CHAPTER I.

Produced by Linda Cantoni and David Widger

THE

LIFE

OF

GEORGE WASHINGTON,

COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE

AMERICAN FORCES,

DURING THE WAR WHICH ESTABLISHED THE INDEPENDENCE OF HIS COUNTRY, AND

FIRST PRESIDENT

OF THE

UNITED STATES.

COMPILED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF

THE HONOURABLE BUSHROD WASHINGTON,

FROM

_ORIGINAL PAPERS_

BEQUEATHED TO HIM BY HIS DECEASED RELATIVE, AND NOW IN POSSESSION OF

THE AUTHOR.

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED,

AN INTRODUCTION,

CONTAINING A COMPENDIOUS VIEW OF THE COLONIES PLANTED BY THE ENGLISH

ON THE

CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA,

FROM THEIR SETTLEMENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THAT WAR WHICH TERMINATED

IN THEIR

INDEPENDENCE.

BY JOHN MARSHALL.

VOL. V.

THE CITIZENS' GUILD

OF WASHINGTON'S BOYHOOD HOME

FREDERICKSBURG, VA.

1926

Printed in the U.S.A.

[Illustration: President Washington

_From the portrait by John Vanderlyn, in the Capitol at Washington_

_This full-length portrait of our First President is the work of an

artist to whom Napoleon I awarded a gold medal for his "Marius Among

the Ruins of Carthage," and another of whose masterpieces, "Ariadne in

Naxos," is pronounced one of the finest nudes in the history of

American art. For Vanderlyn sat many other notable public men,

including Monroe, Madison, Calhoun, Clinton, Zachary Taylor and Aaron

Burr, who was his patron and whose portrait by Vanderlyn hangs in the

New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Nevertheless, Vanderlyn failed in

achieving the success his genius merited, and he once declared

bitterly that "no one but a professional quack can live in America."

Poverty paralyzed his energies, and in 1852, old and discouraged he

retired to his native town of Kingston, New York, so poor that he had

to borrow twenty-five cents to pay the expressage of his trunk.

Obtaining a bed at the local hotel, he was found dead in it the next

morning, in his seventy-seventh year._]

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

G. Washington again unanimously elected President.... War between

Great Britain and France.... Queries of the President respecting the

conduct to be adopted by the American government.... Proclamation of

neutrality.... Arrival of Mr. Genet as minister from France.... His

conduct.... Illegal proceedings of the French cruisers.... Opinions of

the cabinet.... State of parties.... Democratic societies.... Genet

calculates upon the partialities of the American people for France,

and openly insults their government.... Rules laid down by the

executive to be observed in the ports of the United States in relation

to the powers at war.... The President requests the recall of

Genet.... British order of 8th of June, 1793.... Decree of the

national convention relative to neutral commerce.

CHAPTER II.

Meeting of congress.... President's speech.... His message on the

foreign relations of the United States.... Report of the Secretary of

State on the commerce of the United States.... He resigns.... Is

succeeded by Mr. Randolph.... Mr. Madison's resolutions founded on the

above report.... Debate thereon.... Debates on the subject of a

navy.... An embargo law.... Mission of Mr. Jay to Great Britain....

Inquiry into the conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury, terminates

honourably to him.... Internal taxes.... Congress adjourns.

CHAPTER III.

Genet recalled.... Is succeeded by Mr. Fauchet.... Gouverneur Morris

recalled, and is succeeded by Mr. Monroe.... Kentucky remonstrance....

Intemperate resolutions of the people of that state.... General Wayne

defeats the Indians on the Miamis.... Insurrection in the western

parts of Pennsylvania.... Quelled by the prompt and vigorous measures

of the government.... Meeting of Congress.... President's speech....

Democratic societies.... Resignation of Colonel Hamilton.... Is

succeeded by Mr. Wolcott.... Resignation of General Knox.... Is

succeeded by Colonel Pickering.... Treaty between the United States

and Great Britain.... Conditionally ratified by the President.... The

treaty unpopular.... Mr. Randolph resigns.... Is succeeded by Colonel

Pickering.... Colonel M'Henry appointed secretary at war.... Charge

against the President rejected..... Treaty with the Indians north-west

of the Ohio.... With Algiers.... With Spain.... Meeting of

congress.... President's speech.... Mr. Adet succeeds Mr. Fauchet.....

The house of representatives call upon the President for papers

relating to the treaty with Great Britain.... He declines sending

them.... Debates upon the treaty making power.... Upon the bill for

making appropriations to carry into execution the treaty with Great

Britain.... Congress adjourns.... The President endeavours to procure

the liberation of Lafayette.

CHAPTER IV.

Letters from General Washington to Mr. Jefferson.... Hostile measures

of France against the United States.... Mr. Monroe recalled and

General Pinckney appointed to succeed him.... General Washington's

valedictory address to the people of the United States.... The

Minister of France endeavours to influence the approaching

election.... The President's speech to congress.... He denies the

authenticity of certain spurious letters published in 1776.... John

Adams elected President, and Thomas Jefferson Vice President....

General Washington retires to Mount Vernon.... Political situation of

the United States at this period.... The French government refuses to

receive General Pinckney as Minister.... Congress is convened....

President's speech.... Three envoys extraordinary deputed to

France.... Their treatment.... Measures of hostility adopted by the

American government against France.... General Washington appointed

Commander-in-chief of the American army.... His death.... And

character.

THE LIFE

OF

GEORGE WASHINGTON

CHAPTER I.

G. Washington again unanimously elected President.... War

between Great Britain and France.... Queries of the

President respecting the conduct to be adopted by the

American government.... Proclamation of neutrality....

Arrival of Mr. Genet as minister from France.... His

conduct.... Illegal proceedings of the French cruisers....

Opinions of the cabinet.... State of parties.... Democratic

societies.... Genet calculates upon the partialities of the

American people for France, and openly insults their

government.... Rules laid down by the executive to be

observed in the ports of the United States in relation to

the powers at war.... The President requests the recall of

Genet.... British order of 8th of June, 1793.... Decree of

the national convention relative to neutral commerce.

{1793}

The term for which the President and Vice President had been elected

being about to expire on the third of March, the attention of the

public had been directed to the choice of persons who should fill

those high offices for the ensuing four years. Respecting the

President, but one opinion prevailed. From various motives, all

parties concurred in desiring that the present chief magistrate should

continue to afford his services to his country. Yielding to the weight

of the representations made to him from various quarters, General

Washington had been prevailed upon to withhold a declaration, he had

at one time purposed to make, of his determination to retire from

political life.

Respecting the person who should fill the office of Vice President,

the public was divided. The profound statesman who had been called to

the duties of that station, had drawn upon himself a great degree of

obloquy, by some political tracts, in which he had laboured to

maintain the proposition that a balance in government was essential to

the preservation of liberty. In these disquisitions, he was supposed

by his opponents to have discovered sentiments in favour of distinct

orders in society; and, although he had spoken highly of the

constitution of the United States, it was imagined that his balance

could be maintained only by hereditary classes. He was also understood

to be friendly to the system of finance which had been adopted; and

was believed to be among the few who questioned the durability of the

French republic. His great services, and acknowledged virtues, were

therefore disregarded; and a competitor was sought for among those who

had distinguished themselves in the opposition. The choice was

directed from Mr. Jefferson by a constitutional restriction on the

power of the electors, which would necessarily deprive him of the vote

to be given by Virginia. It being necessary to designate some other

opponent to Mr. Adams, George Clinton, the governor of New York, was

selected for this purpose.

Throughout the war of the revolution, this gentleman had filled the

office of chief magistrate of his native state; and, under

circumstances of real difficulty, had discharged its duties with a

courage, and an energy, which secured the esteem of the

Commander-in-chief, and gave him a fair claim to the favour of his

country. Embracing afterwards with ardour the system of state

supremacy, he had contributed greatly to the rejection of the

resolutions for investing congress with the power of collecting an

impost on imported goods, and had been conspicuous for his determined

hostility to the constitution of the United States. His sentiments

respecting the measures of the government were known to concur with

those of the minority in congress.

[Sidenote: George Washington again unanimously elected president.]

Both parties seemed confident in their strength; and both made the

utmost exertions to insure success. On opening the ballots in the

senate chamber, it appeared that the unanimous suffrage of his country

had been once more conferred on General Washington, and that Mr. Adams

had received a plurality of the votes.

The unceasing endeavours of the executive to terminate the Indian war

by a treaty, had at length succeeded with the savages of the Wabash;

and, through the intervention of the Six Nations, those of the Miamis

had also been induced to consent to a conference to be held in the

course of the ensuing spring. Though probability was against the

success of this attempt to restore peace, all offensive operations, on

the part of the United States, were still farther suspended. The

Indians did not entirely abstain from hostilities; and the discontents

of the western people were in no small degree increased by this

temporary prohibition of all incursions into the country of their

enemy. In Georgia, where a desire to commence hostilities against the

southern Indians had been unequivocally manifested, this restraint

increased the irritation against the administration.

The Indian war was becoming an object of secondary magnitude. The

critical and irritable state of things in France began so materially

to affect the United States, as to require an exertion of all the

prudence, and all the firmness, of the government. The 10th[1] of

August, 1792, was succeeded in that nation by such a state of anarchy,

and by scenes of so much blood and horror; the nation was understood

to be so divided with respect to its future course; and the republican

party was threatened by such a formidable external force; that there

was much reason to doubt whether the fallen monarch would be finally

deposed, or reinstated with a greater degree of splendour and power

than the constitution just laid in ruins, had assigned to him. That,

in the latter event, any partialities which might be manifested

towards the intermediate possessors of authority, would be recollected

with indignation, could not be questioned by an attentive observer of

the vindictive spirit of parties;--a spirit which the deeply tragic

scenes lately exhibited, could not fail to work up to its highest

possible pitch. The American minister at Paris, finding himself in a

situation not expected by his government, sought to pursue a

circumspect line of conduct, which should in no respect compromise the

United States. The executive council of France, disappointed at the

coldness which that system required, communicated their

dissatisfaction to their minister at Philadelphia. At the same time,

Mr. Morris made full representations of every transaction to his

government, and requested explicit instructions for the regulation of

his future conduct.

