ception he met with from the nation at large, and the tone of the most popular journals, to believe that he would be supported by public opinion, in his controversy with the government; and, consequently, that he would ultimately triumph either in involving the United States in a war with Great Britain, or in making their neutrality still more advantageous to the cause of France.

To conclude the episode of Mr. Genet's diplomacy-the representations of the American government respecting the minister produced their intended effect in France. His conduct was there unhesitatingly condemned; and it appears, on the authority of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, that a plan was immediately formed to despatch four commissioners to the United States, who, besides repairing the breach which the minister had made in the good understanding between the two governments, were to send him home a prisoner, to receive the punishment due to his misconduct. But in the sudden vicissitudes of parties, which at that time succeeded each other like the actors of a play, this plan was forgotten, or disregarded, and Mr. Genet remained, and permanently settled, in the United States.

493

CHAPTER XVIII.

State of parties as to the French Revolution.

roe.

The Proclamation of

Neutrality-how viewed by the two parties-by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison. Mr. Jefferson's letters to Mr. Madison and Mr. MunCabinet consultations concerning Genet. The order of the British government relative to neutrals-the correspondence relative to it-Impressment of American seamen. French decrees relative to neutrals. Discussions in the cabinet-Proclamation of neutrality -Fortifications-Military Academy. Communications to Congress on the foreign relations of the United States. Mr. Jefferson's report on commercial restrictions. His resignation and return to Monticello.

1793.

IT may well be supposed that Mr. Genet, after full allowance is made for his own defects of temper and judgment, would not have ventured thus to insult the chief magistrate of the country, and such a chief magistrate too, if he had not received the countenance of many American citizens. The journalists of the day, which, though commonly exhibiting public opinion under exaggerated forms, are still its best mirrors, show that, however the supporters of the administration and the more sober-minded of all parties may have been offended by the tone of disrespect and defiance manifested in his official communications, the enthusiastic favour then felt for his nation made not a small portion of the American people view his conduct with indulgence, and even approbation. Considering France as the party aggrieved, they regarded the haughty and insulting expressions of her minister as just retaliations for the wrongs which had provoked them; and although impartial history must unhesi

tatingly pass a sentence of condemnation on Mr. Genet and his apologists, yet we cannot correctly appreciate the conduct of the latter without carrying ourselves back to those times of passion and moral frenzy, and viewing things in the aspects under which they then presented themselves to the living actors.

The warm friends of civil liberty in every country saw in the French revolution an enlightened, refined, brave, and powerful nation, struggling to add the blessings of free government to its other advantages, and they naturally wished it success. But the American votary of freedom had a further cause for his good wishes. France had assisted the United States in achieving their independence, and it was in affording that very assistance, as all believed, that she had caught the contagious love of liberty which now pervaded all ranks of her people. His zeal then, in behalf of France, received a new impulse from the sentiments of gratitude and national pride.

The subsequent course of events contributed still further to increase this interest; for the enthusiasm with which the doctrines of the natural liberty and equality of man had been received in France, having spread, by the force of sympathy, over the greater part of Europe, its most powerful princes, alarmed for the stability of their power, determined to carry on a crusade against the French republic, and to re-establish the monarchy by force. And though France, in her avowed principles of proselytism, was as obnoxious, perhaps, as her enemies to the reproach of intermeddling in the concerns of other nations, yet after the struggle had begun, the American people regarded it as a contest between tyranny and the right of self-government, in which it did not become them to be passive spectators; and the bolder and more sanguine portion of the party wished their country, in support of its most cherished principles, to exchange a cold and heartless

neutrality for a zealous and efficient co-operation. If we now admit, as well we may, and as then appeared to the more considerate of all parties, that by making common cause with France we should have injured ourselves far more than we could benefit our ally, yet such calculations of prudence were little likely to weigh against the stronger motives of sympathy for France, and of resentment against her enemies; and, however we may condemn the policy of the course they would have pursued, we cannot but respect the disinterested generosity which disdained to calculate its cost and its danger.

In the first years of the French revolution, that event held no place in the party warfare of the United States. It is true that it soon began to be viewed very differently by dif ferent men, according as they more or less affected popular government, and as they were the disciples of Burke on the one hand, or of Paine, Mackintosh, and Priestley on the other; but it did not mingle in their open dissensions, which were confined to the distribution of power between the federal government and the states, the funding system, the assumption, the bank, excise, and the introduction of certain regal forms and court pageantry *. But after the rupture between

* It may seem to readers of the present day that this affectation of European forms could scarcely deserve to be mentioned among the grounds of party animosity; but in truth both parties contributed to give them a factitious importance; the one regarding all badges of rank and privilege with superstitious horror; and the other with childish predilection. As a mode of giving dignity to the government it was in false taste, and no less discordant with the spirit of the age than with the condition, manners, and temper of the American people. But the folly required no severer castigation than ridicule; and it may be doubted whether Judge Burke's grave denunciation of the Cincinnati, ushered in with the war-cry of "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion," would have equalled in effect Dr. Franklin's inimitable irony on the same subject, had it been then published. It was in this spirit that Mr. Grayson, one of the senators from Virginia, suggested, when it had been seriously proposed by his colleague to give titles to the two highest offices of the government, that the

France and England, the cause of the revolution visibly entered into the contests between the federalists and republicans, gradually occupied a larger and larger share, until it became, for a time, the main pivot on which they turned.

The proclamation of neutrality presented the first occasion for this change to manifest itself. It was issued on the 22nd of April, and after premising that both "duty and interest" required the United States to pursue a "friendly and impartial conduct" towards the belligerent powers, it declared them also disposed to observe such conduct; admonished American citizens to avoid all acts tending to contravene that disposition; and declared that, in case of any violation of the law of nations abroad, by engaging in hostilities, or carrying contraband of war, they would not receive the protection of their government; and for violations at home be liable to public prosecution.

This measure of the administration was not well received by the warm friends of France. Many, as has been mentioned, would have been quite willing to make common cause with that nation; and those whose zeal did not so far outweigh the dictates of prudence, considered that, if policy imperiously required the United States to show no more favour to an ally and friend than to a recent enemy and present rival, at least some softening should be given to so ungracious a purpose by the manner of executing it; and that our language might have indicated to France, that if we were not in a condition to reciprocate her former good offices, she, at all events, had our good wishes. It was further objected, that as, by the federal constitution, the power of making war is vested in the legislature, that branch of the government has the exclusive right to pass judgment on the causes of war, and on the effect of the guarantee of

President should be styled "His Limpid Highness," and the Vice-President, "His Superfluous Excellency."