UNPLEASANT RELATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN--THE UNITED STATES AGGRIEVED
BY THE PRACTICE OF THE BRITISH CRUISERS TOWARD NEUTRALS, AND IN THE
IMPRESSMENT OF SEAMEN--ALSO, CONCERNING THE GIVING UP OF WESTERN
POSTS, AND TAMPERING WITH THE INDIANS--RELATIONS WITH
SPAIN--THREATENED DISSOLUTION OF THE CABINET--JEFFERSON'S
UNEASINESS--HIS OFFICIAL LETTER TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS--GENET'S ANGER
AND ACCUSATIVE INSINUATIONS--EVENTS IN NEW YORK--GENET'S RECEPTION
THERE--HIS INSOLENT LETTER TO JEFFERSON UNNOTICED--HIS
COMPLAINTS--DECLINE OF HIS POPULARITY--YELLOW FEVER IN
PHILADELPHIA--WASHINGTON RETIRES TO MOUNT VERNON TO AVOID IT--DOCTOR
RUSH--ABATEMENT OF THE FEVER--WASHINGTON RETURNS TO PHILADELPHIA.
While Washington's cabinet was thus perplexed by the conduct of the
French minister, it was equally so by the relations of the governments
of the United States and Great Britain. As we have observed, a
diplomatic intercourse between the two governments did not commence
until the federal constitution had established the republic upon a more
solid basis. Then Mr. Hammond was appointed British minister to the
United States, and took up his residence in Philadelphia; and Mr.
Pinckney, appointed United States minister to Great Britain, repaired to
London. We have also observed that the evacuation of some of the western
posts by the British, and other stipulations of the treaty of 1783, yet
remained uncomplied with when Mr. Hammond came. These causes for
complaint on the part of the United States, and the establishment of
just commercial relations between the two governments, had been the
chief subjects for negotiation since his arrival. At the time in
question, no progress had been made toward accommodation, and for this
reason a large number of the Americans felt more disposed to take part
with their old ally, and against their old enemy.
In fact, the catalogue of grievances suffered by the people of the
United States at the hand of Great Britain had increased, new
difficulties having grown out of the belligerent position of Europe at
the time we are considering. France, as we have seen, by a decree of her
National Convention, had placed the shipping of neutrals during the
pending war on the same footing as that of her own; and, in consequence,
a rich commerce had presented itself to American merchantmen, of which
they took advantage. Great Britain paid no attention to this decree, but
claimed for its cruisers the right to seize French property, even on
board American vessels. The British also refused to recognise as neutral
the trade between France and her West India colonies, carried on in
American bottoms, which the pressure of war had created.
The British government had also instructed their cruisers to seize and
bring in all vessels employed in carrying breadstuffs to French ports,
even though vessel and cargo should be neutral property; claiming the
right, contrary to modern usage, of preventing, by all means in her
power, supplies being carried to her enemy, her statesmen having
conceived the idea of destroying the French Revolution by starvation.
Such vessels and cargoes were, however, to be paid for on proof being
presented of their neutral character, and bonds being given to land in
countries at peace with Great Britain. It is proper to state, that, at
about the time in question, the French government--under the pressure of
circumstances, and driven to it, they said, "by their implacable and
ferocious enemies"--authorized the same system of seizure, with promises
to pay. The British _did_ pay, the French did _not_, and on that score
the Americans more highly respected the former than the latter.
A more serious ground of complaint against Great Britain was the
authority given to the commanders of British ships of war to make up any
deficiency in their crews, by pressing into their service British-born
seamen, wherever found, not within the immediate jurisdiction of any
foreign state. Under this authority, many American merchant-vessels were
crippled, while in mid-ocean, by British seamen being taken from them.
Nor were British seamen alone taken. It was sometimes difficult to
distinguish an Englishman from an American; and as the commanders of
vessels-of-war were not very strict in their scrutiny, native-born
Americans were frequently dragged on board British vessels, and kept in
slavery in the royal service for years. American seamen were thus
pressed into foreign service, even within the jurisdiction of the United
States. The remonstrances of the latter government against these
outrages were unheeded, and bitter feelings were engendered.
And yet another serious cause of difficulty with, and resentment toward
Great Britain existed in the hostile position of the Indian tribes in
the Northwest. Abortive attempts were made by the United States'
commissioners to form a treaty with some of them. The Indians insisted
upon making the Ohio river the boundary between themselves and the white
people, and to this they inflexibly adhered. It was generally believed
that the government of Canada encouraged them to persevere in this
claim. Indeed, information obtained from the Indians themselves made the
suspicion plausible, and the justice of that suspicion was enforced by
the tenacity with which the British held on to the western posts, under
the pretext, however, that the portion of the treaty of 1783 relating to
the payment of debts to British creditors, contracted by Americans
previous to the Revolution, had not yet been fulfilled by the government
of the United States, or promised to be by any decisions of the federal
courts.
