earlier circulated that Hives’s predecessors had so organized the claims that he was left with little to do,^^^ it was not surprising that he now wrote the following to Van Burens They [the newspaper^ speak of the subject, I perceive, as if the negotiation had just been commenced with the French government, & as if a new prospect had, all at once, broken in upon them, since the Revolution; This view, which would make any success, that may be achieved, the result of a mere accident in the change of government here, certainly does great injustice to the adminis­ tration of Genl. Jackson, in regard to its’ agency in this business. The truth is that whatever may be ultimately done, will be due alone to the ground conquered under the ministry of Monsieur Polignac, in cir­ cumstances certainly as unfavorable, if not more so, than any which ever before attended the negotiation; & the cause of it, is to be found in the new system of action intro­ duced by the administration of Genl. Jackson, which, substituted for the coaxing, begging, and hoping diplomacy of former administrations, a firm & energetic language, worthy of a nation whose rights had been violated, & determined, at all events, to have an answer

^^^McLemore, Franco-American Relations. pp. 80-81. ^^&iles’ Weekly Register. XXXIX, 319 (January 1, 1831), XL, 92 (April 9, ÏÔ31). ^^^Alexander Rives to WCR, December 18, 1829, WCR Papers, L.C. 167 to its demand of redress,— It was the noble declaration that 'he would ask nothing but what is right, & submit to nothing which is wrong,* followed by the hint of 'possible collision' which has done it all,157

By March the strain was beginning to wear on the young American diplomat. On March l4 he wrote two letters, the first an official despatch to be filed in the Department of State and the second a private letter to Van Buren, In the first he indicated that, contrary to his previous expectation, the majority of the commission was not willing to assent to Pichon's report, which was favorable to the American cause. On the contrary, the majority of the members entertained "more limited ideas of the principles and extent of the redress due to the American claimants," Due to this disagree­ ment, the presentation of the final report was being delayed and would be presented with both a majority and minority opinion. While the wording of the official

to Van Buren, March 14, I83I, WCR Papers, L,C, (February 14, 1831, in Van Buren Papers, L,G,; see Chapter II, note 133.) 168 despatch was restrained, it was obvious that Rives was disappointed with this latest information. The private letter to the Secretary of State was much more frank. After reflecting on the diffi­ culties ezpbrienced by Louis Philippe in organizing his government, he stated: If I could, however get the subject out of the hands of the commission, so as to come at once into discussion with the minister, I should not despair of doing something— not because I rely on the good dispositions of the minister, (the mani­ festations of which have certainly been very far from satisfactory), but because, after what has been done, the government seems committed to go on, however reluc­ tantly.— The business, I assure you, has almost worn me out with vezation, & the unpleasantness of incessantly dunning wily & reluctant debtors. You may rest assured, however, that after having had so much trouble with it, if it should not be brought to a conclusion, it will not be for the want of continued & strenuous exertion, on my part.^59 That Hives was growing frustrated was not sur­ prising. The commission, appointed in October, had now been deliberating for five months, and so far had not presented a report, whether favorable or unfavor­ able to the American cause. It was especially

WCR to Van Buren, March l4, 1831, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV.

to Van Bur en, March 14-, 1831, WCR Papers, L.C. 169 irritating in view of the constant reassurances Rives had received from the King and his Minister of Foreign Affairs that the deliberations were being speeded on their way.

At last, on March 28, Sebastiani received a partial report from the commission. Although Rives was not able to obtain a copy of this document, he was able to gain a fairly accurate impression of its contents. As he had feared, the majority report was not favorable to the American claims. The legality of the Napoleonic decrees was upheld; thus the majority concluded that the United States was not entitled to compensation for cases in which these decress were applied. As a result, only three classes of claims deserved compensation: vessels burned at sea, captures made after the decrees were supposedly repealed (after November 1, 1810), and cases in "which the Decrees may have been applied retrospectively." The minority opinion was more liberal, admitting that the decrees violated the principles of the law of nations. Both groups recommended an amount of money to be paid in compensation which reflected their differences in the 170 admissabllity of claims; the majority recommending between ten and fifteen million francs and the minority about thirty million (two to three million dollars and six million dollars respectively). All members of the commission agreed on two points: the French position on the application of the eighth article of the Louisiana Treaty was correct and any reduction in duties on wines would be of little benefit to France. Rives was not encouraged by the tone of the report. He realized, as he had throughout the nego­ tiations, that he must be firm in pressing the American case, in order to "awaken the solicitude of this govern­ ment for its own interests.As it turned out, it took another month for any further progress to be made. In the meantime Rives met with the Foreign Minister on several occasions and stressed the importance of a speedy settlement in order to restore the most friendly relations between the two governments. As he

WCR to Van Buren, March 30, I83I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV. ^^^Ibid. ^^^WCR to Van Buren, April l4, April 28, I83I, ibid. Although Van Buren resigned as Secretary of State in April, to be replaced by Edward Livingston in May, Hives of course did not leam of this change until some time later. His first despatch addressed to Livingston was dated June 29, I83I. 171 noted in a formal letter to Setastiani on April 21: Your Excellency, I flatter myself, cannot but see that the interests of France are deeply concerned in the speedy suppression of this germ of discord between the two countries. Prance cannot, it is hoped, regard with indifference the preservation of friendly connections with the United States. Not to speak of the importance of those connections to her, in a political point of view, arising from the position and resources of the United States as a maritime power, her commerce alone with the U. States is, in itself, a consideration sufficiently important to awaken all the attention of her enlightened statesmen. That commerce is sheifn by the official docu­ ments of France to be, by far, the most valuable, foreign trade she now enjoys. It forms, indeed, at the present moment, the great support, externally, of the leading branches of French industry, and is destined, in the future, if fostered by a wise and friendly policy, to receive pro­ gressive developments, of which the rapid increase of population & of the means of consumption over an immense territory will be the only assignable limit.1°^ Could Eives have been hinting at commercial restriction on French trade if the claims were not settled soon? Since he knew he was dealing with a government of bankers and businessmen, such a speculation is not inconceivable. Finally, on April 26, Sebastiani made an offer to Eives. After stating that the only way to settle difficulties existing between the two countries was

^^&CE to Sebastiani, April 21, I83I, WCE Papers, L.C. 172 through "a simultaneous adjustment of all differences," the Foreign Minister told Eives that he had been author­ ized to propose the sum of fifteen million francs (approximately three million dollars) to settle all "the subjects of controversy between the two countries," Eives, of course, replied that he was "astonished" at such an offer. The government of the United States would consider such an amount as a "mockery, " "an absolute refusal of justice," And when Sebastiani asked him to think about the offer, he replied that it was not necessary to give "a moment’s reflection" to such an unreasonable suggestion. Eives’s firm rejection of the French offer was not entirely a true reflection of his reaction. While he was, of course, not willing to accept such a low offer, he did feel that the mere fact that an offer had been made, a development for which he had waited so long, was a somewhat encouraging sign. He found further encouragement in the generally amicable attitude of Louis Philippe, who continued to express "very cordial sentiments" toward the United States. He also was optimistic after meeting with the President of the Council, the banker Casimir Pêrier, who indicated he

WCE to Van Buren, April 28, 1831, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to Prance, XXV. 173 also was desirous to develop a "better relationship vith the United States. Pêrier also intimated that, although the French government was financially embar­ rassed, another, possibly more satisfactory, offer would 165 "be forthcoming from Sebastiani in a few days, Eives did not have to wait long. On the 28th of April he was notified that Sebastiani would grant another interview on the next day, the 29th. On that occasion he was informed that the Council had again discussed the matter and had authorized Sebastiani, in ■a spirit of great liberality," to offer twenty million francs (#^,000,000). Again the American minister refused the offer and presented computations indicating that the American losses had been much greater. Although Sebastiani replied that he felt that the American claims were exaggerated, he did make a further offer: "Twenty four millions of francs payable by instalments in six years," which was more than double the amount recommended bQT the majority of the commission. He also stressed that this was the final offer which would be forth­ coming. And Rives again refused.

to Van Buren, May 7, 1831, Ibid. 174 Again meeting with Sebastiani several days later Rives reiterated his rejection of the French offer and began his bargaining. He indicated that the United States would be willing to settle for forty million francs, "a sum considerably below the amount claimed." When Sebastiani rejected such a proposal, and indicated that most members of the government were unhappy at the already generous offer which he had made. Rives suggested the formation of a mixed commission to examine all the claims and determine the sum to be paid. This suggestion also was rejected by Sebastiani.^^"^ Although Rives kept busy consulting with Sebastiani and Pêrier, the only significant development in the negotiations throughout the month of May was Hives's offer to compromise on a sum halfway between his figure of forty million francs and the French offer of twenty-four million. During the month, however, he did manage to eliminate one possible threat to the negotiations. In an interview with Pêrier, the Presi­ dent of the Council suggested that it might be wise to consult with the Chambers, scheduled to meet two months later, since they might further strain relations between the two countries by refusing to execute any agreement 175 which might be reached. Pêrier noted that a delay of two more months in a negotiation which had dragged on for so long could not be "of much importance," and asked Hives if he would have any objections. The determined American minister naturally voiced strong opposition to such a delaying tactic. He pointed out that the Charter gave the King and his ministers full responsibility to deal with foreign nations, and he again emphasized the need to settle the matter as quickly as possible. Pêrier immediately backed down and stated that he had only suggested such an alternative and had not intended it as a formal proposal. In closing the interview the President of the Council "promised distinctly that the subject should again be brought before the Council at a very early moment, with a view to a definitive arrangement, if that should be found practicable, and he hoped it might be. By the end of May Hives was not optimistic about his situation. He again wrote a private letter to Van Buren expressing his true feelings. He still hoped that the government of Prance would go higher than twenty-four million francs, but noted that "the question still remains in great uncertainty" in spite of his

^^®WCH to Van Buren, May 29, 1831, ibid. 176 persistent efforts to reach a final settlement. He emphasized his nnwillingness to refer the matter to the Chambers, considering the unfavorable popular feeling toward the jômerican claims, In an interview with Sebastiani, on June 1, Hives's persistence paid off, Sebastiani raised the French offer to twenty-five million francs ($5,000,000), He emphasized, however, that this offer was definitely

the "ultimatum," As if to emphasize the finality of this decision, he stressed the fact that the most influential members of the Council had felt that even twenty-four million was too much and had warned him of the possible repercussions in the Chambers which such a settlement would cause. Nonetheless, he was willing to take the chance in order to "establish the most friendly relations with the United States,

^^^WCR to Van Buren, May 30, I83I, Van Buren Papers, L,C,

^"^^VICE to Van Buren, June 14, I83I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV, 177 Although Hives must have been somewhat pleased with this new offer,he did not accept it immediately. Since the French offers had been made with the under­ standing that payments would be spread over a period of six years. Rives observed that no mention had been made of the amount of interest to be paid by the French govern­ ment, Sebastiani replied that while his government was not bound to pay interest, the Council "in their anxious desire to terminate the affair," had given its authorization to pay interest at the rate of four per cent, "the highest they had ever paid a foreign government, in a similar transaction," With this issue conceded, the interview came to an end,^^^ Since Rives had every reason to believe that a settlement of twenty-five million francs, equivalent to approximately five million dollars, would be

171 Rives knew that five million dollars would be adequate to satisfy the demands of the American claimants. Although his instructions had never speci­ fied an amount, he must have been familiar with the letters addressed to Van Buren in which that amount had been suggested. He had in fact received some indication from the earlier correspondence between Gallatin and the Secretary of State, See James A, Hamilton to Van Buren, June 19# 1829» Van Buren Papers, L,C,; Albert Gallatin to John Quincy Adams, January l4, 1822, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XX. ^^^WCR to Van Buren, June l4, 1831» National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV, 178 acceptable to his government,he could have accepted the offer immediately. Instead he took steps to deter­ mine whether this was the absolute maximum he would be able to obtain. To accomplish this objective he again enlisted the aid of General Lafayette, who happened to be in Paris. Lafayette informally discussed the matter with the President of the Council, the Foreign Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of 17^ Commerce. He soon reported to Hives that it was his firm opinion ...that the offer of twenty five Millions of francs is the most extensive one you can obtain. I owe this government the justice to say that, I ever found them. King, past & present Ministers, since our last revolution, very friendly disposed toward the United States, and truly desirous to keep up mutual satisfaction & intimacy between the two Nations, At the same time, they are seriously impressed with financial embarrassments & surrounding circumstances.^75

With this information at hand Rives decided to accept the French offer. Although his instructions had not specified an amount which would satisfy the demands of the American claimants, he justified his

^^^8ee above. Chapter II, Note 171.

^^■^Lafayette to WCR, June 3, I83I, WCR Papers, L.C. An extract of this letter was added to WCR to Van Buren, June 14, I831, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV. 179 decision to accept twenty five million francs by referring to a despatch from Gallatin to Adams, dated January l4, 1822, in which the previous minister expressed the opinion that all the American claims would not exceed five million dollars. He therefore drew up a project of a convention which he presented to Sebastiani on June 3.^^^ Sebastiani voiced his general approval of the projected treaty, as far as it went. However, he noted that no mention was made of French claims against the American government, specifically the financial claims of French citizens and the question of the Louisiana Treaty. These were relatively minor points, however, from Hives's point of view, and after further negotiation, stretching over the next three weeks, these points too were settled: Hives managed to convince the French government to lower its claims in the first case from three and one half million francs to one and one-half million; and the irritating Louisiana question was settled in conformity with Hives's suggestion to Polig- nac some months earlier— reduction of the American duty on French wines for a ten-year period in exchange for French surrender of her claims under the Louisiana 180 Treaty.' Finally the path was cleared to the for­ mation of a treaty between France and the United States, an event eagerly awaited by the determined American minister. The treaty, as finally formulated, committed the French government to pay the United States twenty- five million francs over a siz year period at four per cent interest. The American government would distri­ bute the money among the claimants, "according to the rules which it shall determine. " The American govern­ ment, in return, agreed to settle all claims of French citizens for the sum of one million five hundred francs, also payable in siz annual installments (at four per cent interest) which would be deducted from the amount due from the French government. In ezchange for abandonment of its claims under the Louisiana Treaty the United States would reduce the duties on French wines for a period of ten years. And, in addition, the French government agreed to reduce its duties on long staple cotton to the same level as that

177Ibid. WCR to Livingston, June 29, I831, 181 on short staple cotton.The treaty was signed by William Cabell Rives, representing the United States, and Count Horace Sebastiani, representing Prance, on July 4, 1831.

After nearly two years of unceasing determina­ tion and effort. Rives had at last been able to settle a troublesome issue which had haunted Americn foreign policy for over two decades. He had every reason to feel satisfied with his accomplishment. While it must be noted that Andrew Jackson had taken a firm stand toward France in his two State of the Union messages, and Martin Van Buren had devoted much time and attention to overseeing the negotiations, it was after all William Cabell Rives who had been on the scene in Paris. It 178 The full text of the treaty may be found in Miller (ed«), Treaties and Other International Acts. Ill, 64.1-46. See also Appendix B. The reduction on the duties on long staple cotton was mutually advan­ tageous. It provided greater access to the French market for American producers. In addition, as the report on the treaty presented to Parliament indicated, “French industry obtains from the United States raw materials and re-exports it as finished products ; the wines and spirits of France pay for the rice and tobacco of America. France is the greatest market of the United States; the United States is the greatest market of France.“ Quoted in Willis H. Walker, Franco- American Commercial Relations (For Hays, Kansas : Published by Author, 1928), p. 64. 182 was he who had spent the long hours studying documents, meeting with King, foreign minister, members of the commission, and other involved officials, and exercising the "sociability, intercourse, pleasantry" which Samuel Smith had recognized as so essential to the negotiation. Hives had also taken upon himself the responsibility of exceeding his instructions by proposing the reduction in the duties on French wines and ultimately accepting the French proposal to settle for twenty-five million francs. Without his diligent effort and perseverance it is reasonable to assume the negotiations might once again have failed. Thus he was able to inform Edward Livingston, who had succeeded Van Buren as Secretary of State, of his success : ^n arrangement which, amid so many difficulties, has secured for claims of our Citizens, (prosecuted in vain for the last twenty years, and a large portion if not the whole of which, has been con­ sidered as desperate), a sum sufficient in all probability, to pay every cent justly due, and nearly treble the amount pronounced to be due by the Commission charged with their examination here— which has, at the same time extinguished Claims of French subjects against the United States to the amount of nearly five millions of francs by a stipulation to pay a Million and a half— and has finally gotten rid of a most embarrassing claim, (founded on the language of a treaty) of perpetual privileges in the ports of one of the States of the Union, by a temporary measure intrinsically advantageous to ourselves,— and in the 183 definitive settlement of these unpleasant questions, has laid a lasting foundation of Harmony & friendship between two Countries having the most important common interests, political & Commercial— an arrangement marked by these features which, under the discretionary powers the President has been pleased to confide to me, I have not hesitated to assume, both in the pro­ gress and temination of this complex negotiation.179

With the treaty on its way to Washington Hives and his family took a well-earned vacation. The unceasing strain of the long months of negotiations had caused a serious drain on his health and for two months the family toured Europe.^®®

Thus was closed, so it appeared, an irritating and seemingly irreconcilable incident in Franco-American relations. The long duration of the claims issue and the reluctance with which the French finally settled the issue provide an interesting and infoimiative chapter in the relationship between the two countries. In

Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV. ^®°They visited Switzerland, Northern Italy, Germany, Holland and Belgium, See Mrs. Rives Journal, July 19, August 28, September 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, l4, 16, October 1, I83I, WCR Papers, L.C, spite of the aid rendered by France during the American War for Independence and the frequent references to the "ancient friendship" between the two governments, there had not existed a mutual respect and admiration. The United States* appreciation for the crucial French role in the first American war had soon turned to dis­ trust, although many Americans retained a sentimental attachment to that European nation. The French govern­ ment, on the other hand, which had aided the struggling new nation, had done so for selfish reasons, and when the war was over had developed a condescending attitude toward the weak and ineffectual new republic. This attitude had carried over into the nineteenth century and had had a significant effect on the evasion practiced in diplomatic discussions of the claims issues. Only after the Jackson administration had come to power, with its strong determination to gain French recognition of its responsibility for wrongs inflicted on American citizens, and its willingness to use force if necessary, did the French government finally agree to settle the issues. The diplomatic victory of the United States seemed to indicate a changing attitude on the part of France, a willingness to recognize and accept the strength and importance of this growing new nation in international circles. Perhaps France 185 had finally agreed to pay the claims because of a grudging respect for the United States, A more logi­ cal explanation, however, in view of later foot-dragging on the question of appropriations to pay the claims, is that France simply did not consider the sums involved and the basic issue significant enough to risk war with the United States,

While the Rives family enjoyed the pleasures of the continent, the terms of the treaty were reported and analyzed by individuals and newspapers in Europe and in the United States, In France, where the treaty was first discussed, the press devoted little attention to the agreement. The Paris Moniteur. the government paper, printed the full text and noted, in relation to the reduction on duties for French wines, that Rives had exceeded his authority. Thus the treaty would "require the action of both Houses of Congress either before it can be ratified or before it can take effect," The commercial interests in France, as reflected by the Journal du Havre, were optimistic about the agree­ ment; , all the difficulties Qar0 removed, and the collision which President Jackson mentioned in his 186 message, has now no grounds. The Commercial ties between France and the Ü. S. are about to be drawn still closer." And finally the opposition press criticized the treaty. La Tribune of Paris reflected the concern with the public purse by calling the com­ pleted negotiation one of the "most scandalous dissi­ pations of the public funds, When news of the completed treaty reached the United States in late August, the American press was much more optimistic. The papers had, of course, carried news of the progress of the negotiations, and when word of the signing of the treaty arrived, they were almost universal in their approval. The Administration papers were naturally the most enthusiastic,^®^ For example, the Richmond Enquirer, the Jackson paper in Eives's home state of Virginia, felt it to be "as good a treaty, by all counts, as could possibly have been expected— a treaty which is eulogized by gentlemen on the spot, who are no friends to the administration— a treaty we hope will prove satisfactory to the great body of our cotmtry- men,"^^^ The opposition papers, of course, found it

^^^McLemore, Franco-American Relations, pp, 89-90,

^^^Ibid,. pp, 92-93. ^^^Richmond Enquirer, quoted in Washington Globe. September 9, I83I, 187 difflcTilt to support Hives's actions enthusiastically and provided an alternative point of view to the success of the negotiations. As the Charleston Patriot noted, "Jackson’s administration does not deserve as much credit as is given regarding the French treaty or for any treaty because the way had opened up in previous 184 administrations,” The National Intelligencer felt the success of Hives was due not to his efforts but

the revolution of I830 in France.But in spite of some hesitancy on the part of the opposition press, the French minister in Washington, Louis Barbe C. Sêrurier, was able to inform his government that the treaty had been well received in the United States. While the press was reacting publicly to news of the treaty. Hives was receiving enthusiastic correspondence from his friends and associates in the Utoited States. Hives had sent a copy of the treaty to Van Buren, now minister to England, and the former Secretary of State assured Hives that he would receive the full support of the government "in all that you

^^^Quoted in McLemore, Franco-American Relations. pp. 93-94.

^^^Ibid.. p. 94. ^^^Serurier to Sebastiani, September 4, November 1 6, I831, Paris, Aff. Etr., Cor, polit., Etats-Unis, 85, 188 have done.” Van Buren noted that he had "frequent & full” communications with Jackson before leaving Washington and had advised the President to accept a settlement if it provided for payment of five million dollars. In all, Van Buren was very pleased with Eives's accomplishment.^®^ And he wrote to Jackson that although Eives "was not expressly authorized to conclude an arrangement upon the subject of the claims, without a previous submission of the French offer to your approval, I am glad that he has done so, as the hazards of delay have thereby been avoided."^®® From Samuel Smith, whom Van Buren had consulted in 1829, Eives received the following words of praise : You have obtained as much as we have any Cause to expect, more than Gallatin would have accepted, and a sufficient amount to pay all just claims, so far as the princi­ pal without interest, which ought to satisfy Every national man; so far as I am informed, the real Claimants are satisfied. Those who have no claims will make a noise for political e f f e c t .

^^^Van Buren to WCR, October 15, 1831» WCR Papers, L.C. ^®®Van Buren to Jackson, October 11, 1831, in John Spencer Bassett (ed.), Correspondence of Andrew Jackson (6 vols, and index; Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1926-35), IV, 35^-59. ^^^Samuel Smith to WCR, September 6, 1831, WCR Papers, L.C. 189 Thomas Eitchie, editor of the Bichmond Enquirer, reported that the treaty had been received with great enthusiasm by friends of the administration and with a mixed reaction by its enemies, but few had dared to find fault with 190 it. Finally, C, C. Harper, who had served as Hives's Secretary of Legation until he resigned because of poor health in October, I83O, and who was still in Europe, had only one regret: that the negotiation had not been completed before the reorganization of Jackson's cabinet so that Hives might have been appointed Secretary of

The official response was just as Van Buren had predicted* Edward Livingston reported that the Presi­ dent was very satisfied with the treaty and . . . instructs me to say that the manner in which you have carried on the negotia­ tion meets his entire approbation, and that he is convinced the result has been quite as favorable as we could have expected; and, my own opinion coinciding perfectly with his, I congratulate you on the success of your persevering and talented exertions, and on the great advantages they have pro­ cured your country. 192

^^^Thomas Hitchie to WCH, October 12, I83I, ibid.

C. Harper to WCH, July 21, I83I, ibid.

^^^Edward Livingston to WCR, September 26, I83I, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, 14. 190 Livingston did, however, qualify his approval by taking exception to several points about the treaty. The major weakness in the document, as Rives already knew,^^^ was the clause agreeing to a reduction of duties on French wines. Livingston suggested that Jackson should merely recommend such a reduction. Then, if Congress failed to include such a provision in its legislation, that provision of the treaty would be 19^ void. Hives of course was strongly opposed to such a suggestion. He pointed out that the French govern­ ment had repeatedly insisted that the American claims and its claims under the Louisiana Treaty must be con­ sidered together, and he felt certain, as well he mi^t, that they would never consent to a treaty which committed them to payment of twenty-five million francs without a quid pro quo, ^

193 The previous spring Rives had written letters to Senators Tazewell, Tyler, Benton and Webster about the proposed reduction in wine duties in an attempt to smooth the way for such a passage in the treaty, WCR to Littleton W. Tazewell, May 15, I83I, John Tyler, May 1 7 , 1831, Daniel Webster, May 17, I83I» and Thomas H, Benton, May 17, I831, Journal of Correspondence, WCR Papers, L.C,

^^^Livingston to WCR, September 26, I83I, National Archives, Recores of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, 14,

^^^WCR to Livingston, October 29, I83I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV, 191 Livingston's second objection concerned the method of payment. He felt that by allowing the French government to deduct the amount allowed for their claims before payment was made to the United States government, the -American claimants would erroneously receive the impression that they were not receiving the full amount due to them.^^^ Hives felt this was an insignificant objection, and pointed out that this was the usual method for such international adjustments, that it was wasted motion for the French government to send money to the United States, only to have the Ameri­ can government send it right back. And he pointed out that his instructions had granted him permission specifically to carry out such an arrangmenent.^^^ Livingston's main concern was, of course, the fate of the treaty in the Congress. Since the treaty included the provision for a reduction of duties, it was necessary to have the approval of both the House and Senate, and Livingston feared some opposition might develop toward what might be considered a usurpation of the rights of the Congress. Samuel Smith reflected

Livingston to WCH, September 26, 1831, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France,14.

^^^WCH to Livingston, October 29, I83I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV. 192 this fear when he wrote to Rives that he felt Senators Littleton Tazewell and John Tyler might attempt to make a constitutional issue of that particular clause of the treaty.Van Buren was more optimistic, however, when he wrote that most of the money which would be received from the French would go to the potential opponents of the redution of the tariff, too much money in fact to permit the opposition to "indulge in their factious & unprincipled propensities, Andrew Jackson’s State of the Union message of

December 6, I83I, was at last able to present a most favorable report on the state of Franco-American rela­ tions. After briefly discussing the provisions of the Treaty and the reason for its presentation to both House and Senate for approval, the President added: Should this treaty receive the proper sanction, a source of irritation will be stopped that has for so many years in some degree alienated from each other two nations who, from interest as well as the remem­ brance of early associations, ought to cherish the most friendly relations; an encouragement will be given for perseverance in the demands of justice by this new proof that if steadily pursued they will be listened to, and admonition will be offered to those powers, if any, which may be inclined to evade them that they will

^^^Samuel Smith to WCE, December 1, I83I, WCR Papers, L.C. 193 never be abandoned; after all, a just confidence will be inspired in our fellow-citizens that their Government will exert all the powers with which they have invested it in support of their just claims upon foreign nations ; at the same time that the frank acknowledgment and provision for the payment of those which were addressed to our equity, although unsupported by legal proof, affords a prac­ tical illustration of our submission to the divine rule of doing to others what we desire they should do unto us.^^O The treaty was presented to the Senate on on Foreign Relations, When the treaty was put before the Senate for ratification, it received the full support of the chairman of the committee, Littleton Tazewell, representing Hives’s home state of Virginia. In spite of Henry Clay’s efforts to postpone ratifi­ cation or, failing that, to delete the article lowering duties on wines, the treaty was ratified unanimously on February 2, 1832.^^^ The agreement did not become effective, however, until July 13, 1832:, following the passage of a bill lowering the tariffs on wines.

Israel (ed.) State of Union Messages. I, 3^7-8. ^*^^Miller (ed. ), Treaties and Other International Acts. Ill, 71. Samuel Smith to WCR, January 3, 27, 1832, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Miller (ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts. Ill, 648-49. 19^

Once Rives had transmitted the treaty to the United States, thus accomplishing the principal goal for which he had been sent to Paris, he began to think about returning home. In November, I83I, he requested from the Secretary of State permission to come back to America during the following year.^®^ Since the family had been absent from friends and family in Virginia for over two years, it was natural that home­ sickness might partially explain this decision. In addition, however, Rives was somewhat concerned about his financial situation. Although his father had informed him that his financial affairs in Virginia were in good shape,the expenses of maintaining the family in Prance continued to mount,And since his father had admonished him to live within his means.

WCR to Livingston, November 8, I83I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXV.

^‘^^Robert Rives to WCR, July 31, I831, WCR Papers, L.C, owed his banker $2,000 and anticipated this amount to double by the end of the year, WCR to Robert Rives, October 30, I83I, WCR Papers, L.C, 195 . recommending that he return when this was no longer possible, financial considerations undoubtedly influenced the decision to ask for recall. Of even greater significance in this decision was Hives’s political future. As news of the successful negotiation spread throughout the United States, his reputation grew in proportion. If he were to stay for any length of time in France, the political advantage gained by the mission might be lost. In October he sent this remarkable message to Van Buren: Will you believe it? All unworthy as I am, some of my friends have thought of me as a candidate for the vice-Presidency! I have given no encouragement to this idea, & have been particularly restrained from doing so, because I was wholly ignorant of the views of the great body of our republican brethran at home & of your personal sentiments.— You cannot be unappraised that many of your friends have wished you to fill this place, & if not overruled by your veto, such undoubtedly would be the general voice of the Republican party. While there may be any chance of your being prevailed upon to assent to a selection every way so suitable, it would be alike contrary to my personal feelings & wishes, & inconsistent with my humble pretensions, to permit the faintest whisper of my name to be heard. But if you are positively & irrevocably deter­ mined that your friends shall not have their will of you, in this instance, & there shall be no better man, as Mr. Randolph says, then I will not conceal from you that if I thought it possible that the good people of our country could be so far imposed upon as to believe me a fit choice, I should not make it a matter of conscience 196 to undeceive them. While the honor would be far, very far, beyond my deserts, it would be a place that would marvellously suit me In several respects— there would be nothing to do, & a decent allowance of money to support one In the company of his friends, at Washington during the winter.— I should not have dared to have spoken of this matter with the half seriousness I do now. If I had not seen the names of several of our compatriots, not particularly distinguished, already brought forward very prominently in reference to this post, which seems, indeed to go a-begging. . . . But if you are thus firmly resolved against It, I would beg you, as knowing far better the views & plans of our friends at home, as well as the intrinsic fitness of the thing, to say to me candidly & without reserve whether you think our good people could, in any excess of partiality or delusion, be brought to make me their vice-president, or whether It would not be an act of great temerity & indiscretion on the part of my friends to think of it.20? If Elves was really naive enough to have some hope that Van Buren would give his political blessing to such a possibility, he was soon disappointed. The former Secretary of State responded that he did not want to be a candidate himself, but he advised Elves not to run. He noted that Pennsylvania would fight for this position and would probably get It, if she could decide on a man.^^®

^°^WCE to Van Buren, October 25, 1831, Van Buren Papers, L.C. Van Buren to WCE, November 1, I83I, ibid. 197 _ Since it would have been foolish for Elves to ignore such advice, he replied that he had "wholly dismissed the subject from my mind, & have written to the few friends who had communicated their wishes to me, putting an absolute veto on any allusion to my 209 name." Shortly thereafter he wrote to C. C. Harper in Baltimore and William M. Rives that only if a com­ promise candidate were needed to unite opinion would he allow his name to be mentioned for the vice-presidency, and then he would be reluctant. When it became apparent, after his rejection as minister to England, that Van Buren would be the vice-presidential candidate. Hives’s name was mentioned for other positions: secretary of state or treasury, or minister to England.Whatever might be in store for him, there can be no doubt that Rives became increasingly anxious to return to the United States. His major task in France had been completed and he was eager to re-enter the mainstream of American political life.

209 WCR to Van Buren, November 12, 1831, ibid.

^^%CR to C. 0. Harper, December l4, I83I, WCE to W. M. Rives, December l4, I83I, WCR Papers, L. C» ^^^C. C. Harper to WCR, March 4, 1832, WCR Papers, L.C. 198

During his last year in Paris Rives achieved one more victory, insignificant in comparison to the claims negotiation, but important nevertheless to his fellow Virginians. When the July Monarchy had come

into power in July, I83O, the new Minister of Finance, Baron Louis, had ruled that all purchases of American tobacco would rest in the hands of a single contrac­ tor. When this action was taken. Rives had pro­ tested that such a monopoly system would allow the contractor to reduce the price of tobacco, without any benefit to the French government. He also felt that such reductions in prices would force American planters to turn to other crops, thus depriving France of her tobacco supply. Rives attempted to reverse the French govern­ ment’s decision, but was opposed by a young American merchant, Lewis Rogers. Rogers, who stood to gain from the monopoly, felt that the contract system would

Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV; Baron Louis to WCR, August 31» 1830» WCR Papers, L.C, ^^^WCR to Baron de Montbell, July 20, I83O, ibid. 199 eliminate competition among Virginia planters and raise the price of tobacco.Finally, with the help of Lafayette and R. G. Beasley, American consul at Havre, Rives was successful in his efforts to change the policy of the French. In January, 1832, the Minister of Finance returned the government to the old system of competitive buying. Rives had scored another diplomatic victory.