[Footnote 1: The day on which the palace of the Tuilleries

was stormed and the royal government subverted.]

The administration entertained no doubt of the propriety of

recognizing the existing authority of France, whatever form it might

assume. That every nation possessed a right to govern itself according

to its own will, to change its institutions at discretion, and to

transact its business through whatever agents it might think proper,

were stated to Mr. Morris to be principles on which the American

government itself was founded, and the application of which could be

denied to no other people. The payment of the debt, so far as it was

to be made in Europe, might be suspended only until the national

convention should authorize some power to sign acquittances for the

monies received; and the sums required for St. Domingo would be

immediately furnished. These payments would exceed the instalments

which had fallen due; and the utmost punctuality would be observed in

future. These instructions were accompanied with assurances that the

government would omit no opportunity of convincing the French people

of its cordial wish to serve them; and with a declaration that all

circumstances seemed to destine the two nations for the most intimate

connexion with each other. It was also pressed upon Mr. Morris to

seize every occasion of conciliating the affections of France to the

United States, and of placing the commerce between the two countries

on the best possible footing.[2]

[Footnote 2: With this letter were addressed two others to

the ministers at London and Paris respectively, stating the

interest taken by the President and people of the United

States in the fate of the Marquis de Lafayette. This

gentleman was declared a traitor by France, and was

imprisoned by Prussia. The ministers of the United States

were to avail themselves of every opportunity of sounding

the way towards his liberation, which they were to endeavour

to obtain by informal solicitations; but, if formal ones

should be necessary, they were to watch the moment when they

might be urged with the best prospect of success. This

letter was written at the sole instance of the President.]

The feelings of the President were in perfect unison with the

sentiments expressed in this letter. His attachment to the French

nation was as strong, as consistent with a due regard to the interests

of his own; and his wishes for its happiness were as ardent, as was

compatible with the duties of a chief magistrate to the state over

which he presided. Devoted to the principles of real liberty, and

approving unequivocally the republican form of government, he hoped

for a favourable result from the efforts which were making to

establish that form, by the great ally of the United States; but was

not so transported by those efforts, as to involve his country in

their issue; or totally to forget that those aids which constituted

the basis of these partial feelings, were furnished by the family

whose fall was the source of triumph to a large portion of his fellow

citizens.

He therefore still preserved the fixed purpose of maintaining the

neutrality of the United States, however general the war might be in

Europe; and his zeal for the revolution did not assume so ferocious a

character as to silence the dictates of humanity, or of friendship.

Not much time elapsed before the firmness of this resolution was put

to the test.

[Sidenote: War between Great Britain and France.]

Early in April, the declaration of war made by France against Great

Britain and Holland reached the United States. This event restored

full vivacity to a flame, which a peace of ten years had not been able

to extinguish. A great majority of the American people deemed it

criminal to remain unconcerned spectators of a conflict between their

ancient enemy and republican France. The feeling upon this occasion

was almost universal. Men of all parties partook of it. Disregarding

totally the circumstances which led to the rupture, except the order

which had been given to the French minister to leave London, and

disregarding equally the fact that actual hostilities were first

commenced by France, the war was confidently and generally pronounced

a war of aggression on the part of Great Britain, undertaken with the

sole purpose of imposing a monarchical government on the French

people. The few who did not embrace these opinions, and they were

certainly very few, were held up as objects of public detestation; and

were calumniated as the tools of Britain, and the satellites of

despotism.

Yet the disposition to engage in the war, was far from being general.

The inclination of the public led to a full indulgence of the most

extravagant partiality; but not many were willing to encounter the

consequences which that indulgence would infallibly produce. The

situation of America was precisely that, in which the wisdom and

foresight of a prudent and enlightened government, was indispensably

necessary to prevent the nation from inconsiderately precipitating

itself into calamities, which its reflecting judgment would avoid.

As soon as intelligence of the rupture between France and Britain was

received in the United States, indications were given in some of the

seaports, of a disposition to engage in the unlawful business of

privateering on the commerce of the belligerent powers. The President

was firmly determined to suppress these practices, and immediately

requested the attention of the heads of departments to this

interesting subject.

[Sidenote: Queries put by the president to his cabinet in relation to

the conduct proper to be adopted by the American government in

consequence of this event.]

As the new and difficult situation in which the United States were

placed suggested many delicate inquiries, he addressed a circular

letter to the cabinet ministers, inclosing for their consideration a

well digested series of questions, the answers to which would form a

complete system by which to regulate the conduct of the executive in

the arduous situations which were approaching.[3]

[Footnote 3: See note No. I. at the end of the volume.]

These queries, with some of the answers of them, though submitted only

to the cabinet, found their way to the leading members of the

opposition; and were among the unacknowledged but operating pieces of

testimony, on which the charge against the administration, of

cherishing dispositions unfriendly to the French republic, was

founded. In taking a view of the whole ground, points certainly

occurred, and were submitted to the consideration of the cabinet, on

which neither the chief magistrate nor his ministers felt any doubt.

But the introduction of questions relative to these points, among

others with which they were intimately connected, would present a more

full view of the subject, and was incapable of producing any

mischievous effect, while they were confined to those for whom alone

they were intended.

In the meeting of the heads of departments and the attorney general,

which was held in consequence of this letter, it was unanimously

agreed, that a proclamation ought to issue, forbidding the citizens of

the United States to take part in any hostilities on the seas, with,

or against, any of the belligerent powers; warning them against

carrying to any of those powers articles deemed contraband according

to the modern usages of nations; and enjoining them from all acts

inconsistent with the duties of a friendly nation towards those at

war.

With the same unanimity, the President was advised to receive a

minister from the republic of France; but, on the question respecting

a qualification to his reception, a division was perceived. The

secretary of state and the attorney general were of opinion, that no

cause existed for departing in the present instance from the usual

mode of acting on such occasions. The revolution in France, they

conceived, had produced no change in the relations between the two

nations; nor was there any thing in the alteration of government, or

in the character of the war, which would impair the right of France to

demand, or weaken the duty of the United States faithfully to comply

with the engagements which had been solemnly formed.

The secretaries of the treasury, and of war, held a different opinion.

Admitting in its fullest latitude the right of a nation to change its

political institutions according to its own will, they denied its

right to involve other nations, _absolutely and unconditionally_, in

the consequences of the changes which it may think proper to make.

They maintained the right of a nation to absolve itself from the

obligations even of real treaties, when such a change of circumstances

takes place in the internal situation of the other contracting party,

as so essentially to alter the existing state of things, that it may

with good faith be pronounced to render a continuance of the connexion

which results from them, disadvantageous or dangerous.

They reviewed the most prominent of those transactions which had

recently taken place in France, and noticed the turbulence, the fury,

and the injustice with which they were marked. The Jacobin club at

Paris, whose influence was well understood, had even gone so far,

previous to the meeting of the convention, as to enter into measures

with the avowed object of purging that body of those persons,

favourers of royalty, who might have escaped the attention of the

primary assemblies. This review was taken, to show that the course of

the revolution had been attended with circumstances which militate

against a full conviction of its having been brought to its present

stage, by such a free, regular, and deliberate act of the nation, as

ought to silence all scruples about the validity of what had been

done. They appeared to doubt whether the present possessors of power

ought to be considered as having acquired it with the real consent of

France, or as having seized it by violence;--whether the existing

system could be considered as permanent, or merely temporary.

They were therefore of opinion, not that the treaties should be

annulled or absolutely suspended, but that the United States should

reserve, for future consideration and discussion, the question whether

the operation of those treaties ought not to be deemed temporarily and

provisionally suspended. Should this be the decision of the

government, they thought it due to a spirit of friendly and candid

procedure, in the most conciliating terms, to apprize the expected

minister of this determination.

On the questions relative to the application of the clause of

guarantee to the existing war, some diversity of sentiment also

prevailed. The secretary of state and the attorney general conceived,

that no necessity for deciding thereon existed, while the secretaries

of the treasury, and of war, were of opinion that the treaty of

alliance was plainly defensive, and that the clause of guarantee did

not apply to a war which, having been commenced by France, must be

considered as offensive on the part of that power.

Against convening congress, the opinion appears to have been

unanimous.

The cabinet being thus divided on an important part of the system

which, in the present critical posture of affairs, ought to be adopted

by the executive, the President signified his desire that the

ministers would respectively state to him in writing the opinions they

had formed, together with the reasoning and authorities by which those

opinions were supported.

The written arguments which were presented on this occasion, while

they attest the labour, and reflect honour on the talents of those by

whom they were formed, and evince the equal sincerity and zeal with

which the opinions on each side were advanced, demonstrate an

opposition of sentiment respecting the French revolution, which

threatened to shed its influence on all measures connected with that

event, and to increase the discord which already existed in the

cabinet.

So far as respected the reception of a minister from the French

republic without qualifying that act by any explanations, and the

continuing obligation of the treaties, the President appears to have

decided in favour of the opinions given by the secretary of state and

the attorney general.

[Sidenote: Proclamation of neutrality.]

The proclamation of neutrality which was prepared by the attorney

general, in conformity with the principles which had been adopted, was

laid before the cabinet; and, being approved, was signed by the

President, and ordered to be published.

This measure derives importance from the consideration, that it was

the commencement of that system to which the American government

afterwards inflexibly adhered, and to which much of the national

prosperity is to be ascribed. It is not less important in another

view. Being at variance with the prejudices, the feelings, and the

passions of a large portion of the society, and being founded on no

previous proceedings of the legislature, it presented the first

occasion, which was thought a fit one, for openly assaulting a

character, around which the affections of the people had thrown an

armour theretofore deemed sacred, and for directly criminating the

conduct of the President himself. It was only by opposing passions to

passions, by bringing the feeling in favour of France, into conflict

with those in favour of the chief magistrate, that the enemies of the

administration could hope to obtain the victory.

