Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-02-16
Dlrglmla argus.
r &c II NJ o N d:
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1905.

frUe na'Sre of the opposition TO Mr.. Ma
diSon'S election. The advocates for that
OF Col. Monroe, have hitherto exhibited a
strange mixture efardent Republic ans, and
violent Federal;sts, OF foes and friends OF
the present administration. Sut if the
ground, which some of them have now ta-
ken. is to he that of the f,arty, we do not
hesitate n predict that those who answer
10 the latter description, will soon forsake
it altogether.
We are now given to understand that
Mrssrs. Jefferson and Madison are charge.
abc with all the present distresses of our
country, which would have been avoided, &c
the treaty negotiated by Col. Monroe had
not heen rejected for the insitious purpose
ut preventing his success, and promoting
that of Aladison, in ;he approaching con-
test for the Presidential chair; that the
treaty, which he sent aver was good one,
and ought to have been ratified notwith
standing II contained no provision to protect
our Seamcn from imprcssment, and, i'm o.
Their respects was cloggyd, and, indeed, rem
dered a Rullitv. by the coBcomitant decla-
ration of the British government, that they
would not observe it, if the U. s submitted
to the terms of Boaaharfe's blockading
decree; that our government occasioned
M9nroe's negotiation, and also treated him
with disrespect, by sen!ing to England Mr.
Pfnckaev, as Envoy extraordinary, to as
sist him; that this was done with AN eye
to the Presidential election at "A time when
he was IN fair way to adjust all the dis
putcs betwcGT the two nations, to prevent
his obtaining the undivided glory of accom-
plishing so great and useful work and the
Popularity which would have been it's ne
cessary consequence.
Such are the objections which have late
ly been made to the conduct of Mr.. Madison,
and, with his to that of Mr.. Je6er8on, rela-
tive to the treaty with England.
We shall endcavor 10 give them fair
and impartial consideration, and a candid
and temperate answer.
In the first place, we deny that the treaty
negotiated by Messrs Monroe and Pfnck-
neg ought to have been ratified by the Pre-
sident.
On this point we wish TO be distinctly un
derstood. We do not mean to change those
excellent Patriots With having surrendered
any of the rights Of America; with con-
Guiding treaty contrary TO their instruc-
tons; or with having failed to get as adj
van'ageous terms for rs as the government
osGreat Britain could at that time be per-
suaded TO grant. The instrument which
was drawn up was rather a hrojet for a
treaty, than treaty actually agreed upon :;
for Gas the President himself informs us. in
his communication to Congress at the COM
menccment of the present SESSION. they
tGid the British ministry, when the clause
for the relief OF our seamen was struck out.
that they were instructed to insist on the
Insertion OF that clause, and therefore would
not pledge our government to sanction the
treaty without it, but would sign and send
over the instrument, only as a proposal
made on the part of Great Britain for the
consideration of the President and Senate.
Our ministers were certainly free from
all blame.-But it does not follow that the
treaty ought to have been ratified on our
part To say that the President was bound
by his duty to consent To it, because it con-
tanned the best terms which the British
were willing to grant, would be to proclaim
political heresy indeed
According to such doctrine, the patriots
OF l776 ought to have submitted to all the
expressions of the tyrant George the Cd,
and of his obsequious parliament, because
all their petitions and Temonstrances had
proved Intellectual, and those expressions
were the best terms which could then be OBJ
iained. At this rate, all the addresses and
resolutions occasioned by the outrage on the
Chesapeake, in which none concurred with
more zeal and SINGER ty than many of the
present friends Of Col HHouroe's election.
must have been extremely improper and
unjustihable, because none of them spoke
OF being satisfied with concluding a treaty
on she hest trims that could be eof, but all
insisted on PREPARATION for the past, and nm.
f(e security for the future 'fhe language
Of all America, few months ago WAS lond
and energetic, that war, Immediate War,
with all it's train Of evils. beginning with
Embdrgoss, and loss of cOmmerce,) was
infinitely better than the tame surrender of
ol any our rights. And is it possible that
Party si'f,Tt could have blinded some of our
+" s. ectable republicans, so s~on, and to such
a degree, that they DO not perceive the i'm
Propriety and Inconsistency of blaming
the President for rejecting treaty, in
which one of our most important rights
was silently pretcrmittcd, and might there
by have been considered as relinquisbed.
n treaty which was declared, by the Bri-
tish ambassador here, not TO be binding, so
Tar rs It went to recognize and establish
another Of those rights except upon condi-
tons 10 which we could not submit Can il
seriously be contcnded (all our patriotic
declarations to the contrary nOtw thstaBd-
ing) that rather than have produced the
Inconvenience Of the present Embargo, or
the still greater which may follow, If our
differences with England cannot be settled.
the Precedent ought originally 10 have CIV
en- up the points in dispute surely gentle