Hamilton's "Pacificus" essays didn't go unanswered. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the Anti-Federalist, pro-France bunch needed to get their say, too. They saw Washington's proclamation of neutrality as contrary to the country's democratic principles, plus a violation of the country's relationship with France.

In this, the first of the essays written by Madison under the name Helvidius, he lays out why their side thinks the proclamation is, well, terrible. The guy does not mince words. He starts off by calling the people who support the proclamation "foreigners and degenerate citizens among us, who hate our republican government, and the French revolution" (source).

Whoa there, Jim.

He also outlines Pacificus' arguments, as listed in "Pacificus No. 1," because he feels that the ideas in that essay give just enough fact in there to make the arguments look like truth without being truth. Plus, the essay plays on people's feelings of respect toward the president and patriotic duty.

Twisted truths and guilt-trip patriotism in a political argument? Unheard of.

Helvidius then counters Pacificus' arguments about why it was totally fine for Washington to issue the proclamation of neutrality on his own. Helvidius claims that all the major political writers of the Enlightenment—well, unfortunately, they all wrote before the idea of a republican government was even considered, but still—"speak of the powers to declare war, to conclude peace, and to form alliances, as among the highest acts of the sovereignty; of which the legislative power must at least be an integral and preeminent part" (source).

So, the president shouldn't take on such a major decision by himself, like a monarch might in the olden days.

Helvidius also makes the argument that the power to make treaties actually shouldn't lie with the executive branch of government: "The natural province of the executive magistrate is to execute laws, as that of the legislature is to make laws. All his acts therefore, properly executive, must pre-suppose the existence of the laws to be executed. A treaty is not an execution of laws […]" (source).

Plus, treaties can impact the internal laws of a nation, which should be the jurisdiction of the legislative branch.

He really hammers home the idea that the power to make treaties can't be used by the executive branch without the legislative. He says, "The power of treaties is vested jointly in the President and in the Senate, which is a branch of the legislature. […] there are sufficient indications that the power of treaties is regarded by the constitution as materially different from mere executive power, and as having more affinity to the legislative than to the executive character" (source).

So, where Pacificus was saying the Constitution supported Washington's ability to make the proclamation solo, Helvidius is saying, "Hold up, that's not what it says at all."

He really makes a dig at Pacificus when he states why he thinks Pacificus wants the executive branch to have this power: "The power of making treaties and the power of declaring war, are royal prerogatives in the British government, and are accordingly treated as Executive prerogatives by British commentators" (source).

Need some ice for that burn, Pacificus?

Really, the main point that Helvidius makes throughout the essay is that the executive branch (i.e., the president) doesn't have the power to make treaties on its own. The proclamation of neutrality is being considered as a treaty, or at the very least in violation of existing treaties with France. This whole argument is a big reason why Washington spends time in his farewell address discussing why the United States generally just shouldn't get involved with other countries.