TOP

The action of the cabinet gave umbrage to Genet, and he wrote a spirited letter to the secretary of state. He assented to the restoration of “The Grange,” she having been captured within American waters, but he protested most vehemently against all interference on the part of the United States with the privateers at sea. He alleged that they were armed and furnished by French residents in Charleston, were commanded by French officers, or Americans who knew of no law or treaty to restrain their action, and that they had gone to sea with the consent of the governor of South Carolina. He argued, that as the treaty of commerce secured to the parties the right of bringing prizes into each other's ports, it followed that their right to the control and disposal of prizes so brought in, was conceded to each. As the treaty of 1778 only forbade each party allowing enemies to fit out privateers in their respective ports, it was fair to conclude that there was also conceded a mutual right in the parties themselves to fit out privateers in the ports of the other. He insisted that the Americans on board the privateers had, for the time, entered the service of France and renounced the protection of the United States, and that therefore they were no longer responsible to their own government for their acts.

Notwithstanding the want of decorum in some portions of Genet's letter, the president and his cabinet reconsidered the questions at issue in the light of the minister's arguments. Their opinions remained unchanged, and Genet was informed that the privateer then in the Delaware, bearing his name, must forthwith leave American waters; that orders had been sent to all the ports of the United States for the seizure of all vessels fitted out as privateers, and to prevent the sale of any prizes captured by such vessels; and also for the arrest of Henfield and Singleterry, two Americans, who had enlisted on board the Citizen Genet at Charleston.

The decision and action of the cabinet made Genet very angry, and he resolved not to acquiesce in it. He was led to believe that the great body of the American people, grateful for what France had done in times past, were ready to go all lengths in his favor, short of actual war. He had heard clamors among the people, and read violent paragraphs in the republican newspapers against the position of neutrality taken by the government, and he resolved to encourage privateering, and to defend his position before the American people by his pen. At that time, Freneau's paper was assisted in its warfare upon the administration by another called the General Advertiser, known afterward as the Aurora. It was edited by a grandson of Doctor Franklin, whose French education caused him to favor the fanaticism of that people in their revolutionary movements. It was sometimes more virulent in its vituperation than Freneau's Gazette, and both urged Genet to go forward, heedless of the executive and his cabinet, at the same time charging Washington himself with an intention of joining in the league of kings against the French republic.[55]

“I hope,” said a writer in Freneau's paper, “the minister of France will act with firmness and spirit. The people are his friends, or the friends of France, and he will have nothing to apprehend; for, as yet, the people are the sovereigns of the United States. Too much complacency is an injury done to his cause; for, as every advantage is already taken of France (not by the people), further condescension may lead to further abuse. If one of the leading features of our government is pusillanimity, when the British lion shows his teeth, let France and her minister act as becomes the dignity of their cause, and the honor and faith of nations.[56]

The arrest and indictment of the two Americans on board the Citizen Genet added greatly to the irritation of the French minister. “The crime laid to their charge,” said Genet in a letter to Jefferson on the first of June—“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 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. I renew at the same time, sir, the requisition which I made in favor of another French officer, detained for the same cause and for the same object.”

To this appeal Jefferson replied by sending Genet a copy of the opinion of the attorney-general of the United States, who decided that the prisoners had acted in violation of treaties, and were guilty of an indictable offence. In a subsequent note, the secretary of state reiterated the opinion of the president that it was the right of every nation, and the duty of neutral nations, to prohibit acts of sovereignty within their limits, injurious to either of the belligerent powers; that the granting of military commissions within the United States by any foreign authority was an infringement of their sovereignty, especially when granted to American citizens as an inducement to act against the duty which they owed to their country; and that it was expected that the French privateers would immediately leave the waters of the United States.Genet, with impudent pertinacity, denounced these doctrines as contrary to right, justice, the law of nations, and even the proclamation of neutrality by the president; and when he was informed that a French privateer, fitted out in New York, had been seized by a body of militia acting under the authority of Governor Clinton, he was greatly enraged, and demanded its immediate “restitution, with damages and interest, and also the immediate” “restitution, with damages and interest, of the French prizes arrested and seized at Philadelphia.” But the government was unmoved. The prisoners were not released, nor the vessels restored; whereupon Genet ventured to declare that he “would appeal from the president to the people.” His only excuse for this rash assertion was his utter ignorance of the character of the president and people whose actions, in concerns so momentous, he assumed to control or defy. He seemed really to have imagined that the love of France and the sentiment of republicanism were so strong among the people of the United States, that he would be able to overthrow the government. He had already said, in a letter to Jefferson, “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 France and America; and even a manifest contradiction of the system of neutrality of the president; for, in fact, if our merchant-vessels 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. This 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 its 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.”