At last, on October 1, I832, the Rives family departed from Havre aboard the Sully to return to the United States. The return trip was even worse than their trip to France had been some three years earlier. The captain of the Sully, against his better judgment, was prevailed upon by some impatient Americans to depart in the face of bad weather, and a hurricane tossed the ship around the Channel for nine days. Again Mrs. Rives was seasick, and it was feared for a time that

^^^R. G. Beasley to WCR, July 22, I83O, ibid. ^^^WCR to Livingston, January 18, 1832, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXVI. ^^^Notes of WCR, Jr., WCR Papers, L.C. Rives could look back on his three years abroad with a great deal of satisfaction. He had solved a vezing problem for the United States, The success had, without a doubt, enhanced his political career. Even more important, perhaps, was the impact which three years residence in Prance, combined with travel to other European nations, had made on Hives's political thought. He had had an opportunity to observe first­ hand the governments of Europe and to make comparisons with the American system. Within him was developed a more intense love and dedication to the United States than had existed before his French mission. This atti­ tude was reflected in a letter Rives had written to his friend John Rutherfoord some months before his return to the United States: It is yet worth while to see Europe, to acquire, from personal observation, the conviction I shall have the satisfaction to carry back with me of the immense advantages, physical, moral & political.

JPR to Mrs. Nathaniel Niles, January 18, I833, Nathaniel Niles Papers, Library of Congress. ^^^¥GR to Nathaniel Niles, November 19, 1832, ibid. Niles was Hives's Secretary of Legation following Harper's resignation in October, I830, and served as charge d'affaires in Paris until Livingston succeeded Rives. which OUT own favored land possesses over this vaunted paradise of the old world. To see Europe, with every sound- thinking & right-feeling american, is to be better satisfied with his own country, to be more & more proud of it, to have a loftier conception of its destinies, & to cling to them with a more entire & thorough devotion. Such, at least, has been the effect produced on my own mind, & which every day's observation strength­ ens and confirms.219

The significance of this development was to become apparent in later years, when he exhibited a greater devotion to the Union than did many of his Southern contemporaries. Although Rives was probably only partially aware of the change which had taken place in his thinking and its importance, he did write a rather revealing letter to his friend Nicholas P. Trist shortly before he left Prance. He reflected hopefully the view that European nations would soon adopt the American political system, if domestic q-uarrels did not dim the bright example the United States provided. He had repeatedly been warned that this was the crucial factor in "our great experiment in free government. . . . This consideration, in importing a loftier consciousness of the dignity of our country, cannot fail, at the same time, to impress

WCR to John Rutherfoord,February 8, I832, John Rutherfoord Papers, Perkins Library, Duke University. any American statesman with a deeper sense of his high responsibilities.”^^^ These were interesting thoughts for a man who was soon to find himself representing his state in the Senate of the United States during an era of increasing domestic tension.

220 WCR to Nicholas P. Trist, June l4, 1832, Nicholas P. Trist Papers, Library of Congress. CHAPTER III

THE DEMOCRAT BECOMES A WHIG

With his return to the United States in November, 1832, William Cabell Rives re-entered the domestic political stage at an opportune time for the advancement of his career. During the previous summer, Littleton W. Tazewell had resigned his seat in the United States Senate, thus creating a vacancy which could be filled by the returning diplomat.^ Jackson’s victory in the presidential election combined with Hives’s successful negotiation with the French in the name of Jacksonian diplomacy and his previous reputation as a Jacksonian leader in his state made Rives the logical choice to fill the Senate seat. Thus his supporters, Thomas Walker Gilmer and Major Charles

Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 179. Dingledine has traced, in great deail. Hives’s political career from 1832 to 184-3 and is an invaluable source for this period of Rives’s life.

203 204 Yancey, a friend of the family and veteran legislator from Buckingham, pushed for his election.^ Before the election was held in the legislature, however, it was necessary for Sives to clarify his position on two issues: the constitutionality of the tariff, of interest to Virginia and the country as a whole; and the right of the legislature to instruct its senators. Critics of Sives had complained that he held the tariff constitutional and opposed the ri^t of instruction, and Gilmer and Yancey wished to be reassured of his position on these two issues so that the opposition could be solenced.^ Hives’s stand on the right of instruction could be easily explained. Although he had argued , against this principle in 1820, he dismissed his earlier ideas as the "metaphysical refinements" of a "very young man." He then denied that he had ever questioned the "practical effect of that obligation," and added that he would feel obligated to follow instructions of the legislature "in all cases not requiring a

Ibid.. pp. 180-81. Thomas Walker Gilmer to WCR, December 3, 4, 1832; Major Charles Yancey to WCR, December 3, 1832, WCR Papers, L.C. ^Thomas Walker Gilmer to WCR, December 3» 4, 1832; Major Charles Yancey to WCR, December 3» 1832, Ibid. 205 ' if- violation of the constitution.” Such a position was not entirely in contradition to his earlier state­ ments, When campaigning for the House of Representatives in 1823 he had denied the legislature’s right to issue mandatory instructions, but stated that the body could express its opinions. Such opinions, or instructions, should only be violated in extreme cases.^ The question of the constitutionality of the tariff was, however, a much more immediate and contro­ versial question. Virginia, along with other Southern states, was opposed to the protective system, and in 1824, following the passage of a protective tariff, the Virginia Legislature had followed the lead of South Carolina and voted in favor of resolutions declaring the tariff unconstitutional.^ In 1828 most of her representatives had voted against the "Tariff of Abominations,” and when the legislature met in December, resolutions were again introduced declaring the pro­ tective tariff unconstitutional. In spite of these actions, opinion was not unanimous in support of the

^"Substance of letter to Kaj. Yancey, from memory,” December 6, 1832, ibid. ^Draft of Address to the People of Albemarle, April, 1823, ibid. ^Din&ledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 103. 206 legislature's position. While most of eastern Virginia did not agree with the protective tariff, not all held it unconstitutional. Sives fit into the latter group and his approach to the tariff provided an insight into the dilemma facing Virginians who supported the union, hut were forced to recognize the political strength of the strict constructionists in developing their political principles. It was a problem which was to plague Rives throughout his political career.

In his campaign for the House of Representatives in 1823 Rives had opposed the principle of the protec­ tive tariff, but he had not denied the right of Congress to "lay and collect duties."^ And when the Tariff of 1824 had come up for a vote. Rives had cast his ballot against it, although he did not participate in the House debate on the bill, feeling that his objections to the bill had already been voiced by other members of

7 Ibid.. pp. 103-5. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 119-22, notes, however, the growing desire for protection in the western part of the state, primarily the area now included in West Virgia.

^See above. Ch. I , pp. 44-45. 207 Congress.^ In 1828 he repeated the same pattern, remaining silent in the debate and voting against the tariff. Thus his critics in 1832 had no objection to his official Congressional record on the tariff. What they were concerned with, however, was the position expressed by Rives after the "Tariff of Abominations" had passed the Congress and South Carolina had issued osition.^® When the Virginia Legislature met in December, 1828, and resolutions were introduced to declare the tariff unconstitutional, Rives and other supporters of the union attempted to inject a note of moderation into the deliberations. As he wrote to his friend, William M. Rives, he felt it would be unwise for Vir­ ginia to join the protest against the protective tariff, unless the state were prepared to join the extremists in South Carolina. Although he was opposed to the American System, Rives continued, he did not believe in dissolving the union, or any measures which would lead to that end. He then noted that a new adminis­ tration was soon to take office, an administration which

^See above. Ch. I, p. 50. ^^Thomas Walker Gilmer to WCR, December 3i 4, 1832; Major Charles Yancey to WCR, December 3, 1832, WCR Papers, L.C, 208 might be expected to remedy the situation. His own view of the tariff was that it was an abuse of a granted power, not a violation of the Constitution.^^ In addition to corresponding with his friends in the legislature. Hives also consulted his friend and political mentor, ex-president James Madison, about the tariff çLuestion. It was not surprising that Hives should turn to Madison: the two had developed an increasingly close friendship since Hives had moved to Castle Hill, and Madison had been one of the chief architects of the Constitution. Madison replied to Hives’s request for his opinion on the tariff that his ideas would soon be in print. Two letters, addressed to Joseph C. Cabell and printed in the Blchmond Enquirer in late December, 1828, declared that a protective tariff was constitutional under Congress's power to regulate t r a d e . W h e n the editor of the Enquirer.

^^WCH to ¥m. M. Hives, January 1, 2, 1829, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," pp. 106-7. Evidence of the close relationship between WCH and his wife and the Madisons can be found in abundant supply in the WCR Papers, L.C. For example, see JPH's "Autobiography," ibid. For Hives's enquiry on the tariff, see WCH to James Madison, December 17, 1828, ibid. Madison's views appeared in the Richmond Enquirer on December 27. 30. 1828. 209 Thomas Ritchie,disagreed with Madison and criticized him for stating such a position at a critical time,^^ Rives collaborated with J. S. Barbour in writing an article supporting Madison. Published in the Enquirer with the signature "A Jackson Man of the School of’98,” the article was partially a defense of Madison’s right to speak on the issue and partially anexplanation of his position. First, the two men cited Madison’s patriotic duty as a justification for publicizing his ideas when the union itself was being threatened. They pointed out that the most expedient way to moderate opinion was to show the error of the doctrine, presented by South Carolina, of the unconstitutionality of the tariff, and they agreed that the issue must be discussed widely in order to unite public opinion in all sections against the protective system. This in turn would result in a change in policy in the new administration. In the mean time, to secure this result, let us contrive our remonstrances against the injustices, inexpediency, oppressive­ ness, and mischievous and distracting tendencies of the present system, as form­ ing a gross abuse of a constitutional power, not as the assumption of an uncon­ stitutional one. . . . If we will be satisfied with practical results, with relief from actual burthens, means of this sort cannot fail to gain our end— But, if, on the other hand, we insist on mere speculative points— if we demand. ^^Richmond Enquirer, December 27, 1828, January 3» 1829. as a sine qua non, an abandonment of the princj-ple of protection— a principle co-equal with, and inherent in the government,— if we continue to denounce that principle as an outrage upon the Constitution, and threaten to meet it with resistance as an act of usurpation — nothing can be expected but a perpétuation of our grievances. civil broil and confusion and finally the ruin and subversion of our political system. There is no truth in politics, which deserves to be more constantly borne in mind than this— that the greatest enemies of reform, are the overzealous and extravagant friends of Reform— and that the most certain mode of losing or defeating practicable objects is to contend for those which are imprac­ ticable. In other words. Rives and his friend Barbour supported the constitutionality of the tariff but were opposed to the extreme provisions of the Tariff of 1828. They did, however, reject the use of extreme methods to counteract the tariff since they viewed the struggle as a threat to the union. With this background in mind it was not sur­ prising that Rives's friends and critics alike wished him to clarify his position on the tariff when he returned to Virginia in I832. Almost four years had passed since this article had been printed. Rives

Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 110, identifies the authorship of this article which appeared in the Richmond Enquirer on January 17, 1829. Barbour and Rives met at William and Mary, served in the legislature, and were life­ long friends, Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 110, n. II8. 211 had spent three of those years removed from the domes­ tic political battles involving Virginia, South Carolina, and the union, which had resulted in South Carolina's ordinance of nullification. It was con­ ceivable that he might have changed his position in the interim. By the time the legislature met to elect a new senator in December, 1832, Bives had responded to Major Yancey’s query about his stand on the tariff in the following manner: . . . I am anti-Tariff, anti-nullifi­ cation, anti-Bank, & a thorough & decided friend of Jackson's administration. I am surprised to hear that any doubts should have been suggested as to my sentiments concerning the Tariff, for I yield to no man in opposition tc the protective system, not only as unjust, impolitic, unequal & oppressive, but as contrary to the true genius of our institutions, & inconsistent with the essential conditions of a con­ federated republic like ours.^5 Considering Rives's growing regard for the union as a result of his foreign sojurn, his statements seemed to reflect political expediency rather than a strong statement of principle. While he mentioned the pro­ tective system specifically, his general statement "I am anti-Tariff" could be mis interpreted.

Substance of letter to Maj. Yancey, from memory," WCE Papers, L.C. 212 Since a canvass of the legislature informed his enemies that Rives*s election was assured, the debate in the House of Delegates was briefSignificantly, however, Gilmer, in his nominating speech, stated that Rives "considered the Tariff a violation of a consti­ tutional grant of power."’ After Major Yancey quoted from Rives's letter "with more effect than any nominating s p e e c h , t h e vote was taken. On December 10, 1832, William Cabell Rives was elected to the Senate of the

The nearly unanimous support for Hives's moderate politics was not to last long. On the same day the Virginian was elected to the Senate, President Andrew Jackson issued his Nullification Proclamation. This special message was addressed to the people of South Carolina who had, in special convention, declared the

^^John Rutherfoord to WCR, December 10, 1832, WCR Papers, L.C, Richmond Enquirer. December 11, 1832. 18 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," pp. 184-83. 19 Journal of the House of Delegates. . . Session of"1032-33, 22-23, December 10, 1832. 213 tariffs of 1828 and I832 null and void and prohibited the collection of duties within the state after

February 1, I833, In his speech, formulated largely by Secretary of State Edward Livingston, Jackson upheld the union and denied the right of a state to secede: I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthor­ ized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded. and destructive of the great object for which it was formed. By attacking the compact theory of government Jackson triggered an immediate reaction among the supporters of the states-rights theory of government in Virginia. These individuals, including ex-Senator Littleton ¥, Tazewell, John Tyler, John Randolph of Roanoke (who got out of his death bed to attack the President), lawyer Benjamin Watkins Leigh, and Governor John FLoyd, based their ideas on the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, authored by Madison and Jeffer­ son, which they interpreted to mean that the federal government was a compact among the sovereign states.

Richardson (ed.), Messages and Papers. II, 1160-62. For a comprehensive discussion of the nulli­ fication crisis in South Carolina, stressing the role of slavery in this issue, see William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 18i6^1BT6 (New York: ^rper & Row, 1 9 ^ . 214 . While they rejected nullification as a distortion of the concepts Included In the resolutions, they main­ tained that each state had the right to judge the constitutionality of a law and, If all avenues of redress within the union failed, a state had the right to secede from the union. When Jackson Issued his pro­ clamation, this group of Individuals, confined for the most part to the eastern part of the state, split with the administration, combined forces with the nullIf1ers, and formed a strong opposition party In Virginia. Taking a middle position on the Issue were the Democrats of the East, led by Thomas Bltchle and the Enquirer, who rejected the nationalistic approach of the proclamation but continued to support Jackson and oppose nullification.^^ Very definitely In the minority were the thorough supporters of Jackson, a group which Included Hives In the Senate and Thomas J. Randolph, Jefferson’s grandson. In the Virginia Assembly. This group claimed to be the true supporters of the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, the so-called doctrine of ’98,and accepted the theory that, although the

■ Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. I85-86. See also Ambler, Sectionalism In Virginia, pp. 209-18, and Simms, Rise of the Whigs In Virginia, pp. 65-73 . Ambler, Ritchie, pp. 151-54. 215 union was a compact of sovereign states, the states had given part of their sovereignty to the national government.Hives soon had an opportunity to spell out in detail the constitutional theories of this group. To round out the picture in Virginia, whereas the opinion of the East was divided on the nature of the union and the right of nullification, the West supported neither nullification nor cession and for the most part supported the administration.^^ When Hives, who had been detained by illness,

took his seat in the Senate on January 4, I833, the Virginia legislature was in the process of debating its course of action in response to South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification. Jackson's Proclamation had complicated the situation and Hives faced a dilemma. In his Nullification Proclamation, Jackson had implied that force would be used, if necessary, to carry out the law of the land. But Thomas Bitchie warned Hives

^^WCR to Thomas J. Randolph, January 5, 1833, WCR Papers, L.C. Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, pp. 73 -74 . ^\mbler. Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 210-14j Simms, Rise of the Whigs In Virginia, pp. 74-76.

1833, WCR Papers, L.C. 216 that moderation was especially important at this crucial time. If Jackson asked Congress for additional powers, even his friends would reject the use of force, and the whole South would rally to the support of South Carolina,Ritchie's fears seemed to have some basis in fact. Following on the heels of Hives's nearly unanimous election, the legislature had elevated the ardent states rights advocate, John Tyler, to the

Senate by the close vote of 63 to 53.^"^ On January l4 the House of Delegates reached a decision. The Verplanck Bill, reported out of committee to the House of Representatives on January 8, proposed a drastic reduction of the tariff, amounting to fifty percent by 183^;^^ Virginia's senators were instructed to support a reduction in the duties. Further resolutions urged South Carolina to follow a moderate course by suspending the Ordinance of Nullification until the end of the congressional session and denied that the resolutions of 1798 justified nullification. The House of Delegates did, however, attack Jackson's

^^Thomas Ritchie to NCR, February 25, I833, WCR Papers, L.C. 27 Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 217. 28 Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, p. 75. 217 — proclamation as based on an erroneous theory of a national rather than a confederated government. The Force Bill, Jackson's answer to the nulli- fiers, was reported out of the Judiciary Committee to the Senate on January 21, 1833.^*^ It indicated that while Jackson had become convinced that a protective tariff was discriminatory and created "in the minds of a large portion of our countrymen a spirit of discontent and jealousy dangerous to the stability of the Union," he was determined to enforce federal law in South Carolina.^^ The heated debate on the Force Bill, dominated by Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun, indicated, through the contrasting points of view presented by Virginia's two senators, the deterioration of adminis­ tration support in Virginia. While Tyler, on the one hand, rejected the theory of nullification but supported the concept of a confederated government with sovereignty

^^Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, p. 6?. ^^Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, p. 75. ^^See Richardson (ed.). Messages and Papers. II, 610-32, for Jackson's "force bill message." Oliver P. Chitwood, John Tyler Champion of the Old South (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1939), pp. 115-1 7 , summarizes, and praises, Tyler's speech. 218 condemning the idea of nullification and expounding his view of the true constitutional theory of govern­ ment.^^ Although Eitchie warned him that debate on the Force Bill might threaten passage of the tariff,Hives had received advice indicating support of his position. Even more importantly, he spoke out against Tyler and for the Force Bill because he felt that . , . the questions now to be settled are of the deepest import to the destinies of this country. They touch not the con­ struction of this or that clause of the constitution only; they go to the whole frame and structure of the Government, and the vital principle of its existence. Sir, I should be recreant to my duty on this floor, as the representative of a State, which under Providence, had the chief agency in the establishment of this happy system of Government, if I did not attempt, however feebly, the egression of my views on such an occasion. Elves went on to deal specifically with the actions of South Carolina. That state had defied the

For Hives’s complete speech see, U.S., Hegister of Debates in Congress. 1825-37 (29 vols.; Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1825-37)t IX, 22d Cong., 2d sess., 492-517 . ^^Thomas Eitchie to WCH, February 2, I833, WCE Papers, B.C. ^■^Eobert Wallace to WCH, January 24, 1833; James Garland to WCE, January 26, I833, ibid. ^^Debates in Congress, IX, 22nd Cong., 2d sess., 493. _ laws of the United States, a situation which, if unopposed, could "inflict a mortal wound on the con­ stitution, The Government would be thenceforward virtually dissolved, and we should inevitably fall back into the anarchy and confusion of the articles of confederation. ..." Although he did not agree with all the provisions of the Force Bill, Rives felt that he must support any measure which "may be necessary and proper" to enforce existing laws. In reference to Calhoun's theory of the consti­ tution, a compact between the states, Rives agreed, but he qualified this view by reference to the Madisonian theory that the states had ceded part of their sovereignty to the union? "to the extent to which sovereignty was vested in the Union, that of the States severally was relinquished and diminished." Therefore, the doctrine of nullification must be rejected. The constitution provided sufficient safeguards for the rights of the states* the Senate, representing the states? the President, chosen by the vote of the states? and finally the Judiciary. If redress were not found in these agencies, the states could cooperate to press for repeal of unconstitutional acts or to amend the consti­ tution. 220 Elves closed his speech by pointing out the dangers of the theory of nullification: if the union were not preserved, "constant wars and collisions with each other {the state^ must ensue, out of which will grow up large military establishments, perpetual and burdensome taxes, an overshadowing Executive power; and, amid these deleterious influences, what hope can there be that liberty would survive?" Therefore he urged all to "rally around that sacred Union. Although Eives*s speech was delivered in the Senate on February 14, it was not published in the Eichmond Enquirer until March 7 and 9. In the interim the legislature was considering a resolution which would have instructed its senators to vote against the Force Bill. Fortunately the administration, or Union, party was strong enough to postpone indefinitely a vote on the resolution.^® But the political situation in Virginia was nonetheless ominous from Eives’s point of view. As Thomas J. Handolph informed him, there was no true administration party in existence. Even those who managed to prevent a favorable vote on secession and instructions on the Force Bill could only be

^^Ibid.. 492-517 , reprints the entire speech.

J. Faulkner to WCE, February 19, 1833, WCE Papers, L.C. 221 considered qualified supporters of the administration, and they were more interested in preventing discord. And Randolph warned that if the Force Bill passed congress and revision of the tariff were rejected, the anti-administration forces, who supported South Carolina*; doctrine of nullification, would carry the state. Fortunately, for the nation and for Rives, both the Force Bill and Henry Clay’s Compromise Tariff, providing for gradual reduction of the tariff over the next nine years, passed Congress at the same time.^® Hives remained true to his principles by voting for both bills, while Tyler conformed more truly to the sentiments of Virginia by voting for the tariff and against the Force Bill. A major crisis for the nation was averted when South Carolina responded to the acts of Congress by accepting the tariff, but nullifying the Force Bill.

Thomas J. Randolph to WCH, February 21, 1833. WCH Papers, L.C. 40 Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, p. 78. 41 Register of Debates in Congress. IX, 22d Cong., 2d sess., 68F7 808-09. His first session in the Senate finished. Rives returned home to find a mixed reaction to his politi­ cal principles. Support of his defense of the union, as well as his diplomacy in France, prompted the citizens of Augusta County, located just west of his lio home, to plan a dinner honoring Rives. Although he declined this invitation, he later was the guest of honor at a dinner in Lewisburg. In the speech prepared for this occasion Rives reiterated his rejection of the doctrine of nullification and the misinterpre­ tations of the doctrines of ’98 and ’99. More impor­ tantly, he presented an idea upon which he was to depend in the future: that Virginia had the most to lose if the union were dissolved. As a border state she would be the battleground for antagonisms between the sections. He therefore called upon the citizens to follow a course of moderation by balancing the extreme interests of the country. The way to accomplish this was through support of the principles of ’98 and ’99, supporting states rights but honoring the union. Adverse reaction to Hives’s stand on states rights was exhibited dramatically in the middle of the

4-2 Richmond Enquirer, June 21, 1833» 43 Ibid.. September 13, 1833. 223 summer. In spite of the close friendship he had enjoyed with Thomas Walker Gilmer in the past, after Hives's election to the Senate the relationship had cooled. Following Jackson's nullification address, Gilmer had joined the opposition party in Virginia and Hives had been informed that he could no longer consider Gilmer his friend.And in the spring Gilmer accused Hives of taking part in the campaign for the seat in the legislature, which pitted Gilmer against Alexander Hives, brother of the senator. Hives denied such action and the two men met privately on Albemarle Court Day, July 1, to work out their differences. A fight ensued, and, according to his son. Hives returned home with a black eye. Each of the participants was required to post a one thousand dollar bond to keep the peace. Although Rives tried, through speeches and punches, to defend the administration and the union, the picture grew increasingly dark in the state. The

Gilmer had been one of Hives's chief supporters for the Senate seat but had in effect misrepresented Hives's views on the tariff in this contest. A difference of opinion might have been expected on the nullification issue since Gilmer emerged as an ardent states righter. Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," pp. 200-02. Accounts of the alter­ cation varied, as Dingledine indicates, but Gilmer and Rives did not resolve their differences until much later. 224 spring elections signalled a victory for the states- rights advocates in the legislature, with the Union party drawing its support from the West and northern counties of the state.^^ Then in September the Presi­ dent took a step which further alienated the waning administration support in Virginia: he continued his attack on the Bank of the United States, begun with the veto of the recharter bill over a year earlier, by announcing that effective October 1, 1833, govern­ ment deposits would be withdrawn from the Bank.^^ As a result, many influential Virginians who had previously remained loyal to Jackson joined with the anti-adminis­ tration forces to form a strong opposition party, soon to be called the Whigs. In the East this group was composed of bank and anti-bank men; the former were naturally opposed to the president's action and the latter were individuals who had considered the Bank of the United States a necessary evil. And to complete the dim picture facing the administration and Rives,

Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 218. 47 Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War (New York: W. W. Norton, 19é?), provides background for this action, which Remini considers "a well intentioned and forceful exercise of executive authority" from a president who was "naive about the advantages of hard money." Ibid,. p. 173, 2 ^ the West did not support withdrawal, as it had the Nullification Proclamation.^® Thus when Rives returned for his second session of Congress he was theoretically faced with a choice: he could break with the administration, condemn Jackson’s actions, and win the support of the anti-administration legislature, thereby assuring his political future in his home state. The alternative was continued support of Jackson with the hope of political advancement on the national level. In view of Hives’s past record, however, the first choice seemed highly unlikely. As a matter of principle he was anti-Eank: he had opposed the establishment of a national bank while serving in the House of Delegates and had reiterated this position when assuring Yancey of his political beliefs during the Senate election in Virginia only a year earlier. Even more significant, however, was his view of his political future. Support of Jackson’s policies might possibly lead to the White House, a hope which seems to have been entertained by Rives and his friends.

^®Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, pp. 79-82. h9 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 206. The hope had presumably begun to take shape in Rives ’ s mind when he was mentioned for the vice presidency in I832, See above, Ch. II, pp. 195-97. 226 Adverse reaction to Jackson’s -withdrawal of government deposits from the Bank of the United States was not confined to Virginia. Henry Clay, advocate of the American System which included a national bank, seized the opportunity to embarrass the administration. When Jackson refused to furnish the Senate with documents Clay had requested, the senator from Kentucky introduced two resolutions into the Senates one censuring Jackson for a misuse of presidential power in his removal of the deposits, and a second declaring Secretary of the Treasury Roger Taney’s reasons for removal as "unsatis­ factory and insufficient.The motivation behind the resolutions was, according to Senator Thomas Hart Benton from Missouri, "purely and simply for popular effect. Great reliance was placed upon that effect. It was fully believed . . . that a senatorial condem­ nation would destroy whomsoever it struck— even General Jackson. Clay’s resolutions provoked a heated debate in the Senate, which found Rives staunchly defending

^ Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, p. 87 . See Register of Debates in Congress. X, 23d Cong,, 1st sess., IIB7 , for resolutions as finally passed. Thomas Hart Benton, Thirty Years’ View; or. A History of the Working of the American Government for Thirty Years. from 1820 to 1850 (2 vols.; New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1854-), I, 423. 227 the president*s policy. Essentially he reiterated the usual Democratic arguments against the Bank. Because the bank had not served the people well by preventing "wild speculation and overtrading, " the president was justified in withdrawing the deposits to avoid rechar­ ter ing of the institution. And he denied that Jackson's use of state banks as depositories for federal money would have the effect of creating a national bank under executive, rather than legislative, control, since he believed that eventually Congress would establish a system controlling the distribution of federal money in state banks. As to charges that Jackson had over­ stepped the limits of his power at the expense of the Congress, Rives rejected such ideas ; how could this be when Congress still controlled the powers of taxa­ tion, appropriation and the raising of troops. The most remarkable portion of Hives's speech, however, was not his defense of Jackson, which might have been predicted, but his discussion of the monetary system in general, which gave the appearance of placing him in the hard money wing of the Democratic party. The reform most needed by the United States, so thought Rives, was a return to a hard-money system. Bather than considering the paper system as a necessary evil, 228 and the national bank a necessary evil in controlling such a system, the country must return, as far as practicable, to metallic circulation. The first step towards that return is to let the Bank of the United States go down. Its notes being withdrawn, the convenience of travelling alone would immediately create a demand for gold coins, as a substitute, and enforce the necessity of correcting that under-valuation of them at the mint, which is said to have contributed to their disappearance. In concurrence with this, let measures be taken, as it is believed effectual measures may be taken, to discourage and suppress the cir­ culation of bank notes under a certain denomina­ tion, (ten or twenty dollars), of which the effect would be to produce another accession to the metallic circulating medium. The ordinary channels of circulation being thus supplied with gold and silver, the Govern­ ment would be prepared, without hardship to the public creditor, to require payment of its dues in specie, and thus realize a reform, than which none could be more deeply interesting, in every aspect, to the safety and prosperity of the country.52 While these remarks fit in with the general defense of Jackson’s bank policy and attracted little attention at the time, they did provide ammunition for Hives’s political adversaries later. The speech as a whole did, however, have more immediate repercussions in Virginia. On February 11, the Virginia House of Delegates passed resolutions calling Jackson’s action a "dangerous

52 Register of Debates in Congress. X, 23d Cong., 1st sess., 264-63. For the full text of Hives’s speech, delivered January 1?, 103^, see ibid.. 259-91. 229 and alarming assnm-ption of power” and instructing Virginia's senators "to use their best exertions to procure the adoption, by Congress of proper measures for restoring; the public monies to the bank of the United States. or, at least, for causing them to be deposited therein for the future. . . While John Tyler announced to the Senate that he would follow his instructions,^^ Hives stated what was obvious to all, that his own opinions did not conform to those of the legislature. If the matter at hand were only a question of "expediency," he would carry out the the wishes of the legislature, as representing the views of his constituents. However, "where the instructions contemplate a declaration of principles or opinions, which are contrary to the sincere and honest convictions of the representative, . . . the only course left to him is, by the surrender of his commission, to put it in the power of his constituents to confer it on another whose opinions correspond with their own." He informed the Senate that while his friends told him the Virginia legislature did not accurately reflect

Journal of the House of Delegates. . . , Session of 1833-34, pp. 166-é?. ^Register of Debates in Congress, X, 23d Cong., 1st sess., 636, 230 the feelings of the people of Virginia, he had no choice but to conform to its instructions or resign. And on the same day he sent a letter to the legislature resigning his position in the Senate.

Eives resigned from the Senate but he had no intention of hiding from the public eye. In fact, since he was aware that the instructions issued by the legislature had been formulated partly to force his resignation, and since he was convinced the legis­ lature did not truly represent the interests of the people of Virginia, he was determined to take his cause to the people. When rumors were circulated by the opposition that Eives had resigned in order to such ambitions: . . . I beg you to be assured, and to assure all my friends, that no earthly considerations would induce me, standing

^^Ibid.. 636-39. ^^Bichmond Enquirer, February 25, I834. ^"^Eegister of Debates in Congress. X, 23d Cong., 1st sess., 639. 58 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Eives," p. 214. 231 In the position I now do, to take an Executive appointment. Whatever other denunciations may be poured out against me, no suspicion shall rest upon the purity of my motives in the course which from the deepest con­ viction, I have pursued here, I shall throw myself fearlessly upon the People of Virginia, to sustain and vindicate the principles I have con­ tended for, in their name, I go at once into private life, to co-operate nevertheless, to the best of my ability, in the maintenance of the principles which have theretofore been cherished by Virginia, and with the distinct under­ standing, that I invoke the judgment of the people upon my conduct in the coming elections. The issue will thus be joined with our adversaries in the most emphatic manner, and in the way best calculated to arouse the vigilance of the people in the selection of their representatives. Our friends here in Washington are unanimous as to the expediency of this course, as well as to the absolute necessity of my resignation, under existing circumstances,59 Rives did throw himself "fearlessly upon the People of Virginia" in order to influence the spring election, but to no avail. The economic crisis following the contraction of credit by the Bank of the United States worked against the Democrats, as did the message Jackson sent to the Senate in protest against the resolutions of censure, and the Whigs were victorious

Richmond Enquirer. February 25, 1834. This letter was evidently addressed to Ritchie, See Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 215n, 60 Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, pp, 85-87 , 232 Although the financial situation cleared up in the early summer of 1834 and Hives became more con­ fident about Democratic prospects,his hopes of being re-elected in the next session of the legislature were in vain. The Whig opposition in Virginia kept up a steady barrage of criticism, including charges that he was an abolitionist, that he was going into the cabinet, and that he had resigned to create a chasm between the legislature and the people.After the Democrats had postponed the election as late as possible in the legislative session, with the hope of drumming up support for Rives, Benjamin Watkins Leigh was elected by the close vote of 85 to 81.^^ ^^WCjWCH to Van Buren, June 16, 1834, Van Buren Papers, L.C. ^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," p. 220. The charge that Hives was going into the cabinet seemed to be a perennial attack by his enemies. Ilie abolitionist charge, however, was a reference to letters Hives had written from Europe during the month-long debate on slavery in the Virginia legis­ lature following Nat Turner’s rebellion. Earlier Hives had believed in colonization but after he arrived in Europe and observed the "melancholy anomaly of domestic slavery in our free institutions," he seriously con­ sidered federal aid for colonization. After Turner’s rebellion, he took a more radical approach, feeling the events had pointed out the need for emancipation of new­ born blacks and colonization of blacks as they were freed or manumitted. For the debate in the legislature see Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 188-201. For Hives’s views, see WCH to Wm. M. Hives, December l4, 1831, WCH to Thomas Ritchie, December 1 3, I83I, WCH to Robert Hives, December 18, I831, WCH Papers, L.C. ^^Journal of the House of Delegates. . . , Session of 1834-3 5, p. 110. 233 At the same time he was attempting to tiim the tide in Virginia, Rives found himself under attack by anti-Jackson forces on the national level as his triumph over the French, leading to the Convention of

I83I and the advancement of Hives's political ambitions, now seemed to turn against him.

