{"id":3923,"date":"2018-10-07T00:27:23","date_gmt":"2018-10-07T04:27:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=3923"},"modified":"2020-03-29T16:03:23","modified_gmt":"2020-03-29T20:03:23","slug":"jays-treaty-part-ii-the-bitter-ratification-battle-and-executive-privilege","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/jays-treaty-part-ii-the-bitter-ratification-battle-and-executive-privilege\/","title":{"rendered":"Jay’s Treaty – Part II (the Bitter Ratification Battle)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jay’s Treaty \u00a0(Part II) – The Bitter Ratification Battle, Hyperpartisianship and Executive Privilege<\/strong><\/p>\n

8 Stat. 133-137<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Overview<\/em>: A prior post,\u00a0Jay’s Treaty (Part I)<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, described the background behind the treaty, its terms, and its geopolitical importance. The Camillus essays,\u00a0Jay’s Treaty (Part III<\/a>),<\/strong><\/span> explores Alexander Hamilton’s heroic essays defending the treaty. This post continues the discussion of Jay’s Treaty by exploring the close ratification debate in the Senate and the divisive funding battle in the House of Representatives. The vocal opposition to Jay’s Treaty was a watershed moment in American history that exacerbated deepening political divisions between the Federalist proponents of the treaty and the Democratic Republican opposition, led by the future presidents Jefferson and Madison.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

John Jay is pictured above in a portrait by John Trumbull in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. The scene below depicts Jay being burned in effigy. Jay joked that he could have walked the length of America by the glow of his burning likeness. In Boston, graffiti famously declared, “Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won’t damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The controversy surrounding Jay’s Treaty in the mid-1790’s provides meaningful context for today’s partisan disputes over NAFTA, the Paris Climate Agreement, and President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. In other words, the early days of the United States were noteworthy for hyper-partisan clashes over foreign policy, that easily could have resulted in war.<\/p>\n

“No international treaty was ever more passionately denounced in the United States, though the benefits which flowed from it were considerable.”\u00a0The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800<\/em>\u00a0(Stanley Elkins & Eric McKitrick, 1993). Likewise, according to historian Jerald Combs, “The treaty that Jay negotiated with England in 1794 was one of the most crucial in United States history. It was also one of the most bitterly debated.” \u00a0The Jay Treaty: Political Background of the Founding Fathers<\/em> (Jerald A. Combs, 1970).<\/p>\n

Historian Joseph Ellis describes the controversy over Tay’s Treaty as the greatest crisis of the Washington presidency. <\/span>His Excellency: George Washington <\/em>at 226\u00a0(Ellis, 2005). For Ellis, Jay’s Treaty represented Washington’s “most besieged,” but “finest hour”:<\/span><\/p>\n

No treaty in American history generated so many diplomatic, constitutional, and political reverberations; and no treaty so unpopular in its own day proved so beneficial over the stretch of time.<\/p>\n