All around the French minister there was a sea of passion while the controversy was progressing. The republican party became more and more bold in their denunciations. Open expressions of enthusiastic devotion to France, and of hatred toward all the powers at war with that republic, were heard on every side. Every measure of the government that tended to thwart the views of Genet was assailed with the most malignant zeal. The president's proclamation of neutrality, as we have observed, was branded as a “royal edict.” It was condemned as having been issued without authority, and in contradiction with the treaties with France; as contrary to the gratitude which was due to that country by the people of the United States, and out of time and unnecessary; and a series of articles written by Hamilton in support of the proclamation, over the signature of Pacificus, were assailed in another series against the proclamation, written by Madison (at the suggestion of Jefferson) over the signature of Helvidius, as having “been read with singular pleasure and applause by the foreigners and degenerate citizens among us, who hate our republican government and the French Revolution.”

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 toward the belligerent powers,” was assailed as a monstrous doctrine, and gave the greatest umbrage to Genet and his friends. The latter insisted that the French minister's demands were sanctioned by solemn treaties, and that his interpretation of the instruments was correct. The wrongs inflicted upon America by Great Britain, and the aid given to the struggling patriots by France, were recited in most pathetic terms; and the questions were significantly asked, “Shall the services of the one, as well as the injuries of the other, be forgotten? Shall a friend and an enemy be treated with equal favor? Shall neither gratitude nor resentment constitute a feature of the American character?” It was concluded 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 connected with those of the French republic. They declared that the conduct of the executive, in withholding privileges to which France was said to be entitled by the most solemn engagements, was indicative of a desire to coalesce with despots in a crusade against liberty, furnishing to the French republic just motives for war; and that all her moderation and forbearance were required to restrain her from declaring it against the United States. They went so far, as we have seen, as to exhort Genet not to relax in his endeavors to maintain the just rights of his country; and he received assurances of the steady and affectionate support of the American people. Genet was taught to believe that Washington was acting under the influence of a British monarchical faction, and that everything was to be hoped from the predominance of republicanism in the new Congress then in progress of being chosen.

It was now midsummer, and the whole social and political fabric of the Union was shaken by these party contentions; and the democratic societies of which we have spoken, secret and open, were exceedingly active. “That these societies,” Washington observed, “were instituted by the artful and designing members (many of their body, I have no doubt, mean well, but know little of the real plan), primarily to sow among the people the seeds of jealousy and distrust of the government, by destroying all confidence in the administration of it, and that these doctrines have been budding and blowing ever since, is not new to any one who is acquainted with the character of their leaders, and has been attentive to their manoeuvres.

“Can anything be more absurd, more arrogant, or more pernicious to the peace of society, than for self-created bodies, forming themselves into permanent censors, and under the shade of night, in a conclave, resolving that acts of Congress, which have undergone the most deliberate and solemn discussion by the representatives of the people, chosen for the express purpose, and bringing with them from the different parts of the Union the sense of their constituents, endeavoring, as far as the nature of the thing will admit, to form their will into laws for the government of the whole—I say, under these circumstances, for a self-created permanent body (for no one denies the right of the people to meet occasionally to petition for, or remonstrate against, any act of the legislature) to declare that this act is unconstitutional, and that act is pregnant with mischiefs, and that all who vote contrary to their dogmas are actuated by selfish motives or under foreign influence, nay, are traitors to their country? Is such a stretch of arrogant presumption to be reconciled with laudable motives, especially when we see the same set of men endeavoring to destroy all confidence in the administration, by arraigning all its acts, without knowing on what ground or with what information it proceeds?”

While the controversy was at its height, Washington was suddenly called to Mount Vernon by the death of the chief manager of his estates. He was absent a little more than a fortnight. Meanwhile, an incident occurred which brought the controversy between the United States government and the French minister to a crisis. A British merchant-vessel was captured by L'Embuscade, sent to Philadelphia, and there Genet, under the very eye of the federal authorities and in direct opposition to the decision of Washington and his cabinet, undertook to equip her as a privateer, under the new name of Le Petite Democrat. This movement was discovered by Hamilton on the sixth of July. He communicated the facts to the cabinet, with whom Washington had left the control of the public affairs during his absence, and an investigation was ordered. It was ascertained that the vessel would probably sail on a cruise the next day, and Governor Mifflin was called upon to interfere. At midnight he sent Alexander Dallas, his secretary, to request Genet to desist from his unlawful course, and to inform him that the vessel would be detained by force if he refused compliance. The minister flew into a rage, declared that the president was not the sovereign of the country, and had no right, without consulting Congress, to give such instructions as he had done to state governors; that he was a misled man, and wholly under the influence of the enemies of France and human liberty; and then again expressed his determination to appeal to the people.