For a short time, the opponents of this measure treated it with some

degree of delicacy. The opposition prints occasionally glanced at the

executive; considered all governments, including that of the United

States, as naturally hostile to the liberty of the people; and

ascribed to this disposition, the combination of European governments

against France, and the apathy with which this combination was

contemplated by the executive. At the same time, the most vehement

declamations were published, for the purpose of inflaming the

resentments of the people against Britain; of enhancing the

obligations of America to France; of confirming the opinions, that the

coalition of European monarchs was directed, not less against the

United States, than against that power to which its hostility was

avowed, and that those who did not avow this sentiment were the

friends of that coalition, and equally the enemies of America and

France.

These publications, in the first instance, sufficiently bitter,

quickly assumed a highly increased degree of acrimony.

As soon as the commotions which succeeded the deposition of Louis XVI.

had, in some degree, subsided, the attention of the French government

was directed to the United States, and the resolution was taken to

recall the minister who had been appointed by the king; and to replace

him with one who might be expected to enter, with more enthusiasm,

into the views of the republic.[4]

[Footnote 4: See note No. II. at the end of the volume.]

The citizen Genet, a gentleman of considerable talents, and of an

ardent temper, was selected for this purpose.

The letters he brought to the executive of the United States, and his

instructions, which he occasionally communicated, were, in a high

degree, flattering to the nation, and decently respectful to its

government. But Mr. Genet was also furnished with private

instructions, which the course of subsequent events tempted him to

publish. These indicate that, if the American executive should not be

found sufficiently compliant with the views of France, the resolution

had been taken to employ with the people of the United States the same

policy which was so successfully used with those of Europe; and thus

to affect an object which legitimate negotiations might fail to

accomplish.

[Sidenote: Arrival of Mr. Genet as minister from France.]

Mr. Genet possessed many qualities which were peculiarly adapted to

the objects of his mission; but he seems to have been betrayed by the

flattering reception which was given him, and by the universal fervour

expressed for his republic, into a too speedy disclosure of his

intentions.

[Sidenote: His conduct.]

On the eighth of April he arrived, not at Philadelphia, but at

Charleston, in South Carolina, a port whose contiguity to the West

Indies would give it peculiar convenience as a resort for privateers.

He was received by the governor of that state, and by its citizens,

with an enthusiasm well calculated to dissipate every doubt he might

previously have entertained, concerning the dispositions on which he

was to operate. At this place he continued for several days, receiving

extravagant marks of public attachment, during which time, he

undertook to authorize the fitting and arming of vessels in that port,

enlisting men, and giving commissions to cruise and commit hostilities

on nations with whom the United States were at peace. The captures

made by these cruisers were brought into port, and the consuls of

France were assuming, under the authority of Mr. Genet, to hold courts

of admiralty on them, to try, condemn, and authorize their sale.

From Charleston, Mr. Genet proceeded by land to Philadelphia,

receiving on his journey, at the different towns through which he

passed, such marks of enthusiastic attachment as had never before been

lavished on a foreign minister. On the 16th of May, he arrived at the

seat of government, preceded by the intelligence of his transactions

in South Carolina. This information did not diminish the extravagant

transports of joy with which he was welcomed by the great body of the

inhabitants. Means had been taken to render his entry pompous and

triumphal; and the opposition papers exultingly stated that he was met

at Gray's ferry by "crowds who flocked from every avenue of the city,

to meet the republican ambassador of an allied nation."

The day succeeding his arrival, he received addresses of

congratulation from particular societies, and from the citizens of

Philadelphia, who waited on him in a body, in which they expressed

their fervent gratitude for the "zealous and disinterested aids,"

which the French people had furnished to America, unbounded exultation

at the success with which their arms had been crowned, and a positive

conviction that the safety of the United States depended on the

establishment of the republic. The answers to these addresses were

well calculated to preserve the idea of a complete fraternity between

the two nations; and that their interests were identified.

The day after being thus accredited by the citizens of Philadelphia,

he was presented to the President, by whom he was received with

frankness, and with expressions of a sincere and cordial regard for

his nation. In the conversation which took place on this occasion, Mr.

Genet gave the most explicit assurances that, in consequence of the

distance of the United States from the theatre of action, and of other

circumstances, France did not wish to engage them in the war, but

would willingly leave them to pursue their happiness and prosperity in

peace. The more ready faith was given to these declarations, because

it was believed that France might derive advantages from the

neutrality of America, which would be a full equivalent for any

services which she could render as a belligerent.

Before the ambassador of the republic had reached the seat of

government, a long catalogue of complaints, partly founded on his

proceedings in Charleston, had been made by the British minister to

the American executive.

This catalogue was composed of the assumptions of sovereignty already

mentioned;--assumptions calculated to render America an instrument of

hostility to be wielded by France against those powers with which she

might be at war.

[Sidenote: Illegal proceedings of the French cruisers.]

These were still further aggravated by the commission of actual

hostilities within the territories of the United States. The ship

Grange, a British vessel which had been cleared out from Philadelphia,

was captured by the French frigate L'Ambuscade within the capes of the

Delaware, while on her way to the ocean.

The prizes thus unwarrantly made, being brought within the power of

the American government, Mr. Hammond, among other things, demanded a

restitution of them.

On many of the points suggested by the conduct of Mr. Genet, and by

the memorials of the British minister, it would seem impossible that

any difference of opinion could exist among intelligent men, not under

the dominion of a blind infatuation. Accordingly it was agreed in the

cabinet, without a dissenting voice, that the jurisdiction of every

independent nation, within the limits of its own territory, being of a

nature to exclude the exercise of any authority therein by a foreign

power, the proceedings complained of, not being warranted by any

treaty, were usurpations of national sovereignty, and violations of

neutral rights, a repetition of which it was the duty of the

government to prevent.

It was also agreed that the efficacy of the laws should be tried

against those citizens of the United States who had joined in

perpetrating the offence.

[Sidenote: Opinions of the Cabinet in relation thereto.]

The question of restitution, except as to the Grange, was more

dubious. The secretary of state and the attorney general contended

that, if the commissions granted by Mr. Genet were invalid, the

captures were totally void, and the courts would adjudge the property

to remain in the former owners. In this point of view, therefore,

there being a regular remedy at law, it would be irregular for the

government to interpose.

If, on the contrary, the commissions were good, then, the captures

having been made on the high seas, under a valid commission from a

power at war with Great Britain, the original right of the British

owner was, by the laws of war, transferred to the captor.

The legal right being in the captor, it could only be taken from him

by an act of force, that is to say, of reprisal for the offence

committed against the United States in the port of Charleston.

Reprisal is a very serious thing, ought always to be preceded by a

demand and refusal of satisfaction, is generally considered as an act

of war, and never yet failed to produce it in the case of a nation

able to make war.

[Illustration: Martha Washington

_From the portrait by James Sharples_

_This is one of the three Sharples portraits of the Washington family

and the only good profile of Martha Washington that was painted from

life. Martha, who was a few months younger than her husband, is

described as having been "amiable in character and lovely in person."

By the courtesy of the period she was called Lady Washington, and

whether in her own home or at the "federal court," she presided with

marked dignity and grace. She died at Mount Vernon, May 22, 1802,

having survived her husband two and a half years._

Courtesy Herbert L. Pratt]

Admitting the case to be of sufficient importance to require reprisal,

and to be ripe for that step, the power of taking it was vested by the

constitution in congress, not in the executive department of the

government.

Of the reparation for the offence committed against the United States,

they were themselves the judges, and could not be required by a

foreign nation, to demand more than was satisfactory to themselves. By

disavowing the act, by taking measures to prevent its repetition, by

prosecuting the American citizens who were engaged in it, the United

States ought to stand justified with Great Britain; and a demand of

further reparation by that power would be a wrong on her part.

The circumstances under which these equipments had been made, in the

first moments of the war, before the government could have time to

take precautions against them, and its immediate disapprobation of

those equipments, must rescue it from every imputation of being

accessory to them, and had placed it with the offended, not the

offending party.

Those gentlemen were therefore of opinion, that the vessels which had

been captured on the high seas, and brought into the United States, by

privateers fitted out and commissioned in their ports, ought not to be

restored.

The secretaries of the treasury, and of war, were of different

opinion. They urged that a neutral, permitting itself to be made an

instrument of hostility by one belligerent against another, became

thereby an associate in the war. If land or naval armaments might be

formed by France within the United States, for the purpose of carrying

on expeditions against her enemy, and might return with the spoils

they had taken, and prepare new enterprises, it was apparent that a

state of war would exist between America and those enemies, of the

worst kind for them: since, while the resources of the country were

employed in annoying them, the instruments of this annoyance would be

occasionally protected from pursuit, by the privileges of an

ostensible neutrality. It was easy to see that such a state of things

could not be tolerated longer than until it should be perceived.

It being confessedly contrary to the duty of the United States, as a

neutral nation, to suffer privateers to be fitted in their ports to

annoy the British trade, it seemed to follow that it would comport

with their duty, to remedy the injury which may have been sustained,

when it is in their power so to do.

That the fact had been committed before the government could provide

against it might be an excuse, but not a justification. Every

government is responsible for the conduct of all parts of the

community over which it presides, and is supposed to possess, at all

times, the means of preventing infractions of its duty to foreign

nations. In the present instance, the magistracy of the place ought to

have prevented them. However valid this excuse might have been, had

the privateers expedited from Charleston been sent to the French

dominions, there to operate out of the reach of the United States, it

could be of no avail when their prizes were brought into the American

ports, and the government, thereby, completely enabled to administer a

specific remedy for the injury.

Although the commissions, and the captures made under them, were valid

as between the parties at war, they were not so as to the United

States. For the violation of their rights, they had a claim to

reparation, and might reasonably demand, as the reparation to which

they were entitled, restitution of the property taken, with or without

an apology for the infringement of their sovereignty. This they had a

right to demand as a species of reparation consonant with the nature

of the injury, and enabling them to do justice to the party in

injuring whom they had been made instrumental. It could be no just

cause of complaint on the part of the captors that they were required

to surrender a property, the means of acquiring which took their

origin in a violation of the rights of the United States.

