Washington and the American Republic, Vol. 3.

by Benson John Lossing

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 manœuvres.

“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?”