Part 27
The very fact that opposition to any elaborate form of divine service being connected with Washington’s inauguration was overruled shows how closely the founders of the “new” government followed Old World examples. It appears that the inauguration had been planned with a view to excluding the clergy in their official capacities and, in all probability, this programme would have been carried out had not the ministers in New York protested. Here again precedents from motherlands carried the day. When, at the eleventh hour the “sacrilege” was called to the attention of the Right Reverend Provoost, Episcopal bishop of New York, he cautiously replied that the Church of England “had always been used to look up to Government upon such occasions.” “The question of holding services on the day of the inauguration,” records Ebenezer Hazard, “had been agitated by the clergymen in town.... The bishop thought it prudent not to do anything till they knew what Government would direct. If the good bishop never prays without an order from Government,” wrote Hazard, “it is not probable that the kingdom of heaven will suffer much from his violence.”
In the light of these facts it is not strange that we find Adams, Lee and others turning their eyes to procedures of the Old World for guidance in the matter of titles. To be sure, the Constitution not only declared that no titles of nobility shall be granted by the United States but that employès of the Government, of whatever degree, shall not accept them from any foreign potentate. Yet there was a large question as to what kind of title might have been meant; whether a patent of nobility with landed estates to be handed down from generation to generation—which, undoubtedly, was the “evil” aimed at by the framers of the Constitution—or a mere title of courtesy as “Mister” or “Mr.” or “Sir” used in ordinary correspondence. Congress had met to put the Constitution in operation and had the power to construe doubtful passages. Broader interpretations of the articles have been made than those proposed by the titleists.
Adams had spent much time in Europe and had been impressed with the effect of formalities, titles, wigs, gowns, etc., on the “common” people. That he was correct, in some degree, in his advocacy of these forms is attested by the fact that gowns have come more and more into use in the administration of the judiciary of some states and in the Supreme Court of the United States while, in the general run of commerce, liveries—the insignia of station or rank—are getting to be the rule rather than the exception.
V. FORCING THE FIGHT ON TITLES.
## Acting with his usual energy, Adams forced the fighting on titles from
the start. He arrived in New York on Monday, April 20, and by Thursday, April 23, he had the Title Committee appointed; and the discussion of titles occupied most of the time of the Senate from then until May 14, when it was finally disposed of. Pending the inaugural, April 30, the subject lay in abeyance. On the morning following, May 1, the Senate met at 11 o’clock. At the conclusion of “prayers” was the reading of the minutes and almost the first words were “His Most Gracious Speech”—referring to Washington’s inaugural address. Adams frankly admitted that these words had been inserted at his instance by Samuel Otis, the secretary of the Senate.
Maclay records: “I looked all around the Senate. Every countenance seemed to wear a blank. The Secretary was going on. I must speak or nobody would. ‘Mr. President, we have lately had a hard struggle for our liberty against kingly authority. The minds of men are still heated; everything related to that species of government is odious to the people. The words prefixed to the President’s speech are the same that are usually placed before the speech of his Britannic Majesty. I know they will give offense. I consider them improper. I, therefore, move that they be struck out and that it stand simply address or speech as may be adjudged most suitable.’
“Mr. Adams rose in his chair and expressed the greatest surprise that anything should be objected to on account of its being taken from the practice of that Government under which we had lived so long and happily formerly; that he was for a dignified and respectable government and, as far as he knew the sentiments of the people, they thought as he did; that, for his part, he was one of the first in the late contest [the Revolution] and, if he could have thought of this, he never would have drawn his sword.
“Painful as it was, I had to contend with the Chair. I admitted that the people of the colonies had enjoyed, formerly, great happiness under that species of government but the abuses of that Government under which they had smarted had taught them what they had to fear from that kind of government; that there had been a revolution in the sentiments of people respecting that government, equally great as that which had happened in the government itself; that even the modes of it were now abhorred; that the enemies of the Constitution had objected to it believing there would be a transition from it to kingly government and all the trappings and splendor of royalty; that if such a thing as this appeared on our minutes, they would not fail to resent it as the first step of the ladder in the ascent to royalty.
“The Vice-President rose a second time and declared that he had mentioned it to the Secretary; that he could not possibly conceive that any person could take offense at it. I had to get up again and declare that, although I knew of it being mentioned from the Chair, yet my opposition did not proceed from any motive of contempt; that, although it was a painful task, it was solely a sense of duty that raised me.