On the other hand, there was a claim on the American government to

arrest the effects of the injury or annoyance to which it had been

made accessory. To insist therefore on the restitution of the property

taken, would be to enforce a right, in order to the performance of a

duty.

These commissions, though void as to the United States, being valid as

between the parties, the case was not proper for the decision of the

courts of justice. The whole was an affair between the governments of

the parties concerned, to be settled by reasons of state, not rules of

law. It was the case of an infringement of national sovereignty to the

prejudice of a third party, in which the government was to demand a

reparation, with the double view of vindicating its own rights, and of

doing justice to the suffering party.

They, therefore, were of opinion that, in the case stated for their

consideration, restitution ought to be made.

On the point respecting which his cabinet was divided, the President

took time to deliberate. Those principles on which a concurrence of

sentiment had been manifested being considered as settled, the

secretary of state was desired to communicate them to the ministers of

France and Britain; and circular letters were addressed to the

executives of the several states, requiring their co-operation, with

force if necessary, in the execution of the rules which were

established.

The citizen Genet was much dissatisfied with these decisions of the

American government. He thought them contrary to natural right, and

subversive of the treaties by which the two nations were connected. In

his exposition of these treaties, he claimed, for his own country, all

that the two nations were restricted from conceding to others, thereby

converting negative limitations into an affirmative grant of

privileges to France.

Without noticing a want of decorum in some of the expressions which

Mr. Genet had employed, he was informed that the subjects on which his

letter treated had, from respect to him, been reconsidered by the

executive; but that no cause was perceived for changing the system

which had been adopted. He was further informed that, in the opinion

of the President, the United States owed it to themselves, and to the

nations in their friendship, to expect, as a reparation for the

offence of infringing their sovereignty, that the vessels, thus

illegally equipped, would depart from their ports.

Mr. Genet was not disposed to acquiesce in these decisions. Adhering

to his own construction of the existing treaty, he affected to

consider the measures of the American government as infractions of it,

which no power in the nation had a right to make, unless the United

States in congress assembled should determine that their solemn

engagements should no longer be performed. Intoxicated with the

sentiments expressed by a great portion of the people, and

unacquainted with the firm character of the executive, he seems to

have expected that the popularity of his nation would enable him to

overthrow that department, or to render it subservient to his views.

It is difficult otherwise to account for his persisting to disregard

its decisions, and for passages with which his letters abound, such as

the following:

"Every obstruction by the government of the United States to the

arming of French vessels must be an attempt on the rights of man, upon

which repose the independence and laws of the United States; a

violation of the ties which unite the people of France and America;

and even a manifest contradiction of the system of neutrality of the

President; for, in fact, if our merchant vessels,[5] or others, are

not allowed to arm themselves, when the French alone are resisting the

league of all the tyrants against the liberty of the people, they will

be exposed to inevitable ruin in going out of the ports of the United

States, which is certainly not the intention of the people of America.

Their fraternal voice has resounded from every quarter around me, and

their accents are not equivocal. They are pure as the hearts of those

by whom they are expressed, and the more they have touched my

sensibility, the more they must interest in the happiness of America

the nation I represent;--the more I wish, sir, that the federal

government should observe, as far as in their power, the public

engagements contracted by both nations; and that, by this generous and

prudent conduct, they will give at least to the world, the example of

a true neutrality, which does not consist in the cowardly abandonment

of their friends in the moment when danger menaces them, but in

adhering strictly, if they can do no better, to the obligations they

have contracted with them. It is by such proceedings that they will

render themselves respectable to all the powers; that they will

preserve their friends and deserve to augment their numbers."

[Footnote 5: The regulation alluded to as was stated by Mr.

Jefferson in reply, did not relate to vessels arming for

defence, but to cruisers against the enemies of France.]

A few days previous to the reception of the letter from which the

above is an extract, two citizens of the United States, who had been

engaged by Mr. Genet in Charleston to cruise in the service of France,

were arrested by the civil magistrate, in pursuance of the

determination formed by the executive for the prosecution of persons

having thus offended against the laws. Mr. Genet demanded their

release in the following extraordinary terms:

"I have this moment been informed that two officers in the service of

the republic of France, citizen Gideon Henfield and John Singletary,

have been arrested on board the privateer of the French republic, the

Citizen Genet, and conducted to prison. The crime laid to their

charge--the crime which my mind can not conceive, and which my pen

almost refuses to state,--is the serving of France, and defending with

her children the common glorious cause of liberty.

"Being ignorant of any positive law or treaty which deprives Americans

of this privilege, and authorizes officers of police arbitrarily to

take mariners in the service of France from on board their vessels, I

call upon your intervention, sir, and that of the President of the

United States, in order to obtain the immediate releasement of the

above mentioned officers, who have acquired, by the sentiments

animating them, and by the act of their engagement, anterior to every

act to the contrary, the right of French citizens, if they have lost

that of American citizens."

This lofty offensive style could not fail to make a deep impression on

a mind penetrated with a just sense of those obligations by which the

chief magistrate is bound to guard the dignity of his government, and

to take care that his nation be not degraded in his person. Yet, in no

single instance, did the administration, in its communications with

Mr. Genet, permit itself to be betrayed into the use of one

intemperate expression. The firmness with which the extravagant

pretensions of that gentleman were resisted, proceeding entirely from

a sense of duty and conviction of right, was unaccompanied with any

marks of that resentment which his language and his conduct were alike

calculated to inspire.

[Sidenote: State of parties.]

Mr. Genet appears to have been prevented from acquiescing in a line of

conduct thus deliberately adopted and prudently pursued, by a belief

that the sentiments of the people were in direct opposition to the

measures of their government. So excessive, and so general, were the

demonstrations of enthusiastic devotion to France; so open were their

expressions of outrage and hostility towards all the powers at war

with that republic; so thin was the veil which covered the chief

magistrate from that stream of malignant opprobrium directed against

every measure which thwarted the views of Mr. Genet; that a person

less sanguine than that minister might have cherished the hope of

being able ultimately to triumph over the opposition to his designs.

Civic festivals, and other public assemblages of people, at which the

ensigns of France were displayed in union with those of America; at

which the red cap, as a symbol of French liberty and fraternity,

triumphantly passed from head to head; at which toasts were given

expressive of a desire to identify the people of America with those of

France; and, under the imposing guise of adhering to principles not to

men, containing allusions to the influence of the President which

could not be mistaken; appeared to Mr. Genet to indicate a temper

extremely favourable to his hopes, and very different from that which

would be required for the preservation of an honest neutrality.

Through the medium of the press, these sentiments were communicated to

the public, and were represented as flowing from the hearts of the

great body of the people. In various other modes, that important

engine contributed its powerful aid to the extension of opinions,

calculated, essentially, to vary the situation of the United States.

The proclamation of neutrality which was treated as a royal edict, was

not only considered as assuming powers not belonging to the executive,

and, as evidencing the monarchical tendencies of that department, but

as demonstrating the disposition of the government to break its

connexions with France, and to dissolve the friendship which united

the people of the two republics. The declaration that "the duty and

interest of the United States required that they should with sincerity

and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial

towards the belligerent powers," gave peculiar umbrage. The scenes of

the revolutionary war were brought into review; the object and effect

of British hostility were painted in glowing colours; and the

important aids afforded by France were drawn with a pencil not less

animated. That the conduct of Britain, since the treaty of peace had

furnished unequivocal testimony of enmity to the United States, was

strongly pressed. With this continuing enmity was contrasted the

amicable dispositions professed by the French republic; and it was

asked with indignation, whether the interests of the United States

required that they should pursue "a line of conduct entirely impartial

between these two powers? That the services of the one as well as the

injuries of the other, should be forgotten? that a friend and an enemy

should be treated with equal favour? and that neither gratitude nor

resentment should constitute a feature of the American character?" The

supposed freedom of the French was opposed to the imagined slavery of

the English; and it was demanded whether "the people of America were

alike friendly to republicanism and to monarchy? to liberty and to

despotism?"

With infectious enthusiasm it was contended, that there was a natural

and inveterate hostility between monarchies and republics; that the

present combination against France was a combination against liberty

in every part of the world; and that the destinies of America were

inseparably linked with those of the French republic.

On the various points of controversy which had arisen between the

executive and Mr. Genet, this active and powerful party openly and

decidedly embraced the principles for which that minister contended.

It was assumed that his demands were sanctioned by subsisting

treaties, and that his exposition of those instruments was perfectly

correct. The conduct of the executive in withholding privileges to

which France was said to be entitled by the most solemn engagements,

was reprobated with extreme acrimony; was considered as indicative of

a desire to join the coalesced despots in their crusade against

liberty; and as furnishing to the French republic such just motives

for war, that it required all her moderation and forbearance to

restrain her from declaring it against the United States.

Mr. Genet was exhorted not to relax in his endeavours to maintain the

just rights of his country; and was assured that, in the affections of

the people, he would find a firm and certain support.

These principles and opinions derived considerable aid from the

labours and intrigues of certain societies, who had constituted

themselves the guardians of American liberty.

The manner in which that attention of the conduct of those invested

with the power which is essential in balanced governments, may safely

be employed, had been so misconceived, that temporary and detached

clubs of citizens had occasionally been formed in different parts of

the United States, for the avowed purpose of watching the conduct of

their rulers. After the adoption of the constitution, some slight use

was made, by its enemies, of this weapon; and, in the German

Republican Society particularly, many of the most strenuous opponents

of the administration were collected.

[Sidenote: Democratic societies formed.]

