The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793–1794: Toward the Completion of the American Founding

by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison

The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793–1794 matched Hamilton and Madison in the first chapter of an enduring discussion about the proper roles of executive and legislative branches in the conduct of American foreign policy. Ignited by President Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation of 1793, which annulled the eleventh article of America’s Treaty with France of 1778, the debate addressed whether Washington had the authority to declare America neutral, despite an early alliance treaty with France. Hamilton argued that Washington’s actions were constitutional and that friction between the two branches was an unavoidable, but not harmful, consequence of the separation of powers. Madison countered that Washington’s proclamation would introduce “new principles and new constructions” into the Constitution and contended that “the power to declare war and make treaties can never fall within the definition of executive powers.” In the introduction, Morton Frisch asserts that the debate between Hamilton and Madison helped to clarify “certain constitutional principles that we now associate with executive power generally” such as that foreign policy is essentially an executive function. Yet it is the open-ended character of our Constitution that has continued to allow different interpretations of the limits of the powers of government, a debate that continues to this day. Frisch writes in the introduction, “The open-ended character of some of the constitutional provisions afforded opportunities for extending the powers of government beyond their specified limits. Although not given prior sanction by the Constitutional Convention, such additions served to provide a more complete definition of powers without actually changing the ends of government.”

The Liberty Fund edition brings together for the first time all the relevant original documents of this controversy: Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation, the full text of the Pacificus and Helvidius letters, Jefferson’s letter to Madison imploring him to answer Hamilton’s arguments, and Hamilton’s Americanus letters, intended as his final response to Madison’s rebuttal. This edition is supplemented with an introduction by Frisch, which places the work in historical context.

Morton J. Frisch (1923–2006) was Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Northern Illinois University.

Genres: History, American History

140 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 2007

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him.

One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.

During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax.

A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto.

Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death.

After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.

Reviews

[Christopher (Donut) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not very interesting, in part, I think, because Madison is not really committed to his side of the issue, and having neither the facts nor the law in his favor, he is obliged to "pound the table" most of the time, because he is acting on Jefferson's bidding (NM at whose bidding Jefferson was acting).

This paragraph by Hamilton, toward the end of the debate, struck me as timely, although the stilted language is typical of the book as a whole:

Though it is not to be doubted, that the People of the United States would hereafter as heretofore throw their whole property into common stock for their common defense against internal invasion or an unprovoked attack—who is there sanguine enough to believe that large contributions either in money or produce could be extracted from them to carry on an external war voluntarily undertaken for a foreign and speculative purpose? The expectation were an illusion. Those who may entertain it ought to pause and reflect. Whatever enthusiasm might have been infused into a part of the community would quickly yield to more just and sober ideas inculcated by experience of the burthens & calamities of war. The circuitous logic, by which it is attempted to be maintained, that a participation in the war is necessary to the security of our own liberty would then appear, as it truly is, a mere delusion, propagated by bribed incendiaries or hair- brained enthusiasts. And the authors of the delusion would not fail to be execrated as the enemies of the public weal.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hamilton created an antecedent state of fact and Madison is just living in it; that is to say, Madison lost the argument before he even showed up. In addition to its theoretical/practical expositions of the federative power, the debate is also a useful display of legal (Pacificus) and political (Helvidius) rhetoric.

[John Spaulding · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mid.

Hamilton peaked with the Federalist Papers :/

[Domenic Pucella · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is by no easy read, it is written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the old English vocabulary so it takes some getting used to. The entire book is about the debate between Hamilton and Madison over Washington's neutrality proclamation during the French Revolution. This is a political book and should be read with that in mind. It provides a nice argument over where the President of the United States gets his foreign affairs powers, a question that is still debated today.