Genet refused to give Mifflin any distinct pledges, and early in the morning the governor ordered out one hundred and twenty of the militia to take possession of the privateer. Mr. Jefferson, who perceived the rashness of Genet's course, now took the matter in hand, and at a personal interview tried to persuade him to detain the privateer until the president's return to the seat of government. The secretary of state was not more successful than the secretary of Governor Mifflin. Genet stormed like a madman. Jefferson was unable, most of the time, to thrust in a word, and he sat in silence while the angry minister poured out the vials of his wrath upon the United States government. He declared that any attempt to seize the vessel would be resisted by the crew; that he had been thwarted in all his plans by the government; and that he was half a mind to leave the country in disgust, as he could not be useful to his nation here. He censured the president severely, and declared that on Washington's return he should press him to convene the Congress immediately.

Jefferson stopped him at the subject of calling a Congress, and explained to him the threefold character of the government; assuring him that all questions which had arisen between himself and the executive belonged only to that department, and that, were Congress in session, the matters would not be carried to them, nor would they take any notice of them. Genet was surprised, and inquired if the Congress were not the sovereign? Jefferson replied that they were sovereign only in making laws; that the executive was the sovereign in executing them, and the judiciary in construing them. “But at least,” said Genet, “Congress are bound to see that the treaties are observed.” “There are very few cases,” replied Jefferson, “arising out of treaties, which Congress can take notice of. The president is to see that treaties are observed.” “To whom then is the nation to appeal, if the president decides against a treaty?” quickly inquired Genet. “The constitution has made the president the last appeal,” replied Jefferson. Genet was confounded by his own ignorance, shrugged his shoulders, and, making a bow, remarked that he would not compliment Mr. Jefferson on such a constitution.

Genet had now become cool, assured Mr. Jefferson that the privateer was not yet ready for sea, and, without promising that she should not sail before the president's return, said that it would be necessary for her to shift her position to the lower end of the town to receive supplies, and gave the secretary to understand that she would not leave before Washington's return to Philadelphia. Jefferson accepted his remarks as honest assurance, and Governor Mifflin dismissed his soldiers; but Hamilton and Knox, having no faith in the minister's word, proposed the immediate erection of a battery below the city, where Fort Mifflin stood in the Revolution, with guns mounted to prevent the privateer's going down the river. Jefferson, fearing further to offend Genet, refused to concur in this measure, and the next day the vessel went down the river as far as Chester.

Washington returned to Philadelphia on the eleventh, and received some papers, concerning the events we have just described, from Mr. Jefferson, with an intimation that they required “instant attention.” They aroused the president's indignation. “What is to be done in the case of the Little Sarah [the original name of the Petite Democrat] now at Chester?” he asked, in a note written to Mr. Jefferson on the spur of the moment. “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 a 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.”

Mr. Jefferson assured Washington that the privateer was not yet ready for sea, and that Genet had promised that she should not sail before the decision of the president in her case should be known. In a cabinet council held the next day, it was resolved to detain in the ports of the United States all privateers which had been equipped therein, and this decision was immediately communicated to Genet. In defiance of it, the French minister sent the privateer to sea; and yet the republicans, forgetful of all national dignity, commended the representative of a foreign nation in thus offering a marked insult to the chief magistrate and the government of the republic.

At about the same time, Henfield, one of the prisoners indicted, under the advice of the attorney-general, for having enlisted on board the French privateer at Charleston, was tried. The populace, instigated by the opposition leaders, took the part of the prisoner, and the jury acquitted him. At once the opposition press heaped obloquy upon the administration, for having attempted what they were pleased to call an unlawful measure. They asked, scornfully, “What law had been offended, and under what statute was the indictment supported? Are 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,” they said, “if the people are already sunk to such a state of degradation, are 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 combatting for liberty against the combined despots of Europe?” And when the prisoner was acquitted, the event was celebrated with extravagant marks of joy and exultation.[57]