The treaty which Rives had negotiated with the French had specified that the first of the siz annual payments would be due one year after the exchange of ratifications, which had taken place on February 2, 64 1832. When the Bank of the United States presented a draft for the first payment in March, I833, the French government had refused to pay it, claiming that the Chambers had not appropriated the money.Although the American treaty was presented to the Chamber of Deputies on April 6, no action was taken to appropriate the money before the end of the legislative session. President Jackson was irate at the delay, a mood which was not improved when the Bank presented a

64 See "Convention of I83I ," Appendix B. 65 McLemore, Franco-American Relations, p. 100. ^^Ibid., pp. 106-08. 234 bill for fifteen percent damages on the unpaid draft. However, his comments on the situation in his State of the Union message in December were mild. After reviewing the situation, including the French claim that an appropriation by the Chambers was needed before the treaty could be carried into effect, he noted that he had received assurances through our charge d’affaires at Paris and the French minister plenipotentiary at Washington, and more recently through the minister of the United States at Paris, that the delay has not proceeded from any indis­ position on the part of the King and his ministers to fulfill the treaty, and that measures will be presented at the next meeting of the Chambers, and with a reasonable hope of success, to obtain the necessary appropriation.

As promised, an appropriations bill was presented to the Chambers. However, after extensive and bitter

debate, the bill was defeated by a vote of I76 to I68, surprising even those who had voted against the measure and causing embarrassment to the King and his council, By the time this news reached the United States in the spring of 1834, the Whigs had already

^^Ibid.. p. 103. Washington Globe. May 23, I833. 68 Israel (ed.), State of the Union Messages. I , 3 75 . ^^McLemore, Franco-American Relations, pp. 110-14. 235 been spreading rumors that Rives had been told at the time the convention was signed that the Chambers would not carry it into effect.Now they accused him of bragging of his accomplishment in his despatch to Livingston which had informed the Secretary of State of the signing of the treaty. The publication of this despatch, so they felt, had caused an adverse reaction in the Chambers. Springing to Hives’s defense were both the Washington Globe and the Richmond Enouirer. the former publishing an editorial based on information furnished by Eives and the latter printing an editorial written by the former diplomat. The Globe denied that Rives was boasting, but merely trying to justify his actions, which had been taken independently of his government. And it pointed to the fact that friends of the treaty in France had referred to Hives’s correspondence on the issue to support the appropriation, while enemies of the treaty had ignored. In the Enquirer Rives defended

^°Van Buren to WCH, January 13, 1834, WCH Papers, L.C. ^\iles’ Weekly Register. XLVI, 201, May 24, 1834, reprinted an article from the National Gazette with added comments. The Globe. June 4, 1834, reprinted an article from the Boston Mercantile-Journal. 236 the amo-unt settled upon in the treaty as adequate to settle the claims, in answer to a critic in the Senate. As the controversy raged around Eives, the President, disturbed by this latest insult by France, received through Van Buren the Virginian's advice. Following a pattern set during his negotiations Eives recommended that economic pressure be applied by imposing a high tariff on French goods, to be removed when the appropriation was made in the Chambers. Since luxuries were imported by the United States, while France imported "necessaries" from the United States, it was highly unlikely that France would retaliate.As Secretary of State Louis KcLane also advised a moderate policy, Jackson decided to await further developments in the situation before he took drastic action, which he himself was inclined to favor. The failure of the Chambers to consider the appropriation during its constitutional session in the summer of 183^ again aroused Jackson's fury. Although

Washington Globe, June 4, 1834; WCE to Van Buren, June l6, 1834, WCE Papers, L.C., said he had furnished the information for the Eichmond Enquirer editorial of June 27, 1834. A draft of the Enquirer article is also to be found in WCE Papers, L.C. "^^WCE to Van Buren, May 15, 1834; WCE to Andrew Jackson, May 17, 1834, ibid. 74 McLemore, Franco-American Eelations. p. 120. 237 Rives realized that it would he necessary for the Presi­ dent to take a firm stand on the issue in his forth­ coming State of the Union message, the Virginian still advised moderation. If Jackson asked for an act of Congress authorizing reprisals in case the appropriation were not made, as he seemed to favor. Rives feared serious repercussions in France, since the French would consider such action an insult to their national honor.Inti­ mately involved in the dispute, Eives must also have been worried about the effect of Congressional debate on his possible re-election to the Senate by the Virginia legislature. If Rives hoped for a moderate course of action by Jackson, he was to be disappointed. In his message, delivered on December 1, 1834, Jackson again reviewed the background of the question, including the complaints, the difficulty of concluding a treaty, and the refusal of the government to appropriate the money. He then expressed his conviction that . . . the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the treaty, and in case it be refused or longer delayed take redress into their own hands. . . .

^^Ibid., pp. 116-29. WCE to Van Buren, October 14, 1834, WCE to Andrew J. Donelson, November 13, 1834, WCE to Van Buren, November 15, 1834, WCE Papers, L.C. 238 The laws of nations provide a remedy for such occasions. It is a well-settled principle of the international code that where one nation owes another a liqui­ dated debt which it refuses or neglects to pay the aggrieved party may seize on the property belonging to the other, its citizens or subjects, sufficient to pay the debt without giving just cause of war. He then recommended that Congress pass an act author­ izing reprisals should the Chambers fail to act during the next legislative session.Jackson's strong nationalistic approach transformed the issue, which had been primarily of local interest, into a question of "national honor," which threatened war between the

The Rational Intelligencer opposed Jackson's strong stand and suggested that it represented "the personal opinion and feeling of the individual" rather than the sentiments of the people of the United States. And it expressed again the feeling that boasting by "Rives, Jackson and the official press" had contributed to the failure of the French to carry out the treaty. 78

Israel (ed. ), State of the Union Messages. I, 398-99.

"^^Rational Intelligencer. December 4, 1834. 239 Opposition was expressed in Congress as well, Jackson's recommendation brought a resolution from the Senate Foreign Relations committee, under Henry Clay's control, that Congress await further actions on the part of the French chambers. In an accompanying report the committee also criticized Hives's "boastful" despatch to Livingston. Such developments, obviously a source of irri­ tation to the administration, came at an especially inopportune time for Rives. Due to the maneuvering of Democrats in the Virginia House of Delegates the senatorial election was still pending^® and Rives of course was eager to present the best possible image of his past action. In an article in the Enquirer, signed "A Friend of Truth," Rives again explained the nature 81 of his correspondence. Privately he expressed some disapproval of the President's recommendations but still preferred the presidential message to Clay's report, which seemed to signal a return to the coaxing tone

McLemore, Franco-American Relations. pp. 128- 38. Public Documents Printed by Order of the Senate. . . , 23d Congress, 2d sess.. Ill, 1-23. 80 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 220, 228. 81 Richmond Enquirer, January 10, 1835. Rives is dentifled as the author in Alexander Rives to WCR, January 24, I836, WCR Papers, L.C. 240 which had characterized the policies of Adams and Clay in the State Department. And he assured Van Buren that should the Chambers again refuse payment, he would support the national honor "at every hazard."®^ Although the strong tone of Jackson's message provoked criticism of the administration and of Rives, possibly contributing to some extent to his defeat in the senatorial contest, the French Chambers responded, conditionally, to the threat. A bill was passed which appropriated the money but contained a proviso requiring Jackson to explain satisfactorily the offensive parts of the previous State of the Union message.Jackson refused to make an apology, thereby further increasing 84 tension between the two countries. In his next message to Congress, however, he pointed out that the previous message was a domestic report, not intended to "menace or insult the Government of France," and the French accepted this explanation, thus ending a protracted source of irritation to the United States and to Rives.

WCR to Nathaniel Niles, January 28, 1835* Niles Papers, L.C.; WCR to Van Buren, January 30, 1835, Van Buren Papers, L.C. ^^McLemore, Franco-American Relations, pp. l44, 152. 84 Ibid.. pp. 160-71. ^^Israel (ed.), State of the Union Messages. I, 423; McLemore, Franco-American Relations. pp. 172-74. 241

In the meantime, however, Eives's political prospects grew more promising. Although the issues of the spring election of 1835 grew extremely complex, including such questions as the national bank, instructions for legislators, and the presidential election of 1836,^^ one thing was clearj the recently formed Whig party, victorious in 1834, did not possess the necessary unity of interest to carry the election. The Democrats, with help from Rives and Ritchie and the developing abolition agitation, elected a majority to the Assembly. The election won. Rives could turn his atten­ tion to the National Democratic Convention, scheduled to meet in May in Baltimore. It was taken for granted, of course, that Van Buren would receive the presidential nomination, but the vice presidency remained to be decided and Hives had his eye on that position. Although his hopes had been squelched by Van Buren in 1831,®^ Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, pp. 94-98.

^~^Ibid.. p. 98. ^^See above. Ch. II, pp. 197-98. 242 he had contimed to harbor such ambitions. As he informed his close friend and political supporter, Nathaniel Niles, the vice presidency, "as an honorable post with leisure, & without power or responsibility, would be gratifying to me," and he encouraged Niles to promote his candidacy in Washington. Although he denied seeking the office, he referred to his personal popularity in Virginia, in spite of the actions of the legislature, as an indication that his name on the ticket would carry the state for Van Buren. Refer­ ring to the candidacy of Kentucky's senator Richard M. Johnson, he expressed amazement that "Virginia does 89 not excite as much solicitude, as the West." As Eives requested, Niles kept him posted on the sentiments expressed in Washington, which he found to favor Johnson due to Democratic concern for the fate of the Southwest. When urged by Niles to come to Washington to promote his own cause and to meet with Van Buren,Rives rejected such a proposition as unwise. Such a step might involve him in the intrigues of the capital and he preferred not to interfere, but

^^WCR to Nathaniel Niles, December 24, 1834, Niles Papers, L.C. Niles to WCR, January 3, 1835, WCR Papers, L.C. 243

Elves's refusal to involve himself directly in the contest, Niles continued to promote his cause and reported optimistically on his support in the North. And Niles was able to report in March, 1835f that Rives had received Massachusetts' nomination, a lead which he felt would be followed by other New England states. Rives was soon to be disappointed. Although Johnson's name had been mentioned prominently for the second spot on the ticket, Virginia Democrats, pre­ occupied with state politics, had taken for granted the nomination of Rives. Thomas Ritchie wrote to Rives, two days before the convention was to get under way, that he had set his heart on the Virginian's nomination, had assumed it was set, and had not given proper atten­ tion to the matter. Now he had been informed that some of the most influential Democrats in Washington favored Johnson. While Ritchie was unsure of the out­ come, he would be "deeply disappointed" if Rives were not chosen.

^^WCR to Niles, January 28, I835, Niles Papers, L.C. ^^Niles to WCR, January 2?, March 7, 18, 1835, WCR Papers, L.C.

^^Thomas Ritchie to WCR, May 19, 1835. ibid. 244 Ritchie's concern was warranted. When the Virginia delegation, committed to Rives, arrived in Baltimore, they discovered the choice would be deter­ mined, not by past performance and character, but by vote-getting ability.Since it was assumed that Virginia was safe for Van Buren while western support depended on the nomination of Johnson, the Kentuckian was nominated by a vote of 1?8 to 87 .^^ The Virginia delegation, however, as a portent of the coming election, refused to support Johnson, whom they accused of supporting the bank, the tariff, and internal improve­ ments . Since Rives was not a vindictive man, it was not surprising that he accepted the decision with composure. When Van Buren wrote to Rives in an attempt to restore party harmony, explaining that the position had been "contested more warmly than I anticipated," Rives responded that he would "freely acquiesce" in the party’s decision. He could not deny, however, that,

94 Charles Mason to WCR, May 24, R. C. Mason to WCR, May 28, Wm. B. Slaughter to WCR, May 28, I835, ibid. ^^Curtis, The Fox at Bay, p. 46. ^^Leland W. Meyer, The Life and Times of Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky. Columbia University Studies in History. Economics and Public Law. No. 359. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 413-22. 245 having been the target of anti-administration forces for the previous two years,."such a mark of the esti­ mation of the country at large would not have been gratifying to me." However, he assured Van Buren that he would continue to support party interests, "so necessary to the ascendancy of the principles for which we have contended. The defeated candidate received warmer consola­ tion elsewhere, but the greatest comfort must have been Democratic control of the state legislature, thus virtually assuring Hives's re-election to the Senate. Although the terms of neither Leigh nor Tyler expired in 1835, the Democrats began in the fall to plan their strategy to regain these positions when the Legislature met. Van Buren visited Hives at Castle Hill and Hives

^^Van Buren to WCH, May 26, I835, WCH to Van Buren, June 2, I835, WCH Papers, L.C. Curtis, The Fox at Bay, states that this attempt by Van Buren to restore party harmony did not work and that a "firm friendship was foundering on the rocks of political necessity." In retrospect it would be easy to assume that the split between Rives and Van Buren began at this time. However, at the time. Hives assured Niles that he would accept the convention's decision although he regretted the result, since he feared the party would be weakened in the South. WCH to Niles, May 30, I835, Niles Papers, L.C. The split does not appear in actuality until later, and had Van Buren followed Hives's advice on economic matters, the two could have conceivably continued to work together, 98 Hobert Rives to WCR, June 8, I835, Wm. B. Slaughter to WCH, June 12, I835, Niles to WCH, July 3, 1835, WCR Papers, L.C. 246 traveled to Richmond to meet with members of the legislature in a party caucus. When the Assembly convened, the Democratic majority cancelled the 1834 resolutions censuring Jackson and instructed its senators to cast votes for the expunging resolution, which would be presented in the Senate by Missouri’s senator Thomas Hart Benton. Such a move was calculated to force the resignations of Leigh and Tyler, thus enabling the Democrats to elect Rives and Judge Richard E. Parker. Only one seat was vacated, however, since only Tyler resigned while Leigh maintained that he could not be instructed to uphold a measure which he considered unconstitutional. The one available seat was then awarded to Rives, by a

95 to 44 vote, on March 3, 1836.^^^

Rives wasted no time in returning to the position he had left some two years earlier. The

21, 1835; Van Buren to WCR, November 3» 1835» Van Buren to JPR, December 19, 1835, WCR Papers, L.C. Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, p. IO5. ^°°lbid.. pp. 105-06. 101 Journal of the House of Delegates. . . , Session of 1835-36, 183. 24? crucial ezpunging resolution was soon to be presented and Benton desired his presence to participate in the debate on the proposal, since he needed all the votes he could get.^®^ The motion was presented by Benton on March 18 and on the 28th Elves expressed his support of it, defending it on the basis of its constitutional­ ity.^^^ Although the expunging resolution did not pass until the next session of congress. Hives had again exhibited his dedication to the administration. In the next session he again spoke in favor of the resolution, voted for it, and was awarded the nickname "Little Expunger," which the Whigs used to denounce him.^®^ The most important action of the session was not, however, consideration of the expunging resolution, but the question of distribution of surplus revenue.

By 1836 the federal debt had been paid and government revenue was accumulating in the state banks.The Deposit Bill, a variation of a Clay-sponsored bill

Thomas Eitchie to WOE, February 11, I836; Thomas H. Benton to WCH, February 26, I836, WCH Papers, L.C. ^^^Eives speech is printed in the Begister of Debates in Congress. XII, 24th Cong., 1st sess., 981-99. ^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," p. 249. ^^■^Eemini, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War. pp. 170 -71 . 248 vetoed by Jackson in 1834, proposed that surplus revenue in the Treasury in ezcess of $3,000,000 on January 1, 1837f be deposited in state banks quarterly in pro­ portion to the state’s representation in Congress, Although the bill provided that the money be returned if needed by the federal government,^f e w really believed the government would ever see the money again and the measure was commonly known as a distribution bill. When the bill came up for debate in the Senate, it signalled a split in Democratic ranks. Thomas Hart Benton, a hard money man, opposed it, while Rives and Nathaniel P. Tallmadge of New York supported it, claim­ ing it would lead to economy and retrenchment in the government.Since the Democrats were split on the issue and the Whigs supported it, the bill passed the Senate by the significant vote of 40 to 6.^^^ In spite of the strong support for the measure Van Buren was

^°^Ibid.. p. 17. 107 Curtis, The Fox at Bay, p. 6?. ^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 252. ^^^Register of Debates in Congress. XII, 24th Cong., 1st sess., 1845-48. 249 - furious and claimed the president would veto it.^^® Jackson, however, was faced with a dilemma. While he realized the hill was inflationary, he also opposed a federal program of internal improvements and felt that distribution would allow the states to undertake such projects. In addition, distribution was obviously popular and I836 was an election year; thus he reluctantly signed the bill.^^^ Eives's position, compared with the attitude of Jackson and Van Buren, indicated that the Virginian would not sacrifice political principles to unquestioning loyalty to the administration, and foreshadowed coming events. In spite of this disagreement, when Congress adjourned in July Eives returned to Virginia to campaign for Van Buren. In reality the campaign had begun in the spring of I835 when abolitionist charges were raised against Van Buren. Elves, however,had staunchly defended his friend against such charges, claiming that Van Buren would protect the domestic institutions of in J. Franklin Jameson (ed.), "Correspondence of John C. Calhoun," American Historical Association, Annual Eeuort (1899)(2 vols.; Washington: Government Printing Office, I9OO), 358-6I. ^^^Curtis, The Fox at Bay, p. 6?. 250 and other Van Buren supporters, and, even more importantly, the lack of unity in the Whig party. Van Buren carried the state by a majority of seven thousand votes.' Thus as a result of the presidential election of 1836 William Cabell Rives had every reason to be optimistic about his political future. He was a member of the upper house of Congress with a Democratic legis­ lature behind him. He had developed, over the years, a personal friendship with the president-elect, and had vigorously supported him in the election. And his name was being mentioned for the position of Secretary of State,traditionally one of the stepping stones to the presidency. But any hopes he may have had of following Van Buren into the White House were soon to be shattered.

signed "A Virginian" which appeared in the Richmond Enquirer. September 16, I836. The draft of the letter is found in the WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 227-28. 114 Richard E. Parker to WCR, September 30, 1836, WCR Papers, L.C. 251

In July, I836, President Jackson, in an attempt to counteract the inflationary potential of the Deposit Act, issued the Specie Circular, requiring payment for all public lands in gold and silver. The action reflected Jackson’s concern about the rampant economy of the nation. The effect of the specie circular was, of course, to increase the demand for specie in the west. This, combined with the contraction taking place in the east as the federal depositories prepared for the first distribution of the surplus on January 1,

1 83 7f caused serious economic problems.As storm clouds began to develop on the economic horizon, the Whigs and others pointed to the Specie Circular as the cause. Shortly after the new session of Congress con­ vened in December, I836, Thomas Ewing of Ohio introduced resolutions into the Senate repealing the circular. Rives, a loyal supporter of Democratic policies, was

See Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 19^5)» pp. 128-30; Reginald C. McGrane, The Panic of 1837 Some Financial Problems of the Jacksonian Era (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924-), pp. I-63.

^^^Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, pp. 119-20. 2# not willing to criticize the president’s policy openly and thus introduced a counterproposal which would hare allowed a gradual restriction of bank notes receivable for public debts, including land. By claiming Jackson’s circular was only temporary, while awaiting a congressional session, he was able to avoid outright censure of the president. Hives did not, however, place himself in the hard money wing of the party by this proposal. He did not propose the total suppression of bank paper, but an efficie^ regulation of it. Qmphasis addeQ and its restriction to safe and proper limits; not the ex­ clusive use of specie as a circulating medium, but such a substantial enlarge­ ment and general diffusion of it in actual circulation, as would make it the practical currency of common life, in the universal medium of ordinary transactions; in short, the money of the farmer, the mechanic, the laborer, and the trades­ man; while the merchant should be left in the enjoyment of the facilities of a sound and restricted paper currency for his larger operations.7 An immediate transfer to a hard money policy, as indicated in the Specie Circular, would be harmful for the economy, since it would cause hoarding and result in a serious dislocation of the economy. On the other hand, he was optimistic about his proposal

"^Register of Debates in Congress. XIII, 24th Cong., 2d sess., 8, 34é. 253 since it would provide a gradual transition toward a mixed currency, which he favored. Although Jackson felt Hives's scheme was critical of his policy, the bill reported out of the Committee on Public Lands contained essentially the same ideas as Hives's proposals.Again the president objected and informed Hives indirectly that he would veto such a measure unless it was accompanied by a proposed act restricting land sales to actual settlers. When the land bill was taken up first, Hives defended it as beneficial in cutting down on the surplus revenue, since it would restrict sale of land and thereby decrease government income from that source. The bill passed 121 by a vote of 27 to 23. The currency bill, amended by Henry Clay to prohibit discrimination in the funds receivable as revenue, then passed the Senate by the overwhelming vote of 41 to 5»^^^ When the two bills were referred to the House, they were considered in

^^^See ibid.. 343-60, for the text of Hives's speech. ^Jackson to Francis P. Blair, January 1837, Correspondence of Jackson. Basset (ed.), V, 443-45. Register of Debates in Congress. XIII, 24th Cong., 2d sess., 563. 577-78. 120 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," p. 269. 121 Register of Debates in Congress. XIII, 24th Cong., 1st sess., 663-66, 777. ^^^Ibld.. XIII, 778. 254 reverse order, the currency bill passing and the land bill going down to defeat.^^^ And, as one of the last acts as president, Jackson pocket vetoed the currency bill.^^^ No longer was Rives the loyal supporter of administration policy. The split in ranks in the Democratic party, hinted at in the preceding session of Congress, was now quite apparent. Rives had emerged as a potential leader of the conservative Democrats while Benton and Silas Wright, who had voted against the currency bill, were to become prominent leaders of the radical wing of the party.Several factors seemed to explain Rives's position. For one thing, he was sincerely opposed to the Specie Circular. Although his speech in January, 1834, had given the impression that he was a hard money man, at no time had he favored use of specie to the complete exclusion of bank notes (which he felt should be restricted to

^^^Ibld.. XIII, 2090-92. 124 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 270-ln. ^^^For Benton’s activities during this crucial period, see William Nisbit Chambers, Old Bullion Benton Senator from the New West (Boston; Little, Brown and Company, 195^), pp. 207-41. On Wright, see John Garraty, Silas Wright (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), pp. 111-175? 255 denominations over ten or twenty dollars), and he must have harbored some hope that either Jackson, or Van Buren as the successor, would see the error of his ways. In addition he must have been aware of Whig-circulated rumors which pitted him against Benton for the succes­ sion,' and felt that opposition to the Specie Circular would be politically expedient as well as a reflection of his true convictions. And finally, his personal relationship with Jackson and Van Buren was not clearly defined at this time. While Eives had enjoyed a close relationship with both President Jackson and President-elect Van Buren in the past, his association with the latter had become somewhat complicated. Although Eives's supporters had hoped he would receive an appointment to the State Department,' Van Buren had only offered the position of Secretary of War, claiming that he could not ask John Forsyth, a Jackson appointee, to resign. Van Buren implied a promotion to State when that position became vacant, but Eives refused the appointment, claiming he was not prepared for the job, and besides

^^^Eichmond Enquirer. December 2, I836, February 5. 12, March 9, 1837. 127 See above, p. 250. 256

Hives’s refusal of the appointment appeared, at the time, to he sincere, but it may have been an indica­ tion of secret resentment at being bypassed for the vice-presidency.

When Rives returned to Virginia, he found that there was approval of his proposal, and in April he appealed to Van Buren to repeal the Circular. Since such a move seemed to express the wishes of the people and the states in Congress, he felt Van Buren could and should depart from the policy of Jackson. He also warned Van Buren that . . . if this measure be maintained, at all hazards, & in the teeth of Congress, in what situation will that body be placed at its reassembling, & especially that large majority of your friends who voted for the repealing Bill? They cannot be expected to change their course on a question which was so thoroughly con­ sidered before; and is there not great danger that they would come to its re­ consideration with feelings deeply wounded, & possibly highly excited, by this manifestation of Executive disregard for the Legislative will?— I have had opportunities, which could not, in the

128 Memorandum of conversation between WCR and Van Buren, February 1, 183?, WCR Papers, L.C. 257 nature of things, fall in your way, of knowing the feelings which exist in a large body of your warm & true friends, on this subject; & with that knowledge, I should very poorly perform the part of a friend myself, if I did not express to you my deep conviction that, in adhering to the Treasury Circular under existing circumstances, you will take upon yourself a burthen, which was never imposed upon any Republican administration before.^ ^ As Eives was writing this letter. Van Buren was in the process of making a decision: as he replied to the Virginian, he was aware of the dangers Rives described but he was more concerned with the precarious state of the banks in the Southwest and the West.^^® Although he made no official announcement, he had apparently made his decision to stay with the circular. On May 10, 1837, the banks of New York sus­ pended specie payments, to be followed within days by banks throughout the nation. Van Buren, attempting to deal with the chaotic situation, needed party unity to weather the storm. He thus turned to Rives, among others, to ask his opinion on alternative solutions to. the economic problems : restoration of the national bank, a continuation of the state bank system with

John Turney to WCH, March 11, 1837, Francis E. Rives to WCR, April 5, 1837, ibid.; WCR to Van Buren, April 7» 1837, Van Buren Papers, L.C. Van Buren to WCR, April 10, 1837, WCR Papers, L.C. 258 some changes, or a complete separation of the federal treasury from the banks.Rives, of course, had little trouble formulating an answer. The last alter­ native was an "experiment" which would accomplish nothing. If its intent was to provide "an exclusive metallic currency for the country," then it was "visionary". If it were to provide "a separate metallic medium for the uses of the government alone," he ques­ tioned why there should be "one currency for the Government & another for the people." The alternative of the national bank he of course rejected as unconsti­ tutional and inexpedient, and "in every respect, inad- missable." It was apparent that Eives favored, and was to continue to favor, the state bank system, which was adequate as long as it was properly regulated. The recent difficulties were caused by its being "temporarily thrown out of gear." His faith in the system had not been shaken and he felt it was certainly preferable to a "very doubtful experiment.In the heated poli­ tical battle to follow Rives never deviated from his stand against the independent treasury.

' For the Panic of 1837i see McGrane, The Panic of 1837. Van Buren to WCR, May 25, 1837, WCR Papers, L.C.

^^^WCR to Van Buren, June 3, 1837, ibid. This letter and the one of April 10 were published in the Richmond Enquirer. March 30, 1839. 259 In this attitude he was joined by New York's senator Nathaniel P. Tallmadge and together the two mapped their plans for the special session of congress called by Van Buren for SeptemberDuring the pre­ vious winter Tallmadge had strongly suggested the need for a newspaper in the capital which would present the 13lf views of the legislative branch of government.' While Rives had rejected such open opposition to the adminis­ tration at the time, he took a different view in the spring. Thomas Allen, a young Missourian, was appointed editor of The Madisonian, established to represent Con­ servative Democratic interests. Rives provided an editorial for the first issue, published on .August l6, which committed the paper to upholding Madison's prin­ ciples as a means of serving the country. Although the paper professed to support the administration on all issues except the bank question, and Allen called on the president to express his desire to help the administration and save the party, ex-president Jack­ son condemned the paper as a "viner. in the hypocritical

Tallmadge had supported the administration until the issuance of the Specie Circular, and had then reiterated his stand for paper money. See Schlesinger, Age of Jackson, p. 233. ^^^Thomas Allen to WCR, March 14, I837, WCR Papers, L.C. 260 disguise of friend," and Tallmadge and Rives were referred to as "Bankites in disguise.

At the same time, however, that Eives was trying to steer the administration along the right track, Blair in the Washington Globe. dug up Rives'

183^ speech which made the Virginian appear to be a hard-money man. Blair pointed out that Rives would ultimately support the administration's program; if he did not, he would be open to charges of inconsistency. Rives replied to this charge in an anonymous letter in which he stated that he had earlier supported a metallic currency only to the extent possible through government suppression of small bank notes. In September Rives arrived in Washington to participate in the special session of Congress. If the Conservatives had sincerely believed their efforts would cause Van Buren to change his mind, their hopes were soon destroyed. The president recommended the collection of all revenue in specie and separation of

^•^Tallmadge and Nathaniel Niles made most of the arrangements. Tallmadge to WCR, May 31, 1837, June 28, I837, Nathaniel Niles to WCR, June 23, 1837, Allen to WCR, August 15, IB37 , WCR Papers, L.C,; Washington Madisonian. August 16, 1837; Jackson to Francis P. Blair, September 6, 1837, Corresnondence of Jackson, Basset (ed.), V, 508-09. ^^^For Rives's speech see above, pp. 227-28. Washington Globe. August 14, I837. 261 banks and the government.^^'^ Silas Wright then intro­ duced a bill separating state and bank, followed by- John C. Calhoun's amendment calling for payment of government dues in specie.This plan, the Indepen­ dent Treasury or Sub-Treasury, paved the way for Eives's exit from the Democratic party in the years to come. In spite of pleas from Ritchie, who proposed a Special Deposit plan calling for federal funds to be deposited in state banks but not used in banking opera­ tions, Rives and his Conservative supporters in Congress presented an alternate proposal; it was essentially the same plan he had presented in the last session of congress, with an additional provision that any bank which had suspended specie payments must resume pay­ ments on or before a specific date or its notes would not be acceptable for payment of public dues. In addition to reminding the Senate that it had supported such a scheme earlier, he also attacked the president's get Thomas Allen elected printer of the House, a move which Tallmadge and Rives had planned during the summer. Tallmadge to WCR, May 31, I837, WCR Papers, L.C. Register of Debates in Congress. XIV, 23d Cong., 1st sess., 582. For Van Buren's suggestions, see Richardson (ed.), Messages and Paners, III, 334-42. ^^^Register of Debates in Congress, XIV, 499-501, 105. 262 plan. In so doing he expressed the objections he had earlier relayed to the president: the plan would provide the government with one kind of money and the people with another. Furthermore such a plan would lead the country to "a squinting, an *awful squinting*, towards a Treasury bank— a bank under the sovereign and exclusive control of Executive agents."

Rives'8 plan was, of course, attacked by the president's supporters. And the Whigs, opposed to Van Buren*s scheme, were not overly enthusiastic in support of the Conservative alternative. As a result, the Inde­ pendent Treasury passed the Senate by a vote of 26 to 20, but was tabled in the House as a result of a Conservative-Whig coalition.Hives was not dis­ appointed with the result. He fully realized that the Conservatives were not powerful enough, even with some Whig cooperation, to pass their plans and was content at the time with defeating the Independent Treasury.

139 Thomas Ritchie to WCR, September 7, 1837, WCR Papers, L.C. Ambler, Ritchie. p. 200. Register of Debates in Congress. XIV, 79. Hives's speech on the issue is found in ibid., XIV, 77-104. 140 See speeches of Calhoun, Benton, Clay, and Webster in ibid.. XIV, 184, 208, 251-69, 311-31. For votes, see ibid.. XIV, 500, 1684-85. 141 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 295. # 3 _ As an indication that the administration was concerned about the Conservative opposition to the Independeit Treasury, Van Buren hinted to Eives, when the two happened to meet while horseback riding, that an invitation to Castle Hill would be welcomed. But Eives discouraged such a possibility,and when the fall election returns came in, he had further reason to be hopeful that the administration could be persuaded to pursue a more moderate course: in New York, the president’s home ground, the administration had been defeated by a Whig-Conservative coalition, Eives was informed, however,that Van Buren had no intention of giving up the Independent Treasury, In addition ' the Globe claimed the returns in New York signalled only a temporary setback for the administration. It further attacked the New York Conservatives and appeared to be reading them out of the Democratic party, Tallmadge, Eives’s Conservative colleague, and his friends lost confidence in Van Buren and said they could no longer support him. And finally Allen pub­ lished an editorial in the Madisonian which implied

WCH to JPE, October 7, I837, WCB Papers, L.C, 143 Garraty, Silas Wright, p. 16O. 264 that a new party was in the making, composed of opponents of intolerance and persecution, In spite of these developments Rives was not yet ready to desert his party. Bather he claimed to he defending the true principles of the party and hoped that Democrats would soon join with him. By the time Congress convened for its regular session in Decemher,

1837, in fact, Rives seemed ready to compromise with the administration. He considered Ritchie’s Special Deposit plan and consulted Albert Gallatin about the scheme.In addition, Van Buren, in his State of the Union message, also appeared to be more concilia­ tory. %ile he continued to support the Independent Treasury he did not that his ideas are now, as they were before, submitted with unfeigned deference for the opinions of others. . . . If a majority of Congress see the public welfare in a different light, and more especially if they should be satisfied that the measure proposed would not be acceptable to the people, I shall look to their wisdom to substitute such as may be more conducive to the one and more satisfactory to the other. In any event, they may confidently rely on my hearty cooperation to the fullest extent

Major Wm. B. Lewis to WCR, November 3, 1837» Thomas Allen to WCR, November 5» 18, 1837, Thomas L, Smith to WCR, October 26, 1837» WCR Papers, L.C.; Madisonian. November 21, 1837. ^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 301-02. 26^ to which my views of the Constitution and my sense of duty will permit. He continued by indicating that a plan similar to Ritchie’s Special Deposit scheme would be acceptable, ’’although it would not give to the Government that entire control over its own funds which I desire. If there was any hope for compromise, as even Francis Blair seemed to feel was possible,such a possibility disappeared when Silas Wright proposed essentially the same Independent Treasury bill which had been defeated at the special session some months 1^8 earlier. Rives countered with a bill providing for the continuation of the state bank system, similar to his earlier proposals but specifying that Congress must approve the twenty-five specie paying banks which would serve as government depositories. The most interesting aspect of his presentation was not, however, his proposal to continue the state banks or his attack on the Independent Treasury but his appeal to princi­ ple. He defined a Conservative as having

Israel (ed.), State of the Union Messages, pp. 479-82. 14? Francis P. Blair to Jackson, January 8, 1838, Jackson Papers, L.C. 148 Congressional Globe. Containing the Debates and Proceedings. 1833-1873 (190 vols.; Washington: Blair and Rives, et ^ . , editors and publishers, 1834- 1873), VI, 25th Cong'., 2d sess., 109-12. Hereafter cited as Congressional Globe. 266 . . . devotion to the existing institutions of his country; a desire to preserve and defend them; a willingness, and even zeal, to reform, as the only effectual means of preserving; hut an inconquerable resistance to schemes of whild innovation and destruction. And he announced that he realized his opposition might , . . incur the anathemas of party. But, I can never forget that I have a country to serve, as well as a party to obey. . . . The zealots of both parties may denounce and condemn me, as they have heretofore denounced and condemned me, but, sustained by the consciousness of up right intentions and a faithful devo­ tion to the interests of my country, I shall hold my course unfaltering;. 14-9 Although his position was praised, as might be expected, in the Madisonian, his bill was defeated, after a six-week debate, by a vote of 30 to 22. Five days later the Independent Treasury was passed by the Senate, but defeated again in the House.The events of the special session had repeated themselves, but Rives still did not consider making a final break with the Democrats, to whom he had given his loyalty for so many years. Rather, as the congressional session dragged on into the summer, Eives again seemed willing to consider a variation of Ritchie's plan. However,

•^^^Ibld.. VI, 156-57; Appendix, 608-14. 150 Madisonian. February 10, I838; Congressional Globe. VI, 251, 264, 478. ^■^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 3IO. 26? Congress adjourned without further consideration of the economic issue. Following the session Van Buren visited Castle Hill apparently hoping to reach some compromise.The visit only caused rumors, however, and as Eives took his annual trip to the springs of western Virginia, he was giving serious consideration to resigning his seat in the Senate. Eives admittedly faced a difficult position politically. On the national level he had taken the "Conservative*' position, opposing the administration on economic policy yet professing to support it in all other matters. Since the major crisis facing the nation was economic, his strong stand in this area made him suspect among the Democrats. He was not willing, however, to swing over to the Whigs at this point in his career. ^Iso disappointing was the situation in Virginia. In the spring elections, significant because the next legislature would elect a senator, the Con­ servatives had managed to elect enough members to the House of Delegates to hold the balance of power.