“The Vice-President stood during this time; said he had been long abroad and did not know how the temper of people might be now. Up now rose [George] Reed [Senator from Delaware] and declared for the paragraph. He saw no reason to object to it because the British speeches were styled ‘most gracious.’ If we choose to object to words because they had been used in the same sense in Britain, we should soon be at loss to do business. I had to reply: ‘It is time enough to submit to necessity when it exists. At present we are not at loss for words. The words, speech or address, without any addition will suit us well enough.’ The first time I was up Mr. Lee followed me with a word or two by way of seconding me; but when the Vice-President, on being up last, declared that he was the person from whom the words were taken, Mr. Lee got up and informed the Chair that he did not know that circumstance as he had been absent when it happened. The question was put and carried for erasing the words without a division.”
VI. ADAMS EXPLAINS.
After the adjournment of the Senate that day the Vice-President drew Maclay aside and explained that he was for an efficient government, that he had the greatest respect for the President; and gave his ideas on “checks to government and the balances of power.” Maclay protested that he “would yield to no person in respect to General Washington,” that he was not wanting in respect to Adams himself; that his wishes for an efficient government were as high as any man’s and begged “him to believe that I did myself great violence when I opposed him in the chair and nothing but a sense of duty could force me to it.”
Commenting on this day’s debate Maclay records: “Strange, indeed, that in that very country [America] where the flame of freedom had been kindled, an attempt should be made to introduce these absurdities and humiliating distinctions which the hand of reason, aided by our example was prostrating in the heart of Europe. I, however, will endeavor (as I have hitherto done) to use the resentment of the Representatives to defeat Mr. Adams and others on the subject of titles. The pompous and lordly distinctions which the Senate have manifested a disposition to establish between the two Houses have nettled the Representatives and this business of titles may be considered as a part of the same tune. While we are debating on titles I will, through the Speaker, Mr. Muhlenberg and other friends, get the idea suggested of answering the President’s address without any title, in contempt of our deliberations, which still continue on that subject. This, once effected, will confound them [the Senators] completely and establish a precedent they will not dare to violate.”
On Saturday, May 2, the day following the debate on “His Most Gracious Speech,” the Senate met and several of the members congratulated Maclay on the stand he had taken. Langdon “shook hands very heartily with me,” but some of the other New England Senators were “shy.” Senator William Paterson of New Jersey “passed censure on the conduct of the Vice-President” and “hinted as if some of the Senate would have taken notice of the ‘gracious’ affair if I had not. I told him I was no courtier and had no occasion to trim, but said it was a most disagreeable thing to contend with the Chair and I had alone held that disagreeable post more than once.”
VII. POLITICS AND TITLES.
On Friday, May 8, on motion of Ellsworth, the report of the Joint Committee on Titles was taken up by the Senate and the great battle was fairly under way. Two days before this Maclay noted that “the title selected from all the potentates of the earth for our President was to have been taken from Poland, viz., ‘Elective Majesty.’ What a royal escape!”
Surprise, naturally, might be expressed that Lee, elected as a “Republican enemy to an aristocratic constitution,” should have taken the lead in advocating titles. Light is thrown on the situation from the following entry in Maclay’s journal under date of May 15, 1789: “Lee has a cultivated understanding, great practice in public business.... He has acted as a high priest through the whole of this idolatrous business.... Had it not been for Mr. Lee I am firmly convinced no other man would have ventured to follow our Vice-President. But Lee led, Ellsworth seconded him, the New England men followed and Ralph Izard [Senator from South Carolina] joined them but really _haud passibus aequis_, for he was only for the title of ‘Excellency,’ which had been sanctified by use.
[Illustration:
UNITED STATES SENATOR ROBERT JACKSON GAMBLE.
Vice-President of the Society
for South Dakota. ]
“It is easy to see what his [Lee’s] aim is. By flattering the President of the Senate he hopes to govern all the members from New England and with a little assistance from Carolina or Georgia, to be absolute in the Senate. Ellsworth and some more of the New England men flatter him in turn, expecting he will be with them on the question of residence [of Congress]. Had it not been for our Vice-President and Lee I am convinced the Senate would have been as adverse to titles as the House of Representatives. The game that our Vice-President and Mr. Lee appear to have now in view is to separate the Senate as much as possible from the House of Representatives. Our Vice-President’s doctrine is that all honors and titles should flow from the President and Senate only.”