The force and power of these institutions had been fully developed,

and their efficacy in prostrating existing establishments clearly

ascertained by the revolution in France. The increased influence which

they derived from corresponding with each other, had been

unequivocally demonstrated; and soon after the arrival of Mr. Genet, a

democratic society was formed in Philadelphia on the model of the

Jacobin club in Paris. An anxious solicitude for the preservation of

freedom, the very existence of which was menaced by a "European

confederacy transcendent in power and unparalleled in iniquity;" which

was endangered also by "the pride of wealth and arrogance of power,"

displayed within the United States; was the motive assigned for the

association. "A constant circulation of useful information, and a

liberal communication of republican sentiments, were thought to be the

best antidotes to any political poison with which the vital principle

of civil liberty might be attacked:" and to give the more extensive

operation to their labours, a corresponding committee was appointed,

through whom they would communicate with other societies, which might

be established on similar principles, throughout the United States.

Faithful to their founder, and true to the real objects of their

association, these societies continued, during the term of their

existence, to be the resolute champions of all the encroachments

attempted by the agents of the French republic on the government of

the United States, and the steady defamers of the views and measures

of the American executive.

Thus strongly supported, Mr. Genet persisted in his construction of

the treaties between the two nations; and, in defiance of the positive

determination of the government, continued to act according to that

construction.

The President was called to Mount Vernon by urgent business, which

detained him less than three weeks; and, in his absence, the heads of

departments superintended the execution of those rules which had been

previously established.

In this short interval, a circumstance occurred, strongly marking the

rashness of the minister of France, and his disrespect to the

executive of the United States.

The Little Sarah, an English merchantman, had been captured by a

French frigate, and brought into the port of Philadelphia, where she

was completely equipped as a privateer, and was just about to sail on

a cruise under the name of _le petit Democrat_, when the secretary of

the treasury communicated her situation to the secretaries of state

and of war; in consequence of which, Governor Mifflin was desired to

cause an examination of the fact. The warden of the port was directed

to institute the proper inquiries; and late in the evening of the

sixth of July, he reported her situation, and that she was to sail the

next day.

[Sidenote: Genet calculates upon the partialities of the American

people for France and openly insults their government.]

In pursuance of the instructions which had been given by the

President, the governor immediately sent Mr. Secretary Dallas for the

purpose of prevailing on Mr. Genet to relieve him from the employment

of force, by detaining the vessel in port until the arrival of the

President, who was then on his way from Mount Vernon. Mr. Dallas

communicated this message to the French minister in terms as

conciliatory as its nature would permit. On receiving it, he gave a

loose to the most extravagant passion. After exclaiming with vehemence

against the measure, he complained, in strong terms, and with many

angry epithets, of the ill treatment which he had received from some

of the officers of the general government, which he contrasted with

the cordial attachment that was expressed by the people at large for

his nation. He ascribed the conduct of those officers to principles

inimical to the cause of France, and of liberty. He insinuated that,

by their influence, the President had been misled; and observed with

considerable emphasis, that the President was not the sovereign of

this country. The powers of peace and war being vested in congress, it

belonged to that body to decide those questions growing out of

treaties which might involve peace or war; and the President,

therefore, ought to have assembled the national legislature before he

ventured to issue his proclamation of neutrality, or to prohibit, by

his instructions to the state governors, the enjoyment of the

particular rights which France claimed under the express stipulations

of the treaty of commerce. The executive construction of that treaty

was neither just nor obligatory; and he would make no engagement which

might be construed into a relinquishment of rights which his

constituents deemed indispensable. In the course of this vehement and

angry declamation, he spoke of publishing his correspondence with the

officers of government, together with a narrative of his proceedings;

and said that, although the existing causes would warrant an abrupt

departure, his regard for the people of America would induce him to

remain here, amidst the insults and disgusts that he daily suffered in

his official character from the public officers, until the meeting of

congress; and if that body should agree in the opinions and support

the measures of the President, he would certainly withdraw, and leave

the dispute to be adjusted between the two nations themselves. His

attention being again called by Mr. Dallas to the particular subject,

he peremptorily refused to enter into any arrangements for suspending

the departure of the privateer, and cautioned him against any attempt

to seize her, as she belonged to the republic; and, in defence of the

honour of her flag, would unquestionably repel force by force.

On receiving the report of Mr. Dallas, Governor Mifflin ordered out

one hundred and twenty militia, for the purpose of taking possession

of the privateer; and communicated the case, with all its

circumstances, to the officers of the executive government. On the

succeeding day, Mr. Jefferson waited on Mr. Genet, in the hope of

prevailing on him to pledge his word that the privateer should not

leave the port until the arrival of the President. The minister was

not less intemperate with Mr. Jefferson than he had been with Mr.

Dallas. He indulged himself, in a repetition of nearly the same

passionate language, and again spoke, with extreme harshness, of the

conduct of the executive. He persisted in refusing to make any

engagements for the detention of the vessel; and, after his rage had

in some degree spent itself, he entreated that no attempt might be

made to take possession of her, as her crew was on board, and force

would be repelled by force.

He then also said that she was not ready to sail immediately. She

would change her position, and fall down the river a small distance on

that day; but was not yet ready to sail.

In communicating this conversation to Governor Mifflin, Mr. Jefferson

stated his conviction that the privateer would remain in the river

until the President should decide on her case; in consequence of

which, the governor dismissed the militia, and requested the advice of

the heads of departments on the course which it would be proper for

him to pursue. Both the governor and Mr. Jefferson stated, that in

reporting the conversation between Mr. Genet and himself, Mr. Dallas

had said that Mr. Genet threatened, in express terms, "to appeal from

the President to the people."

Thus braved and insulted in the very heart of the American empire, the

secretaries of the treasury, and of war, were of opinion that it was

expedient to take immediate provisional measures for establishing a

battery on Mud Island, under cover of a party of militia, with

directions, that if the vessel should attempt to depart before the

pleasure of the President should be known concerning her, military

coercion should be employed to arrest her progress.

The secretary of state dissenting from this opinion, the measure was

not adopted. The vessel fell down to Chester before the arrival of the

President, and sailed on her cruise before the power of the government

could be interposed.

On the 11th of July the President reached Philadelphia, and requested

that his cabinet ministers would convene at his house the next day at

nine in the morning.

Among the papers placed in his hands by the secretary of state, which

required immediate attention, were those which related to the Little

Democrat. On reading them, a messenger was immediately despatched for

the secretary, but he had retired, indisposed, to his seat in the

country. Upon hearing this, the President instantly addressed a letter

to him, of which the following is an extract. "What is to be done in

the case of the Little Sarah, now at Chester? Is the minister of the

French republic to set the acts of this government at defiance _with

impunity_--and then threaten the executive with an appeal to the

people? What must the world think of such conduct? and of the

government of the United States in submitting to it?

"These are serious questions--circumstances press for decision;--and

as you have had time to consider them, (upon me they come

unexpectedly,) I wish to know your opinion upon them even before

to-morrow--for the vessel may then be gone."

In answer to this letter, the secretary stated the assurances which

had on that day been given to him by Mr. Genet, that the vessel would

not sail before the President's decision respecting her should be

made. In consequence of this information, immediate coercive measures

were suspended; and in the council of the succeeding day it was

determined to retain in port all[6] privateers which had been equipped

by any of the belligerent powers within the United States. This

determination was immediately communicated to Mr. Genet; but, in

contempt of it, the Little Democrat proceeded on her cruise.

[Footnote 6: They were particularly enumerated, and the

decision was also extended to the ship Jane, an English

armed merchantman, alleged by Mr. Genet to be a privateer,

and the governor was requested to attend to her, and if he

found her augmenting her force and about to depart, to cause

her to be stopped.

The Jane had augmented her armament by replacing four old

gun-carriages with new ones, and opening two new portholes.

The request of the British consul that these alterations

might be allowed was peremptorily rejected, and directions

were given that she should be restored precisely to the

situation in which she entered the port. Had she attempted

to sail without obeying these orders, Governor Mifflin had

taken measures to stop her at Mud Island.]

In this, as in every effort made by the executive to maintain the

neutrality of the United States, that great party which denominated

itself "THE PEOPLE," could perceive only a settled hostility to France

and to liberty, a tame subserviency to British policy, and a desire,

by provoking France, to engage America in the war, for the purpose of

extirpating republican principles.[7]

[Footnote 7: See note No. III. at the end of the volume.]

The administration received strong additional evidence of the

difficulty that would attend an adherence to the system which had been

commenced, in the acquittal of Gideon Henfield.

A prosecution had been instituted against this person who had enlisted

in Charleston on board a French privateer equipped in that port, which

had brought her prizes into the port of Philadelphia. This prosecution

had been directed under the advice of the attorney general, who was of

opinion, that persons of this description were punishable for having

violated subsisting treaties, which, by the constitution, are the

supreme law of the land; and that they were also indictable at common

law, for disturbing the peace of the United States.

It could not be expected that the democratic party would be

inattentive to an act so susceptible of misrepresentation. Their

papers sounded the alarm; and it was universally asked, "what law had

been offended, and under what statute was the indictment supported?

Were the American people already prepared to give to a proclamation

the force of a legislative act, and to subject themselves to the will

of the executive? But if they were already sunk to such a state of

degradation, were they to be punished for violating a proclamation

which had not been published when the offence was committed, if indeed

it could be termed an offence to engage with France, combating for

liberty against the combined despots of Europe?"

As the trial approached, a great degree of sensibility was displayed;

and the verdict in favour of Henfield was celebrated with extravagant

marks of joy and exultation. It bereaved the executive of the strength

to be derived from an opinion, that punishment might be legally

inflicted on those who should openly violate the rules prescribed for

the preservation of neutrality; and exposed that department to the

obloquy of having attempted a measure which the laws would not

justify.

About this time, a question growing out of the war between France and

Britain, the decision of which would materially affect the situation

of the United States, was presented to the consideration of the

executive.

It will be recollected that during the war which separated America

from Britain, the celebrated compact termed the _armed neutrality_ was

formed in the north of Europe, and announced to the belligerent

powers. A willingness to acquiesce in the principles it asserted, one

of which was that free bottoms should make free goods, was expressed

by the governments engaged in the war, with the single exception of

Great Britain. But, however favourably the United States, as a

belligerent, might view a principle which would promote the interests

of inferior maritime powers, they were not willing, after the

termination of hostilities, to enter into engagements for its support

which might endanger their future peace; and, in this spirit,

instructions were given to their ministers in Europe.