^^^Elchmond Enquirer. August 3. 1838.

^^\adlsonlan. August 18, I838; B. J. Bogan to WCR, September 2, I838; "Draft of a letter of resignation proposed to be addressed to the Legis­ lature," October 19, I838, WCE Papers ; Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Eives, pp. 311-1 2. 268 Nonetheless, a Conservative-Whig coalition, similar to that in New York, had not developed, since "the Little Ezpunger" could not be forgiven by the Whigs for his past actions. And since even some of Rives : s personal friends in the Democratic party indicated they would not vote for his re-election unless he supported the administration fully,his political future looked dim. Even as he contemplated retirement, he did not give up hope for Conservative principles entirely. In an attempt to rally support and bring organization to the party. Rives prepared three articles entitled "Principles and Policy of the Conservatives," which were published originally in the Jeffersonian Republican in September, I838, and later reprinted widely in other papers. The most interesting aspect of the articles was the fact that Rives was attempting to present the Conservatives as a third party, founded on principle. As he attacked the Sub-Treasury and condemned a national bank as contrary to the principles of Jefferson and Madison, he stated that the Conservatives would act l

■ ^ "Principles and Policy of the Conservatives, reprinted from Jeffersonian Republican (Charlottes­ ville, 1838), William Cabell Rives Papers, University of Virginia Library, Manuscript Division. 270 Rives*s hopes for a strong Conservative move­ ment received a blow when election returns in Ohio and Pennsylvania indicated gains for Van Buren and apparently increasing support for the Independent Treasury, Follow­ ing this news he formulated a letter to the Assembly resigning his position in the Senate so that the next legislature could "supply my place in the public councils with another more acceptable to its * feelings, & better fitted to represent its sentiments & views.*'nl57 By early November, however, he had been dissuaded from this course of action^^^ and his position looked more promising. Whig papers in the northern states and in Virginia itself began to urge his re- election, some taking the position that he represented Whig interests and others supporting him as a compro­ mise candidate if no true Whig could be found.In

^^"^Richmond Enquirer, October l6, 1839; see above. Ch. Ill, n. 153. ^Governor David Campbell of Virginia, in particular, advised him to stay in the Senate, believing along with James Patton and others that if the Conser­ vatives in the legislature stood firm "they must either elect you or there would be no election." David Campbell to WCE, October 31» 1838, WCR Papers, B.C. During the years of the financial crises Campbell was one of Rives *s closest friends and advisers.

^^^See Madisonian. November 3, 24, I838, quoting Philadelphia Star. Baltimore Chronicle ; Richmond Enquirer. November 30, I838, quoting Richmond Whig and Alexandria Gazette. 271 addition he was more vehemently attacked by the Demo- 160 crats. All in all, it was becoming apparent that any hope of reconciliation with his former party was becoming virtually impossible.

Instead of resigning, Hives traveled to Washing­ ton to take his seat in the new session of Congress, Although he stopped in Richmond to see Ritchie on the way,^^^ the editor's pleas for reconciliation apparently had no effect. Shortly after Congress convened Rives introduced resolutions into the Senate calling for information from the Secretary of the Treasury relating to the connection between the government and Biddle's United States Bank and other banks holding government money. In a speech on the following day he accused the government of granting special favors to the Philadelphia-based bank as the first step in re­ establishing a national bank. And since critics of his state bank plan had charged that the system would lead to an unofficial national bank, he stated that

^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 320-22. ^^^JPR to WCR, December 9, I838, WCR Papers, L.C. 272 their fears seemed to be in the process of realization even as the government money was under the control of the executive branch of government. As to the govern­ ment money in other depositories, he wondered if it was not being used in banking operations.In essence he was trying to cast suspicion on the administration's advocacy of separation of state and bank. Hives's speech was interpreted by the adminis­ tration and anti-administration forces alike as an indication that he had.irrevocably cut his ties with the Democrats. Blair immediately wrote to former Presi­ dent Jackson that Hives had at last joined the Clay forces in order to win re-election, while Hives himself indicated to his wife his pleasure with his independent position and was in a "state of most happy indifference" concerning the outcome of the senatorial election in Virginia. Clay on the other hand wrote that Hives "showed conclusively that he had cut loose forever from the administration" and felt the Virginians* reelection "would be attended with every good effect.

^^^Congressional Globe, VII, 25th Cong., 3d sess., 4 9, Appendix, 399-402. ^^^Francis P. Blair to Jackson, December 23, I838, Correspondence of Jackson. Bassett (ed.), V, 575 -76 } Washington Globe. December 29, I838; WCE to JPR, December 24, I838, WCR Papers, L.C.; Clay to Francis Brooke, December 20, I838, Private Correspondence of Clay. Colton (ed.), 432-33. 273_ _ Although Rives presumably was motivated to some extent by principle in his attack on the administration, he must also have been aware of the political signifi­ cance of his actions. In spite of the fact that he did not yet profess to adhere to Whig principles, support for his re-election continued to develop in Whig circles in Virginia, and shortly before the scheduled election, the Richmond Whig advocated his election to prevent forcing the Conservatives back into the administration party. The paper was even willing to overlook his past sins in view of his opposition to the administration. On the same day the Whig gave Rives its endorse­ ment, the Virginian took another step in his break with the Democrats. A report had been presented by the Senate Judiciary Committee calling for non-passage of a bill providing for a five hundred dollar fine to be levied against specific federal employees who attempted to influence, in any way, a federal or state election. The bill had been presented by John J. Crittenden, Whig from Kentucky,and the Judiciary Committee, dominated by Democrats, had called the bill "unjust, unequal,

164" Richmond Whig and Public Advertiser. February 8, 1S39. ^^^Por Crittenden's role in the Whig party, see Albert D. Kirwan, John J. Crittenden. The Struggle for the Union (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1962). 274 impracticable, impelitleal, tyrannical, and unconsti- 166 tutional.*' Rives attacked the committee report as "the creed of a party— as the exposition and defence of a political system, which relies upon party organi­ zation, party discipline, and official patronage, to control and govern this mighty country." He then intro­ duced resolutions calling for the selection of a committee to consider a constitutional solution to the problem of interference in electlons.^^^ Such opposition to the administration was no longer restricted to financial matter, but more truly reflected the senti­ ments expressed in Rives's "armed neutrality" articles of the previous fall. Rives'8 further attacks on the administration, although consistent with his own political sentiments, had repercussions in his home state. With the sena­ torial election pending, all political factions. Demo­ crats, Whigs and Consemratlves, were especially sensitive to his actions. The Democrats, of course, were alienated by his politics, refusing to support him unless he repudiated his opposition to the economic policies of the adminis­ tration. In their caucus they united behind John Y.

^^^Congressional Globe. VII, Appendix, 157-60. ^^^Ibid.. VII, Appendix, 403-08. 275 Mason as their nominee for the Senate,The Whigs, on the other hand, were divided. Some members of the party favored Hives’s election as representing the interests of the party, while others felt it would be advisable to run a true Whig, in order to remain true to party principles, and then give their votes to Elves when it became apparent an avowed member of the party could not be elected, Both regular parties were faced with a dilemma, of course, since the balance of power in the Assembly was held by the Conservatives^"^^ and neither party could elect a candidate without the support of this small, but influential group of men. Thus while Hives’s growing opposition to the administration had the result of further alienating Democrats and gaining Whig support, it was within the Conservative ranks that his position became crucial. Although Hives’s further estrangement from the administration could be defended on the basis of his "armed neutrality" articles, his Conservative supporters in Virginia still claimed to support the administration on all issues with the exception of economic policy. To do otherwise would have cost them

^^^Wm, M, Peyton to WCH, January 30, I839, Joseph H, Sherrard to WCH, February 13. 1839. WCH Papers, L.C, ^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," pp, 33^-35. 170 See above, p, 267, 276

their advantage to minimize Rives‘s break with the administration on all except financial matters, Although several crises appeared to threaten the Con­

servative ranks by February 15, 1839, the date set for the senatorial election. Hives's staunchest supporters managed to hold the small band together. When the day for the election arrived, consid­ erable excitement had been generated concerning the outcome. Three candidates were nominated: Rives for the Conservatives, John Tyler (at the time a member of the House of Representatives) for the true Whigs, and John y. Mason for the Democrats, After eight days and twenty-eight ballots it was apparent no decision could be reached and the election was postponed indefinitely. As it turned out. Rives was denied re-election not by the Democrats, who refused to support him, or by the Conservatives who remained true to his cause despite reservations about his political principles, but by "Impracticable" Whigs who absolutely refused to vote for Rives, "the Little Expunger," although they were

^"^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p, 329. ^^^Ibid,. pp. 330-3^. 277 opposed "by members of their own party,’ It was to be two years before the Assembly would be able to summon a majority to re-elect Hives and for that period of time the seat he vacated in March remained empty. Although the Conservatives were disappointed at not re-electing Rives to the Senate, some had anti­ cipated such a possibility^^^ and rather than being discouraged with the outcome took consolation in the fact that they had managed to break the ranks of the Whigs. They thus looked forward to the spring elections in Virginia, hoping to attract more Whigs to their ranks and win re-election for Hives in the next legislative session. In defense of their actions in the previous session the-fourteen Conservative members of the legis­ lature published an address which stated that they had observed the "ancient principles of the Republican party" while the administration had departed from such principles, and they maintained that Hives had been proscribed by the party because he had Mled to support the administra­ tion in all of its programsRives himself wrote a Charles Mason to WCR, February 1 5, 1839, John Clark to WCH, February 17, I839, WCE Papers, L.C. ; Richmond Enquirer. February I6 , 19,21, 23, 26, 1839; contains the report of the activities of the legislature during the election. 174 See Campbell*s comment above, Ch. Ill, n, I58. "Conservative Address," Richmond Enquirer, March 28, 1839. 278 letter for publication in which he also stressed his proscription from the party, and denied that he had made a deal with the Whigs.The intention of such writings was, of course, to cast the Conservatives in the role of true patriots. When the election returns came in the results were somewhat disappointing to all three parties. The Whigs maintained a plurality with the balance of power remaining with the Conservatives, who had not managed to increase their numbers in spite of their appeal to principle.^"^^

Although Hives no longer held public office, he continued to be a significant political figure in Virginia. As he attempted to maintain his independent course based on principle rather than party doctrine. Increasing interest was expressed concerning his support of a presidential candidate in the upcoming national

Ibid.. March 30, I839. This letter was printed and distributed throughout the state by the Whigs. John S. Gallaher to WCR, April 4, I839, WCH Papers, L.C. ^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 342-44, summarizes the campaign. See also Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, pp. 135- 39. 279 election.Although he had managed to sidestep the issue during the legislative session while his re- election was still in doubt, he encountered greater difficulties as the months passed. In the back of his mind, of course, was the fact that the nezt legislature would again be faced with electing a senator. While it was obvious to all that he could not support Van Buren for re-election, declaring for Clay, who seemed to be the most likely candidate for the Whigs, would be disastrous also. Although he might gain the support of most of the Whigs, he would in turn lose Conservative votes, since Clay was even more disliked than Van Buren by Virginia Conservatives.^^^ As a result he used two tactics to avoid publicly committing himselfr he con­ tinued to stress his independent position and his decision to support principles rather than men; and he considered the possibility of promoting General Winfield Scott as the Whig nominee.The latter course of action

178 For the complications he experienced in an effort to remain uncommitted, see Dingledine, "The Poli­ tical Career of William Cabell Eives," pp. 344-48.

^^^Ibid.. p. 345. ^^^The independent position was, of course, politically expedient and the candidacy of Scott would, if accomplished, be a convenient compromise. For sentiment in favor of Scott, see Thomas Allen to WCR, September l4, 23, I839, Francis 0. J. Smith to WCR, October 4, I839, WCR Papers, L.C. 280 “ encotintered opposition from Virginia ConservatiTOS, however, in spite of the fact that Eives was assured that Scott conformed to the republican ideals of the Virginia school of *98 and Hives’s dilemma as to the presidential contest was solved to some degree when the Whigs, meeting in Harrisburg in early December, 1839, nominated General William Henry Harrison as their presidential candidate, with John Tyler of Virginia in the second slot. Although the Conservatives were far from enthusiastic with the Whig choice, they soon accepted the decision.Rives, still attempting to straddle the fence in his bid for re-election to the Senate, refused to commit himself immediately■in support of Harrison, maintaining that Conservatives must examine "every authentic exposition" of Harrison’s ideas. If, upon examination, his ideas proved sound, Conservative support should be given to

James Garland to WCR, September 15, 1839. John T. Anderson to WCR, September 28, 1839. Thomas Allen to WCR, September 14, 1839, ibid.; Allen, in the Madisonian of November 30, 1839, suggested a Eives- Tallmadge ticket, if possible, but endorsed a Scott- Tallmadge ticket, ^^^Their support was essentially negative. See David Campbell to WCR, December 12, 1839. WCR Papers. L.C. For other reactions see Charles J, Meriwether to WCE, December 18, 1839, Hugh S. Legaré to WCR, December 20, 1839, Thomas Allen to WCR, January 10, 1840, ibid. 281 But he refused to commit himself firmly until after the senatorial election. When the legislature met in Richmond the poli­ tical composition of the body was much as it had been the previous year and Rives faced the same diffi­ culties; how to maintain Conservative loyalty while increasing Whig support for his election. In one respect his position was more precarious: pressure for a decision on his choice for a presidential candidate was Increasing, The Conservatives were fearful that he would support Harrison while the Whigs were hopeful he would decide for the General,To both groups he replied that he remained uncommitted, and he seemed to feel that it would be more honorable to go down to defeat than to abandon his stand and achieve victory. He might also have added that to remain uncommitted publicly was politically expedient. Although he refused to announce a decision publicly, Rives apparently did not feel it necessary

^^^WCR to Charles Mason, December 19, I839, ibid. 184 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 352-53-

^^^John M. Patton to WCR, December 19, I839, draft of letter to Van B. Reynolds, December 19, I839, draft of letter to W. Pugh Tunstall, January 2, 1840, copy of letter to James Lyons and William C, Worthing­ ton, January 21, 1840, WCR Papers, L.C. 282 to remain true to his principles in private. In a letter to one of his supporters in Richmond, intended for unofficial campaigning, he stated that he had read "several authentic expositions" of Harrison’s principles and "with the most solemn & deliberate conviction of my understanding" had decided "to give him hearty & cordial support against the existing dynasty," Although the recipient of this letter was warned not to relay these thoughts to anyone . . . in whom you have not the most implicit confidence, or where there would be any danger of their being used to involve me in a departure from the ground I have solemnly taken to give no pledge respect­ ing the presidential election as the price & condition of_my re-election to the Senate, . , . this document indicated that Rives’s public exposition was definitely one of political expediency rather than principle. He was aware that the only way he could maintain Conservative identity was through avoiding open union with the Whigs, When the election was finally held in the legislature in late January, 1840, the result was almost identical to the previous year. The Whigs failed to swing enough "Impracticable" votes over to

WCR to Charles Mason, January 17, 1840, ibid. This letter, however, did not reach Mason until after the election. Charles Mason to WCR, February 15, 1840, ibid. 283 Elves'8 support, who received 83 votes (one short of election)on the first two ballots, thus opening the gate to Conservative defection to the Democratic candidate, John Y. Mason. Several Whigs used this as an excuse to nominate John J. Allen, a true Whig, who ultimately received 80 votes, only to be blocked in achieving a majority by the opposition of four Conservatives, The Democrats, fearing a Whig victory and hoping to blame the fiasco on the Conservatives, again brought forward a motion for indefinite postponement. Conservatives worked behind the scenes to persuade the Whigs to accept postponement, and Virginia was without a senator for another year. With the senatorial election no longer a irestraint on him, Hives soon declared publicly for Harrison. Although he and his supporters still claimed to be “a patriotic band fighting for principle, & uninfluenced alike by the denunciations & rewards of either party,Rives and the Conservatives cam­ paigned actively for Harrison. Before concentrating their full attention on the presidential contest, however.

^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 356-59. ^^^Letter of WCH, Niles' Register. LXIII, ^-10; March 7 , 1840. Wm. M. Peyton to WCR, February 11, 1840, WCR Papers, L.C., provides this description. 284 it was necessary for them to cooperate with the Whigs to gain control of the legislature. Following a cam­ paign characterized by Democratic attacks on Rives, the Whigs emerged with a majority of five to ten in the legislature^^and, presumably. Rives was assured re- election to the Senate in the next session. iissuming that the state elections foreshadowed a Whig victory in the presidential contest in the fall, the Whigs and Rives's Conservatives entered enthusiasti­ cally into the campaign for Harrison.^^^ Rives, touring the state throughout the summer and fall, was one of the most active champions of the Whig candidate in the ’•Log Cabin and Hard Cider” campaign. An able speaker, capable of great eloquence, his high pitched voice could be heard even at the edges of the crowd, as, with dilated nostrils, flashing eyes, and impassionate gesti­ culations, he worked his audience into pitches of enthusiasm, distillating his ’s*s* and rolling his ’r»s.’ His speeches were full of Whig propaganda, with the addition of his own personal feelings toward the Democrats. He usually began with a statement of his consistency as a republican of the school of Jefferson and Madison, pro­ scribed by his old party for standing

^Richmond Enquirer. Maroh-April, 1840. ^^^Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, p. l44.

‘ Dingledine, ’’The Political Career of William Cabell Eives,” pp. 366-71. 285 by his principles, Eives denounced both the measures, chiefly the Sub-Treasury and Poinsett’s Cromwellian militia scheme, and the personalities. Van Buren, Kendall, Cambreleng, Ritchie, and others, of the administration. On one occasion he called Van Buren*s presidency the true brother of the Federalist administration of the elder Adams, and called on his listeners to rally around Harrison and strike one _ « more blow for liberty and the constitution, Attacked by the Democrats who called him "Wandering Willie" and "Billy Lackaday," Hives proved to be the he himself was not yet willing to claim the title of Whig. In September Hives interrupted his campaigning to recover his health, severely strained by his activities on behalf of Harrison and the Whig cause. After some weeks spent at the springs and at his home,^^^ he traveled to New York to attend a Conservative convention in Auburn in early October, where he was introduced by Tallmadge as "that noblest work of God, an honest man." He soon returned to Richmond to attend the

^^^Ibid., pp. 368-9.

^^^Edward Johnston to WCR, September 18, 184-0, WCE Papers, L.C.; Richmond Enquirer. September 21, 1840. ^^&iles ’ Weekly Register. LIX, 156-59, November 7, 1840, reprinted from New York Herald. October 3» 1840. 286 Whig state convention which featured Daniel Webster as guest of honor,and subsequently engaged in last- minute campaigning in his home state before the election. When the election returns were reported, the Whigs and Eives were confused and dismayed. They had carried the state in the spring, Harrison had won the presidency, but Van Buren had carried Virginia by more than a thousand votes.They speculated on the posssible reasons for their defeat, but it was impossible to arrive at any one reasonHives himself felt that it had been a mistake to invite Webster to Richmond, allowing Ritchie to bring up old charges against Federalists. Whatever the cause for the defeat. Rives at least had some consolation. With the Whigs in control of the legislature there seemed little doubt that he would soon return to the Senate, and on January 18, l84l, this

^^^Richmond Whig. October 7, 184-0; Richmond Enquirer. October 9, IWO. ^^^Ibid., October 15, November 3, 1840; Madisonian. November 3, 184-0. ^^^Simms, Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, p. 158. ^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 37^-75. ^^^Draft of undated latter to John S. Pendleton in reply to his of December 2, 1840, WCR Papers, L.C. 287 hope was realized when the Conservative was elected on the first "ballot.The "long agony" had ended.

By the time Eives was returned to his seat In the Senate, the Conservatives had already received one disappointment. Immediately following the election, Thomas Allen, among others, had anticipated that Rives would be offered the position of Secretary of State in the new administration. When Webster received that appointment, and Rives was passed over also for the Treasury Department, Tallmadge recommended to Harrison that the Virginian be given the mission to England. 203 On the other hand. Hives's friends in Virginia felt he might better serve Conservative interests in Washington from the Senate, since they feared Harrison might be controlled by Webster and Clay, and Rives would be

Journal of the House of Delegates. Session of lS^0-41,“ÏÏ3, January ÏÏÏ, 184-1. his letter to WCR, January I3, l84l, WCR Papers, L.C.

November 12, 1840, enclosed in Graham to WCR, November 14, 1840, ibid. Nathaniel Tallmadge to William Henry Harrison, February 12, l84l, William Henry Harrison Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. 288 204 better off outside such an administration. In any case, he was not rewarded with a position in the cabinet or a foreign mission, although Harrison informed Eives that he had hoped to include either Tallmadge or Rives in the cabinet. When he returned to Washington in late January, 1841, Eives discovered there was "the greatest curiosity and eagerness to hear me break silence, after my long absence from the Senate.Such curiosity was warranted: while he had broken with the Democrats and supported a Whig candidate for the presidency. Rives still con­ sidered himself an "armed neutral." If there were any doubts about his independent position, they were soon removed. In his first speech in the Senate upon his return Rives disagreed with Clay over distribution of money received from the sale of public lands, one of the Kentuckian’s favorite projects. Hives’s objection

Josiah M. Ware to WCR, November 20, 1841, John T. Anderson to WCR, December 10, 1840, James Garland to WCR, December 18, 1840, Alexander Brown to WCR, December 19, 1840, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Memorandum of a conversation with Harrison, February 15, 1841, WCR to JPR, February 15, 1841, Joseph M. Sheppard to WCR, February 18, 1841, ibid.

^°^WCR to JPR, February 2, l84l, ibid. 289 to such a plan was based on his belief that since federal revenue did not yet meet the needs of the country, distribution of land revenue would place added burdens on the government and revive the ugly tariff controversy.^®^ And in a letter to his wife he reflected unfavorably on Clay's position within the party, stating that the Kentuckian was "attempting to play Genl. Jackson without having the powerful resource of his popularity— & has, in truth, given dissatisfaction to many of his old friends." Eives, however, resolved to "do nothing to provoke his displeasure, unless an independent exercise of the right of opinion should be treason in his eyes."^^^ Although his .first encounter with Clay might have boded ill for his relationship with the incoming administration, other events were more encouraging to Eives. He was pleasantly surprised to find that he and Webster were "on very gracious terms." In fact, "on comparing notes together, we approximate much more nearly as to the policy of the new administration than 209 some others & myself do." Then when Harrison arrived

207 Congressional Globe. IX, 26th Cong., 2d sess., Appendix, 3^3-84, 208 WCH to JPE, February 2, I84l, WCR Papers, L.C. 209. ^Ibid. 290 _ in Washington on February 9, Rives received a copy of his inaugural address and was asked to make suggestions,^^® In addition he was one of the managers for the inaugural ball and on that occasion was one of the group of senators (including Tallmadge and Clay) and cabinet members who entered the ballroom with thé president. Any anticipation Rives might have had of develop­ ing a close relationship with Harrison was soon ended, A month after his inauguration the president died, and John Tyler became the first vice-president to assume the presidency, Thomas Allen immediately asked Rives about his relationship with his fellow Virginia, since Allen assumed that Webster might not be able to get along with the new president and Rives might after all become Secretary of State.Allen had good reason for asking: Rives and Tyler had stood on opposite sides of the political fence for some years and had dis­ agreed over the Force Bill and the expunging resolution, and Tyler had adamantly opposed Hives’s re-election to

Memorandum of conversation with Harrison, February 15, 184-1, ibid, ^^^Madisonlan. Inauguration Extra, March 4-, 184-1; March 9, 104-1.

^^^Thomas Allen to WCR, April 4-, 184-1, WCR Papers, L.C, 291 the Senate in 1839.^^^ There does not appear to have been any personal animosity between the two, however, 214 in spite of their political differences, ' and Eives soon extended his best wishes to the new president. Interestingly enough he also called Tyler*s attention to the fact that he had been called to the head of the government at a moment when questions of peculiar diffi­ culty and embarrassment, and of the most wide-reaching operation on the principles and destinies of our political system will, in all probability, present themselves for decision. Imbued from your earliest youth, with those lessons of civic virtue and practical wisdom which were taught by the fathers of the Republic, in pur­ suing you will satisfy the highest expectations of your friends and your country,215

Tyler responded by informing Rives that he would follow his principles, principles which both had acquired from the writings and teachings of Jefferson and 2l6

^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 384. ^^^Ibid. Both men were dedicated to principle, although differing in positions, but there was no per­ sonal dislike, as there was between Rives and Gilmer, who was later to serve in Tyler’s Cabinet. WCR to Tyler, April 6, l84l, WCR Papers, L.C. Tyler to WCR, April 9, I84l, John Tyler Papers, Library of Congress. 292 Hives’s relationship with the Whig administration was soon to "become apparent. Henry Clay, who had attempted to exert his influence over Harrison and had succeeded to some degree, had successfully requested the president to call a special session of Congress to convene on May 31.^^^ With the ascendancy of "His Accidency" Clay hoped to assume completely the reigns of power within the Whig party and the administration. This desire became apparent as soon as the special session convened. Within a week Clay had outlined his legis­ lative program: repeal of the Independent Treasury, which had been passed during the 1839-40 session; reestablishment of a national bank; upward revision of the tariff to provide more revenue; and distribution 210 of proceeds from the sale of public lands. Needless to say. Rives was willing to see the Independent Treasury abolished; it had, after all, been one of the key reasons for his leaving the Demo­ cratic party. The establishment of a national bank was, however, another question. When Clay, in a resolution before the Senate, requested Secretary of the Treasury Thomas Ewing to present "a plan of such a bank to be incorporated by Congress, as, in his opinion, is best

^^^Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, pp. 152-55. ^^^Ibid., p. 155. 293 - adapted to the public service, Elves objected to the wording, and Clay was persuaded to amend it to reads "the plan of such a Bank or fiscal agent, as being free of constitutional objections, will, in his opinion, produce the happiest results, and confer lasting and important benefits on the country.When Ewing responded with a plan originally suggested by Judge Hugh L. White of Tennessee,which provided for a bank chartered in the District of Columbia, clearly constitutional, with branches in states which gave their consent, the proposal was referred to the Select Committee on the Currency, under Clay’s chairmanship. When the committee reported a bill providing for an agency similar to Ewing’s proposal, but without a pro­ vision requiring state consent for the establishment of branches,the battle was on. In spite of their differences in the past Hives and President Tyler were agreed on one issue: abhorrence

219 Congressional Globe. X, 2?th Cong., 1st sess., 22-23.

^^^Ibld.. X, 48-49. ^^^Ibid.. X, 79-81. 223 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 385. 294 in the sanctity of states rights in this area, it was not surprising that Hires emerged as one of the foremost supporters of the administration in the struggle over the bank question. Since Clay's bill basically revived the Bank of the United States, Hives, supported by Webster, soon proposed an amendment which would require state consent to the establishment of branches.which conformed to Ewing's proposal and the advice Hives had extended to the president before the special session of Congress met.^^^ The amendment also had the advantage of eliminating the constitutional question surrounding the Bank of the United States which had earlier bothered Hives and other supporters of states rights. Although his amendment was defeated, Hives aroused enough Whig support to prevent passage of the Bank bill.^^^ Clay was,however, determined to press for passage of his scheme, and after much fussing and fuming, modified his bill to allow for state consent for the establishment of branches only if such action were taken within the first legislative session following

224 Congressional Globe. X, 133î Appendix, 351-54. ^^^WCH to Tyler, May 4, 15, I84l, WCH Papers, L.C. ^^^Congressional Globe. X, 152. For an analysis of the debate, see George H. Poage, Henry Clay and the Whig Party (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1936), pp. 50-58. 2# the passage of the bill. Otherwise, assent woald be assumed. In addition, if Congress felt it necessary to establish a branch, without state consent, for carrying into execution any of the powers granted by the Constitution to establish an office or offices in any of the States whatever, and the establish­ ment thereof shall be directed by law, it shall be the duty of the said directors to establish such office or offices accord­ ingly. 22?

It was still the Bank of the United States and Rives objected that while it kept the promise to the ear, it broke it to the sense. . . . those who believed as [Rive^ did, could not, either by a vote in that body, or the exercise of power elsewhere, sanction the principle contained in the Senator’s amendment, without violating the oath they had taken to support the Constitu­ tion of the United S t a t e s . 228

Although the Tyler Whigs, led by Rives, objected to the amendment, it passed by the close vote of 25 to 24.^^^ When the amendment was combined with the Bank bill, the entire piece of legislation passed by a margin of three votes.Upon approval, shortly thereafter, by the House, the bill was sent to Tyler for approval or rejection.

Congressional Globe. X, 254. ^^^Ibid.. X, 256.

^^°Ibid.. X, 260. 296 In spite of the nimors and speculation about which course of action the president would take. Rives was one individual who should have been able to pre­ dict with accuracy that Tyler would veto the bill. As early as May 31 the president had informed Rives that Congressional Whigs would have to include a provision for state approval for branches or "make up their minds to a veto. T h u s it should have come as no surprise to Rives when the President did in fact veto Clay's bill on August 16. When the bill was returned to the Senate, Clay attacked the president, suggesting that he had dis­ obeyed the will of the people and stating that if his veto had been anticipated, Tyler would not have received the Whig nomination for the vice-presidency.Rives, as Tyler’s only defender in the Senate, responded that the veto was not inconsistent with Tyler’s known views on the issue of a national bank and defended his right to veto a bill, which Clay had questioned.Clay then replied by making fun of Rives in his "half-way house" and hoped that Rives was not cooperating with Tyler in "a new sort of kitchen Cabinet— whose object

^^^WCR to JPR, June 1, 18^1, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Congressional Globe. X, Appendix, 364-66.