VIII. THE GREAT DEBATE OF MAY 8, 1789.
But whatever Lee’s motives may have been, it is indisputable that he threw his great weight and splendid abilities in favor of titles. In the momentous debate of May 8 he declared that all the world, civilized and savage, called for titles; that there must be something in human nature that occasioned this general consent and, therefore, he conceived it was right. “Here he began,” records Maclay, “to enumerate many, many nations who gave titles—such as Venice, Genoa and others. The Greeks and Romans, it was said, had no titles, ‘but’ (making a profound bow to the Chair) ‘you were pleased to set us right in this with respect to the Conscript Fathers the other day.’ Here he repeated the Vice-President’s speech of the 23d ultimo almost verbatim all over.
“Mr. Ellsworth rose. He had a paper in his hat which he looked constantly at. He repeated almost all that Mr. Lee had said but got on the subject of kings—declared that the sentence in the primer of _fear God and honor the king_ was of great importance; that kings were of divine appointment; that Saul, the head and shoulders taller than the rest of the people, was elected by God and anointed by his appointment.
“I sat after he had done for a considerable time to see if anybody would rise. At last I got up and first answered Lee as well as I could with nearly the same arguments, drawn from the Constitution, as I had used on the 23d ult. I mentioned that within the space of twenty years back, more light had been thrown on the subject of governments and on human affairs in general than for several generations before; that this light of knowledge had diminished the veneration for titles and that mankind now considered themselves as little bound to imitate the follies of civilized nations as the brutalities of savages; that the abuse of power and the fear of bloody masters had extorted titles as well as adoration, in some instances from the trembling crowd; that the impression now on the minds of the citizens of these states was that of horror for kingly authority.
“Izard got up. He dwelt almost entirely on the antiquity of kingly government. He could not, however, well get farther back than Philip of Macedon. He seemed to have forgot both Homer and the Bible. He urged for something equivalent to nobility having been common among the Romans, for they had three names that seemed to answer to honorable or something like it, before and something behind. He did not say Esquire. Mr. Carroll rose and took my side of the question. He followed nearly the track I had been in and dwelt much on the information that was now abroad in the world. He spoke against kings.
“Mr. Lee and Mr. Izard were both up again. Ellsworth was up again. Langdon was up several times but spoke short each time. Paterson was up but there was no knowing which side he was of. Mr. Lee considered him as against him and answered him—but Paterson finally voted with Lee. The Vice-President repeatedly helped the speakers for titles. Ellsworth was enumerating how common the appellation of President was. The Vice-President put him in mind that there were presidents of fire companies and of a cricket club. Mr. Lee, at another time, was saying he believed some of the states authorized titles by their constitutions. The Vice-President, from the chair, told him that Connecticut did it. At sundry other times he interfered in a like manner. I had been frequently up to answer new points during the debate.
“I collected myself for a last effort. I read the clause in the Constitution against titles of nobility; showed that the spirit of it was against not only granting titles by Congress but against the permission to foreign potentates granting _any titles whatever_; that as to kingly government, it was equally out of the question as a republican government was guaranteed to every State in the Union; that they were both equally forbidden fruit of the Constitution. I called the attention of the House to the consequences that were likely to follow; that gentleman seemed to court a rupture with the Lower House. The Representatives had adopted the report [rejecting titles] and were this day acting on it or according to the spirit of the report. We were proposing a title. Our conduct would mark us to the world as actuated by the spirit of dissension; and the characters of the [two] Houses would be as aristocratic and democratical.”
IX. “HIS ELECTIVE HIGHNESS.”
Finally the matter came to a vote and the report of the Title Committee, conferring the title of “Elective Majesty” on Washington was rejected. Then began the fight, for, at least, some kind of a title for the President. Izard moved for the title of “Excellency,” but he withdrew it, upon which Lee suggested “Highness” with some prefatory word such as “Elective Highness.” Maclay records: “It was insisted that such a dignified title would add greatly to the weight and authority of the Government, both at home and abroad. I declared myself of a totally different opinion; that at present it was impossible to add to the respect entertained for General Washington; that if you gave him the title of any foreign prince or potentate, a belief would follow that the manners of that prince and his modes of government would be adopted by the President. (Mr. Lee had, just before I got up, read over a list of the titles of all the princes and potentates of the earth, marking where the word ‘highness’ occurred. The Grand Turk had it, all the crown princes of Germany had it, sons and daughters of crown heads, etc.) That
## particularly ‘Elective Highness,’ which sounded nearly like ‘Electoral
Highness,’ would have a most ungrateful sound to many thousands of industrious citizens who had fled from German oppression; that ‘Highness’ was part of the title of a prince or princess of the blood and was often given to dukes; that it was degrading our President to place him on a par with any prince of any blood in Europe, nor was there one of them that could enter the list of true glory with him.”