This principle was ingrafted into the treaty of commerce with France;

but no stipulation on the subject had been made with England. It

followed, that, with France, the character of the bottom was imparted

to the cargo; but with Britain, the law of nations was the rule by

which the respective rights of the belligerent and neutral were to be

decided.

Construing this rule to give security to the goods of a friend in the

bottoms of an enemy, and to subject the goods of an enemy to capture

in the bottoms of a friend, the British cruisers took French property

out of American vessels, and their courts condemned it as lawful

prize.

Mr. Genet had remonstrated against the acquiescence of the American

executive in this exposition of the law of nations, in such terms as

he was accustomed to employ; and on the 9th of July, in the moment of

the contest respecting the Little Democrat, he had written a letter

demanding an immediate and positive answer to the question, what

measures the President had taken, or would take, to cause the American

flag to be respected? He observed, that "as the English would continue

to carry off, with impunity, French citizens, and French property

found on board of American vessels, without embarrassing themselves

with the philosophical principles proclaimed by the President of the

United States," and as the embarrassing engagements of France deprived

her of the privileges of making reprisals at every point, it was

necessary for the interests of both nations, quickly to agree on

taking other measures.

Not receiving an immediate answer, Mr. Genet, towards the close of

July, again addressed the secretary of state on the subject. In this

extraordinary letter, after complaining of the insults offered to the

American flag by seizing the property of Frenchmen confided to its

protection, he added, "your political rights are counted for nothing.

In vain do the principles of neutrality establish, that friendly

vessels make friendly goods; in vain, sir, does the President of the

United States endeavour, by his proclamation, to reclaim the

observation of this maxim; in vain does the desire of preserving peace

lead to sacrifice the interests of France to that of the moment; in

vain does the thirst of riches preponderate over honour in the

political balance of America: all this management, all this

condescension, all this humility, end in nothing; our enemies laugh at

it; and the French, too confident, are punished for having believed

that the American nation had a flag, that they had some respect for

their laws, some conviction of their strength, and entertained some

sentiment of their dignity. It is not possible for me, sir, to paint

to you all my sensibility at this scandal which tends to the

diminution of your commerce, to the oppression of ours, and to the

debasement and vilification of republics. It is for Americans to make

known their generous indignation at this outrage; and I must confine

myself to demand of you a second time, to inform me of the measures

which you have taken, in order to obtain restitution of the property

plundered from my fellow citizens, under the protection of your flag.

It is from our government they have learnt that the Americans were our

allies, that the American nation was sovereign, and that they knew how

to make themselves respected. It is then under the very same sanction

of the French nation, that they have confided their property and

persons to the safeguard of the American flag; and on her, they submit

the care of causing those rights to be respected. But if our fellow

citizens have been deceived, if you are not in a condition to maintain

the sovereignty of your people, speak; we have guaranteed it when

slaves, we shall be able to render it formidable, having become

freemen."

On the day preceding the date of this offensive letter, the secretary

of state had answered that of the 9th of July; and, without noticing

the unbecoming style in which the decision of the executive was

demanded, had avowed and defended the opinion, that "by the general

law of nations, the goods of an enemy found in the vessels of a friend

are lawful prize." This fresh insult might therefore be passed over in

silence.

While a hope remained that the temperate forbearance of the executive,

and the unceasing manifestations of its friendly dispositions towards

the French republic, might induce the minister of that nation to

respect the rights of the United States, and to abstain from

violations of their sovereignty, an anxious solicitude not to impair

the harmony which he wished to maintain between the two republics, had

restrained the President from adopting those measures respecting Mr.

Genet, which the conduct of that gentleman required. He had seen a

foreign minister usurp within the territories of the United States

some of the most important rights of sovereignty, and persist, after

the prohibition of the government, in the exercise of those rights. In

asserting this extravagant claim, so incompatible with national

independence, the spirit in which it originated had been pursued, and

the haughty style of a superior had been substituted for the

respectful language of diplomacy. He had seen the same minister

undertake to direct the civil government; and to pronounce, in

opposition to the decisions of the executive, in what departments of

the constitution of the United States had placed certain great

national powers. To render this state of things more peculiarly

critical and embarrassing, the person most instrumental in producing

it, had, from his arrival, thrown himself into the arms of the people,

stretched out to receive him; and was emboldened by their favour, to

indulge the hope of succeeding in his endeavours, either to overthrow

their government, or to bend it to his will. But the full experiment

had now been made; and the result was a conviction not to be resisted,

that moderation would only invite additional injuries, and that the

present insufferable state of things could be terminated only by

procuring the removal of the French minister, or by submitting to

become, in his hands, the servile instrument of hostility against the

enemies of his nation. Information was continually received from every

quarter, of fresh aggressions on the principles established by the

government; and, while the executive was thus openly disregarded and

contemned, the members of the administration were reproached in all

the papers of an active and restless opposition, as the violators of

the national faith, the partisans of monarchy, and the enemies of

liberty and of France.

The unwearied efforts of that department to preserve that station in

which the various treaties in existence had placed the nation, were

incessantly calumniated[8] as infractions of those treaties, and

ungrateful attempts to force the United States into the war against

France.

[Footnote 8: See note No. IV. at the end of the volume.]

The judgment of the President was never hastily formed; but, once made

up, it was seldom to be shaken. Before the last letter of Mr. Genet

was communicated to him, he seems to have determined to take decisive

measures respecting that minister.

[Sidenote: Rules laid down by the executive in relation to the powers

at war within the ports of the United States.]

That the course to be pursued might be well considered, the secretary

of state was requested to collect all the correspondence with him, to

be laid before a cabinet council about to be held for the purpose of

adjusting a complete system of rules to be observed by the

belligerents in the ports of the United States. These rules were

discussed at several meetings, and finally, on the third of August,

received the unanimous approbation of the cabinet. They[9] evidence

the settled purpose of the executive, faithfully to observe all the

national engagements, and honestly to perform the duties of that

neutrality in which the war found them, and in which those engagements

left them free to remain.

[Footnote 9: See note No. V. at the end of the volume.]

[Sidenote: The president requests the recall of Genet.]

In the case of the minister of the French republic, it was unanimously

agreed that a letter should be written to Mr. Morris, the minister of

the United States at Paris, stating the conduct of Mr. Genet, resuming

the points of difference which had arisen between the government and

that gentleman, assigning the reasons for the opinion of the former,

desiring the recall of the latter, and directing that this letter,

with those which had passed between Mr. Genet and the secretary of

state, should be laid before the executive of the French government.

To a full view of the transactions of the executive with Mr. Genet,

and an ample justification of its measures, this able diplomatic

performance adds assurances of unvarying attachment to France,

expressed in such terms of unaffected sensibility, as to render

it impossible to suspect the sincerity of the concluding

sentiment--"that, after independence and self-government, there was

nothing America more sincerely wished than perpetual friendship with

them."

An adequate idea of the passion it excited in Mr. Genet, who received

the communication in September, at New York, can be produced only by a

perusal of his letter addressed, on that occasion, to the secretary of

state. The asperity of his language was not confined to the President,

whom he still set at defiance, whom he charged with transcending the

limits prescribed by the constitution, and of whose accusation before

congress he spoke as an act of justice "which the American people,

which the French people, which all free people were interested to

reclaim:" nor to those "gentlemen who had been painted to him so often

as aristocrats, partisans of monarchy, partisans of England, and

consequently enemies of the principles which all good Frenchmen had

embraced with a religious enthusiasm." Its bitterness was also

extended to the secretary of state himself, whom he had been induced

to consider as his personal friend, and who had, he said, "initiated

him into mysteries which had inflamed his hatred against all those who

aspire to an absolute power."

During these deliberations, Mr. Genet was received in New York with

the same remarks of partiality to his nation, and of flattering regard

to himself, which had been exhibited in the more southern states. At

this place too, he manifested the same desire to encourage discontent

at the conduct of the government, and to embark America in the

quarrel, by impressing an opinion that the existence of liberty

depended on the success of the French republic, which he had uniformly

avowed. In answer to an address from the republican citizens of New

York, who had spoken of the proclamation of neutrality as relating

only to acts of open hostility, not to the feelings of the heart; and

who had declared that they would "exultingly sacrifice a liberal

portion of their dearest interests could there result, on behalf of

the French republic, an adequate advantage;" he said--"in this respect

I can not but interpret as you have done the declaration of your

government. They must know that the strict performance of treaties is

the best and safest policy; they must know that good faith alone can

inspire respectability to a nation; that a pusillanimous conduct

provokes insult, and brings upon a country those very dangers which it

weakly means to avert.

"There is indeed too much reason to fear that you are involved in the

general conspiracy of tyrants against liberty. They never will, they

never can forgive you for having been the first to proclaim the rights

of man. But you will force them to respect you by pursuing with

firmness the only path which is consistent with your national honour

and dignity.

"The cause of France is the cause of all mankind, and no nation is

more deeply interested than you are in its success. Whatever fate

awaits her, you are ultimately to share. But the cause of liberty is

great and it shall prevail.

"And if France, under a despotic yoke, has been able so successfully

to assert your rights, they can never again be endangered while she is

at liberty to exert, in your support, that powerful arm which now

defies the combined efforts of a whole world."

While these exertions were successfully making to give increased

force, and a wider extent, to opinions which might subvert the system

adopted by the executive, Mr. Jay, the chief justice of the United

States, and Mr. King, a senator representing the state, arrived in New

York from Philadelphia. They had been preceded by a report, which was

whispered in private circles, that the French minister had avowed a

determination to appeal from the President to the people. The

confidential intercourse subsisting between these gentlemen and a part

of the administration rendering it probable that this declaration, if

made, had been communicated to them, they were asked, whether the

report was true; having received the information through a channel[10]

which was entitled to the most implicit faith, they answered that it

was.

[Footnote 10: They received it from the secretaries of the

treasury and of war.]

Their having said so was controverted; and they were repeatedly

required, in the public papers, to admit or deny that they had made

such an assertion. Thus called upon, they published a certificate

avowing that they had made the declaration imputed to them.