Ibid.. X, Appendix, 366-68. 297 is the dissolution of the regular Cabinet— the dissolution of the Whig party— the dispersion of Congress, without accomplishing any of the great purposes of the extra session. , . Such individuals, according to Clay, were trying to form a third party, "with materials so scanty as to be wholly insufficient to compose a decent corporal’s guard. Hives’s response to this vehement attack was interesting as an indication of his political position during these tense months. Denying that he enjoyed any special relationship with Tyler, he maintained that he would have defended any president from any state who acted with "devotion to the Constitution of his country. ..." And he denied any wish to form a third party: I have shown myself at all times restive, under mere party influence and control from any quarter. All party in my humble judgment, tends, in its modern degeneracy, to tyranny, and is attended with serious hazard of sacrificing an honest sense of duty, and the great interests of the country, to an arbitrary lead, directed by other aims. I desire, therefore, to take upon myself no new party bonds, while I am anxious to fulfill, to the fullest extent that a sense of duty to the country will permit, every honorable engagement implied in existing ones. As for the accusation that he was trying to break up the cabinet, he assured Clay that "he will never see

^^^Congressional Globe. X, Appendix, 368. 298 me in any Cabinet, under this or any other Adminis­ tration, During the brief remnant of my public life, the measure of my ambition will be filled by the humble, but honest, part I may be permitted to take on this floor in consultations for the common good,” And in conclusion. Rives in effect got to the heart of the struggles in Congress by expressing the rumor that there was an attempt in Congress to gain control of the whole government by "sending deputation after deputation" to Tyler to instruct him in his duty "and bring him to terms. "235 Although Tyler vetoed Clay's bill, the president still seemed to feel that the country needed some sort of fiscal agency,and Rives, who was at the hei^t of his influence with Tyler following the veto, apparently suggested a compromise plan which would have allowed Congress to charter a bank in the District of Columbia and establish branches in the states without their consent, providing such branches dealt only in foreign exchanges (bill drawn in one state and payable in

^^^Ibid,. X, Appendix, 369-70, ^^^Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, p, 157. 299 another)Such suggestions were in fact presented by the president to the Whigs in Congress who were drafting the Fiscal Corporation Bill to replace the vetoed Fiscal Bank.^^^ Although the bill which passed the House and was sent on to the Senate conformed basically to the president’s suggestions, Hives objected to it and was the only Whig in the Senate to vote against it. When it reached the president’s desk, he again used his veto power.As Clay had anticipated, the split in the Whig ranks led to a cabinet crisis. Since most of the cabinet members were Clay men and had failed to formu­ late a bank bill acceptable to the president and to Congress, it was not surprising that on September 11

237 Henry Wise, Seven Decades of the Union. . . . (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., I872), p. 187 . Wise does not give the details of Hives’s plan. See also Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," p. 4oi. 23®ibia. ^^^Ibid.. pp. 403-04. Congressional Globe. X, 4 23. Both Hives and Tyler objected to the bill for the following reasons : the bills of exchange were not restrained by time limitations or renewability, and both men felt they could be used as local bills of discount; therefore the bill was unconstitutional since it would in effect create a national bank to operate without state consent throughout the union. For Hives’s objections see ibid., X, 4l8. See Tyler’s reasoning in Richardson (ed.), Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IV, 69-7 O. Probably Hives and Tyler would have used any excuse, however flimsy, to see this proposed institution go down to defeat. 300 all of the cabinet, except Webster who was engaged in important negotiations with Great Britain, resigned. Although Rives had defended the president in the Senate and was consulted in the formation of a new cabinet, he was not included in this body. Just why this was the case is not clear: the most logical explanation is that he wished to maintain his independent status, as he had claimed in his attack on Clay. In addition Tyler may not have wished to jeopardize his precarious standing within the party by appointing an individual who had not yet declared himself a Whig. At any rate Rives remained in the Senate claiming to support principle rather than party. In the struggle over the bank issue Clay did not forget the rest of his program. The Sub-Treasury was repealed, the vote in the Senate being 29 to 18. Congress also passed a new tariff, imposing duties on articles previously on the free list or taxed at

240 Robert Seager II, and Tyler too, A Biography of John & Julia Gardiner Tyler (New York; McGraw- Hill, 19^31737 241 In late August Rives informed his wife that "Mr. Allen tells you of the power I wield here. •Tis true that circumstances have place in my hands at present, no small degree of power, & I am anxious to make the best use of it for the country.— The President is about to re-organize his cabinet, & relies much, if not solely, on my advice." WCR to JPR, August 27, 1841, WCR Papers, L.C. 301 a low rate, "but not exceeding the twenty per cent limit of the tariff of 1833. Bives voted for both these measures,In addition he finally voted for the Distribution Bill, another controversial part of Clay’s plan. Fearful in the previous session that distri­ bution would lead to a higher tariff, Rives finally consented to vote for the measure when an amendment was attached providing that distribution would be suspended if the tariff were increased above the twenty percent level. During the special session of Congress Rives managed to remain aloof from the party Intrigues of the Whigs, and when it ended he stood between the Clay faction, comprising the majority of the party, and the followers of the president, definitely in the minority. Thus Rives could still claim a position of independence even though he had been elected by Whigs and was expected to represent their interests in the Senate. Just how long he would be able to maintain this stance remained to be seen.

^^^Congressional Globe. X, 36, 438. 243 Ibid.. X, 370 . Also, see above, pp. 288- 89, for Hives’s attitude on distribution. Dingledine, ’’The political Career of William Cabell Rives, pp. 409-10. 302

The first regular session of Congress under the Tyler administration convened in December, 1841, and the president in his State of the Union message pre­ sented a new fiscal plan, the "Board of Exchequer." Developed by Walter Forward, Secretary of the Treasury, this plan provided for the Board, consisting of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Treasurer of the United States, and three commissioners appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, The commission would establish agencies throughout the country which would handle the public money. Although Webster gave it his support and Rives, who was appointed to the select Senate committee entrusted with considera­ tion of the proposal,■favored it with modifications. Clay was firmly opposed, still holding out for a national bank. While bills were reported out of committee in both the House and Senate, party opposition to Tyler prevented consideration of the measure and no action 244 was taken, .Attracting much more interest in this long session was the state of the government finances.

244 For the text of the bill see Congressional Globe. XI, 2?th Cong,, 2d sess,, 38-39. Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 409-10, 303 Since 1837, the government had been running in the red, so that by the beginning of 1842 the national debt totalled almost fourteen million dollars.The new duties passed during the special session had not pro­ duced the needed revenue and, as a result, Clay proposed a new tariff raising duties above the twenty percent level set by the Compromise Tariff of 1833. .Attached to this proposal was a resolution calling for repeal of the provision of the Distribution .Act which required suspension of distribution when the tariff rose above the twenty percent level. Again Rives found himself opposing on principle the majority of the Whig party. When Clay's resolutions came up for debate. Rives suggested amendments requiring that distribution be suspended until the national debt was wiped out. He also proposed that the "principles and provisions" of the Compromise Tariff be followed as closely as possible.Hives's amendments, supported by two Southern Whigs, Archer of Virginia and Preston of South Carolina, and most Democrats, were however Thus when the Senate received 245 Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, p. 164. 246 Ibid. Congressional Globe. XI, 235-36, 352. ^^^Ibid.. XI, 216-18, 352, 371. 248 Ibid.. 273. 304- the House-approved "Little Tariff" in June the distri­ bution question was still alive. The "Little Tariff" was intended to be a tem­ porary measure postponing until August 1 reduction of the tariff scheduled to take place on July 1 as required by the Compromise Act, until a permanent tariff bill could be acted on. It meant that the tariff would remain above the twenty percent level and thus prevent 249 distribution. However, Congressional Whigs had included a provision that the act did not prevent dis­ tribution. Obviously this was an attempt to evade the provisions of the Distribution Bill passed the previous summer and was opposed by Rives.The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 24-19, only to be vetoed by the president. When the Whigs then worked out a per­ manent tariff bill, raising the duties over the twenty percent level and retaining distribution of the land revenue. Rives again voted with the opposition. The measure passed both branches of Congress only to be

249 Taussig, Tariff History, pp. 110-11. 250 For his speech against this measure presented on June 24, 1842, see Congressional Globe. XI, Appendix, 544-4 9. 305 vetoed, by the president.Finally, reluctantly realizing that the president would not approve any measure which united a tariff exceeding the twenty per­ cent level with distribution, the Whigs formulated a bill which raised duties to about the level of the 1832 tariff. Rives refused to support this proposal, claiming that it was a protective, in some cases prohi­ bitive, tariff. Although he was joined by Democrats and Southern Whigs in voting against the measure, four northern Democrats cooperated with the Whigs in its passage, and President Tyler, realizing the need for 252 government revenue, signed the bill. Hives’s position on this issue, while in oppo­ sition to Whig leadership, conformed to his principles. Yet he was not returning to the Democratic party. Van Buren’s personality and leadership were still too abhorrent to him to permit such a move. In addition, Rives found he could give his full support to Whig foreign policy, even if he found domestic policy of the Whigs difficult to accept. The issue which attracted

Chitwood, Tyler, pp. 297, 299. Congressional Globe, XI, 852. ^■^^As an amendment to the bill, he suggested duties be levied at the level in effect on January 1, 184-0, and also recommended removing coffee and tea from the free list, since they would produce considerable revenue, but his amendment was defeated. Congressional Globe. XI, 942-4-3, 960. Chitwood, Tyler, p. 304. 306 the most attention was, of course, the Webster-üshhurton Treaty.

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 253 committee, Rives was in a particularly important position to influence the passage of the treaty nego­ tiated by Daniel Webster with Lord Ashburton, special British commissioner to the United States, The nego­ tiation, following on the heels of a series of incidents which brought the United States and Great Britain close to war, resulted in the treaty which settled the Maine- Canadian boundary dispute and provided for separate British and American naval squadrons off the African coast to help suppress the slave trade.Rives’s committee recommended passage of the treaty without amendment and Rives himself presented the major speech in favor of ratification, defending the compromise settlement on the boundary on the basis of earlier

253 Rives was elected to this post at the beginning of the special session of Congress. Congressional Globe. X, 11. 254 For the background of this negoation see Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, I969), pp. 204-19. 30? American admission that the matter was "open to doubt and controversy." Thus a compromise was desirable to avoid losing more territory.Although there was some opposition to the treaty, it was ratified by the vote of 39 to 9.^^^ Eives was rewarded for his efforts by a letter from Webster and the appointment of his son, Francis Robert, as secretary of legation for Edward Everett, a personal friend of Rives who had been appointed minister to England in 1841.^^^ And yet Rives did not consider himself a Whig. When a newspaper reported on the composition of the Senate in late summer, it listed twenty-nine Whigs, twenty Democrats, and Rives. As he wrote his wife, "I had been-classed as an entire party by myself. It really so curious in print & esteeming it, (however meant), a great compliment, as I have just fallen on the pnper containing the paragraph, I cut it out & 258 send it to you." ^^Eives delivered his speech in secret session on August 17 and 19, 1842. Congressional Globe. XII, 1; Appendix, 59-6?. ^^^Benton and James Buchanan opposed the treaty, chiefly for political reasons. For their speeches, see ibid.. Appendix, 1-2? (Benton),101-10 (Buchanan). For the vote see ibid.. XII, 2. ^^^WCR to JPR, August 10, 23, 25, 28, 1842, JPR to WCR, August 24, 1842, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Richmond Enquirer. September 2?, 1842, citing New York Express. WCR to JPR, August 10, 1842, WCR Papers, L.C. 308 - Rives's independent position was to continue through the next session of Congress. As soon as Con­ gress convened in Decemher, 1842, he asked to be relieved of membership on all standing committees.He then proceeded to defy both parties in his stand on the key issues of the session. As states felt the pressure of the economic depression resulting from the Panic of

1837, pressure was put on Congress to help. When a scheme developed for the national government to assume state debts, Rives vigorously attacked such an idea as unconstitutional and a threat to the union, since it would transfer debts from those who had acquired them to those who had not.^^^ Although the issue was post­ poned until.the next session, Rives had taken a position in cooperation with the Democrats in this instance. He voted with the Whigs, however, in opposition to the Oregon Bill, which would have established forts in the Oregon Territory and attempted to establish American control of the land by granting land to American settlers. While Rives appreciated the importance of the Oregon territory to the United States, he also pointed out that such an act would violate the Joint Convention

Draft of a letter to Willie P. Mangum, December 2, 1842, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Congressional Globe. XII, 304-05. 309 of 182? with England.In spite of such independent action, the Congressional Globe of December, 1843, listed Eives as a Democrat.Such a listing was erroneous, however; by the end of the session Rives had declared his support for Henry Clay for the presi­ dency, joined with the Whigs in support of a protective tariff and against the Texas annexation treaty, and had, in fact, at long last become a Whig in name as well as spirit.

Standing as he did between the two major parties. Hives took a special interest in the presidential election of 1844. Although he had split with the Democrats and supported Harrison in 1840, Clay's position on the bank issue in 1841 had made Hives realize how difficult it would be to support the Kentuckian for the highest office.As a result he turned his interest again to the Democratic prospects. Although

261 'Ibid.. XII, 230. ^^^Ibid., XIII, 28th Cong., 1st sess., 2. ^^^See above, pp. 292-99. Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," pp. 428-29. 310 it would be impossible for him to support Van Buren, his occasional agreement with Democratic positions in Congress indicated it would not be impossible for him to support another Democratic candidate. General Lewis Cass appeared to be the man. By the winter of 184-1-42 Cass had earned a favorable reputation for himself. Having served as governor of the Michigan Territory and Secretary of War under Jackson, he finally achieved national recog­ nition as a result of his successful diplomacy as minis­ ter to France. When it was suggested that he might be the Democratic candidate for the presidency, Cass requested his recall from France in the fall of 184-2.^^^ After Cass's return to the United States Eives reported to his wife that Cass "would well become the Presidential chair. Everybody seems to be delighted with him." And he soon wrote a letter to Cass expressing his gratifi­ cation that Cass realized the "vital necessity of redeeming at hazards the Democratic party from the reck­ less counsels and fatal lead which occasioned its over­ throw in the last Presidential contest. We must have new leaders to conduct the party to victory. ..."

264 Beckles Willson, America's Ambassadors to France (1777-1927) (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1929). p. 206. 311 And he reported that there seemed to be a "strong, tho' as yet dormant" sentiment in Virginia for Cass.^^^ Hives’s independent position made it impossible, however, for him to come out in open support for Cass. He had left the Democratic party and was of course regarded with great suspicion by members of the party. Thus in Kay he wrote an article praising Cass, but pub­ lished over the name "Americanus.During the summer he and Major William B. Lewis, who also favored Cass’s nomination, were able to get Richard Rush to write a series of articles praising Cass, which subsequently appeared in the Richmond Enquirer. In spite of these efforts ex-president Jackson refused to endorse Cass, and state conventions in New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut in the meanwhile declared for Van Bure n . Rives found the situation discouraging when he returned to Washington in December to take his

WCR to JPR, December 23, 1842; Draft of a letter to Lewis Cass, January 10, 1843, WCR Papers, L.C. 266 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 432-33. The article appeared in the Washington Globe on May 22, 1843. Major Lewis to WCR, July 23, 1843, WCR Papers, L.C., indicates Rives was the author. ^^^Kajor Lewis to WCR, July 18, 1843, Richard Rush to WCR, July 21, September 11, 1843, ibid. ^^^Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 434-36. 312 seat in the Senate, and he assumed that Van Buren would be the Democratic nominee. 269 At that point he made a momentous decision. Having determined that another four years of Van Buren's leadership would be disastrous for the country, Eives threw aside once and for all his neutral stance and declared his support of Clay for the presidency. In a letter written to a Conservative friend, but appar­ ently formulated with its publication in mind, Rives explained his position. Since it was becoming apparent that Van Buren would be nominated, it was impossible for him to remain neutral simply because of differences of opinion with Clay, Far superior to the abuses of executive authority by Van Buren would be support of Clay, whose policies were less objectionable to Rives. And he justified his support of Clay by explaining the differences of opinion the men had had on several issues. A national bank, properly restrained, was better than the Sub-Treasury, Clay was safer on the tariff issue, having voted against the "Tariff of Abominations" while Van Buren had been for it. And distribution as an issue could be ignored since it would not be important until the government finances were in better shape. In essence he pictured Clay as

^^&CE to JPR, December 4, 1843, WCR Papers, L.C. 313 a better republican than Van Buren and called for the election of a statesman, not a party politician. Whigs were of course pleased with Hives’s letter, following its publication in the Richmond En­ quirer. As Crittenden wrote, "He is in earnest, and means to act up to it. After a long withdrawal, he again attends our Whig meetings and consultations, and evidently wishes to be considered one of us.Rives had obviously been influenced by negative considerations, dislike of Van Buren and his policies, as much as by dedication to Clay's principles, but the effect was the same. He had again, as in 1840, taken a significant step into the Whig ranks. The question still remained as to whether he would stay there.

When Clay arrived in Washington Rives enjoyed his company on several occasions and reported to his

270 WCH to Edmund Fontaine, January 1, 18^-4, printed in Richmond Ifhig, January 11, 1844, and reprinted in Niles* Weekly Register, LXV, 329-30, January 20, 1844. ■ John J. Crittenden to R. P. Letcher, January 28, 1844, The Life of John J. Crittenden. With Selections from His Corresnondence and Speeches, edited by Mrs. Chapman Coleman (2 vols.; Philadelphia; J. B. Lippin­ cott & Co., 1873), I, 213-14. On the other hand, Ritchie called Rives the "most shameless apostate" ever produced by Virginia" (continued on next page) 31^ wife that Clay "has been very civil & polite to me; but every now & then, his want of easy, gentlemanly breeding shocks a refined person. But we must not be too fastid­ ious in this Republican country of ours.Apparently Eives’s "principles" could be compromised even to the point of tolerating occasional bad manners as well as less than ideal political ideas. Both the Whig and Democratic nominationg con­ ventions were planned to convene in Baltimore in May, 184-4, and it was anticipated that Clay would be chosen by the Whigs and Van Buren by the Democrats.^"^^ It is entirely possible that Hives’s fears of a Van Buren nomination might have been realized had it not been for the appearance of a crucial question on the poli­ tical horizon: the annexation of Texas.

The Texas question had first appeared in 1836 when that territory had become independent from Mexico.

(continued from previous page) and criticized his "shameful abandonment of principle". Richmond Enquirer, January 13, 1844. Anti-Rives editorials appeared in later editions on January 18, 23, 25, 1844. ^^^WCR to JPR, May 6, 1844, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^^Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, pp. I83-85. 315 Although Texas had offered herself for annexation to the United States shortly thereafter, no action had been taken and the question had receded into the back­ ground. When Tyler became president in l84l, he had wished to annex Texas but had not been able to gain support from his cabinet for such a project. In 184-3, however, when Abel P. Upshur became Secretary of State, secret negotiations were begun to acquire Texas, The negotiations were nearly completed when, on February 28, 184-4-, Upshur was accidentally killed by the exploding of a new cannon on board the Princeton. Tyler immediately called upon John C. Calhoun to become Secretary of State, the negotiations were completed quickly, and on April 22, 184-4-, the Senate was presented with a treaty. Its terms provided that Texas would come into the union as a territory, ceding its public lands to the United States in return for which the national government would assume the Texan public debt up to ten million dollars.^^^ Anticipating the controversial effect this question would have on the campaign both front runners.

For background on the Texas issue see Jesse S. Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 190?)'; 'George L. Rives, The United States and Mexico 1821-184-8 ( 2 vols. ; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913); Justin R. Smith, The Annexation of Texas (New York: Bames and Noble Inc., 19^1). 316 Clay and Van Buren, published letters on April 2?, 1844. Both opposed annexation, claiming that it would involve the United States in a war with Mexico. Both hoped that such an expression of opinion would eliminate the Texas question as a campaign issue,When the Whig conven­ tion met on May 1, and duly nominated Henry Clay, the strategy appeared to be successful.The Democratic convention was, however, another matter. In spite of the fact that he was the leading contender for the Democratic nomination. Van Buren had not managed to win the full confidence of the South and when the Democrats met in Baltimore in May, a movement had developed to deprive Van Buren of the nomination. Expansionists, favoring annexation of Texas and alienated by Van Buren’s attempt to eliminate the issue from the campaign, succeeded in getting convention support for the two-thirds rule for nomination, meaning that Van Buren would not be able to gain the nomination. As a result a dark horse candidate, James K. Polk of Tennessee, was brought forward and on the ninth ballot was awarded the Democratic nomination.Polk was an expansionist and when the party platform was formulated the Democrats

275 Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, pp. 182-83. 276 Ibid.. pp. 183-84. 277 Ibid.. pp. 183-85. 317 came out in favor of ’’reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas at the earliest practicable 278 period.” The question of the annexation of Texas, rather than being eliminated from the campaign as Clay and Van Buren had hoped, thus became the key issue.

Rives had little difficulty accommodating him­ self to the candidates or the campaign issues. He had already declared himself for Clay and reconciled his previous beliefs with those of the Kentuckian. Although he experienced a brief fear when Cass’s name was men­ tioned at thelast minute as an alternative to Van Buren, a situation which would have been extremely awkward for him since he had earlier promoted Cass’s candidacy, he was relieved by the choice of Polk. An indication of his feeling toward the Democrat was his prediction to his wife that the ”Polk-a” would be the order of

^^^Ibid.. p. 1 85. to JPR, May 19, 1844, JPR to WCR, May 23, June 1, 1844, WCR Papers, L.C. ^®°WCR to JPR, May 29, 1844, ibid. 318

As for the question of Texas, Rives had an opportunity to express his ideas on this subject fully as the annexation treaty was being debated in the Senate, Although Rives favored annexation as in the national interest and in the interest of Virginia specifically by bringing about the gradual removal of negroes to the South, eventually to Mexico to be replaced by whites from the north, with the ultimate extinction of the institution of slavery in the United States, he felt that the negotiation of the treaty had been bungled and that it would not pass the Senate.When he spoke on the treaty he expressed these ideasi Texas was important to the United States and had originally been part of the Louisiana Purchase, he felt. Acquisition was important to all sections of the country as a source of raw materials, such as cotton, and as a market for manufactured goods and food stuffs. Also in favor of annexation was the threat that Texas might come under the control of Great Britain which would threaten the abolition of slavery within the republic, clearly a danger to the slave-owning south. On the other hand, however, although acquisition of Texas might be extremely desirable, he had serious reservations about ratification

^®\cR to JPR, April 3, 27, 1844, ibid. 319 of the treaty. Since Mexico had not been consulted and the boundary dispute between Mexico and Texas had not been settled, immediate annexation would only lead to divisions within the Union. Instead he recommended extending the time limit for ratification so that the people of the United States could give "full and deliber­ ate" consideration to the question.Sives's arguments made sense, although they must have been determined to a large extent by his political commitments. By taking such a stand on the treaty he was able to satisfy the pro-annexationist sentiment in his own state while also avoiding an uncompromising stand on the issue. If any doubt existed at this point about Hives’s commitment to the Whig cause, such fears were surely erased in late May. Early in the congressional session a tariff bill had been introduced by Senator George McDuffie of South Carolina which would have reduced all duties on imports to the twenty percent level required ^^^For Hives’s speech, presented on June 6, 1844, see the Bichmond Enquirer. June 28, 1844. The Congressional Globe did not print it, since the editors had not received it when they went to press. Congressional Globe, XIII, Appendix, 784. Hives indicated that he was well pleased with his speech, as he indicated in a letter to his wife. He felt he had never spoken so well and had received favorable comments from "all quarters." WCR to JPH, June 6, 1844, WCH Papers, L.C. The speech was also important in that it was used by the Virginia Whigs to explain their position on this important and difficult question. James F. Strother to WCR, May 28, 1844, James Lyons to WCH, June l4, 1844, ibid. 320 by the Compromise Tariff of 1833*^^^ Although a revenue bill should originate in the House, debate on the tariff issue continued periodically in the Senate over the months and in late May Rives spoke out on the issue. Contrary to his previous stand, Rives now defended the protective system: tariff duties were the best way to raise revenue since they were voluntary, as opposed to direct taxes; and they were constitutional, as he cited Madison's letter of 1828 to prove this. Yet there would be moderation in this area as in all others: Moderate, judicious, discrimina­ tory protection, in connection with revenue, and as contradistinguished from prohibition, is the safe and practical line of policy to which the public opinion of this country is now rallying with an extraordinary and auspicious unanimity.28^

Although Hives's enemies accused him of inconsistency, he had never denied the constitutionality of the tariff, nor had he rejected completely the protective system, admitting that there might be special cases when it would be necessary and proper.But principle did

Congressional Globe. XIII, 159. 284 Ibid.. XIII, Appendix, 730. For the complete speech, see ibid., 727-33. Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 453-59, also discusses the speech in some detail. ^^^See above, pp. 208-10. 321 not explain Hives’s switch on this crucial issue. The desire for a protective tariff was growing stronger in Virginia and Hives at this stage was concerned about his coming re-election the following winter.It was also felt that a clear exposition of his views would help unite the Whig party in Virginia. Finally, it should also be mentioned that Hives used this opportunity to plead for moderation in sectional differences of opinion, a matter which deeply concerned him. A mod­ erately protective tariff would benefit to some extent all sections of the country. When the congressional session ended. Hives returned to Virginia to campaign actively for Clay. Similar to the campaign of 1840 without the ballyhoo of "Log Cabin and Hard Cider,the Whig cause was enthusiastically carried to the people of Virginia by "Wandering Willie.” Speaking on the issues of the

^^^ümbler, Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 121- 2 2,232. 287 As he wrote to his wife, the tariff speech was important for more than one reason. WCH to JPH, June 1 7 , 1844, WCH Papers, L.C. ^^^Hives’s constant concern for moderation was directly tied to his reverence for the union, which remained a major consideration throughout his political career. See above, pp. 200-02.

^^^Van Deusen, Jacksonian Era, pp. 187-88, discusses the issues briefly. 322 campaign, he argued that the hank was preferable to the Sub-Treasury, attacked Democratic leadership and executive authority, and defended the tariff. While he talked of principle, he also used the common tactic of ridicule of the opposition by holding up a large picture of Clay and a small picture of Polk, and making physical comparisons.^^® The most remarkable event of the campaign in Virginia, from Hives’s point of view, took place at a Whig convention in Winchester, when he declared that he was a Whig "now and forever." and the convention approved a resolution stating that Hives, next to Clay, had "proved more strongly than any living statesman that he prefers the interests of his country over party or the strain of intensive campaigning, left the campaign trail, fully expecting that Clay and the Whigs would be victorious.

Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," pp. 159-63. 291 For Hives’s statements at Winchester, see Niles’ Weekly Register, LXVII, 25-26, September 14-, 1Ô44', which quotes the report of a correspondent for the Baltimore Patriot. See ibid.. LXVII, 25, September 14, 104-4, for the resolution praising Hives. 292 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Hives," p. 4-63. 323 _ _ When the Democrats were victorious, not only in Virginia, but in the national election, Hives was

amazed. As he put it, "a very obscure & inconsiderable individual has set aside the most renowned statesman

of the country for its highest office of trust & h o n o r . A n d when he returned to Washington for the lame duck session of Congress, the effect of the election was immediately apparent. Campaigning on an expansionist ticket, the Democrats felt that their election was a mandate from the people for acquisition of Texas.Since sentiment for annexation had been growing since the defeat of the treaty months earlier, it was not surprising that this was the key issue when Congress convened. Tyler, unwilling to wait until the Democrats took over the White House, discussed the annexation issue in his State of the Union message, urging annexation by "a joint resolution or act to be perfected and made binding on the two countries” by action of the Congress and the government of Texas.

293,WCH to Nathaniel Niles, November 15, 1844, Niles Papers, L.C. 294, Smith, Annexation of Texas. pp. 330-32. ^^^Israel (ed.), State of the Union Messages. I, 623. 324 After lengthy debate a joint resolution, calling for the admission of Tesras as a state, passed the House of Representatives'^^ and was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dominated by Whigs, Its report, recommending rejection of the House resolution, set off heated debate in the Senate. The chief objection, as might have been expected, was the constitutionality of the method being used to acquire the territory. The Whigs maintained that the only legal way to annex Texas was through the use of the treaty power conferred upon the president and the Senate by the Constitution,^^® Hives’s position in this issue was awkward. On the one hand he had to consider public opinion in Virginia, since his term in the Senate expired during the lame duck session, and it was known that most of the state favored annexation,On the other hand, the Whigs had voiced their disapproval of the method of annexation and Rives was now, without doubt, a Whig, Rives also considered the issue the “greatest public question that has arisen in my time, & I humbly pray

^^^Smith, Annexation of Texas. pp, 332-33. ^^^Ibid,. pp. 335-46, discusses the Senate struggle over the issue, ^^^Ibid,. p, 340, 299 Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp, 466-68, 325 __ to be enlightened & directed to do what is right. Rives's concern was warranted; while he had consistently voiced concern about the rights of states in the union, above all he loved and revered the union. His position on the joint resolution reflected this concern. When he rose to speak on the issue on February 15f Hives's key argument against the joint resolution was that it was unconstitutional. Since Texas could only be admitted through the use of the treaty power, acquisition of the territory through "a plain and palpable infraction of the Constitution, such as is now proposed," would prove "a curse and not a boon," since it would "lead to animosities, contentions, and mutual conflicts, which would so embitter the Union as to render a violent disruption of it almost inevitable." It would not lead to permanent rupture, but "the danger was that the re-union would be effected by the sword; and then would follow the sternness of military despotism, extinguishing here, in their last retreat, the hopes of liberty and law on the earth." And taking into account the sensibilities of the South, he pointed out that that section, above all, as a minority section, must preverve the "sacredness of the constitution." Then he stated that although he favored annexation of

^^^WCR to JPR, January 25, 1845, WCR Papers, L.C. 326 Texas, to do so by unconstitutional means was wrong: ’•Perish all thought of illegitimate acquisition: live forever our free and glorious constitution— the sole pledge of our peace, of our safety, of our honour, of our blessed and happy U n i o n . B u t Hives's plea did not prevent the passage of the joint resolution. When an amendment permitting the president to acquire Texas through joint resolution or negotiation was attached to the original proposal, the measure received the approval of the Senate by the close vote of 27 to 25.3°^ As it turned out, this was the last speech to be delivered by Hives in the Senate. The Virginia legislature; evenly divided between Democrats and Whigs, was unable to agree on the re-election of Hives, or the election of anyone, and postponed the decision indefinitely,as Hives was presenting his speech on the Texas question. Then in March Rives was called to

^ ^Congressional Globe. XIV, 28th Cong., 2d sess., 378-83, reprints the entire speech.

reading. There is no record of the final vote. Congressional Globe. XIV, 362-63, ^^^Hichmond Enquirer, February 15, 1845; Dingledine, "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives," pp. 472-73 . 327 became necessary for him to handle his father's affairs and this in itself would probably have prevented his return to the Senate in the near future, even if the Whigs had managed to win sufficient strength in the spring elections to bring about his election. However, when the Whigs were defeated in that campaign, there was no doubt that the next senator from Virginia would mocrat.^^^ For the first time in almost thirty years. Rives became a private citizen without any immediate antici­ pation of re-entering public life. In fact, he seems to have welcomed the opportunity to leave the public forum. As he reported to his son shortly after the death of Robert Rives, Nothing whatever would induce me to allow my name to be presented as a can­ didate for the Legislature, in the cir­ cumstances in which I am now placed; and if I am ever in public life again, it must be in obedience to some great & urgent call of public duty, which it were a manifest contumacy to resist.— I have other duties & sources of happi­ ness to which I now look; & as long as

^^^Richmond Enquirer. March 14, 1845, printed Robert Hives's obituary. ^^^Dlngledlne,"The Political Career of William Cabell Rives,” p. 473. 328 my deaor children continue to reward the anziety of their parents by well-doing, I shall never regret being relieved from the cares and honors of a public position.306

For the next four years William Cabell Hives took an interest in public affairs, but did not seek public office. In fact, when approached by Webster^®”^ and later by a group of citizens of Virginia about the possibility of his being a candidate for the House of Representatives, Hives respectfully declined such an honor. After nearly thirty years of public service I have had my share of the honors and struggles of public life; and I shall ever cherish a feeling of deep and affectionate gratitude to the voters of this my native District for the generous and stedfast support I have received at their hands. Mine, now, be the humbler but not less pleasing office, as one of the people, to give my zealous support to those whose superior merits and the public confi­ dence shall bring forward, in their turn, to perform their tour of honor­ able service, and to receive its appropriate rewards.308

WCH to son (not identified), March 11, 184-3, WCH Papers, L.C. ^^^WCR to Daniel Webster, December 12, 1846, ibid. ^*^^WCH to Robert Allen et al., January 4, 184?, 329 Elves, nonetheless, never hesitated to express his opinions on public matters and was unrelenting in his criticism of the Polk administration. He was especially disturbed about the Mexican war which he blamed on Polk and his extension of executive authority "without the action of Congress." and urged the speedy conclusion of the "war of wanton & cruel aggression. Most of the Virginian’s time, however, was devoted to matters of private business. He was executor of his father’s estate, served as a visitor of the University of Virginia, took an active interest in agriculture in Virginia, and became a member of the Virginia Historical Society, serving as its president for many years. His life was busy and satisfying.