X. “ROYAL ETIQUETTE.”
This debate, beginning probably at the usual time for the Senate’s meeting, namely 10 a. m., lasted until 3.30 p. m., by which time another committee was appointed to consider a title for the President. Concluding his record of the notable debate of this day, Maclay writes: “This whole silly business is the work of Mr. Adams and Mr. Lee. Izard follows Lee and the New England men ... follow Mr. Adams. Mr. [Charles] Thompson [Secretary of the old Congress] says this used to be the case in the old Congress. I had, to be sure, the greatest share in this debate and must now have completely sold (no, sold is a bad word for I have got nothing for it) every particle of court favor, for a court our House seems determined on, and to run into all the fooleries, fopperies, fineries and pomp of royal etiquette.”
When Maclay attended the Senate on the following day, Saturday, May 9, he notes: “I know not the motive but never was I received with more familiarity, nor quite so much, before by the members. Ellsworth, in
## particular, seemed to show a kind of fondness.”
XI. DEFEAT OF THE TITLEISTS.
After correcting the minutes, the Title Committee, appointed by the Senate on the day before, reported “His Highness, the President of the United States of America, and Protector of the Rights of the Same” for Washington. Senator William Few, of Georgia, spoke to Maclay, intimating his unwillingness to do anything hastily. He then addressed the Senate on the same lines, although he did not pointedly move for postponement. Meantime the clerk of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar and announced the adoption of the report of the Joint Committee, which rejected all titles.
At this point Maclay got up, said that what Few had said amounted to a motion for a postponement and asked leave to second him. “I then pointed out,” records Maclay, “the rupture that was likely to ensue with the other House; that this was a matter of very serious import and I thought it our indispensable duty to avoid any inconvenience of that kind; that by the arrangement between the Houses, in case of disagreement, a conference might be requested; that my intention was, if the postponement was carried, to move immediately for a Committee of Conference to be appointed on the differences between the Houses and I had hopes that by these means all subjects of debate would be done away.”
Now Reed moved that the report might be adopted but he was not seconded. Senator Caleb Strong [of Massachusetts] was in favor of the postponement but was interrupted by the Chair. Senator [Tristram] Dalton [of Massachusetts] also was in favor of it and Maclay records: “I could now see a visible anxiety in the Chair. Strong was up again and said among other things that he thought the other House would follow—but there was risk in it.”
Evidently the tide began to turn against titles, for Maclay records: “I had a fine, slack and easy time of it today. Friends seemed to rise in succession. Lee went over his old ground twice but owned, at last, that there was difficulty every way but said plainly that the best mode for the House was to adopt the [Senate] report—and then the other House would follow. He found, however, the current began to turn against him and he laid his head on his hands as if he would have slept.”
Finally Izard got up and said that he was in favor of a postponement. “I could see the Vice-President kindle at him,” records Maclay. “Izard had remarked that the House of Representatives had adopted the report rejecting titles but the Chair interrupted him, saying: ‘No, we had no right to know, nor could we know it until after the clerk had this morning official information.’ The members fixed themselves and the question was called for.”
XII. “WHAT WILL THE COMMON PEOPLE SAY.”
At this point Adams got up and for forty minutes addressed the Senate. Maclay writes: “He began first on the subject of order and found fault with everything almost; but down he came to particulars and pointedly blamed a member for disorderly behavior. The member had mentioned the appearance of a captious disposition in the other House. This was disorderly and he spoke with asperity. The member meant was Mr. Izard. All this was prefatory. On he got to his favorite topic of titles and over the old ground of the immense advantage of, the absolute necessity of them. When he had exhausted this subject he turned a new leaf, I believe, on the conviction that the postponement would be carried and, perhaps, the business lost by an attention to the other House.
“‘Gentlemen’ [said Adams], I must tell you that it is you and the President that have the making of titles. Suppose the President to have the appointment of Mr. Jefferson at the court of France. Mr. Jefferson is, in virtue of that appointment, the most illustrious, the most powerful and what not. But the President must be himself something that includes all the dignities of the diplomatic corps and something greater still. What will the common people of foreign countries, what will the sailors and the soldiers say, ‘George Washington, President of the United States?’ They will despise him _to all eternity_. This is all nonsense to the philosopher—but so is all government whatever.’
“The above I recollect with great precision; but he said fifty more things equally injudicious which I do not think worth minuting. It is evident that he begins to despair of getting the article of titles through the House of Representatives and has turned his eye to get it done solely by the Senate.”
XIII. “HIGH-SOUNDING POMPOUS APPELLATION.”