On reflecting men this communication made a serious impression. The

recent events in Poland, whose dismemberment and partition were easily

traced to the admission of foreign influence, gave additional

solemnity to the occurrence, and led to a more intent consideration of

the awful causes which would embolden a foreign minister to utter such

a threat.

That party, which in the commencement of the contests respecting the

constitution was denominated federal, had generally supported the

measures of the administration.

That which was denominated anti-federal, had generally opposed those

measures. South of the Potomac especially, there was certainly many

important exceptions to this arrangement of parties; yet as a general

arrangement, it was unquestionably correct.

In the common partialities for France, in the common hope that the

revolution in that country would be crowned with success, and would

produce important benefits to the human race, they had equally

participated; but in the course to be pursued by the United States,

the line of separation between the two parties was clear and distinct.

The federalists were universally of opinion that, in the existing war,

America ought to preserve a neutrality as impartial as was compatible

with her treaties; and that those treaties had been fairly and justly

construed by the executive. Seduced however by their wishes, and by

their affections, they at first yielded implicit faith to the

assurances given by Mr. Genet of the disinclination of the French

republic to draw them from this eligible position; and from this

belief, they receded slowly and reluctantly.

They were inclined to ascribe the bitter invectives which were

pronounced against the executive to an inveterate hostility to the

government, and to those who administered it; and, when at length they

were compelled to perceive that the whole influence of Mr. Genet was

employed in stimulating and pointing these invectives, they fondly

indulged the hope that his nation would not countenance his conduct.

Adding to their undiminished attachment to the chief magistrate, a

keen sense of the disgrace, the humiliation, and the danger of

permitting the American government to be forced into any system of

measures by the machinations of a foreign minister with the people,

they had occasionally endeavoured, through the medium of the press, to

keep the public mind correct; and, when it was announced that an

appeal to themselves was threatened, they felt impelled by the

strongest sentiments of patriotism and regard for national honour, to

declare the indignation which the threat had inspired. In every

quarter of the union, the people assembled in their districts, and the

strength of parties was fully tried. The contest was warm and

strenuous. But public opinion appeared to preponderate greatly in

favour of neutrality, and of the proclamation by which its observance

was directed. It was apparent too, that the American bosom still

glowed with ardent affection for their chief magistrate; and that,

however successful might have been the shafts directed against some of

those who shared his confidence, the arrows aimed at himself had

missed their mark.

Yet it was not to be concealed that the indiscreet arrogance of Mr.

Genet, the direct insults to the President, and the attachment which

many, who were in opposition to the general measures of the

administration, still retained for the person of that approved

patriot, contributed essentially to the prevalence of the sentiment

which was called forth by the occasion.

In the resolutions expressing the strongest approbation of the

measures which had been adopted, and the greatest abhorrence of

foreign influence, a decided partiality for France was frequently

manifested; while in those of a contrary description, respect for the

past services of the President, and a willingness to support the

executive in the exercises of its constitutional functions, seemed,

when introduced, to be reluctantly placed among the more agreeable

declarations of detestation for those who sought to dissolve the union

between America and France, and of the devotion with which the French

revolution ought to be espoused by all the friends of liberty.

The effect which the certificate of Mr. Jay and Mr. King might

possibly produce was foreseen; and Mr. Genet sought to avoid its

influence by questioning its veracity. Not only had it never been

alleged that the exceptionable expressions were used to the President

personally, but it was certain that they had not been uttered in his

presence. Affecting not to have adverted to this obvious circumstance,

the minister, on the 13th of August, addressed a letter to the chief

magistrate, which, being designed for publication, was itself the act

he had threatened, in which he subjoined to a detail of his

accusations against the executive, the demand of an explicit

declaration that he had never intimated to him an intention to appeal

to the people.

On the 16th this letter was answered by the secretary of state, who,

after acknowledging its receipt by the President, added, "I am desired

to observe to you that it is not the established course for the

diplomatic characters residing here to have any direct correspondence

with him. The secretary of state is the organ through which their

communications should pass.

"The President does not conceive it to be within the line of propriety

or duty, for him to bear evidence against a declaration, which,

whether made to him or others, is perhaps immaterial; he therefore

declines interfering in the case."

Seldom has more conclusive testimony been offered of the ascendency

which, in the conflicts of party, the passions maintain over reason,

than was exhibited, on this occasion, by the zealous partisans of the

French minister. It might have been expected that, content with

questioning the fact, or with diverting the obloquy attending it from

the French nation, no American would have been found hardy enough to

justify it; and but few, to condemn those gentlemen by whose means it

had reached the public ear. Nothing could be farther removed from this

expectation, than the conduct that was actually observed. The censure

merited by the expressions themselves fell, not upon the person who

had used them, but upon those who had communicated them to the public.

Writers of considerable political eminence, charged them as being

members of a powerful faction who were desirous of separating America

from France, and connecting her with England, for the purpose of

introducing the British constitution.

As if no sin could equal the crime of disclosing to the people a truth

which, by inducing reflection, might check the flood of that passion

for France which was deemed the surest test of patriotism, the darkest

motives were assigned for the disclosure, and the reputation of those

who made it has scarcely been rescued by a lapse of years, and by a

change of the subjects of controversy, from the peculiar party odium

with which they were at the time overwhelmed.

Sentiments of a still more extraordinary nature were openly avowed. In

a republican country, it was said, the people alone were the basis of

government. All powers being derived from them, might, by them, be

withdrawn at pleasure. They alone were the authors of the law, and to

them alone, must the ultimate decision on the interpretation belong.

From these delicate and popular truths, it was inferred, that the

doctrine that the sovereignty of the nation resided in the departments

of government was incompatible with the principles of liberty; and

that, if Mr. Genet dissented from the interpretation given by the

President to existing treaties, he might rightfully appeal to the real

sovereign whose agent the President was, and to whom he was

responsible for his conduct. Is the President, it was asked, a

_consecrated_ character, that an appeal from his decisions must be

considered criminal? or are the people in such a state of monarchical

degradation, that to speak of consulting them is an offence as great,

as if America groaned under a dominion equally tyrannical with the old

monarchy of France?

It was soon ascertained that Mr. Dallas, to whom this threat of

appealing to the people had been delivered, did not admit that the

precise words had been used. Mr. Genet then, in the coarsest terms,

averred the falsehood of the certificate which had been published, and

demanded from the attorney general, and from the government, that Mr.

Jay and Mr. King should be indicted for a libel upon himself and his

nation. That officer accompanied his refusal to institute this

information with the declaration that any other gentleman of the

profession, who might approve and advise the attempt, could be at no

loss to point out a mode which would not require his intervention.

While the minister of the French republic thus loudly complained of

the unparalleled injury he received from being charged with employing

a particular exceptionable phrase, he seized every fair occasion to

carry into full execution the threat which he denied having made. His

letters, written for the purpose of publication, and actually

published by himself, accused the executive, before the tribunal of

the people, on those specific points, from its decisions respecting

which he was said to have threatened the appeal. As if the offence

lay, not in perpetrating the act, but in avowing an intention to

perpetrate it, this demonstration of his designs did not render his

advocates the less vehement in his support, nor the less acrimonious

in reproaching the administration, as well as Mr. Jay and Mr. King.

Whilst insult was thus added to insult, the utmost vigilance of the

executive officers was scarcely sufficient to maintain an observance

of the rules which had been established for preserving neutrality in

the American ports. Mr. Genet persisted in refusing to acquiesce in

those rules; and fresh instances of attempts to violate them were

continually recurring. Among these, was an outrage committed in

Boston, too flagrant to be overlooked.

A schooner, brought as a prize into the port of Boston by a French

privateer, was claimed by the British owner; who instituted

proceedings at law against her, for the purpose of obtaining a

decision on the validity of her capture. She was rescued from the

possession of the marshal, by an armed force acting under the

authority of Mr. Duplaine, the French consul, which was detached from

a frigate then lying in port. Until the frigate sailed, she was

guarded by a part of the crew; and, notwithstanding the determination

of the American government that the consular courts should not

exercise a prize jurisdiction within the territories of the United

States, Mr. Duplaine declared his purpose to take cognizance of the

case.

To this act of open defiance, it was impossible for the President to

submit. The facts being well attested, the exequatur which had been

granted to Mr. Duplaine was revoked, and he was forbidden further to

exercise the consular functions. It will excite surprise that even

this necessary measure could not escape censure. The self-proclaimed

champions of liberty discovered in it a violation of the constitution,

and a new indignity to France.

Mr. Genet did not confine his attempts to employ the force of America

against the enemies of his country to maritime enterprises. On his

first arrival, he is understood to have planned an expedition against

the Floridas, to be carried on from Georgia; and another against

Louisiana, to be carried on from the western parts of the United

States. Intelligence was received that the principal officers were

engaged; and the temper of the people inhabiting the western country

was such as to furnish some ground for the apprehension, that the

restraints which the executive was capable of imposing, would be found

too feeble to prevent the execution of this plan. The remonstrances of

the Spanish commissioners on this subject, however, were answered with

explicit assurances that the government would effectually interpose to

defeat any expedition from the territories of the United States

against those of Spain; and the governor of Kentucky was requested to

co-operate in frustrating this improper application of the military

resources of his state.

It was not by the machinations of the French minister alone that the

neutrality of the United States was endangered. The party which, under

different pretexts, urged measures the inevitable tendency of which

was war, derived considerable aid, in their exertions to influence the

passions of the people, from the conduct of others of the belligerent

powers. The course pursued both by Britain and Spain rendered the task

of the executive still more arduous, by furnishing weapons to the

enemies of neutrality, capable of being wielded with great effect.

The resentment excited by the rigour with which the maritime powers of

Europe retained the monopoly of their colonial commerce, had, without

the aid of those powerful causes which had lately been brought into

operation, been directed peculiarly against Great Britain. These

resentments had been greatly increased. That nation had not mitigated

the vexations and inconveniences which war necessarily inflicts on

neutral trade, by any relaxations in her colonial policy.