Yet in 1848 the country witnessed another presidential election and the retired statesman, with

the war is found in ibid.. 1846-1848, and in the J. J. Crittenden Papers, Library of Congress, since Rives and Crittenden carried on an extensive correspondence in relation to the war, among other things. ^^°See WCR Papers, L.C. 1845-1848, for ample evidence of Hives’s diverse activities. 330 his concern for the public welfare, could not refrain from participation in the campaigning. Although the Democrats nominated Lewis Cass, whom Sives had earlier favored for the presidency, he proved that he was indeed a Whig "now and forever" by actively promoting the Whig candidate, Zachary Taylor, who had served the country so admirably in the Mexican W a r . W h e n the General carried the election for the Whigs, Hives must have wondered what the future would hold for him. Although rejecting lesser positions since his retirement, it was entirely possible, that under a Whig administration, he would receive "some great & urgent call of public duty,"

311^ See ibid,. 1848, THE WHIG GOES TO PARIS

The election of Zachary Taylor signalled the return of the Whigs to the White House after an absence of four years, and the first, extremely difficult task to face the General was the selection of a cabinet.^ He was not lacking possible candidates, among them many prominent politicians, as the Whigs were eager once again to enjoy the spoils of office. On November 11, 1848, John Pendleton, on behalf of a group of Virginia Whigs, addressed a letter to J. J. Crittenden, Taylor’s close friend, recommending William Cabell Rives for a position in the next

For an account of the problems faced by Taylor, see Holman Hamilton, Zachary Taylor Soldier in the White House (Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1951)» pp. 136-4 2. Rives is listed by Hamilton as a possible choice for the cabinet. ^John Pendleton to J. J. Crittenden, November 11, 1648, John J. Crittenden Papers, L.C. On the other hand, Crittenden also received a letter from H. P. Brooke in which he states that he had "no confidence In him [RivesJ as a politician. His participation in the Expunging process proved him in my view, to be unworthy of Whig (continued on next page) 331 332 premature, it indicated the esteem with which Rives was regarded in his native state. When the position of Secretary of State, the most logical place for Rives, was awarded to John M. Clayton, Rives’s friends mentioned his name for the Treasury Department, also an appropriate spot for the Virginian,^ Dives, however, put a stop to such a possibility by informing Pendleton immediately that he was most grateful for the kind and generous interest which my friends have shewn to see me again in the public service. I shall always cherish the remembrance of it with deep sensibility. But I feel an invincible repugnance to the idea of appearing to be a candidate for honors which can have but little value, unless they are freely and spontaneously ten­ dered. I respectfully request of my friends, therefore, not to present my name for the Treasury Department or any other place in the Cabinet. There are many of our fellow-citizens who can fill these places with quite as much advantage to the country as I can and who desire them much more. I would gladly save Gen. Taylor any embarrass­ ment by lessening the number of names

(continued from previous page) confidence— if there were no other imputation upon his political integrity. . . . He has not the confidence of the Whig party in Va. whatever the press and a few would be Whig leaders may say. Personally he is very respectable, but he lacks principle as a politician— and is a most unsuit­ able man for Gen, Taylor’s Cabinet.” Rives undoubtedly would have found the last statement interesting, if not amusing. H. P. Brooke to Crittenden, December 22, 184-8, IMd. \ c R to John Pendleton, February 21, 184-9, WCR Papers, L.C. 333 that will be brought in eager competition before him, and shall cordially acquiesce in any appointments that may be made by him. 4

In fact no evidence exists to indicate that Rives was seriously considered for a cabinet position, in spite of his friends* desires. Such was not surprising. He had, after all, been out of public office for over three years. In addition, he had stated publicly on several occasions that he did not desire a position in any cabinet. And finally, while he and other Whigs had campaigned actively for Taylor in Virginia, the General had not been victorious in the state and presumably the spoils of cabinet appointments should go to the more deserving states and individuals.^ Rives, however, was not forgotten by the new administration. Although Clayton was given almost com­ plete freedom of action in his appointments within the State Department, Taylor wished to appoint Rives to a foreign mission as a reward for his political support.^ Indirectly Rives was requested to come to Washington to

^Taylor received ^5,12^ votes to Cass’s 46,^86 and Van Buren’s 9! Hamilton, Zachary Taylor, p. 132 ^"Substance of conversation with Hon. Jno. M. Clayton, Sunday evening March 11, 1849," WCR Papers, L.C. This memorandum is not in Hives’s handwriting and the authorship is unknown. It does indicate that Clay­ ton informed the author that the President wanted to appoint Rives to a foreign mission. 334 discuss the matter of a diplomatic post, and was apparently offered his choice of missions.^ After consultation with his son Francis, he expressed his 8 desire to represent the administration in France.

By July 3 1, 184-9, when Rives was officially informed of his appointment, he had completed arrange­ ments to leave the United States by way of New York on August 22. On his way to New York he stopped in Wash­ ington to discuss his mission with Clayton. As Rives discovered upon his arrival in the capital, the most pressing European problem facing the United States related to England, not France. Since the newly appointed American minister to England, Abbott Lawrence, would not be able to leave the United States until early

Ibid. The anonymous author was requested by Clayton to ask Rives to "come to Washington in three or four weeks in order that he might converse with Mr. Rives & ascertain what Mr. Rives’ wishes & views were." ®P. R. Rives to WCR, April l4, 184-9, WCR Papers, L.C. Francis Rives had served as Secretary of Legation in London (see above, p. 307 ). Rives apparently asked him to compare the relative advantages of the two key missions, France and England. Francis thought England would be better for his mother’s health, but France would probably be somewhat cheaper, and he con­ cluded that "both courts certainly have their peculiar advantages, and if the President does not select for you, your wisdom I am sure will lead you to the better choice." There seems to be no available evidence indicating why Rives selected France. Presumably he was influenced in his decision by the fact that he had served in that capacity earlier and wished to return to a familiar scene. 335 auttunn, Hives was requested to stop in London on his way to Paris to discuss a matter of vital concern to the United States.^

The area of conflict between the United States and Great Britain in 184-9 was Central America, specifi­ cally the Mosquito Coast. For some years the British government had taken a special interest in the tribe of Indians inhabiting this territory, composing the eastern coasts of the republics of Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and New Granada, British concern with the area had a strategic root: control of the Mosquito Coast included control of the mouth of the San Juan River, the eastern terminus of one of the possible routes for an inter-oceanic canal. By 184-9 the British protectorate over the Mosquito Indians included not only the northern bank, but also the southern bank of the San Juan

9 John M, Clayton to WCH, July 31, 184-9, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, I5. WCR to Clayton, August 4-, 184-9, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXil. John M, Clayton to Zachary Taylor, August 15, I6 , 184-9, Zachary Taylor Papers, Library of Congress, 336 River.Although the British involvement in Central America was not intended to menace the United States, a conflict of interest seemed almost inevitable. Prior to the Mexican War the United States had not taken a serious interest in British activities along the Mosq,uito Coast, although such involvement would seem to run counter to the intent of the Monroe Doctrine. The acquisition of California in 18^8, how­ ever, greatly increased interest in interoceanic communication and an American company was organized to build a canal across Nicaragua. When, in March, 1849, the company signed an agreement with the Nicaraguan government for construction of the canal, the British government informed that Central American government that the mouth of the San Juan River belonged to the Mosquito government. No agreement with the American company could be completed without the permission of the Mosquito king and the British government as

10 For the background of this question, see M. W. Williams, Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy 1815- 1915 (Washington: American Historical Association, 191d), pp. 22-52. See also Robert A. Naylor, "The British Role in Central America Prior to the Clayton- Bulwer Treaty of I85O," Hispanic American Historical Review. XL (I96O), 316-82. Dexter Perkins, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1963)» pp. 94-95. 337

York, on July 30, 1849, instructed the canal company not to begin construction, since the route would go through Mosquito territory. The American government naturally viewed these developments with alarm, since the United States wished to secure "for all commercial nations, on the same terms, the right of passage by the Nicaragua route from ocean to ocean, if that route should prove to be practicable." In addition, the United States considered Nicaragua's right to the territory "irrefragable."^^ Wishing to act on the matter as quickly as possible. Secretary of State John M. Clayton thus instructed Hives to "pass through London" on his way to France and discuss the issue with Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston. Hives's instructions on this side trip were brief. If he found Palmerston "resolved to maintain

Samuel Falgg Bemis, The Latin-American Policy of the United States An Historical Interpretation (New York; W. W. Norton & Co., 19^3)» P. 103. Perkins, Monroe Doctrine, p. 95.

^^Clayton to WCR, August 16, 1849, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, I5. 15Ibid.. 338 the Mosquito title," he was not to protest hut rather was to let Lawrence, who would arrive in London in

The Rives family left New York on August 22nd, according to schedule. Although the trip across the Atlantic took less time (twelve days) than the comparable voyage which they had taken some twenty years earlier, it was no more pleasant. Rives reported to Clayton that "my family were such bad sailors & suffered so much by sea-sickness that we reamined two days at Liverpool" after their arrival there on September 3* They proceeded on to London, reaching that city on September 8. Calling immediately at the American Legation, Rives familiarized himself further with the state of affairs between the American and British governments in relation to the Mosquito question. After "reading carefully" the recent records of the Legation Rives discovered that the previous

^^Ibid. 17 WCR to Clayton, September 6, 14, 1849, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII. 339 Jimerican minister to Britain, George Bancroft, who had departed the country in August, had not attempted to explain the American position in relation to Nicaragua to the British Government. Although Bancroft had been instructed in May to discuss the issue and present the American case, Rives found that he had "confined him­ self mainly to eliciting & ascertaining, as far as he could, the views of the British Government, without presenting in any detail or enforcing with any emphasis those of the Government of the United States," Rives therefore determined to seek an interview with the Foreign Secretary, "with as little delay as possible". When he inquired at the Foreign Office, however, he discovered that Palmerston was absent from London but was expected back any day. By the time the Foreign Secretary finally returned to the city and granted Rives an interview on September 24, the American minister had become completely familiar with the Legation files as they related to the Mosquito question. Through his studies Rives became convinced that the British government was determined to claim not only the northern bank of the San Juan River, but also "its mouth & all its outlets, & virtually to assert the

^^WCR to Clayton, September l4, 184-9, ibid. 340 exclusive command of its navigation,” He therefore concluded that the letter transmitted from the British consul at Few York to the ümeaican canal company "was fully sanctioned hy the highest official authority here, & that it was most probably prepared, word for word, in the Foreign Office." He also felt that the letter was intended for the American government as much as for private individuals and was aimed at "avoiding any diplomatic discussion with the Government of the United States upon the subject, . , He therefore believed that the United States must carefully examine the "extraordinary claim" of the British, "in the name of the Mosquito Indians, to the exclusive ownership of the Hiver San Juan, . . On September 24, Rives called upon the Foreign Secretary at his house in Carlton Gardens. He received a "very cordial reception" and was informed that Palmer­ ston had returned to the city expressly to meet with him. After the two men had exchanged "some conversation of a general nature," Hives proceeded to explain the American position on the British claim to the Mosquito coast. He noted that while the United States wished to avoid a collision with the British it had nonethe­ less come to the conclusion that Ficaragua, not Britain,

WCR to Clayton, September 21, 1849, ibid. 3^1 had the best claim, "legal and historical," to the San Juan River as well as Lake Nicaragua, Therefore the United States would support its citizens in the rights claimed in the recent agreement with the Nica­ raguan government for construction of a canal. And he pointed out that the United States as one of the principal commercial powers of the world & the one nearest to the scene of the proposed communi­ cation & holding besides a large domain on the western coast of America, had a special & deep national interest in the free & unobstructed use, in common with other powers, of any channel of intercourse which might be opened^- from the one sea to the other, . , , Rives went on to explain that the United States did not wish a monopoly in the area, but rather wished to see the proposed communications system "dedicated to the common use of all nations on the most liberal terms & a footing of perfect equality for all. ..." But he pointed out that while the United States entertained these sentiments, it could view the control of the mouth of the San Juan River in no other light than as British control, which naturally aroused the suspicion of the United States. He proposed, instead, that Great Britain & the United States should come to a frank & manly under­ standing with each other, & unite their influence for the accomplishment of

^%CR to Clayton, September 25, 1849, ibid. 342 an object of the highest Importance to both of them as well as to the rest of the world, instead of hazard­ ing the final loss of so great an

When Hives had finished his explanation of the American position, Palmerston replied that he was glad to have the opportunity to discuss this important question. He then proceeded to explain the British relationship with the Mosquito Indians, noting that the British government had long since established the policy of treating the Indians as an independent state ruled by a king. Although the king, he admitted, was "as much a king as I or you, " the British government had nonetheless from time to time given protection to the Indians without any interference from Nicaragua. Only recently had that nation attempted to establish control over the mouth of the San Juan, an action which the British had opposed forcibly. VJhen that event had taken place, Nicaragua had attempted to "draw the United States into their quarrel by assuming to grant to citizens of the latter the privilege of opening the communications in question by the Hiver San Juan." Under the circumstances, Palmerston continued, the British government had no alternative but to give notice to the Americans involved that the Nicaraguan government 3^3 had no authority to grant such a contract. He further noted, however, to Hives's gratification, that the British had no desire to establish a new colony in America, a possibility which seemed to be feared by the United States. For this fear "there was not the slightest foundation," since the British government already had more colonies than they could manage— that as to any idea of their holding exclusive possession of the mouth of the San Juan as the key of the contemplated communication between the Atlantic & Pacific, nothing could be farther from their minds— that it was highly desirable, in the interest of humanity & of the general commerce of the world to promote the civilization & improvement of these countries in central America to which nature had been very lavish. . , And finally Palmerston indicated that the British government would favorably consider any suggestion for a British-American cooperation in the "opening of the great channel of communication by Lake Nicaragua & declaring it a common highway for the use & benefit of all nations. As he reported this conversation to Clayton, Hives seemed convinced that Palmerston was sincere in his desire to cooperate with the United States in deve­ loping some avenue of communication between the Atlantic

22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 3 # and Pacific. He noted, however, that he was not authorized to suggest any plan for an accord,and, his mission in London completed, Rives and his family soon departed for France so that he could assume the station to which he had been appointed.

When Rives arrived in Paris on September 2?» 184-9, some seventeen years had elapsed since he had taken leave of that city upon completing his first diplomatic appointment. In that interval significant changes had taken place. The government of Louis Philippe, King of the French, had disappointed most classes of French society and in 184-8 France had exper­

ienced another revolution. As a result of this revo­ lution, unlike the earlier upheaval observed by Rives, France had emerged as a republic. After some flounder­ ing about through most of 184-8, Louis Napoleon, nephew of the former emperor, had been elected President. Hives’s first impression of the condition of government in France was reassuring. Shortly after his arrival, on October 1, the National Assembly reconvened, "with

^^Ibid. ^^See Wolf, France 1814-1919. pp. 153-217. 3 % . perfect quiet & order, both within & without.” Elves felt that was "a favorable symptom, as such occasions are often embraced for purposes of agitation & political mischief. The political stability of France contrasted with the uncertain state of American representation to that government. Elves found Eichard Eush, who had been unhappy at the new Whig Administration’s request for his resignation,^"^ still at his post and in no "particular haste" to turn over the Legation to the new minister. Since Eush had been instructed to leave from Liverpool on the 20th of October, he apparently intended to arrange his audience of leave and Elves’s formal presentation at his own leisure. Elves realized that there was nothing he could do, since he assumed it was up to Eush to take the first step in the transfer

26 ¥CE to Clayton, October 3, 1849, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII. 27 For Bush’s reaction to his dismissal, see J. H. Powell, Eichard Bush Eepublican Diplomat 1780-18^9 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1942), pp. 269-71. Powell mentions that Eush was unhappy for two reasons: 1) he hoped to have approval by the new administration for his handling of his mission; and 2) he felt he would "lose face" if the new government did not give him a vote of confidence in face of his recognition of the new French government, a move which had been "displeasing to the whole diplomatic corps of Europe. ..." 346 _ of authority. In the meantime he informed. Clayton that he would, "endeavour to inform myself as well as I can, of what will then demand my attention."^® Rives did not have to wait long for Rush to make his move. On October 4, Rush requested the Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexis de Tocqueville to designate a time for the transfer of authority,Before de Tocqueville had an opportunity to reply,however, Rives became involved in one of the most unnecessary but nonetheless critical diplomatic crises to develop between the United States and Prance in the mid- nineteenth century; the so-called Poussin incident.

Guillaume Tell Poussin, who had served in the United States Corps of Engineers, was appointed French minister to the United States in 1848, Although he should have been familiar with the American political system, before long he had offended the American govern­ ment to such an extent that, in the eyes of at

WCR to Clayton, October 3, 1849, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII, ^^¥CR to Clayton, October 10, 1849, ibid. 347 least one American, war seemed to be the ultimate solution. The first phase of the incident developed as a result of a claim by a Frenchman named Port that he had not been given a fair financial settlement by an American Military Court of Inquiry. Poussin presented Port's claim to the outgoing Polk adminis­ tration, but had to wait some time before receiving a reply, as the Taylor administration took office and tended to more immediate matters of appointments and setting the new administration in order. When John M. Clayton finally had time to reply to Poussin's appeal, he backed up the earlier negative decision of the Polk administration. This did not satisfy Poussin, however, and after an exchange of several notes, Poussin used, in Clayton's opinion, insulting language in addressing the government of the United States. Clayton requested a meeting with Poussin, pointed out to him the offensive language and allowed him an opportunity to rewrite the

30 J. J. Crittenden to John M. Clayton, September 29, 1849, John M. Clayton Papers, Library of Congress. 348 communication. Poussin complied and the momentary minor crisis seemed to he at an end. Shortly thereafter another seeming minor matter developed. This Involved an American commander who had rescued a French ship, the Eugénie, from a reef in the Gulf of Mexico. Believing this was a case of salvage, Commander Carpender detained the Eugénie. rather than referring the matter directly to an admiralty court, while attempting to gain a reward for his action. In a few days, having been told by the American consul at Vera Cruz that this did not seem to be a case of sal­ vage, the commander allowed the French ship to sail. Again Poussin addressed the American government, asking that Commander Carpender be censured for his action. Clayton replied by explaining Carpender's belief that he had salvage rights, but Clayton apparently did not give the matter serious consideration, especially

Mary Wilhelmlne Williams, "John Middleton Clayton," in The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy, ed. by Samuel Flagg Bemis "( vols. ; New York: Pageant Book Company, 1928- ), VI, 19-3 1* provides a good summary of this incident, and the following account is based on this source unless otherwise indicated. An interesting indication of its relative insignificance is the fact that Henry Blumenthal, A Reappraisal of Franco-American Relations 1830-1871 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959)» devotes only two and a half pages to the incident, pp. 77-80. 3^9 Carpender*s temporary detention of the Eugénie. And on May 30 Poussin wrote Clayton that the explanations given by Commander Carpender are not of a nature, Mr. Secretary of State, such as to dispel the discontent which his proceedings have caused to my Government. . . . I called on the Cabinet of Washington, Mr. Secretary of State, in the name of the French govern­ ment to address a severe reproof to that officer of the American navy, in order that the error which he had committed on a point involving the dignity of your national marine, might not be repeated hereafter. From your answer, Mr. Secretary of State, I am unfortunately induced to believe, that your Government subscribes to the strange doctrines professed by Commander Carpender of the war steamer Iris, and I have only to protest, in the name of my Government, against these doctrines.32 This "contemptuous sneer"^^ caused Clayton to defer to the President’s judgment as to how to handle this new insult from the French Minister. Taylor decided to refer the matter to the French government, rather than simply dismissing Poussin or asking for his recall.This was an unfortunate decision, since

Poussin to Clayton, May 30, 18^9, enclosed in Clayton to WCR, September 1^, 1849, National Archives, Records of the Dempartment of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, 15, ^^This term was used by Clayton in describing Poussin’s correspondence in ibid.

^^Ibid. 3 ^ it then involved the honor of the French government itself, rather than merely of one of its representatives. Bichard Hush was instructed to transmit to the French government all the correspondence involved in the incident, without suggesting a course of action to be followed. Hush, in a brief interview with Alexis de Tooqueville, Minister of Foreign Affairs, presented the correspondence and then waited for some weeks for a reply. During this time the French government indir­ ectly informed Clayton that Poussin would be replaced, and Poussin himself was censured for the sharp tone he had used in his correspondence. On August 9, when Bush received Tocqueville‘s reply, he was informed that, although it was a regrettable incident, Clayton as well as Poussin had been excessive in his language. Tocqueville thought that if both Clayton and Poussin had been courteous, there would have been little diffi­ culty. In other words, Tocqueville was not willing to assume, for the French government, sole responsi­ bility for the incident. % e n this news reached Wash­ ington, Clayton assumed that Poussin would stay on as minister and as a result, with the approval of Taylor, Clayton informed Poussin that the United States Govern­ ment would no longer conduct official correspondence with him. 351 Although the incident could he considered trivial and chiefly the result of misunderstanding and overreaction on both sides, it was soon blown out of proportion. And to contribute the final blow, on September 14, Clayton addressed a letter directly to Tocqueville. Although his action seemed to be justi­ fied by the fact that he assumed Rush would have left his post in France, and Rives would not yet have arrived, the communication was hardly designed to conciliate the Foreign Minister. In it Clayton indi­ cated that Tocqueville seemed to feel that referral of the Poussin correspondence invited him to construct an apology for that minister, by indiscriminately censuring both parties to the correspondence. You were not invited to decide as an arbiter upon the mode in which the American govern­ ment conducted that correspondence, which was not only courteous in terms, but entirely unexceptionable in spirit.3°

This point is a bit confused. The explanation is logical but in a copy of a "Private & Confidential" letter to Rives Clayton said, "I wrote directly to De Tocqueville and did not address my note to you or desire to communicate through you because I wished you to have no connexion with controversy." This also makes sense, although Clayton seems to be unrealistic in believing Rives would not be at least indirectly affected by the problems. The interesting thing about this statement, however, is that Rives wrote the following in the margin; "Not in the original letter received by me." Clayton to NCR, "Private and Confi­ dential," November 4, 1849, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^Clayton to Alexis de Tocquevill, September 6 (misdated, should be l4), 1849, draft, Clayton Papers, L.C. 352 He continued by informing Tocqueville that since the Foreign Minister had not condemned Poussin's offensive language, the President had instructed him to inform Poussin that the government would carry on no further correspondence with him; The United States, he said, would guard its own honor and would not permit inten­ tional disrespect. He closed by extending to Tocque­ ville, on behalf of the President, the kindest regards of the United States to the government and people of France, and he looked forward to greeting Poussin's 37 successor. Unfortunately for Clayton, his decision to approach Tocqueville directly was based on false assumptions; the United States was amply represented in Paris since Rush had not left and Rives had arrived. And unfortunately for Rives and the immediate future of Franco-American relations, Clayton's letter to Tocqueville arrived just as the Foreign Minister was preparing to set a time for Rush to take his leave and Rives to be formally recognized and presented to the President of the Republic.When the Foreign Minister

WCR to Clayton, October 10, 1849, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII, 353 received the Secretary of State’s imperious letter, such a process was entirely out of the question for the time being.

On October 5th, Eush was requested to call at the Foreign Office that same evening. When he arrived, Tocqueville informed him that he had been in the process of setting a time for Hives's official presen­ tation when he had received Clayton’s letter of September 14th. The letter was so surprising "by its tone and contents and gave rise to considerations so intimately connected with the dignity of the Govern­ ment and nations" that he felt it necessary to refer it to the Council of Ministers before a decision on Hives’s reception could be made. When Hush reported this development to Hives, the latter suggested that, since the situation was serious and might "lead to critical & important results," it might not be improper for him to seek an informal interview with the Foreign Minister. He was prompted to make this proposal because he had most recently talked with

the home government and in addition Clayton’s most 354 recent despatch dealing with the situation had been addressed to him.^^ Eives met with Tocqueville on October 8. The Foreign Minister spoke with "calmness, conciliation & warm cordiality," while recalling Hives's previous mission to France and said he hoped "that he would be able to enter very promptly into relations with me." He then briefly reviewed the Poussin incident, indicating that he had had no intention of excusing Poussin's behavior, but he also felt that Clayton's letter "had given him equal pain & surprise— that there were expressions in it, & a general tone, which he could but feel were wounding to the dignity of the French Government.'-’ He also indicated that the Council of Ministers had decided, until the letter was explained, no new minister would be received, "however anxious they were to sustain the most cordial & uninterrupted relations with us." In turn Hives explained the American position, pointing out especially that Clayton had meant no disrespect in his communication with Poussin and that the United States had concluded in August that France had no intention of recalling Poussin. Hives also 355 Indicated that he realized there had been misconceptions on both sides; however, now that they had been made manifest, I could not but think it would be most suitable to the mag- namimity & high character of two great nations, bound together by so many generous sympathies & common interests, to obliterate the efforts which they had momentarily produced by mutual oblivion.40 It was obvious that Bives, after a lapse of seventeen years, had not lost any of his diplomatic skill. Although Tocqueville agreed that there had indeed been mutual misunderstandings, in view of Clayton’s unusual pro­ cedure of addressing a letter directly to him, further explanations would have to be made before the matter could be considered closed. This information was con­ veyed to Clayton in Hives’s despatch dated October 10, 184-9. Not until November 12 did Clayton officially respond to Rives. And on that occasion he indicated that the President had no intention of explaining his dismissal of Poussin.Thus if it were left to the

40 Ibid. Clayton to WCR, November 12, 184-9, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplo­ matic Instructions, France, 15. In these instructions Clayton again reviewed the whole situation, stressing the grievances of the United States, thus going over the same ground which had been (continued on next page) 356 United States to make the first conciliatory gesture, the French would have to wait in vain. By the time Rives had received Clayton's instructions, however, President Louis Napoleon had had a change of heart and had received the new American minister, thus restoring Franco-American relations on a regular footing.

On November 7 Rives received a note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs asking him to be at the National Palace on the following day in order to be presented to the President of France. When he arrived at the appointed time, Rives was received "in the most

(continued from previous page) covered in his instructions of September l4. In the meantime, however, he seems to have become more determined in his decision to stand on his concept of American honor and the correctness of the American inter­ pretation of this incident. It might also be men­ tioned that in October, when it appeared that the issue would not soon be cleared up, Clayton offered Rives his choice of the Berlin or St, Petersburg missions, should he not be received by the French government. Rives replied that he hoped that such a contingency would not be necessary, but preferred the Berlin mission if necessary. In addition, he stated that if he "had not come to Europe & were still in the United States, I should not have thought of either of these missions as presenting a sufficient inducement to me to leave my home & the care of my private affairs." WCR to Clayton (private and confidential), November 7, 184-9, Clayton Papers, L.C. 357 cordial and flattering manner." Louis Napoleon told him that if the unpleasant difficulties, which had recently arisen between the two Governments, had been with a Monarchy, a more jealous susceptibility towards a government of that form would have pre­ vented him from renewing diplomatic relations, until farther explanations had taken place; but with a republic and especially the United States he cheer­ fully took the first step in the reestab­ lishment of ancient harmony and friend­ ship, and he had too high an opinion of the character of the President of the United States not to feel entire confi­ dence that these sentiments on his part would b^^appreciated and reciprocated

After the President had expressed these sentiments. Rives responded by mentioning the "sincere and cordial friendship which the people and government of the United States cherish for the people and constituted authorities of the French Republic." Hives presented his letter of credence and thus ended an embarrassing and unnecessary rupture between the United States and France, The United States, however, could hardly take any credit for closing the breach. In his public despatch to Clayton, Rives indicated his belief that the action had been taken in order that France would

42 WCR to Clayton, November l4, 1849, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII. ^^Ibid. 358 receive a favorable mention in the upcoming State of the Union message.And in a private letter to Clay­ ton the minister stated his belief that a favorable notice in the message would "cicatrise entirely the wound which was momentarily inflicted & will in itself, it seems to me, be most graceful & becoming after what has just taken place.For his part, Napoleon appar­ ently was motivated to seek a favorable relationship with the United States in order to concentrate on European problems, a goal which would have been com­ plicated by a war with the United States.^^

Lh Ibid. Hives’s despatch reached the Depart­ ment of State on December 3» in. time for consideration in relation to the State of the Union message. On December 4, Taylor informed the Congress that the "slight interruption of diplomatic intercourse which occurred between this Government and France, I am happy to say, has been terminated, and our minister there has been received. It is therefore unnecessary to refer now to the circumstances which led to that interruption. I need not express to you the sincere satisfaction with which we shall welcome the arrival of another envoy extraordinary and minister pleni­ potentiary from a sister Republic to which we have so long been, and still remain, bound by the strongest ties of amity." Israel (ed.), State of the Union Messages. I, 775. ^^WCR to Clayton (Private). November l4, 1849, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII, 46 Williams, "John Middleton Clayton," p. 30. 359 With the "Poussin incident” and its compli­ cations out of the way,^^ Bives could settle down to the normal and routine business of being a represen­ tative to a government with which the United States had

^ ■ ’7 Actually the incident was not quite finished as far as Clayton was concerned. On October 11, Toc­ queville wrote to Clayton about the matter and Clayton replied on November 10. By the time this last letter had reached Paris (Rives was to deliver it), the incident had been closed, from the French point of view, by Rives'8 reception. Clayton, however, insisted that his letter be delivered unless Tocqueville’s last letter were withdrawn, in spite of the fact that Tocqueville had been replaced by General Lahitte as Minister of Foreign Affairs on November 18. Rives felt the letter should be withheld, in view of the changed circum­ stances. But finally, at Clayton's strong insistence, he presented the letter. Fortunately, the French government had no desire to revive this unpleasant business and took no offense at Clayton's strong defense of the justness of the American point of view. Clayton apparently had expected (or hoped for?) more trouble. On February 15, I85O, he wrote to Rives, "If they dismiss you, or decline to correspond with you, on account of it inform me of it and proceed, at once, to Berlin, to which no minister will be appointed till I hear from you." Clayton to NCR, November 12, 18^9, January 1, I85O, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, 15; WCR to Clayton, December 12, 18^9, January 26, February 20, I850, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII; Clayton to Tocqueville, November 8, 1849, Clay­ ton Papers, B.C.; Clayton to WCR (Private), November 27, 1849, February 15, 28, I85O, WCR Papers, L.C. Clayton also suggested submitting the Poussin correspondence to the Congress, a project which Rives discouraged since it would involve "some risk of wounding the friendly feeling which has been invariably manifested by the present administration of the French Government." WCR to Clayton, I/Larch 20, I85O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII. 360 no significant quarrels or disagreements. In compari­ son to the excitement engendered by the Poussin misunderstanding, into which Sives had incidentally been drawn, and the constant pressures of the negotia­ tions of his earlier mission, the next three and a half years in Prance were relatively uneventful in the dip­ lomatic sense.

Hives seemed happy to be back in France, He had obviously enjoyed and benefited from his earlier stay in that country. He also harbored a special feeling for 3^ belle France and for the French people, who, "with all their faults, . . . are a wonderfully clever, agreeable & fascinating race— that nature has given them far brighter & more genial skies, as well as gayer tempers & lighter hearts, than have been vouchsafed to our Island kin jthe Englis^ — and that if we like them & their country better, it is because we can't help 48 it.» Although there had been some indication, on the basis of information supplied by departing minister Richard Rush, there was some objection in France to

48 WCR to Mrs. E. Hauteville, September 11, 1850, WCR Papers, L.C. 361 ■ the appointment of Rives because of his involvement with the Treaty of 1831, Rives himself could detect no such feeling. In fact his impression was just the contrary, reporting that there were the "most cordial expressions of friendly remebrance of my former resi­ dence here & of the kindest personal regard for me, as well in official as private quarters." He concluded that such criticisms of him were the result of party hg politics in the United States. He also reported that there was no feeling of hostility toward the United States, which Rush also had believed to exist. %is also seemed to be the figment of Rush's imagination, although he noted that since Rush did not speak French his position might have become "uncomfortable to him & made him brood over all sorts of chimeras." At any rate. Rives concluded that "there is no government in Europe with which it is in our power to stand better if we wish to do so."^° From the outset of his second mission to Prance Rives was a faithful and conscientious diplomat, representing the interests of his country when matters

^^WCR to Clayton (Private), November 7, 1849, Clayton Papers, L.C. ^^WCR to Clayton, November 21, 1849, ibid. 362 of mutual interest and concern arose. He also was an interested, if not always accurate, observer of French domestic developments, which he reported in

In contrast to his first mission to Prance, Rives had not received in 1849 instructions to deal with any problems outstanding between the United States and France (with the exception of the Poussin concern, of course). He did not have to wait long, however, before he received his first significant assignment from the Secretary of State. The matter was one with which he had some familiarity: cooperation with France in guaranteeing freedom of access to interoceanic communication through Central America. In essence, the Rise of Napoleon III A Cross Section of Public Opinion (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 194?), pp. 139-218, discusses in detail the domestic scene and Hives's reaction to it. Casper correctly notes, however, that neither Rush nor Rives ever gained a clear understanding of the struggles between the Assembly and the President of France between 1349 and 1851: "Neither one of them ever seemed to have accurately evaluated the principles involved in a struggle between basic democracy on the one hand, and democratic forms on the other." Ibid.. p. I36. 363 the United States was motivated to discuss this matter with France hy somewhat the same considerations which had prompted the discussion with Britain; awareness of the significance of such communication systems to the national security of the United States.

On January 26, I85O, Clayton addressed instruc­ tions to Rives to investigate the inclination of France to negotiate treaties with New Granada and Nicaragua guaranteeing freedom of access to interoceanic communication through Panama and Nicaragua, which the United States had already done. Such a move was prompted by the American apprehensions toward British activity in Nicaragua, a topic with which Rives was familiar. If France did not want to follow this pro­ cedure, Rives was authorized to propose a treaty between the United States and Prance to guarantee freedom of transit. Since there were three possible routes.

In 1846 the United States had negotiated a treaty with New Granada which "guaranteed to the United States and its citizens the right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama upon any modes of communication that then existed, or that might thereafter be constructed, for lawful commerce, with tolls no higher than charged to the citizens of New Granada." Bemis, Latln-American Policy, p. 104. As far as Nicaragua was concerned, although treaties had been negotiated, at the time Rives was instructed to discuss this issue with the French government, no treaty with Nicaragua had been ratified by the Senate. See Williams, Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy, pp. 6O-6 3, 90-91. 364 through Panama, Nicaragua or Mexico, the negotiation should include all three areas. Clayton’s instructions were well timed. On February 20, Rives attended a dinner at which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, General Lahitte, was pre­ sent. After inquiring about whether the United States and Britain had reached an agreement about interoceanic communications, Lahitte had "earnestly" discussed the possibility of entering into official communication with Rives on the subject. From Lahitte’s conversation Rives concluded that he would be "well-disposed to co-operate with us, unless there should be some danger of its bringing France into collision with England, which it may be their policy to avoid." He had not, however,yet received any instructions to deal formally with this subject. On the next day that problem was solved when he received Clayton's instructions, the arrival of which was "very a-propos,"5^ and Rives soon began discussions with Lahitte on the question.

