TOP

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.

[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.”