These events annoyed Washington exceedingly. He perceived the spirit of the French Revolution animating his own people, making them regardless of law and justice, and drunk with ideas that tended to anarchy and confusion. He perceived the futility of attempts to enforce laws in support of the doctrines of his proclamation of neutrality, and the disposition of a large class of people to thwart that conservative policy which he advised as being most conducive to the welfare of the state. Yet, strong in his consciousness of rectitude, he swerved not a line from his prescribed course of duty. “As it respects myself,” he said in a letter to Governor Lee on the twenty-first of July, “I care not; for I have a consolation within, that no earthly efforts can deprive me of; and that is, that neither ambitious nor interested motives have influenced my conduct. The arrows of malevolence, therefore, however barbed and well pointed, never can reach the most vulnerable point of me; though, whilst I am up as a mark, they will be continually aimed. The publications in Freneau's and Bache's papers are outrages on common decency; and they progress in that style in proportion as their pieces are treated with contempt, and are passed by in silence, by those at whom they were aimed. The tendency of them, however, is too obvious to be mistaken by men of cool and dispassionate minds, and in my opinion ought to alarm them, because it is difficult to prescribe bounds to the effect.”

Matters had now reached a point where forbearance toward the insolent French minister was no longer required by the most exacting courtesy. His official communications, and public and private acts, were becoming too offensive to be longer tolerated by the government, without virtually abdicating authority and acknowledging its utter incompetency. So the president called the cabinet together at the beginning of August to consult upon the matter, when the whole official correspondence between Jefferson and Genet, and the conduct of the latter, were thoroughly reviewed. The result was, a determination that the French government should be requested to recall their minister, because he was offensive to that of the United States. Jefferson recommended great delicacy in the terms of this request; the others were favorable to a peremptory demand for his recall; while Knox, whose indignation had been thoroughly aroused by the conduct of Genet, proposed to dismiss him at once without consulting his government. It was at length agreed that a letter should be written to Gouverneur Morris, the American minister in Paris, in which should be given a statement of the case, with accompanying documents, with directions to lay the whole subject before the Executive Council of France; also that a letter, the same in substance as the one written to Morris, should be sent to Genet.

It was also proposed to publish the whole correspondence, as an appeal to the people of the United States and the world, in justification of the action of the administration. Jefferson opposed the proposition on the ground that it would make matters worse. He said Genet would appeal, also; that anonymous writers would take up the subject; that public opinion would still be divided; and there would be a difference of opinion in Congress, likewise, for the matter must be laid before them. “It would,” Jefferson said, “be a contest between the president and Genet.”

Washington took fire at this last suggestion. Wearied and annoyed by the continual dissentions in his cabinet, and the unjust abuse of his political opponents, the idea that he should stand before the world as a contestant with a man like Genet, and be subjected to the ribaldry of the press, touched his sensitive nature at the most tender point. At that moment, Knox, with peculiar mal-appropriateness, “in a foolish, incoherent sort of speech,” says Jefferson, “introduced the pasquinade, lately printed, called The Funeral of George Washington”—a parody on the decapitation of the French king, in which the president was represented as placed on a guillotine. “The president,” says Mr. Jefferson, “was much inflamed; got into one of those passions [which only for a moment and very rarely occurred] where he can not control himself; ran on much on the personal abuse that had been bestowed upon him; defied any man on earth to produce one single act of his, since he had been in the government, which was not done on the purest motives; that he had never repented but once the having slipped the moment of resigning his office, and that was every moment since; that he had rather be in his grave than in his present situation; that he had rather be on his farm than to be made an emperor of the world.” And yet, he said with most emphatic indignation, “they are charging me with wanting to be king!”

When Washington ceased there was a pause. All had remained silent during this burst of passion, and it was with some difficulty that the questions at issue were resumed. The president soon recovered his equanimity, and opened the subject again by saying that there was no necessity for deciding the question of an appeal to the people on Genet's recall at that moment. The propositions already agreed to respecting the letter to Gouverneur Morris might be put into execution, and events would doubtless show whether an appeal would be necessary or not. The cabinet agreed to send a circular to all the collectors of customs, instructing them in their duty respecting ships of the belligerent nations within the waters of the United States. It was also agreed that information should be communicated to the British minister that compensation would be made to the owners of British vessels captured by French privateers, fitted out within the United States, previous to the notice given to Genet that such equipments would not be allowed; but that in future the British government must regard the efforts of that of the United States, to prevent the arming of privateers within its waters, as a full discharge of all neutral obligations. At the same time, Genet was called upon to give up all the vessels captured previous to the notice above alluded to, as otherwise the French government would be held responsible for the amount of necessary indemnities; also, all vessels captured within the waters of the United States, those waters being defined as within a marine league from the exterior coast.