During late February and March, I85O, Rives explored with Lahitte the possibility of France’s joining

Clayton to WCR, January 26, I85O, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplo­ matic Instructions, France, 15. ^\cR to Clayton (Private, February 21, I85O, Clayton Papers, L.C. 365 _ in the guarantee of neutrality to routes of inter­ oceanic communication. No firm agreement was reached, primarily because the Foreign Minister seemed hesitant to commit his nation, so Rives thought, to a course of action which might "involve the Republic in hostile collision with England." In addition, Rives was not empowered to conclude a treaty on the matter. None­ theless, he did make some general observations about French sentiments. He concluded that France, if given support by other European nations through an inter­ national agreement neutralizing the routes, would oppose England's "exclusive pretensions" in the name of the Mosquito Indians. France also seemed to approve the "principle of guaranteeing the neutrality of these great highways of commerce," but seemedi to prefer to do this through an international agreement negotiated by the major commercial powers rather than through a treaty exclusively with the United States or with the Latin American countries involved. France also undoubtedly hesitated to reach such an agreement with the United States so long as rumors concerning oopera- tion between the United States and Great Britain on this question continued to circulate. However, Rives thought that if the rumors were true, and the United States did sign a treaty with Britain concerning the 366 Nicaragua route, France would be willing to enter into a similar agreement. On April 19th Clayton completed negotiations with H. L. Bulwer resulting in a convention providing that neither party to it shall make use of any protection or alliance for the purpose of occupying, fortifying, colonizing, or assuming or exercising any dominion whatwoever over any part of Central America or the Mosquito Coast. . . . It prohibits the blockade of vessels traversing the canal; it liberates all Central America from foreign aggression; and it will, in short, when known, be hailed as a declaration of,Central American inde­ pendence. 56

In his despatch informing Hives of this development, Clayton extended authorization for Hives to enter into a "treaty of accession" with France provided for by the agreement with England. When this news became known in France, Lahitte seemed to lose interest in further negotiations with Hives. Some weeks later, when Hives attempted to dis­ cuss the proposed adherence to the treaty, Lahittee was

WCH to Clayton, March 6 , 7, I850, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to Frnace, XXXII.

•^^Clayton to WCH, April 2?, I850, National Archives, Hecords of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, 15. 367 so "occuped with the more pressing affairs of his Department that he had not had time to examine the 58 Treaty." When he finally had time to return to this question, in early July, he merely asked for further information about the relationship between the United States and Nicaragua. And there the matter ended. While the United States was understandably anxious to gain wide acceptance for neutralization of the strategic routes in Central America, France lost interest when Britain took the first step in this direction, thus putting a stop to the possibility of France's gaining a special position in the area.^^

Throughout the spring and summer of I850, Gives devoted his attention to minor problems with which a minister must deal. And in the middle of July, taking advantage of the usual summer lull in diplomatic and political developments, he took a vacation.

WCR to Clayton, June 20, I85O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to Prance, XXXII.

^&CR to Clayton, July 10, I85O, ibid. 60 Blumenthal, Reaunraisal, p. 4?. For some time Rives had had "a desire for an agricultural tour in England." Since his wife and children were not equally interested in such a project, they decided to take separate vacations, Rives proceeding by himself to England while Judy took the children on a tour of the continent. Although he admitted on returning to Paris that his family "undoubtedly had much the best of the bargain. h e did find his trip, for various reasons, an interesting experience. Proceeding by way of Exeter, Oxford, and other English cities. Rives made his way to London to renew his acquaintance with Abbott Lawrence, American minister in that city. When he arrived, having attended several agricultural meetings on the way, Rives was disappointed; he found London itself "dull" and was disturbed by the preoccupation of Lawrence and his family with the "Dukes and Marquises." concluding that Lawrence might wish to be "the -permanent minister in England. Undoubtedly the most interesting observation Rives made during his trip concerned an incident at the Exeter meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society, where

^^WCR to Mrs. E. Hauteville, September 11, 1850, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^WCR to JPR, July 26, August 10, I850, ibid. 369 he found it difficult to tell whether the ladies or the gentlemen were the real practi­ cal farmers— such were the members of the softer sex, & many of them of high rank too, who crowded into the Show- yard to see the varieties of live stock that were exhibited there as specimens of the perfection to which the homely acts of rearing & fattening are carried in England. Some of these fair ones seemed to dwell with as much admiration upon the symmetry & fair round pro­ portions of a Durham or a Devon, as the connoisseurs of the Louvre would upon a Rubens or a Raphael. I fear you will hardly credit me when I tell you that I found a beautiful young lady standing by a pen of overgrown pigs, oppressed by the weight of their own ungraceful obesity & grunting most unmusically, while she was touching them up with the end of her whip & showing them off as her pets— and this young lady was the daughter of an English BaronetÎ This seemed to me, I must confess to you, rather unfeminine, & to justify, in some degree, the criticisms usually made here on English tastes & pleasures as being a little too matériels.^3

WCR to Mrs. E. Hauteville, September 11, 1850, WCR Papers, L.C. He did have to admit, however, that he had witnessed "in one of the fashionable evening promenades en virture along the Avenue Des Champs Elysees last summer— a lady very cooly puffing her segar by the side of a gentleman sitting in the same carriage with herI This, however, I ought to add, is the only instance of the sort which had ever fallen under my observation, in private or public in this lively & animated capital jPari^." Ibid. 370 In view of this experience, it is no wonder that he confessed to his wife, upon his return to Paris, that he was "glad to get back to France. It is a far brighter & more genial clime than that in which I have been wan­ dering for the last six weeks, & both people & things wear a kindlier aspect toward nous autres americans here than in our mother-land." He, however, did not "regret my experience, from which, I think, I have derived much of instruction & some amusement. I have seen places & things which I have been longing all my life to see, & which I should have had an uneasy hankering after, if I had not seen. It was while Hives was on his tour of England the he heard the news of President Taylor’s death, which occurred on July 9. His immediate concern, in this sad circumstance, was the possibility of changes in the cabinet. He feared that the new cabinet would reflect the "struggle between rival interests looking to the next Presidency, & Mr. Clay & Mr. Webster will, probably, be secretly at work against each other. There is every appearnce, I am sorry to say, of a new

64 WCR to JPR, August 31, 1850, WCR Papers, L.C. Rives wrote his wife frequently and his letters provide an interesting chronicle of his activities and impressions. See WCR to JPR, July I6 (London), July 22 (Oxford), July 26 (London), August 10 (Edinburg), August 31 (Paris), I85O, ibid. 371 scramble for the loaves & fishes.He did not fear for his own position, predicting that both he and Lawrence would not be recalled until they wished it.^^ The death of the president did affect Hives indirectly, however, in that Daniel Webster replaced John M. Clayton, who had harbored a desire to leave the cabinet for some time.^"^ Presumably the change would not be unwel­ come to Hives, since it would hopefully bring greater stability to the State Department and an end to the high-handed and distrustful attitude which Clayton had exhibited toward France, as reflected in the Poussin incident.

^^WCR to son (not identified), July 29, 1850, ibid. ^^WCH to JPR, August 10, 1850, ibid. It is interesting to note that once again Hives's name was being mentioned for Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasury. B. L. Bogan to WCR, July 15, I85O, iMâ. 67 The first indication of Clayton's desire to resign is a draft letter dated December, 184-9, apparently unsent, requesting retirement on the basis of "personal considerations." The next indication is a draft letter of June 18, I850, again claiming a need to tend to private affairs. Both letters are found in the Clayton Papers, L.C. He apparently was motivated by the attacks on the administration, as well as his own personal business, but on both occasions Taylor talked him out of leaving. Hamilton, Zachary Taylor, pp. 381-82. 372

The autumn of I850 in Paris was singularly uneventful, from a diplomatic point of view, for the American minister. No major questions arose which demanded his attention, and in fact only one issue touching indirectly on Pranco-American relations seemed to attract Eives's attention. As an inveterate observer of French politics. Elves was alarmed in November when the National Assembly engaged in a discussion of the laws of several of the United States barring entry of "men of color" under penalty of confiscation of the ships they came in. The debate stemmed from an inquiry by the repre­ sentative of Guadaloupe to the French Minister of Marine. The debate would have been unexceptional had it not been for the remarks presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He spoke of the laws as "little less than barbarous & savage," and added that attempts by England and France to convince the states involved to "return into the ways of civilization & respect for humanity" had thus far failed, but would be renewed to impress upon the states involved that they were "out of the pale. . . of the laws of all nations." Feeling as he did that the question of slavery was an internal 373 .. affair for each state to decide, and that internal policy of states was not a proper area of concern for the Foreign Minister, Hives naturally took exception to this language "departing so widely from the measure usually observed by the official organs of international intercourse in treating questions touching the policy,

& especially the interior policy, of friendly foreign States.He thus resolved to call on Lahitte at the earliest possible moment. After carefully reading the reports of the debates in the Moniteur, to substantiate his impression of the remarks of the Foreign Minister, Rives called on Lahitte and voiced his protest. He pointed out that it seemed improper for a foreign government, or repre­ sentative of that government, to criticize the internal policy of individual states of the United States. In addition he indicated that the government of the United States could not "be indifferent to attacks directed from abroad against the character & dignity of any one of them" and pointed out that differing as the several States did in their respective domestic Institutions, & divided in opinion as they, no doubt, were as to the expediency

WCR to Daniel Webster, November 30, I850, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII. 37^ & propriety of the laws in question, they never failed to make common cause against foreign intervention, from whatever quarter it might come, in any question of an internal nature. . . . He felt that such remarks by Lahitte departed from the "mutual respect & reserve usually practiced in inter­ national discussions. ..." He then suggested that Lahitte reflect upon how he would feel if the United States criticized internal laws of France, and he pro­ ceeded to cite several which might disturb Americans, including the law "which interdicts the soil of France to any member of either branch of the Bourbon family." Lahitte listened to Hives's protest "with marked attention & respect," and admitted that he had been carried away by the heat of the debate, with the result that he had used more unfortunate language than he might otherwise have used, given time to weigh his words. He then in effect apologized to Hives and reiterated his desire to preserve, at all times, the best possible realationship with the United States. And there the matter ended. ^^Ibid. Hives undoubtedly reacted to this sit­ uation in the way he did because of the sense of relief he had experienced when the Congress of the United States had reached a compromise on questions related to the existence of and extension of slavery in the indi­ vidual states earlier in the year. All the United States needed was a meddling Frenchman (or government) to stir up trouble! See WCR to Colin M. Ingersoll, November 25, 1850, WCH Papers, L.C., reprinted in New Haven (Conn.) Daily Register. December I6 , I850. 375 An indication of the dearth of official business for Rives to tend to was his lengthy discussion, in two despatches, of the inadequacy of the government's financial support both of the legation in general and the minister's expenses in particular. Rives first turned his attention to the contin­ gency fund appropriated for the expenses of the Legation in Paris, noting that his "experience of the past year demonstrates that, with every possible saving to be effected by the strictest economy, the sum hitherto allowed by the Department of State for the Contingent expenses of this Legation is entirely insufficient to meet the charges of that character devolving upon it." One example cited, which indicated the increase in expenses, was postage, the increase occasioned by the more frequent use of the ocean steamer, and he pre­ dicted that this item would continue to climb. After explaining the problem fully, he recommended that

70 WCR to Webster, October 3» I85O, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII. The timing of this discussion was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the Legation submitted quarterly financial reports to the State Department, a procedure which would cause Rives to reflect on the high cost of living. 3 # Of more personal concern to Rives was the allowance provided for the ministers in Prance and England. He assumed that there was a universal aware­ ness of the inadequacy of the ministers’ salaries ($9,000 per year, plus one year's salary for outfit, to cover expenses to and from the post), hut he did not believe there was a full understanding of the injury to the image of the country caused by the insufficient pay. He noted that three items, rent, fuel and carriage hire, took most of the salary of a minister, leaving very little for extra household expenses. And in order to entertain, which was unavoidable in the position, an individual must have a "very large private fortune." In order not to appear frivolous in his discussion of the necessity for entertainment. Rives pointed out that "social intercourse" with the diplomatic corps and members of the government to which he is accredited is specifically encouraged in a minister's general instructions. In addition, such "social inter­ course" is valuable in "smoothing the way for the transaction of more serious concerns," He pointed out specifically the importance of the London and Paris missions to the international standing of the United States, since they "are now the great centers of our 377 international intercourse, as they are of the business, & politics of the world; ..." Citing the British example of determining salaries on a sliding scale. Rives recommended that the United States follow the same principle. He con­ cluded that such a method would be no more expensive, "while the more important missions would be rendered doubly efficient by a more adequate provision for their support." Hives’s closing argument in favor of such a scheme is particularly interesting, not only as an indication of his attempt to tie the question of salaries to national honor, but also as an exposition of the growing awareness on the part of the United States of its role as a world power; The United States have now taken rank with the most powerful nations of the earth, & the just pride of the country requires that its equality should be recognised by some of the more usual outward & conventional signs of national influence and power, as well by its intrinsic and dormant energies. Feeling how much its weight abroad, in all questions whether of general or parti­ cular interest, would be increased by a greater regard to those considerations, I have been urged by a sense of public duty and an earnest desire to see the dignity & character of the country suitably upheld in all respects, to bring ' this subject to your notice as one of permanent & national interest, and in the full persuasion that, if you should take the same view of the subject as 378 I have done, a measure of great & gen­ erally acknowledged importance to the public service will, at last, receive its consummation under the auspices of an enlightened & responsible recom­ mendation that cannot fail to attract the attention due to it.71 In spite of his minister’s unhappiness with his salary, the President of the United States, Millard

Fillmore, could report to the nation in December, I85O, that the country was at peace with all nations.

The interregnum on serious diplomatic inter­

course continued into I85I and allowed Elves ample opportunity-to continue his close observation of

internal developments in France. Throughout I85O he

71 VJCR to Webster, November 7» 18^0, ibid. An indication of his concern for financial matters is his comment on his family’s tour of the previous summer: "We must each of us make the best use we can of the present opportunity, which I hope, will repay in solid improvement & intellectual enjoyment to one and all of us an expense which we cannot very well afford. But as the great motive for our coming to Europe was the improvement of our children, I shall not begrudge the expense, if they turn it to good account. . . . I need not, I am sure, say to you or our children, however, that the less the expense with which these advantages are acquired at present, the more we shall have of our scanty means yet for other desirable objects." WCR to JPR, July I6 , I85O, WCR Papers, L.C. ^^Israel (ed.), State of Union Messages. I, 795- 379 had watched the growing breach between Napoleon and the National Assembly, as the President appealed to the public for support and consolidated his position.

In January, I85I, he reported the resignation of the ministry, which did not enjoy the confidence of the National Assembly, and added that it could not be "dis­ guised that a very grave struggle, more or less open, has commenced between the two rival powers of the Republic, the Assembly & the President, which, in its future progress, will put to a pretty severe test the strength & wisdom of their present political system, as well as the peace & tranquillity of the country.The ministerial impasse was soon solved and Rives observed that "the President seems to have gained quite as much ground with the nation as he has lost with the Assembly. He soon concluded, however, that a crisis was approaching, as the nation became more alarmed about the future of the Republic. Since the Constitution prohibited Napoleon’s re-election, it would of course be necessary for him to suspend or revise that document if he wished to remain in power. and assessment, see Casper, American Opinion, pp. 14658. 74 WCR to Webster, January 8, I851, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXII. ^^WCR to Webster, February 13, I85I, ibid. 380 Rives predicted that the President would appeal to the people in his effort to set aside the Constitution,^^ and throughout the year the American minister watched the development of these events. Not until July was Rives again called upon by his government to discuss a matter of mutual concern with the French government. This time it was French involvement in the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands. And this matter, as was the case with others Rives was called upon to discuss, also reflected the expansion of American interests as the result of the extension of American sovereignty to the Pacific following the Mexican War.

Pranco-American conflict over the Hawaiian islands stemmed from two basic causes : the desire of each nation (and England) to prevent each other from gaining a controlling interest in Hawaii, significant because of the islands’ strategic location in the Pacific; and competition between Catholic missionaries

WCR to Webster (Private), February 20, I85I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIII. 381 from France and Protestant missionaries from the United States. In 184-9, when the French had landed troops at Honolulu, the Hawaiians had requested intervention by the United States and Britain. The United States had not intervened, primarily because the nation was already experiencing difficulties with Prance over the Poussin incident and had no desire to become involved in another controversy. In addition, the British government had indicated its unwillingness to see France gain the upper hand in the islands, preferring instead a tripartite agreement guaranteeing the independence of Hawaii.

In 1851, however, information reached the United States that the French planned to send an agent and "an armed force" to the Hawaiian government, and the United States government feared that the French would compromise the independence of the islands. As a result the American government reacted more vigorously than it had previously. On June 19, I851, Webster requested Hives to impress upon the French government that the United States would view with displeasure any attempt to infringe upon Hawaiian self-respect and sovereignty. While the United States disclaimed any designs on the

77 Blumenthal, Heanpraisal, pp. 59-62, provides . brief background on this significant issue. 382 islands herself, such a step hy France would be viewed by the United States "with a dissatisfaction which would tend seriously to disturb our existing friendly relations with the French Government. When Rives received Webster's instructions, he addressed a note to Foreign Minister Pierre Baroche, who had settled into that position after the cabinet difficulties earlier in the year. Rives chose to approach this matter through written communication for two reasons: first of all, he was at Vichy taking advantage of the mineral waters when Webster's instructions arrived; and secondly he felt it wise to go "on record" in expressing the position of the United States respecting French interference in the Hawaiian Islands, to guard against any misunderstanding in the case of a further change in ministers. In his note Rives indicated the alarm produced in the United States by rumors that the French Government was again planning to use force to gain the demands made on the Hawaiian government in 78 Webster to WCR, June 19, 1851, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplo­ matic Instructions, France, 15. Clayton had asked Rives to discuss the question of French designs on Hawaii with the French government. Rives had agreed to bring it up at a suitable moment but had apparently not mentioned the subject. Clayton to WCR, July 5, 1 8 5 0, ibid. WCR to Webster, September 12, I85I, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIII. 383 _ 184-9. He went on to say that the United States had a strong interest in the preservation of the independence of the islands, and pointed out that the American Board of Missions, acting under the influence of these sympathies and alarmed by the rumors above referred to, have even asked of the Government of the United States the detachment of a naval force for the protection of the persons and prouerty of the Missionaries in the Islands.79 And he closed by indicating the danger of a disruption of Pranco-American relations posed by the French threat to the independence of Hawaii. When Rives received Baroche's reply expressing "painful surprise" at his letter, and indicating that the rumors were false. Rives returned to Paris to pursue the discussion. The two men met to clarify the issue and Rives was assured that the French Government had not ordered a "hostile demonstration" and was informed that Prance "would always respect the independence of these Islands. . . & that nothing was more remote from her wishes or Intentions, in any event, than to subject them to her dominion or to acquire territorial

WCR to Webster, July 8, I85I, ibid.

^^WCR to Webster, July 22, I85I, ibid. 3 % the question, at least for the time being, and Hives resumed his interrupted vacation, taking advantage of "the period of general stagnation in the political world here which usually succeeds the adjournment of the National Assembly to escape, for two or three 82 weeks with my family. ..." When he returned to Paris, in September, he found another, more serious question developing.

In September I85I all Paris was buzzing about the filibustering expedition of Narciso Lopez. This

Venezuelan adventurer had, in 184-9 and I85O, organized expeditions to arouse the Cubans to free themselves from Spanish rule. The first expedition had not left American shores and the second, although it reached the island, had failed to win the support needed in Cuba, resulting in Lopez's beating a retreat to the shores of Florida, Not to be deterred by his previous bad luck, Lopez tried again in August, I851. This time his luck ran out completely. Again he failed to arouse the Cubans and he and his troops were defeated by the

®^CB to Webster, August 7, I851, ibid. 385 Spanish forces. Lopez and his followers were captured, with fifty of them, including Lopez himself, soon being summarily executed.®^ When Rives returned to Paris, he found the news­ papers there, as well as in England, presented what he considered one-sided reports of the expedition. He viewed the situation as exceedingly serious for the United States, since the newspapers seemed determined to mold public opinion to take a stand against the United States for the actions of Lopez and his followers, and Rives requested an official statement of policy from the American government on this occurrence. He wished to know basically whether Americans engaged in such activity would receive the protection of their government. And almost parenthetically he assumed his government had heard of the existence of an under­ standing between France and Britain to coordinate their naval forces in the Caribbean to maintain Spanish authority in Cuba. He noted, however, that he did not believe Prance would sacrifice "her ancient friendly relations with the United States and the vast interests to her involved in those relations" even if the United expeditions but without success. Bailey, Diplomatic History, pp. 288-89. 386 States should, encounter serious difficulties with Spain over the Lopez incident. On September 17, Rives discussed the Cuban question -with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, His decision to take this step before receiving instructions from the State Department was prompted by a report in the Constitutionnel, considered to be the newspaper voice of the French Republic, that both France and England Intended to issue communications to the United States on the Cuban affair. Rives felt that this was a question which properly did not concern them. When he questioned Baroche on the newspaper report, the Foreign Minister denied such an intention, stressing that it **was not for the Government of France to give any lesson to the Government of the United States," and he recognized the "faith and sincerity" with which the United States had tried to prevent the filibustering expeditions of Lopez. The conversation took an interesting turn, however, when Rives tried to explain the considerations which might have motivated such activities, pointing out that although Lopez and his kind were acting outside the law they were nonetheless

WCR to Webster, September 10, 1851, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIII. 387 "actuated by aims and considerations very different from plunder, and [b^ , . . the needless and revolting barbarity of the Spanish authorities. ..." Baroche seemed, to Rives, to understand that, but he also stressed the desire of France that Spain should retain possession of her colonies, while at the same time maintaining friendly relations with the United States. When he transmitted information about this meeting to Webster, Rives tried to assess the probability of the United States and France encountering serious difficulties over this question. And he concluded that the power the United States really needed to watch was England. He was convinced that English policy was aimed at creating a split between the United States and France, while remaining at peace with both. This policy, thought Rives, was especially evident in relation to Cuba, since he assumed that the British would create suspicion and distrust within the French government as to American designs on Cuba, causing the French govern­ ment to take action which would antagonize the United States while Britain watched from the sidelines. His evidence for this belief was the fact that, although

Napoleon in his message to the nation in November I85O had admitted taking steps to prevent "the excursions of adventurers from the United States," no similar 388 statement had been made by Queen Victoria in her address to Parliament, although Gives knew that such an agreement existed. Such policies, Rives thought, were designed to excite public opinion in the United States against France while remaining unaware of a similar British threat, Throughout September and into October the Cuban question continued to receive coverage in the press, and Rives again discussed the issue with the French government. In late September, while dining at St. Cloud with Napoleon, he even had a few hurried words with the President himself. In between the arrival of guests Napoleon suggested to Rives that the United States might join in an agreement with France and Great Britain regarding Cuba. Since this social occasion did not permit lengthy and serious conversation. Rives had no opportunity to explore the meaning of the suggestion. He indicated that he had no authority to enter into any agreement, but consented to discuss the matter with the Foreign Minister to "learn what were the views of the Government of France." When Rives met with Baroche on October 1, the Foreign Minister asked him if he had recently had a conversation with the President of the Republic on the

^^WCR to Webster, September 18, 1851» ibid. 389 subject of Cuba. Hives indicated that he had only a vague understanding of the suggestion, and had emphasized that he had no powers from his government to negotiate on the matter but would be willing to discuss it. He then stated that if the President's suggestion contem­ plated anything like a guarantee of the permanent sovereignty of Spain over the Island of Cuba, I thought there would be insuperable objections to it on the part of the United States, for while I well knew that the Government of the United States had no illegiti­ mate aims on the Island of Cuba, it would never join in, or be indifferent, even, to any interference of third powers to prevent the people of the Island from asserting their own Inde­ pendence, if, in the course of future events, they should desire and endea­ vour to effect it. Baroche denied that France would interfere with "interior insurrection or any genuine and spontaneous movement of the people of the island," but felt that in view of the recent events some guarantee from the United States to protect Spanish sovereignty would restore "general confidence and quiet." Hives closed this interview by again stating that he had no instructions on the matter and indicating his intention of informing the Secretary of State of the discussion. Baroche expressed his intention also of informing the French minister in Washington, Eugène 390 . de Sartiges, to discuss the matter with Webster.ünd so, for all practical purposes, the disposition of the Cuban question, as it related to Franco-Merican relations, was transferred to Washington and no longer directly concerned Rives. Information furnished by Rives, however, did play a role in determining the course of action followed by Washington. Although the Cuban situation had been discussed earlier, the joint naval policy agreement between France and Britain was only a rumor until Rives'8 despatch reached Washington, On September 29, Acting Secretary of State J. J. Crittenden addressed instructions to Rives asking him to gather the facts ; he mentioned that although rumors had been circulating around Washington to that effect, the British charge d'affaires had denied that knowledge of "any conventional stipulations on the subject is possessed by either the British or French Legation here."^*^ When Rives ascertained, through a discussion with Baroche, that no "formal stipulations" existed, but that an understanding had been reached

^^WCR to Webster, October 2, I85I, ibid. 87 J. J. Crittenden to WCR, September 29, I85I, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, I5. 391 between the French Foreign Minister and the British Ambassador to France, involving cooperation between the respective West Indian naval forces, the Washington government had the information it needed. To complete this episode, although Rives had been approached concerning a tripartite pact, which seems to have originated with Palmerston,a fact which appeared to confirm Hives’s assessment of the motives of the British government, there" existed serious doubt in Sartiges*s mind about the willingness of the United States to agree to such a plan. Not until

April 23, 1852, was the scheme formally presented to Webster.He assured the British and French ministers that it would be given serious consideration but warned that the United States could not be expected to swerve from its policy of nonentanglement or "to acquiesce in

WCR to Webster, October 23, I851, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIII. This incident, in particular, seems to indicate Hives’s skill as a diplomat. To gain the information needed he put pressure on Baroche to force him to clarify his own diplomatic double- talk. 89 See A. A. Ettinger, "The Proposed Anglo- Franco-American Treaty of I852 to Guarantee Cuba to Spain," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. XIII (London, 193077'l^9-105. 90 Blumenthal, Reaouraisal. p. 55. 392 the cession of Cuba to an European power.On December 1, 1852, Secretary of State Edward Everett, who had taken over the Department following Webster’s death in October, informed Sartiges of the American decision to forego participation in a scheme which

With the Cuban question out of his hands.

Rives could, in the autumn of I85I, turn his attention to the growing indications of Napoleon’s drive for power. And on December 3, I85I, he wrote his govern­ ment that the denouement towards which events have been rapidly tending for some weeks past, tho’ no one was able to forsee the precise shape it would take, burst upon Paris yesterday morning. At an early hour, a Decree of the President was placarded in the streets by which he assumes to dissolve the National Assembly & the Council of State, declaring universal suffrage to be re-established, convoking the people in their primary assemblies for the third week of the present month, and

^^Webster to Sartiges, April 20, I852, Notes from the Department of State to the French Legation, VI. ^^Everett to Sartiges, December 1, I852, ibid. 3 ^ proclaiming martial law over the whole extent of the 1st Military Division of Prance, of which Paris is the center.93

At first Rives was uncertain how successful the Presi­ dential COUP would be, although his attitude about the maneuver was not in doubt; Napoleon had embarked on ql\. a "hi^-handed & illegal career." The most immediate problem facing the American minister was his official stance in relation to the government after "so violent a change." In the interests of Americans in Paris "who, under the absolute regime which now exists in Paris, are exposed to con­ stant surveillance & even the danger of arrest," he decided to continue informal communications with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He did not feel, however, that it was necessary to attend the weekly presidential receptions, although the rest of the diplomatic corps (exclui ing the Swiss representative) was not inclined to censure the presidential actions. Rives justified his action to his government in the following words : While bearing in mind that it is the practice & just maxim of the United

WCR to Webster, December 3, 18^1, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to Prance, XXXIII. gh, WCR to Webster, December 4, I85I, ibid. ^^WCR to Webster, December 10, I85I, ibid. 394 States to acknowledge & respect governments ^ facto when they are accepted or acquiesced in by the Nation, whose sole right It Is to determine the question of Its own political organization, & while I shall strenuously avoid, by any act or omission of mine, to compromise the good relations which It must ever be the wish of the United States to maintain with this great country, I could not but think that any proceeding on my part which could be Interpreted Into an adhesion to what had taken place here, would be unbecoming my position as the Repre­ sentative of the Jimerlcan Republic, while the French Nation itself had not yet decided the appeal which was made to It.9° In the following few weeks Rives watched Internal developments closely and took his cues from these events. When the Swiss representative received from his government Instructions to return to the weekly presidential receptions. Rives was the only member of the diplomatic corps who was In effect withholding approval of the "revolutionary coup d'etat." He again exlalned his position to his government, emphasizing the he would withhold approval until the pending elections had taken place. He would use the results to determine whether the "interior political organi­ zation' of Prance had the approval of the people.

97 WCR to Webster, December 18, I851, ibid. 395 By the end of December, 1851. sufficient election returns had come in, favorable to ISapoleon, to enable Rives to make his decision. On January 1,

IB52, he attended the traditional New Year’s Day reception held by the President. On this occasion, to which he was formally invited in common with the other members of the diplomatic corps, Rives was greeted by the President "in his usual civil & courteous manner," although Napoleon asked him if he had heard from his government, an Inquiry which might not have been so courteous, considering the time interval since the cour> and Rives’s absence from the receptions.VJhen Rives received word from Webster that his behavior met with the approval of his government, he considered the matter closed. Webster’s letter was widely publicized and seemed to explain Rives’s actions. Although it was not exceptionally flattering to the recent events in France, the Foreign Minister made no reference to it, and Rives suggested to Webster that an official letter from the President of the United States to the President

WCR to Webster, December 24, I85I, January 1, I852, ibid. 3 # of France acknowledging the changed nature of the government might be advisable. Thus it came as a shock to Rives when in March he received the following official communication from the Secretary of State: Mr. Sartiges called at the Department this morning and said that there were some expressions in one of your des­ patches relative to the last revolution in France, which might be construed as an undue interference in a question purely domestic in its nature. He added that he presumed it was not your intention to use language capable of such an interpretation. He did not specify the phrases to which he referred. I assured him, however, that you were too well acquainted with your own duties, and with the rights of the French authorities, to mean to call in question, even by implication, the manner in which those rights had been obtained, and that I would address this letter to you and authorize you to read it to M. de Turgot, and say to him that in any thing which may have been said or done, either by yourself or by me, at the juncture referred to, nothing was in contemplation disre­ spectful to the President of the French Republic, or inconsistent with the high

Webster to WCR, January 12, I852, National Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplo­ matic Instructions, France, I5. WCR to Webster, January 29, February 12, I852, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIII. 397 sense which we entertain of the friend­ ship of the French Government and People.100

Apparently Webster wanted an apology, and Hives decided he would not get it. In reply to Webster's instructions, Rives drafted a masterpiece of diplomatic communication. He began by denying that there was any­ thing disrespectful in his despatches, although he had no clear idea to which expressions Sartiges wwas referring since the latter had not been explicit in his complaint. He then pointed out that in his des­ patches he had been communicating with his government, without the expectation that the despatches would be published. He then passed some of the responsibility to Webster himself by pointing out that since the Secretary of State had made the decision to publish the letters, it had been "the decision of those who were invested with the sole authority to judge, of the fitness of their publication & who are presumed to have weighed, at the time, all the considerations of expediency & propriety belonging to a question, often, of great delicacy." Then, significantly, he raised the question of "whether a foreign Power has a right

Archives, Records of the Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions, France, 15. It must be admitted that Hives's language was not terribly flattering; see above, pp. 392-94. 398 to take exception to views & opinions which a Minister of the United States, in free & confidential corres­ pondence with his own Government, may express, or be supposed (by implication) to entertain, respecting occurrences passing under his observation abroad." ünd by way of example, he pointed to Webster’s "celebrated" letter to the Austrian chargé in Washington, Chevalier

HtLlsemann, in late I850 about potential so-called meddling by an American in Hungarian affairs. After thoroughly exploring these points. Rives informed Webster that he had decided not to read the instructions to the Foreign Minister, since an apology would only diminish the stature of the United States in the eyes of the powers of Europe, Apparently Rives’s points got through to Webster. There was no further communication on the matter and the episode was closed. Rives could not forget, however, and evidence indicates that any kindly feeling he might have harbored for Webster completely disappeared

WCR to Webster, March 31, 1852, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIII. 399 seems to have contributed to a gradually souring atti­ tude toward the French Government and his mission in general.n 103

With these complications out of the way, Rives spent the rest of the year tending to minor diplomatic problems and watching the apparently inevitable transition of the French government from a republic to an empire. — In reporting the incident to his son Francis, Rives remarked that "If Webster should, by any per­ version of intellect or feeling, persuade himself that his instructions were right and the President should sustain him, I may be recalled; but this, I think, will hardly be ventured upon. In any event, my letter will be very indigestible to our extra-bilious Secre­ tary.— My own opinion in regard to the origin of the affair is, that Sartiges did not complain of my despatches, but of Mr. Webster's conduct in communi­ cating them to Congress, or very probably of Webster's own letter in answer to my despatches, & that the wise raniel has sought to turn the matter over upon my shoulders & make me the scape goat." WCR to Francis Rives, March 31, I852 (copy), WCR Papers, L.C. And as late as February I6 , he was still bitter, in spite of the fact that Webster had since died. WCR to John M. Mason, February 16, I853, ibid. ^^^This generalization is impossible to docu­ ment accurately, but is the result of the general impression one gets in reading Hives's despatches over the months, even if one excludes the negative attitude he gradually developed toward Napoleon. koo

Almost from the time of the coup in I85I it seemed to Rives that the question surrounding the return to an imperial form of government was not "whether" but "when". By the time Napoleon embarked on his tour of the country in late summer of 1852, there seemed to be no doubt that the change would come soon.^^-^ Thus it was no surprise to Rives when, on December, the anniversary of the coup d'etat, an empire was pro­ claimed. This time Rives had no trouble making a decision as to how to respond to the new government. In November elections had been held to assess public approval of the re-establishment of the empire.^^"^ When the results were favorable to the change, Rives could inform his government of the change in the nature of the govern­ ment and request new letters of credence without any

104 As early as January 29, 1852, he noted that France was reviving the trappings of Empire. WCR to Webster, January 29, I852, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIII. See also Casper, American Attitudes, pp. 205- 11 . ^^^WCR to Webster, September 23, 1852, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIV.