These several causes of complaint against the British government, viewed
superficially by the people, caused great irritation in the public mind,
and a corresponding sympathy for France, the avowed and active enemy of
Great Britain. That sympathy, as we have seen, gave strength to the
insolent pretensions of Genet. Added to this was a decision in the
federal court at Richmond, which declared that, according to the treaty
of 1783, debts due from American citizens to British merchants previous
to the Revolution must be paid. This gave intensity to the excitement,
and the cry of usurpation on the part of the federal judiciary, which
had frequently been raised by the opposition, now went over the land
with vehement cadence.
The relations of the United States with Spain rather strengthened
Genet's position. The Mississippi river was still closed to the
Americans; and the Creek and Cherokee Indians, evidently encouraged by
Spanish emissaries among them, assumed a position hostile to the United
States. It was also asserted that propositions had been made by Spain to
Great Britain inimical to the United States. These facts and rumors
inflamed the people of the extreme South and West; and as a part of
Genet's programme of operations in this country contemplated an armed
invasion of Louisiana and the opening of the Mississippi, he and his
cause were very popular with the settlers in the great valleys beyond
the mountains of the Southwest.
While these things were perplexing Washington's cabinet, the dissentions
in that cabinet were more perplexing to the president. And yet, so
profoundly was Washington impressed with the skill, judgment, forecast,
and patriotism of the chief contestants, Jefferson and Hamilton, that he
contemplated the loss of their service, in their respective stations,
with the greatest solicitude. Such contemplations were pressed upon his
mind during the season of contest with Genet, which we have just
considered. Toward the close of June, Hamilton notified the president
that "considerations relative both to the public interest and to his own
delicacy" had brought him to the conclusion of resigning at the close of
the ensuing session of Congress; and on the thirty-first of July,
Jefferson informed him that, at the close of the ensuing month of
September, he should "beg leave to retire to scenes of greater
tranquillity from those for which," he said, "I am every day more and
more convinced that neither my talents, tone of mind, nor time of life
fit me."
These communications distressed the president; and on the sixth of
August he called upon Mr. Jefferson at his house, a little out of
Philadelphia, and expressed himself greatly concerned because of the
threatened desertion of those on whom he most relied, in this the hour
of greatest perplexity to the government. He did not know where he
should look to find suitable characters to fill up the offices. Mere
talents, he said, did not suffice for the department of state; for its
duties required a person conversant with foreign affairs, and perhaps
with foreign courts.
"He expressed great apprehensions," says Jefferson in his _Anas_, "at
the fermentation which seemed to be working in the mind of the public;
that many descriptions of persons, actuated by different causes,
appeared to be uniting [alluding to the democratic societies]; what it
would end in he knew not; a new Congress was to assemble, more numerous,
and perhaps of a different spirit; and the first expression of their
sentiments would be important." He then urged Jefferson to remain until
the close of the next session, if no longer.
Jefferson pleaded his repugnance to public life, and especially the
uneasiness of the position in which he was placed. He and Hamilton were
bitter enemies, and his course, he said, had caused "the wealthy
aristocrats, the merchants connected closely with England, the
newly-created paper factions," to bear him peculiar hatred. Thus
surrounded, he said, his "words were caught, multiplied, misconstrued,
and even fabricated and spread abroad," to his injury. Disclaiming any
knowledge of the views of the republican party at that time, he gave it
as his opinion that they would be found strong supporters of the
government in all measures for the public welfare; that in the next
Congress they would attempt nothing material but to make that body
independent; and that though the manoeuvres of Mr. Genet might produce
some embarrassment, he would be abandoned by the republicans and all
true friends of the country the moment they knew the nature and tendency
of his conduct.
The want of candor exhibited by Mr. Jefferson in these assurances,
recorded by his own pen, must have been plainly visible to Washington.