[Sidenote: Decree of the national convention relative to neutral

commerce.]

To this rigid and repulsive system, that of France presented a perfect

contrast. Either influenced by the politics of the moment, or

suspecting that, in a contest with the great maritime nations of

Europe, her commerce must search for security in other bottoms than

her own, she opened the ports of her colonies to every neutral flag,

and offered to the United States a new treaty, in which it was

understood that every mercantile distinction between Americans and

Frenchmen should be totally abolished.

With that hasty credulity which, obedient to the wishes, can not await

the sober and deliberate decisions of the judgment, the Americans

ascribed this change, and these propositions, to the liberal genius of

freedom; and expected the new commercial and political systems to be

equally durable. As if, in the term REPUBLIC, the avaricious spirit of

commercial monopoly would lose its influence over men; as if the

passions were to withdraw from the management of human affairs, and

leave the helm to the guidance of reason, and of disinterested

philanthropy; a vast proportion of the American people believed this

novel system to be the genuine offspring of new-born liberty; and

consequently expected that, from the success of the republican arms, a

flood of untried good was to rush upon the world.

The avidity with which the neutral merchants pressed forward to reap

the rich and tempting harvest offered to them by the regulations and

the wants of France, presented a harvest not less rich and tempting to

the cruisers of her enemies. Captures to a great extent were made,

some with, others without, justifiable cause; and the irritations

inseparable from disappointment in gathering the fruits of a gainful

traffic, were extensively communicated to the agricultural part of

society.

The vexations on the ocean to which neutrals are commonly exposed

during war, were aggravated by a measure of the British cabinet, which

war was not admitted to justify.

[Sidenote: British order of 1793.]

The vast military exertions of the French republic had carried many

hands from their usual occupations, to the field; and the measures of

government, added to the internal commotions, had discouraged labour

by rendering its profits insecure. These causes, aided perhaps by

unfavourable seasons, had produced a scarcity which threatened famine.

This state of things suggested to their enemies the policy of

increasing the internal distress, by cutting off the external supply.

In execution of this plan, the British cruisers were instructed "to

stop all vessels loaded wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal,

bound to any port in France, or any port occupied by the armies of

France, and to send them to such ports as shall be most convenient, in

order that such corn, meal, or flour, may be purchased on behalf of

his majesty's government, and the ships be relieved after such

purchase, and after a due allowance for freight; or that the masters

of such ships on giving due security, to be approved by the court of

admiralty, be permitted to proceed to dispose of their cargoes of

corn, meal, or flour, in the ports of any country in amity with his

majesty."

In the particular character of the war, and in the general expressions

of some approved modern writers on the law of nations, the British

government sought a justification of this strong measure. But by

neutrals generally, it was deemed an unwarrantable invasion of their

rights; and the remonstrances made against it by the American

government in particular, were serious and earnest. This attempt to

make a principle, which was understood to be applicable only to

blockaded places, subservient to the impracticable plan of starving an

immense agricultural nation, was resisted with great strength of

reasoning by the administration; and added, not inconsiderably, to the

resentment felt by the body of the people.[11]

[Footnote 11: See note No. VI. at the end of the volume.]

Hostilities on the ocean disclosed still another source of irritation,

which added its copious stream to the impetuous torrent which

threatened to sweep America into the war that desolated Europe.

The British government had long been accustomed to resort to the

practice of manning their fleet by impressment. The exercise of this

prerogative had not been confined to the land. Merchantmen in their

ports, and even at sea, were visited, and mariners were taken out of

them, to be employed in the royal navy. The profits of trade enabling

neutral merchants to give high wages, British sailors were tempted, in

great numbers, to enter their service; but the neutral ship furnished

no protection. Disregarding the bottom in which they sailed, the

officers of the navy impressed them wherever found, often leaving

scarcely hands enough to navigate the vessel into port.

The Americans were peculiarly exposed to the abuse to which such

usages are liable. Descended from the same ancestors and speaking the

same language, the distinction between them and the English, though in

general sufficiently marked, was not always so visible as to prevent

unintentional error; nor were the captains of ships of war, at all

times, very solicitous to avoid mistake. Native Americans, therefore,

were frequently impressed, and compelled to serve against the French

republic.

The British cabinet disclaimed all pretensions to the impressment of

real American citizens, and declared officially a willingness to

discharge them, on the establishment of their citizenship. But time

was necessary to procure the requisite testimonials; and those

officers who had notoriously offended in this respect, were not so

discountenanced by their government as to be deterred from a

repetition of the offence. There was too, one class of citizens,

concerning whose rights a difference of opinion prevailed, which has

not even yet been adjusted. These were British subjects who had

migrated to, and been adopted by, the United States.

The continuance of the Indian war added still another item to this

catalogue of discontents.

The efforts of the United States to make a treaty with the savages of

the Miamis had proved abortive. The Indians insisted on the Ohio as

the boundary between them and the whites; and, although the American

commissioners expressed a willingness to relinquish some of the lands

purchased at the treaty of fort Harmar, and pressed them to propose

some line between the boundary established by that treaty and the

Ohio, they adhered inflexibly to their original demand.

It was extensively believed in America, and information collected from

the Indians countenanced the opinion, that they were encouraged by the

government of Canada to persevere in this claim, and that the treaty

was defeated by British influence. The conviction was universal that

this influence would continue so long as the posts south of the lakes

should be occupied by British troops; and the uneasiness which the

detention of those posts created, daily acquired strength.

Unfortunately, the original pretext for detaining them was not yet

removed. The courts of the United States had not yet declared that

British debts contracted before the war, were recoverable. In one of

the circuits, a decision had been recently made, partly favourable,

and partly unfavourable, to the claim of the creditor. To this

decision writs of error had been brought, and the case was pending

before the supreme court. The motives therefore originally assigned

for holding the posts on the lakes still remained; and, as it was a

maxim with the executive "to place an adversary clearly in the wrong,"

and it was expected that the existing impediments to the fulfilment of

the treaty on the part of the United States would soon be done away,

it was thought unadviseable, had the military force of the union been

equal to the object, to seize those posts, until their surrender could

be required in consequence of a complete execution of the treaty. In

the mean time, the British minister was earnestly pressed upon the

subject.

This prudent conduct was far from being satisfactory to the people.

Estimating at nothing, infractions made by themselves, and rating

highly those committed by the opposite party, they would, in any state

of things, have complained loudly of this act of the British

government. But, agitated as they were by the various causes which

were perpetually acting on their passions, it is not wonderful that an

increased influence was given to this measure; that it should be

considered as conclusive testimony of British hostility, and should

add to the bitterness with which the government was reproached for

attempting a system "alike friendly and impartial to the belligerent

powers."

The causes of discontent which were furnished by Spain, though less

the theme of public declamation, continued to be considerable.

The American ministers at Madrid could make no progress in their

negotiation. The question of limits remained unsettled, and the

Mississippi was still closed against the Americans. In addition to

these subjects of disquiet, the southern states were threatened with

war from the Creeks and Cherokees, who were, with good reason,

believed to be excited to hostility by the Spanish government. Of

these irritating differences, that which related to the Mississippi

was far the most operative, and embarrassing. The imagination,

especially when warmed by discontent, bestows on a good which is

withheld, advantages much greater than the reality will justify; and

the people of the western country were easily persuaded to believe

that the navigation of the Mississippi was a mine of wealth which

would at once enrich them. That jealousy which men so readily

entertain of the views of those with whom they do not associate, had

favoured the efforts made by the enemies of the administration, to

circulate the opinion that an opposition of interests existed between

the eastern and the western people, and that the endeavours of the

executive to open their great river were feeble and insincere. At a

meeting of the Democratic Society in Lexington, in Kentucky, this

sentiment was unanimously avowed in terms of peculiar disrespect to

the government; and a committee was appointed to open a correspondence

with the inhabitants of the whole western country, for the purpose of

uniting them on this all important subject, and of preparing on it a

remonstrance to the President and congress of the United States, to be

expressed "in the bold, decent and determined language, proper to be

used by injured freemen when they address the servants of the people."

They claimed much merit for their moderation in having thus long, out

of regard to their government, and affection for their fellow citizens

on the Atlantic, abstained from the use of those means which they

possessed for the assertion of what they termed a natural and

unalienable right; and seemed to indicate the opinion that this

forbearance could not be long continued. Without regarding the

determination of Spain in the case or the poverty of the means placed

in the hands of the executive for inducing a change in this

determination, they demanded from the government the free use of the

Mississippi, as if only an act of the will was necessary to insure it

to them. Not even the probability that the public and intemperate

expression of these dangerous dispositions would perpetuate the evil,

could moderate them. This restless uneasy temper gave additional

importance to the project of an expedition against Louisiana, which

had been formed by Mr. Genet.

These public causes for apprehending hostilities[12] with Spain, were

strengthened by private communications. The government had received

intelligence from their ministers in Europe that propositions had been

made by the cabinet of Madrid to that of London, the object of which

was the United States. The precise nature of these propositions was

not ascertained, but it was understood generally, that their tendency

was hostile.

[Footnote 12: The state of affairs was so inauspicious to

the continuance of peace that in a letter written in the

month of June, to the secretary of war, the President thus

expressed himself: "It is of great importance that this

government should be fully informed of the Spanish force in

the Floridas, the troops which have lately arrived, the

number of their posts, and the strength and situation of

each; together with such other circumstances as would enable

it to adopt correspondent measures, in case we should, in

spite of our endeavours to avoid it, get embroiled with that

nation. It would be too improvident, might be too late, and

certainly would be disgraceful, to have this information to

obtain when our plans ought to be formed." After suggesting

the propriety of making the proper inquiries in a particular

channel, he added, "I point you to the above as one source

only of information. My desire to obtain knowledge of these

facts leads me to request with equal earnestness, that you

would improve every other to ascertain them with certainty.

No reasonable expense should be spared to accomplish objects

of such magnitude in times so critical."]

Thus unfavourable to the pacific views of the executive were the

circumstances under which congress was to assemble.