^^^WCR to Edward Everett, December 2, I852, ibid. 107 WCR to Everett, November 25, I852, ibid. 401 qualms about conforming to traditional policy of recognition as practiced by the government of the United States, In fact, he seemed in somewhat of a hurry to restore "regular official communication" with the new government * I have reason to believe that no small degree of interest & importance will be attached by the new Government by those Powers with which France has heretofore had friendly relations. Until his letter of credence came, Rives main­ tained informal contact with the Foreign Office, And on January 10, I853, his letter having arrived. Rives was received by the Emperor of France.Although Rives has not left an account of his intimate thoughts on this occasion, he could not have helped reflecting on the variety of experiences he had encountered in his years in France, In 1829 he had found that country under the shaky control of a reactionary monarch; in

I83O he had witnessed a "glorious" revolution cul­ minating in the establishment of a constitutional monarchy which seemed to promise so much; by 1848 that monarchy had run its course, and when Rives returned to France in 1849 Prance was arepublic; yet

108 WCR to Everett, December 1, 1852, ibid,

^^^WCR to Everett, January 6 , I853, ibid. 4-02 in the course of less than three years France had taken another form of government— empire. No wonder he became more and more dedicated to the freedoms and opportunities of the United States.

Although, after his reception by Emperor Napoleon III, Hives was called upon to discuss several minor diplomatic problems with the French government, from the beginning of 1853 his attention was increas­ ingly turned toward plans to return to the United States. It is doubtful, after the change of govern­ ment in France, the growing indebtedness as a result of maintaining his family in Paris, and the desire to be reunited with family and friends, whether Hives would have consented to stay on in Paris beyond the spring of 1853. As it was, the Democratic victory in the presidential election of 1652^^^ and the anti­ cipated change in representation abroad determined his course of action.

The election pitted Franklin Pierce against Winfield Scott, and the result was a Democratic triumph. Eoseboom, Presidential Elections, p. 148. 403 On February 3» 1853» Eives addressed a letter to the President-elect of the United States, Franklin Pierce, resigning his position as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States in France "to take effect at as early a period as it may be convenient for the Government to have my successor here. Although he heard nothing from his government about a successor having been appointed, on March 10 he again communicated his determination to leave the country, and informed the Secretary of State Edward Everett that he would be leaving Paris in time to take the Liverpool Steamer for New York on May 18. On May 12 he had an audience with the Emperor to deliver his letters of recall, which had finally arrived in late April, and on May l4 Bives and

Although Hives’s second mission to France had not been marked by an accomplishment on the same level

■ WCR to Everett, February 3, 1853» National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXXIV. WCR to Everett, March 10, May l4, 1853» 404 as the Treaty of I83.lt he could be pleased with his work. Through his mastery of the art of diplomatic communication, he had prevented minor issues from becoming major sources of irritation between the two governments. Only one flaw marked nearly four years of negotiation; his supposed indiscretion in reporting the activities of Napoleon after the coup of I851. And. even that episode must be blamed as much on Webster as on Hives. .All in all, it had not been a bad experience. EPILOGUE

When William Cabell Rives returned to Castle in the spring of 1853» he presumably looked forward to living out the rest of his days retired from the political arena. He had, after all, devoted over thirty five years to the service of his country, in the finest tradition of the Southern oligarchy. He had served with distinction in the Virginia House of Delegates, the United States House of Representatives and Senate, and twice as minister to France. It would seem that it was time, at long last, to indulge him­ self in pursuit of other interests which he had developed over the years. For over seven years this is precisely what Rives did. Although it would have been impossible for him to Ignore politics entirely (he viewed with increasing alarm the disturbing events of the l850's), he turned his attention to improving the economy and culture of Virginia. In pursuing these aims he con­ centrated his efforts on the promotion of scientific agriculture, the development of railroad systems for

405 406 Virginia, and a study of the life of his friend James Madison. Elves's interest in agriculture and cattle was a logical outgrowth of his position as a plan­ tation owner and had been encouraged by his second trip to France. He had taken advantage of his stay on the continent to study European methods and when he returned he turned Castle Hill into a showplace for the breeding of horses and sheep. He also was instrumental in establishing a professorship of agri­ culture at the Virginia Military Institute. Since a transportation network went hand in hand with improved farming methods, it was not sur­ prising that in the l850*s Hives became active in pro­ moting the extension of the railroad network within his state. Upon his return from France, he became involved in the Orange and Alexandria Railroad, serving for some time as one of the company's dir­ ectors. And his third major area of interest following his retirement from political life, a study of the life of James Madison, also indicated his devotion to his native state and its heritage. Since Hives had been elected president of the Historical and Philosophical Society of Virginia in 1848 and had (with his wife) 407 known the Madisons, James and Dolley, intimately over the years it was not surprising that he was approached in 1856 by the Joint Library Committee of Congress about the possibility of his editing the Madison papers. He willingly accepted this assignment and in addition decided to write a biography of Madison, Although this work was interrupted by the Civil War, by 1868 (the year of his death) Hives had completed three of the four projected volumes in this biography. In addition to being a labor of love, this work was a monument to Hives's dedication to what he considered the enduring principles of the great Virginian and American. ®ïe election of Lincoln in i860 and the secession of South Carolina and other southern states interrupted Hives's retirement rather dramatically. Since his political life had been dedicated to a course of moderation and devotion to the Union, such developments quite naturally disturbed him greatly. In attempting to bring about a reconciliation between the divergent sectional interests. Hives served as a member of the Peace Conference which met with Lincoln in 1861. When this effort seemed to fail, he urged his fellow Virginians to cooperate with other border states in forming a middle confederacy to moderate 408 the extreme sentiments of the north and south in order to restore the union. Hives's attempts at compromise and moderation failed, but he had remained true to his previous poli­ tical position. When Virginia also left the union, Hives did not defend this by demonstrating the con­ stitutional right of a state to secede from the Union, but rather on the basis of the Declaration of Inde­ pendence, a document drafted by his mentor Thomas Jefferson. He maintained that it was the right of Virginia and the South to reject a government which ruled by force rather than by the consent of the governed. Hives's political career was resumed, undoubt­ edly unexpectedly, when he served his state in the Confederate House of Representatives periodically throughout the war. As late as 1864 he still had hopes that the south would be allowed to determine her own future and was responsible for a Joint resolution, which the Confederate Congress adopted, justifying the South’s cause and anticipating an end to the war and the division of the country into northern and southern confederacies. When the war ended in defeat for the South, Rives could at least find consolation 409 in the fact that slavery had "been eliminated and he again called for devotion by his fellow Virginians to the Union and to the Constitution of the United States. H I health forced Hives's resignation from the Confederate Congress shortly before the end of the war. The state of his health, which apparently continued to deteriorate, also prevented him from actively participating in post-war developments. He continued to work on his study of Madison, however, and on April 25, 1868, his work unfinished, William Cabell Hives died, having attained the respectable age of seventy-five.

To assess the political and diplomatic career of William Cabell Hives is not an easy task. There can be no doubt that he felt it his duty to serve his country, not merely for self-advancement but for the contribution he could make to its welfare, whether it be the United States of America or the Confederate States of America. Over the course of almost fifty years he earned the respect and admiration, and on occasion the animosity, of his countrymen for his 410 dedication to principle and his respect for the orderly process of government. One can rarely criticize Rives for his want of dedication to his country. Unfortunately, Rives * s outstanding accomplish­ ment was in the area of diplomacy rather than domestic politics, in an age when a r eputation was not to he established solely on the basis of serving the United States as an occasional diplomat. During both of his ministries to France Rives was faced with difficult and potentially serious situations. In the Democratic administration of Jackson the problem was the spoliation claims and the French counterclaims. After long and tedious negotiations Rives was able to negotiate a mutually satisfying treaty, an accomplishment which took a great deal of skill and tact on his part. During the Whig administration of Taylor and Fillmore he was called upon to cope with the relatively minor problems resulting from the inevitable clash between imperial ambitions of France and the emerging self-confidence and youthful exuberance of the United States. Again he handled his tak with consumate acumen. In fact one might speculate that if Rives had served his country as a diplomat in an era when skill in diplomacy was fully appreciated, he might have achieved lasting prominence. 411 Rives, however, camot be viewed primarily as a diplomat. His appointments to the French mission must be seen, as Rives undoubtedly saw them himself, as political rewards for dedication to party rather than a recognition of his diplomatic skills. Unfor­ tunately, from the standpoint of his immortality, he placed primary emphasis on political participation in the domestic developments of the United States. In this area he was less than successful in achieving a lasting reputation. The most obvious explanation for this fact is that he was competing with a number of outstanding politicians for a position in the history of his country. A more important explanation for his relative obscurity, however, can be found in Rives's political philosophy, a policy of moderation in an age when extremes were more prevalent and more popular. He was a Virginian of the "old school" in an age when "old school" values and outlook had become dated. Unhappily, his call for principle and dedication to the Union was increasingly drowned out by the growing forces of sectionalism and disunion which ultimately culminated in the Civil War. And instead of recog­ nizing that changes in the structure of American poli­ tics, economics, and society might necessitate new approaches, he continued to look to the past of 412 Jefferson and Madison, an era in which he would have been more comfortable, rather than to the present or future for guidance. But one suspects that Rives would have lived his life in much the way he did even if the future had been opened to him at an early age. APPENDIX A

PROPOSAL OF A CONVENTION

His Host Christian Majesty the King of France and Navarre, and the United States of America, desiring to extinguish all source of misunderstanding, and to consolidate the friendly and cordial relations, which it is the wish and interest of both powers to cherish, have, respectively named their plenipotentiaries, to wit— who, having exchanged their full powers, have agreed to and concluded the following articles: Art. I. His Host Christian Majesty will make compensation to the citizens of the United States for all losses and damage sustained by reason of illegal or irregular captures, seizures and sequestrations of their vessels and cargoes under the authority of France, in all cases where the said vessels and cargoes have not been definitively condemned by the Council of prizes, as also for all losses and damage sustained by the unlawful destruction of their vessels and cargoes at sea, and for all supplies derived from citizens of the United States, or debts otherwise due by virtue of contract. Art. II. His Most Christian Majesty also engages to make compensation to the citizens of the United States for all losses and damage sustained by reason of condemnations of their vessels and cargoes in the following cases, to wit— 1st where the condem­ nations were in contravention of the convention of the 30th Sept. 1800 between France and the United States; 2ndly. where the condemnation was not pronounced by a regular prize tribunal; 3rdly. where the proceedings were not according to the forms prescribed by law for securing a fair trial on a hearing of both parties; 4thly. where the sentences of condemnation gave a retrospective effect to the Decrees under which they purported to be made; 5thly. where condemnations which

Enclosed in WCR to Van Buren, February 25, 1830, National Archives, Despatches from United States Ministers to France, XXIV.

413 4 l4 purported to be made by virtue of the Berlin and Milan Decrees were pronounced subsequent to the day, from and after which the said Decrees, in being definitively repealed, were, according to the declara­ tions and acts of the French government, to be thence­ forward considered as not having existed; and 6thly. where, from any other circumstance or consideration, the mixed commission hereinafter provided for, shall determine that His Majesty's government is justly bound to make compensation, whether the condemnation was by virtue of the before mentioned Decrees, or any other decree or Oder, or upon some other pretence. Art. III. For the purpose of liquidating the sums due to citizens of the United States, according to the foregoing principles and provisions, and to determine in what cases, not specially designated. His Majesty's government is justly bound to compensate, four commissioners and two arbitrators shall be appointed, and authorised to meet and act, in the manner following, to wit; two commissioners and one arbitrator shall be appointed by His Most Christian Majesty, and the re­ maining two commissioners and one arbitrator shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof. The said commissioners and arbitrators shall first meet at Paris, but they shall have power to adjourn from place to place, as they may see fit. At their first meeting and before they proceed to act, they shall respectively take the following oath or affirmation in the presence of each other, which oath or affirmation, being so taken and duly attested, shall be entered by their Secretary, (whom they shall have power to appoint), on the record of their proceedings, to wit: "I, A. B., one of the commissioners (or arbitrators, as the case may be), appointed in pursuance of the con­ vention concluded at on between do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will honestly, diligently, impartially and carefully examine, and to the best of my judgment, according to the principles and provisions of the said convention, decide all matters submitted to me as commissioner, (or arbitrator, as the case may be), under the said convention." All vacancies occurring by death or otherwise shall be filled up in the manner of the original appointment, and the new commissioner, or arbitrators shall take the same oath or affirmation, and perform the same duties as their predecessor. ^15 Art, IV, The said commissioners are hereby- empowered and required to go into an examination of all the claims presented to them under this convention, and to determine the same, according to the merits of the several cases, under the principles and provisions herein before established. In the investigation of the said claims, the commissioners shall have power to examine all such persons as shall come before them, on oath or affirmation, touching the premises; and also to receive in evidence, according as they nay think most consistent with equity and justice, all written depositions, or books, or papers, or copies or extracts thereof, every such deposition, or book, or paper, or extract or copy being duly authenticated, according to the legal forms now respectively existing in the two countries, or in such other manner as the said commissioners shall see cause to require or allow. Art, V, In the event of the commissioners not being able, by a majority of voices, to decide any particular case under examination, or any collateral question arising therein, those and in that case they shall draw by lot the name of one of the two arbitrators, who after having given due consideration to the matter contested, shall consult with the commissioners, and a final decision shall be given, in that case, conformably to the opinion of the majority of the commissioners and of the arbitrator so drawn by lot; and the arbitrator, when so acting with the commissioners, shall be bound, in all respects, by the same rules of proceeding, and shall be vested with the same powers as the commissioners, and be deemed, for that case, a commissioner. Art, VI, The decision of the commissioners, or of the commissioners and arbitrator as provided for by the preceeding article, shall in all cases be final and conclusive, both as to the justice of the claim, and the amount of the sum to be paid to the claimant; and His Most Christian Majesty engages to cause the sum so awarded to be paid to such claimant, in specific without reduction, at such place or places and at such time or times as shall be awarded by the commissioners, and on conduction of such releases or assignments to be given by the claimant as the commissioners shall also direct. Art. VII, It is farther agreed that the commissioners and arbitrators shall be respectively 416 paid in such manner as shall he settled between the two governments at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this convention; and all other expenses attending to the execution of the commission shall be defrayed jointly by the two parties, the same being previously ascertained and allowed by the majority of the Board. APPENDIX B

CONVENTION REGARDING CLAIMS AND REGARDING DUTIES ON WINES AND COTTONS, Signed at Paris, July 4, 1831*

The United States of America . and His Majesty the King of the French, animated with an equal desire to adjust, amicably and in a manner conformable to equity as well as to the relations of good intelligence and sincere friendship which unite the two countries, the reclamations formed by the respective governments, have, for this purpose, named for their plenipotentiaries ; to wit the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, William C. Rives, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States near His Majesty the King of the French, and His Majesty the Kli^ of the French, Count Horace Sebastiani, 1ieutenant-gênêral of his armies, his Minister Secretary of State for the Department of Foreign Affairs who, after having exchanged their full powers found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles* ARTICLE 1. .The French Government, in order to liberate itself completely from all the reclamations preferred against it by citizens of the United States for unlawful seizures, captures, sequestrations, confiscations or destructions of their vessels, cargoes, or other property, engages to pay a sum of twenty five millions of francs to the government of the United States who shall distribute it among those entitled in the manner and according to the rules which it shall determine.

*Hunter Miller (ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington* Government Printing Office, 1931-36), II, 641-46. 417 4l8 ARTICLE 2. The sum of twenty five millions of francs above stipulated shall be paid at Paris in six annual installments of four millions, one hundred and sixty six thousand six hundred and sixty six francs sixty six centimes each, into the hands of such person or persons as shall be authorised by the government of the United States to receive it. The first installment shall be paid at the expiration of one year next following the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, and. the others at successive intervals of a year, one after another, till the whole shall be paid. To the amount of each of the said Installments shall be added interest at four per cent thereupon, as upon the other installments then remaining unpaid, the said interest to be computed from the. day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention. ARTICLE 3. The government of the United States on its part, for the purpose.of being liberated completely from all the reclamations presented by France on behalf of its citizens or of the Royal Treasury (either for ancient supplies or accounts the liquidation of which had been reserved, or for unlawful seizures, captures, detentions arrests or destructions of French vessels, cargoes or other property) engages to pay to the government of His Majesty (which shall make distri­ bution of the same, in the manner and according to the rules to be determined by it) the sum of one million five hundred thousand francs. ARTICLE 4. The sum of one million five hundred thousand francs stipulated in the preceding article shall be payabel in six annual installments of two hundred and fifty thousand francs, and the payment of each of the said installments shall be effected by a reservation of so much out of the annual sums which the French government is bound, by the second article above, to pay to the government of the United States. 419 To the amoxint of each of these installments shall be added interest at four per cent upon the installment then paid, as well as upon those still due, which payments of interest shall be effected by means of a reservation similar to that already indi­ cated for the payment of the principal. The said interest shall be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present conven­ tion. ARTICLE 5. As to the reclamtions of French citizens against the government of the United States, and the reclamations of citizens of the United States against the French government which are of a different nature from those which it is the object of the present convention to adjust, it is understood that the citizens of the two nations may prosecute them in the respective countries before the competent judicial or administrative authorities in complying with the laws and regulations of the country, the dispositions and benefit of which shall be applied to them in like manner as to native citizens. ARTICLE 6. The French government and the government of the United States reciprocally engage to communicate to each other, by the intermediary of the respective legations, the documents, titles or other informations proper to facilitate the examination and liquidation of the reclamations comprised in the stipulations of the present convention. ARTICLE 7. The wines of France, from and after the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention, shall be admitted to consumption in the States of the Union, at duties which shall not exceed the following rates by the gallon (such as it is used at present for wines in the United States)— to wit, six cents for red wines in casks ; ten cents for white wines in casks, and twenty two cents for wines of all sorts in bottles. The proportion existing between the duties on French wines thus reduced and the general rates of the tariff which went into operation the 1st of January 1829, shall be maintained, in case the 420 the goTemment of the United States should think proper to diminish those general rates in a new Tariff. In consideration of this stipulation, which shall be binding on the United States for ten years, the French government abandons the reclamations which it had formed in relation to the 8th article of the Treaty of cession of Louisiana, It engages moreover to establish on the long staple cottons of the United States, which after the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention shall be brought directly thence to Prance by the vessels of the United States or by French vessels, the same duties as on short staple cottons, ARTICLE 8. The present convention shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington in the space of eight months, or sooner, if possible. In faith of which, the respective pleni­ potentiaries have signed these articles and thereto set their seals. Done at Paris the fourth day of the month of July one thousand, eight hundred and thirty one. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. PRIMARY I-IATEHIALS

A. Manuscripts 1. Archival Materials National Archives. Despatches from United States Ministers to France, 1816-32, 1849-53. National Archives. Notes from the Department of State to the French Legation, 1849-52. National Archives. Records of the Department of State. Diplomatic Instructions. France, 1829-32, 1849-53. Paris. Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères. Corresüondance politique. Etats-Unis, 1829-32.

2. Private Papers Boteler Papers. Perkins Library. Duke University. Joseph G. Cabell Papers. University of Virginia Library. Manuscript Division. David Campbell Papers. Perkins Library. Duke University, John K. Clayton Papers. Library of Congress. Manu­ scripts Division. J. J. Crittenden Papers. Library of Congress. Manu­ scripts Division. H. B. Grigsby Papers. Virginia Historical Society. William Henry Harrison Papers. Manuscripts Division. Library of Congress. 421 422 Thomas Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. Manu­ scripts Division. Robert E. Lee Papers. Perkins Library. Duke University. McDowell Family Papers. University of Virginia Library. Manuscript Division. Nathaniel Niles Papers. Library of Congress. Manu­ scripts Division. A. L. Rives Papers. Perkins Library, Duke University. Amelle Rives Papers. Perkins Library, Duke University. William Cabell Rives Deposit, University of Virginia Library. Manuscript Division. William Cabell Rives Papers. Library of Congress. Manuscripts Division. Rives Family Papers, Virginia Historical Society. Conway Robinson Papers. Virginia Historical Society, John Rutherfoord Papers. Perkins Library. Duke University, Samuel Smith Papers. Library of Congress. Manuscripts Division. Zachary Taylor Papers. Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Nicholas P. Trist Papers. Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, John Tyler Papers, Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division. Martin Van Buren Papers. Library of Congress, Manu­ scripts Division. Levi Woodbury Papers. Library of Congress. Manuscripts Division. 423 B. Printed Sources 1. Published Official Documents

American State Papers. Foreign Relations. 6 volumes. Edited under the Authority of Congress. , . . Washington* Gales & Seaton, 1833- Israel, Fred L. (ed.). The State of the Union Messages of the Presidents 1790-1966. With an intro­ duction by Arthur H. Schlesinger, 3 volumes. New York; Chelsea House, Robert Hector Publishers, 1966. Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia. . . . Sessions of 1832-3 7 , 1839-41. Richmond: 1832-36, 1839-41. Miller, Hunter (ed.). Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. 8 volumes. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931-36. Morrison, Alfred J. The College of Hampden-Sidney. Calendar of Board Minutes 1776-1676. Richmond* 1912. Public Documents Printed by Order of the Senate. . . . 23rd Congress, 2nd Session. 4 volumes. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834. Richardson, James D. (ed.). A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. I789- 1697. 9 volumes and index. Washington* Government Printing Office, I898-99. U.S. Congressional Globe. Containing the Debates and Proceedings,~T833-1873J I9 0volumes, Washington* Blair and Rives, et al., editors and publishers, I834-I873. U.S. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. 1789-18^. Compiled by Gales and Seaton. 42 volumes. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834-1856. U.S. Register of Debates in Congress. 1825-1837. 29 volumes, Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1825- 1837. kZU' 2, Memoirs, Autobiographies and Correspondence Bassett, John Spencer (ed,). Correspondence of Andrew Jackson. 6 volumes and index, Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1926-35. Benton, Thomas Hart, Thirty Years * View; or. A History of the Working of the American Government for Thirty Years. from 1Ô20 to 1850. 2 volumes. Cabell, Nathaniel F, (ed,). Early History of the University of Virginia, as Contained in the Letters of Thomas Jefferson and Joseph C, Cabell, , . , Richmond: J. W, Randolph, I856, Coleman, Mrs, Chapman (ed,). The Life of John J, Crittenden. With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches. 2 volumes. Philadelphia: J, B. Lippincott & Co,, I873. Hamilton, James A, Reminiscences of James A, Hamilton; or. Men & Events at home and abroad, during three quarters of a century, , , , New York: C, Scribner & co,, IÔ69' Jameson, J. Franklin (ed,), "Correspondence of John C. Calhoun," American Historical Association, Annual Report (1899), 2 volumes, Washington: Government Printing Office, I9OO. Madison, Rev, James, "Letters of Rev. James Madison, President of William and Mary College, to Thomas Jefferson," William and Mary College uarterly Historical Magazine. 2d Series, V f1925), 1^5^1ïï: Rives, Judith Page Walker. "A Woman in the Paris Revolution of I83O," edited by Thomas Walker Page. Harper's (New) Monthly Magazine. CIV (1901-02), 33-44, Hives, William C, "Letters of William C. Hives," Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine. V (1^), 223-37; vTTl925), 6-157 97-106. Van Buren, Martin. The Autobiography of Martin Van Buren. Edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Ameri­ can Historical Association, Annual Report (1918). Vol. II, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1920, hZ5 3. Newspapers Globe, Washington, D.C., 1830-^5* The Kadisonian. Washington, D.C., 1837-4-$. National Intelligencer. Washington, D.C., 1823-4$. Niles' Weekly Register. Baltimore, Washington. l823-$3. Richmond Enquirer. Richmond, Virginia, l8l$-$2. Richmond Whig. Richmond, Virginia, 1837-4$.

II. SECONDARY MATERIALS

Albrecht-Carrie, René. A Diplomatic History of Europe Since the Congress of Vienna. New York* Harper & Brothers ,^193W. Allen, H. C. Great Britain and the United States A History of Anglo-American Relations (1783-1932). London: Odhams Press, Limited, 19$4. Ambler, Charles Henry. Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to I86I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910. Thomas Ritchie: A Study in Virginia Politics. Richmond: Bell Book and Stationary Co., 1913. Bemis, Samuel Flagg. The Latin-American Policy of the United States An Historical Interpretation. New York: W. w. Norton & Co., 1943. Bertier de Sauvigny, Guillaume. The Bourbon Restoration. Translated by Lynn M. Case. Philadelphia* The University of Pennsylvania Press, I966. Blumenthal, Henry. France and the United States. Their Diplomatic Relations. 1759-1914. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970. 426 Blumenthal, Henry, A Reappraisal of Pranco-American Relations 1830-1871. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959. Bourne, Kenneth, Britain and the Balance of Power in North America 1815-190Ô. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 196?. Bowers, Claude G. The Party Battles of the Jackson Period. Chautauqua, New York: The Chautauqua Press, 1922. Brown, Alexander. The Cabells and Their Kin. , , . 2nd edition. Richmond: Garrett and Kassie, 1939. Bruce, Philip Alexander. History of the University of Virginia, the Lengthened Shadow of One Kan. 5 volumes. New York: Macmillan, 1920-1922. Casper, Henry W. American Attitudes Toward the Rise of Napoleon III; A Cross Section of Public Opinion. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 194?. Chambers, William Nisbit. Old Bullion Benton Senator from the New West. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, I956. Chandler, Julian A. C. Representation in Virginia. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. Fourteenth Series. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1896. Chitwood, Oliver P. John Tyler Champion of the Old South. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1939. Comegys, Joseph P. Memoir of John K. Clayton. Papers of the Historical Society of Delaware. IV, Wilmington: The Historical Society of Delaware, 1882. Curtis, James C. The Fox at Bay; Martin Van Buren and the Presidency. 1837-ÎW l . Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1970. Dangerfleld, George. The Awakening of American Nationalism 1815-1828. New York: Harper & Row, 1965, 427 Davis, Richard Beale. Intellectual Life in Jeffarson's Virginia 1790~l830l Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964. Dunaway, Wayland Fuller, History of the James River and Kanawha Comuany. Columbia University Studies in History. Economics and Public Law. Volume CIV, No. 2. New York* Columbia University Press, 1922. Ettlnger, Amos Aschbach. The Mission to Spain of Pierre Soulê 1853-1855; A Study in the Cuban Diplomacy of the United States. New Haven* Yale University Press, 1932. Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War; the Nulli­ fication Controversy in South Carolina I8l6-1836. New York: Harper & Row, I965. Garraty, John. Silas Wright. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. Gordon, Armistead C. William Fltzhugh Gordon, a Vir­ ginian of the old school: his life, times and contemporaries"Tl787-1858). New York: The Neale Publishing Company, I909. Gunderson, Robert Gray. Old Gentlemen's Convention. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1961. Hamilton, Holman. Zachary Taylor Soldier in the White House. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1951. Johnson, Allen, and Malone, Dumas (eds.). Dictionary of American Biography. 20 volumes and Indez. New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1928-37. Kaplan, Lawrence S. Jefferson and France; an Essay on Politics and Political Ideas. Yale Historical Publications. The Wallace Notestein Essays, 5. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1967. Kirvjan, Albert D. John J. Crittenden. The Struggle for the Union. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1962. 428 Koch, Adrienne, Jefferson, and Madison; The Great Collaboration. London* ■ Osford University Press, 1969. McGrane, Reginald C. The Panic of 1837; Some Financial Problems of the Jacksonian Era. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1924. McLemore, Richard A. Pranco-American Diplomatie Rela­ tions 1816-183^ University, La.; Louisiana State University Press, 1941. Meyer, Leland W. The Life and Times of Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky. Columbia University Studies in History. Economics and Public Law. Ko. 359. New York; Columbia University Press, 1932. Palm, Franklin Charles. England and Napoleon III; a Study of the Rise of a Utopian Dictator. ~ Durham, N.C.; Duke University Press, 1948. Perkins, Bradford. Prologue to War; England and the United States. 1805-1812. Berkeley; University of California Press, 1968. Perkins, Dezter, A History of the Monroe Doctrine. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., I9S3T Peterson, Merrill D, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation. New York; Oxford University Press, 1970. Pierson, Hamilton Wilcox. Jefferson at Monticello; The Private Life of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by James A. Bear, Jr. Charlottesville; University Press of Virginia, I967. Poage, George R. Henry Clay and the Whig Party. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 193°• Powell, J. H. Richard Rush Republican Diplomat 1780-1859. Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1942. Rawlings, Mary. The Albemarle of Other Days. Charlottesville ; The Mlchle Co., 1925. Reeves, Jesse S. American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk. Baltimore* Johns Hopkins Press, I907. 429 Remlni, Robert V. The Election of Andrew Jackson. Philadelphia and New York: J. B. Linpincott Co., 1963. Elves, George L, The United States and Mexico 1821-1848. 2 volumes. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913. Roseboom, Eugene H. A History of Presidential Elections. New York: Macmillan, 19%.

Schaohner, Nathan. Thomas Jefferson A Biography. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 195?.~ Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. The Age of Jackson. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1943. Seager, Robert, II. and Tyler too. A Biography of John & Julia Gardiner Tyler, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953: “ Simms, Henry H. The Rise of the Whigs in Virginia, 1824-1840. Richmond: The William Byrd Press, Smith, Justin R. The Annexation of Texas. New York; Barnes & Noble Inc., 1941. Stuart, Graham E. American Diplomatic and Consular Practice. Second Edition, New York: Appleton- Century- Crofts, Inc., 1952. Taussig, P. W. The Tariff History of the United States. New York: G. ?. Putnam’s Sons, 1931. Van Deusen, Glyndon G. The Jacksonian Era 1828-1848. New York: Harper & Row, 1959. Walker, Willis A. Pranco-American Commerioal Relations. Fort Hays, Kansas: Published by Author, 1928.' Whitaker, Arthur P. The United States and the Inde­ pendence of Latin America. l8oo”l^30. New York: W, W. Norton, 19%. White, Leonard D. The Jacksonlans; A Study in Adminis­ trative History 1829-1861, New York; The Free Press, 1954. Wilburn, Jean Alexander. Biddle's Bank the Crucial Years. New York: Columbia University Press, I967. 430 Williams, M. W. Anglo-American Isthmian Dlplcaacy 1815-1915» Washington: American Historical Association, I916. Willson, Beckles. America » s Ambassadors to France (1777-1927). New York; Frederick A, Stokes Company, 1929. ______. Friendly Relations A Narrative of Britain*s Ministers and Ambassadors to America Tl791-19'30) » Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1969. Wolf, John B. France 1814-1919 The Rise of a Liberal- Democratic Society. New York: Harper & Row, 19^31 Wright, Gordon, France in Modern Times. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 19SFI

B, Articles Ettlnger, A. A. "The Proposed Anglo-Pranco-Amerlcan Treaty of I852 to Guarantee Cuba to Spain," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, XIII (London, 19307^1^9-185» Naylor, Robert A. "The British Role in Central America Prior to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of I85O," Hispanic American Historical Review, XL (I96O), 3Ï“è-Ô2» Sydnor, Chaires S» "The One-Party Period of American History," American Historical Review. LI (April, 1946), 439-51. Webster, C. K, "British Mediation between France and the United States, 1834-1836," English Historical Review. XLII (1927), 58-78. Williams, Mary Wilhelmine. "John Middleton Clayton," in The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy. Edited by Samuel Flagg Bemis. 10 volumes. New York: Pageant Book Company, 1928. C. Unpublished Dissertation Dingledine, Raymond C., Jr. "The Political Career of William Cabell Rives. Unpublished Ph. D» Dissertation, University of Virginia, 194?.