The idea that the secretary, the head and front of the republican party,
should be ignorant of their "views," and that the "party" would desert
Genet when they should know "the nature of his conduct," when that party
were his continual backers and supporters, is simply absurd; and it is
difficult to believe that Washington on that occasion, as Mr. Jefferson
says, actually asserted his belief "in the purity of the motives" of
that party.[58]
Jefferson consented to remain longer in the cabinet, and wrote the
vigorous and high-toned letter to Gouverneur Morris on the subject of
Genet's recall--a letter forming one of the most admirable state papers
ever issued from that department. That letter gave Genet great umbrage,
and in his comments he bitterly reproached Jefferson because he had
allowed himself to be made "an ungenerous instrument" of attack upon
him, after having made him believe that he was his friend, and
"initiating him into the mysteries which had influenced his hatred
against all those who aspired to absolute power." It seems, from other
remarks of Genet, that the tone of Jefferson's private conversations
with the minister upon public topics had differed materially from that
of his official communications. Genet intimated this when he said that
"it was not in his character to speak, _as many people do_, in one way,
and to act in another--to have an official language, and a language
confidential."[59]
While the subject of Genet's recall was pending, the minister proceeded
to New York. Already the common sense of the people began to prevail
over the nonsense of passion and feeling. Business-men--and the whole
population of the country had interests directly associated with
business-men--began to reflect upon the tendency of the doctrines of
Genet, and clearly perceived that their practical effect would be the
involvement of the United States in a war with England, and the sweeping
of all their commerce from the ocean. From the moment when these
reflections were heeded, there was a pause in the popular expressions of
enthusiasm in favor of Genet. The last libations of fulsome adulation
were poured out on his arrival in New York in September, while the
whole town and surrounding country were wild with excitement. The
frigate _L'Embuscade_, while lying in the harbor of New York, had been
challenged to single combat by the British frigate _Boston_, then
cruising off Sandy Hook. _L'Embuscade_ accepted the challenge; a severe
battle ensued; Captain Courtenay, commander of the _Boston_, was killed;
and the French vessel returned in triumph to New York. Multitudes of
people gathered upon the wharves and greeted her with loud cheers. The
excitement was intensified by the arrival, on the same day, of a French
fleet from Chesapeake bay, which anchored in the Hudson river. The
commander of _L'Embuscade_, and the officers of the other French
vessels, were regarded as almost superhuman by the most enthusiastic
sympathizers with the French Revolution; and tri-colored ribbons and
cockades were seen on every side, while the streets were made resonant
with the Marsellaise Hymn and the Carmagnole.
While this new phase of excitement was at its culmination, the booming
of cannon and the merry peal of the bells announced the approach of
Citizen Genet. He was at Paulus' Hook (now Jersey City), opposite New
York, and thousands of his friends immediately gathered in "The Fields"
(now City-hall park) to adopt measures for his reception. A committee of
escort was appointed, and Genet entered the city, amid the acclamations
of an excited populace, with all the pomp of a conqueror. "Addresses
were made to him," says Mr. Irving, "expressing devoted attachment to
the French republic, and abjuring all neutrality in regard to its heroic
struggle. 'The cause of France is the cause of America,' cried the
enthusiasts; 'it is time to distinguish its friends from its foes.'
Genet looked around him. The tri-colored cockade figured in the hats of
the shouting multitude; tri-colored ribbons fluttered from the dresses
of females in the windows; the French flag was hoisted on the top of the
Tontine coffee-house (the city exchange), surmounted by the cap of
liberty. Can we wonder that what little discretion Genet possessed was
completely overborne by this tide of seeming popularity?"
Genet had scarcely touched this cup of delight with his lips, when a
copy of Jefferson's letter to Morris came to embitter the intoxicating
draught. He received the document on the fifteenth of September, with
assurances that, out of regard to the interests of France, the president
would receive Mr. Genet's communications in writing, and respect him as
the representative of his government until his successor should arrive,
as long as his deportment should be of the tenor usually observed by
embassadors toward independent nations. Genet was stung to the quick;
and, three days after the receipt of this letter, he wrote a most angry
reply to Jefferson, in which, as we have just noticed, he accused him of
playing false to his professions of friendship, and charged the disfavor
in which he was held by the government to the machinations of
"aristocrats, partisans of monarchy, partisans of England and her
constitution and consequently enemies of the principles which all good
Frenchmen had imbued with religious enthusiasm;" and who, "instead of a
democratic embassador, would prefer a minister of the ancient _regimé_,
very complaisant, very gentle, very disposed to pay court to people in
office, to conform blindly to everything which flattered their views and
projects; above all, to prefer to the sure and modest society of good
farmers, simple citizens, and honest artisans, that of distinguished
personages who speculate so patriotically in the public funds, in the
lands, and in the paper of government."
