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.”