Among the twelve enumerated great grievances of which Genet complained,
was, that at his first interview with the president, the latter did not
speak to _him_, specially, but of the friendship of the United States
toward France; that he did not, with partisan enthusiasm, announce a
single sentiment on the French Revolution, "while all the towns from
Charleston to Philadelphia had made the air resound with their most
ardent wishes for the French republic." He complained that the president
had admitted to a private audience, before his arrival, "Noailles[60] and
Talon, known agents of the French counter-revolutionists;" that the
"first magistrate of a free people decorated his parlor with certain
medallions" of the murdered king and his family, "which served at Paris
as signals of rallying;" that when he applied to the secretary of war to
lend his government some cannon and firearms for defensive use in the
Windward islands, that functionary had "the front to answer, with an
ironical carelessness, that the principles established by the president
did not permit him to lend the French so much as a pistol!" and,
lastly, that the president, in spite of the French minister's
"respectful insinuations," had deferred "to convoke Congress immediately
in order to take the true sentiments of the people, to fix the political
system of the United States, and to decide whether they would break,
suspend, or tighten their bonds with France."
Jefferson, who had become heartily disgusted with Genet, took no notice
of this angry and insolent letter, and the speedily-changed tone of
public feeling toward the writer justified the silence. His threat of
appealing from the president to the people--in other words, to excite an
insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the government--had shocked
the national pride, and many considerate republicans, who had been
zealous in the cause of the French Revolution, paused while listening to
the audacious words of a foreigner, who presumed to dictate a course of
conduct for the beloved Washington to pursue.
The rumor of Genet's threat first went abroad in August, and met him,
while on a visit to New York, in the form of a statement in one of the
public papers. His partisans denied the truth of the statement, when
Chief-Justice Jay and Rufus King (the latter a leading member of
Congress) assumed the responsibility of it in a published note dated the
twelfth of August. The fact was thus established, notwithstanding the
violent assaults made by Genet's partisans upon the integrity of Messrs.
Jay and King; and on the very day when, as we have observed, he was
received in New York in the midst of pealing bells and roaring cannon, a
public meeting was held, in which his insolence was rebuked, and the
policy of Washington's proclamation of neutrality strongly commended.
Similar meetings were held throughout the Union, and there soon appeared
a demonstration of public sentiment, the existence of which was not
suspected by the partisans of Genet. His more violent friends attempted
to check the counter-current, but in vain. When they could no longer
deny the fact of his menace, they unwisely advocated his right to appeal
from the president to the people. But this advocacy, and Genet's own
intemperate conduct, damaged his interests past recovery. The tide of
his popularity began rapidly to ebb, and in the public mind there was
commenced a strong and irresistible reaction in favor of the federal
government.
During the summer of 1793, a malignant fever, with slow but sure steps,
invaded the city of Philadelphia. One after another of the inhabitants
fell before its pestilential breath, until at length physicians and the
voice of daily experience pronounced it infectious. It was, in truth,
the deadly _yellow fever_ that had fastened its fangs upon the doomed
city. With the conviction of imminent peril, the population began to
move. Those whose circumstances permitted them to leave fled to the
country; and as August, with its hot days and cool, moist nights, drew
to a close, its intensity fearfully increased. It respected neither age
nor class. Early in September, Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury,
was prostrated by it, but recovered; and on the ninth, Washington with
his family left for Mount Vernon, leaving directions about his household
with General Knox, who resolved to remain, contrary to the advice of the
president.
"I think it would not be prudent," said Washington, "either for you or
the clerks in your office, or the office itself, to be too much exposed
to the malignant fever, which, by well-authenticated report, is
spreading through the city.... I sincerely wish and pray that you and
yours may escape untouched, and when we meet again, that it may be under
circumstances more pleasing than the present."
Washington would have remained longer, but Mrs. Washington, alarmed for
the safety of the whole family (the house in which they lived being in a
manner blockaded by the disorder), prevailed on him to leave. The fever
continued to rage with great violence until late in October, when frost
checked its progress. Before it ceased, between three and four thousand
of the inhabitants of Philadelphia perished. There was mourning in
almost every family; and during the ensuing session of Congress, there
was very little gayety in the federal capital. Some of the physicians
fled like cowards from the field of battle, while others remained and
assumed the two-fold functions of physicians and nurses, during those
dark days of the autumn of 1793. Among the latter was the eminent Doctor
Rush, whose courage and philanthropy are matters of history.[61]
The progress of the disease in Philadelphia was watched by the
president at Mount Vernon with great solicitude, as the autumn wore
away, for it was near the time for the assembling of a new Congress, and
public affairs demanded their earliest and most serious attention.
September passed away, and much of October had gone, before the fever
abated. Meanwhile, he proposed to call the Congress together at
Germantown, or some other place near Philadelphia, at a safe distance
from the pestilence. He had some doubt concerning his power to change
the place of meeting, or to call them together at all, and asked the
opinion of Mr. Randolph, the attorney-general. That gentleman expressed
his belief that the president had not the power, and suggested the
propriety of the Congress assembling at some place within the limits of
Philadelphia, and then adjourning to some more remote and safe position.
In the event of their not so assembling at the proper time, the
"extraordinary occasion" contemplated by the constitution would occur,
and the president then, clearly, had the right to call them together at
the most suitable place. He also asked the opinions of other members of
his cabinet on the subject; but the abatement of the disease rendered
any change unnecessary.
At the close of October Washington set out for Philadelphia with his
family, and there, on the second of December, the new Congress
assembled.
FOOTNOTES:
[58] In a letter to Richard Henry Lee, written at Mount Vernon a few
weeks later, Washington said: "On fair ground it would be difficult to
assign reasons for the conduct of those [the republican party] who are
arraigning, and, so far as they are able, constantly embarrassing, the
measures of government with respect to its pacific disposition towards
the belligerent powers in the convulsive dispute which agitates them.
But their motives are too obvious to those who have the means of
information, and have viewed the different grounds which they have
taken, to mistake their object. It is not the cause of France, nor I
believe of liberty, which they regard; for, could they involve this
country in war (no matter with whom) and disgrace, they would be among
the first and loudest of the clamorous against the expense and impolicy
of the measure."
[59] Genet's Letter to Jefferson, September 18, 1793.
[60] De Noailles was a young French nobleman, who married a sister of
Madame Lafayette, and served with distinction at the siege of Yorktown,
in 1781. Like his brother-in-law, the marquis, he had engaged warmly in
the French Revolution, in its earlier stages, but, like him, found
himself in a proscribed party, and obliged to fly for safety. He came to
the United States by way of England, and early in May he was in
Philadelphia with his friend Talon, seeking an audience with Washington.
The latter, with his usual circumspection, declined any direct
communication with him until the object of his visit should be known. In
a note to Hamilton, Washington remarked, "I pray you intimate to him
[Viscount de Noailles], gently and delicately, that if the letters or
papers which he has to present are, knowingly to him, of a nature which
relates to public matters, and not particularly addressed to me, or if
he has any verbal communications to make of a similar kind, I had rather
they should come through a proper channel. Add thereto, generally, that
the peculiar situation of European affairs at this moment, my good
wishes for his nation aggregately, my regard for those of it, in
particular, with whom I have had the honor of an acquaintance, my
anxious desire to keep this country in peace, and the delicacy of my
situation, render a circumspect conduct indispensably necessary on my
part. I do not, however, mean by this that I am to withhold from him
such civilities as are common to others. Those more marked,
notwithstanding our former acquaintance, would excite speculations,
which had better be avoided."
[61] Dr. Benjamin Rush was then in the prime of life, being forty-eight
years of age. He had already achieved the highest success in his
profession as a writer and practitioner; and as a member of the
continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, he
had a wide-spread popularity. He founded the Philadelphia dispensary in
1786, and was one of the principal founders of Dickinson college, at
Carlisle, in Pennsylvania. He was professor of medical science in the
medical college of Philadelphia, and also in the medical college of
Pennsylvania. He was president of the American Anti-slavery society and
other associations for the good of mankind.
"In private life," says Doctor John W. Francis, "his disposition and
deportment were in the highest degree exemplary. Admired and courted for
his intellectual endowments, he riveted to him the affections of all who
enjoyed the pleasure of an intimate acquaintance. The affability of his
manners, the amiableness of his temper, and the benevolence of his
character, were ever conspicuous. He was ardent in his friendships, and
forgiving in his resentments; and yet, entertaining a due regard for
himself and a high sense of honor, he possessed a manly independence of
spirit which disdained everything mean and servile. He had an
extraordinary command of language, and always imparted his thoughts in a
peculiarly impressive and eloquent manner. Those who had the happiness
to experience the delights of his conversation will long recollect with
pleasure his unassuming modesty, and the rich stores of knowledge he
poured forth on the most instructive topics. Even when his opinions were
solicited, they were given, not as the dictates or admonitions of a
superior, but as the kind advice of a friend and equal. He never evinced
any of that haughtiness and affectation of importance which sometimes
attaches to men of eminence, and which so materially lessens the
pleasures and comforts of social life."--_Sketch of the Life and
Character of the late Doctor Benjamin Rush_, in the _American Medical
and Philosophical Register_, July, 1813.