The Life of George Washington, Vol. 5 (of 5)

J >> John Marshall >> The Life of George Washington, Vol. 5 (of 5)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

During these deliberations, Mr. Genet was received in New York with
the same remarks of partiality to his nation, and of flattering regard
to himself, which had been exhibited in the more southern states. At
this place too, he manifested the same desire to encourage discontent
at the conduct of the government, and to embark America in the
quarrel, by impressing an opinion that the existence of liberty
depended on the success of the French republic, which he had uniformly
avowed. In answer to an address from the republican citizens of New
York, who had spoken of the proclamation of neutrality as relating
only to acts of open hostility, not to the feelings of the heart; and
who had declared that they would "exultingly sacrifice a liberal
portion of their dearest interests could there result, on behalf of
the French republic, an adequate advantage;" he said--"in this respect
I can not but interpret as you have done the declaration of your
government. They must know that the strict performance of treaties is
the best and safest policy; they must know that good faith alone can
inspire respectability to a nation; that a pusillanimous conduct
provokes insult, and brings upon a country those very dangers which it
weakly means to avert.

"There is indeed too much reason to fear that you are involved in the
general conspiracy of tyrants against liberty. They never will, they
never can forgive you for having been the first to proclaim the rights
of man. But you will force them to respect you by pursuing with
firmness the only path which is consistent with your national honour
and dignity.

"The cause of France is the cause of all mankind, and no nation is
more deeply interested than you are in its success. Whatever fate
awaits her, you are ultimately to share. But the cause of liberty is
great and it shall prevail.

"And if France, under a despotic yoke, has been able so successfully
to assert your rights, they can never again be endangered while she is
at liberty to exert, in your support, that powerful arm which now
defies the combined efforts of a whole world."

While these exertions were successfully making to give increased
force, and a wider extent, to opinions which might subvert the system
adopted by the executive, Mr. Jay, the chief justice of the United
States, and Mr. King, a senator representing the state, arrived in New
York from Philadelphia. They had been preceded by a report, which was
whispered in private circles, that the French minister had avowed a
determination to appeal from the President to the people. The
confidential intercourse subsisting between these gentlemen and a part
of the administration rendering it probable that this declaration, if
made, had been communicated to them, they were asked, whether the
report was true; having received the information through a channel[10]
which was entitled to the most implicit faith, they answered that it
was.

[Footnote 10: They received it from the secretaries of the
treasury and of war.]

Their having said so was controverted; and they were repeatedly
required, in the public papers, to admit or deny that they had made
such an assertion. Thus called upon, they published a certificate
avowing that they had made the declaration imputed to them.

On reflecting men this communication made a serious impression. The
recent events in Poland, whose dismemberment and partition were easily
traced to the admission of foreign influence, gave additional
solemnity to the occurrence, and led to a more intent consideration of
the awful causes which would embolden a foreign minister to utter such
a threat.

That party, which in the commencement of the contests respecting the
constitution was denominated federal, had generally supported the
measures of the administration.

That which was denominated anti-federal, had generally opposed those
measures. South of the Potomac especially, there was certainly many
important exceptions to this arrangement of parties; yet as a general
arrangement, it was unquestionably correct.

In the common partialities for France, in the common hope that the
revolution in that country would be crowned with success, and would
produce important benefits to the human race, they had equally
participated; but in the course to be pursued by the United States,
the line of separation between the two parties was clear and distinct.
The federalists were universally of opinion that, in the existing war,
America ought to preserve a neutrality as impartial as was compatible
with her treaties; and that those treaties had been fairly and justly
construed by the executive. Seduced however by their wishes, and by
their affections, they at first yielded implicit faith to the
assurances given by Mr. Genet of the disinclination of the French
republic to draw them from this eligible position; and from this
belief, they receded slowly and reluctantly.

They were inclined to ascribe the bitter invectives which were
pronounced against the executive to an inveterate hostility to the
government, and to those who administered it; and, when at length they
were compelled to perceive that the whole influence of Mr. Genet was
employed in stimulating and pointing these invectives, they fondly
indulged the hope that his nation would not countenance his conduct.
Adding to their undiminished attachment to the chief magistrate, a
keen sense of the disgrace, the humiliation, and the danger of
permitting the American government to be forced into any system of
measures by the machinations of a foreign minister with the people,
they had occasionally endeavoured, through the medium of the press, to
keep the public mind correct; and, when it was announced that an
appeal to themselves was threatened, they felt impelled by the
strongest sentiments of patriotism and regard for national honour, to
declare the indignation which the threat had inspired. In every
quarter of the union, the people assembled in their districts, and the
strength of parties was fully tried. The contest was warm and
strenuous. But public opinion appeared to preponderate greatly in
favour of neutrality, and of the proclamation by which its observance
was directed. It was apparent too, that the American bosom still
glowed with ardent affection for their chief magistrate; and that,
however successful might have been the shafts directed against some of
those who shared his confidence, the arrows aimed at himself had
missed their mark.

Yet it was not to be concealed that the indiscreet arrogance of Mr.
Genet, the direct insults to the President, and the attachment which
many, who were in opposition to the general measures of the
administration, still retained for the person of that approved
patriot, contributed essentially to the prevalence of the sentiment
which was called forth by the occasion.

In the resolutions expressing the strongest approbation of the
measures which had been adopted, and the greatest abhorrence of
foreign influence, a decided partiality for France was frequently
manifested; while in those of a contrary description, respect for the
past services of the President, and a willingness to support the
executive in the exercises of its constitutional functions, seemed,
when introduced, to be reluctantly placed among the more agreeable
declarations of detestation for those who sought to dissolve the union
between America and France, and of the devotion with which the French
revolution ought to be espoused by all the friends of liberty.

The effect which the certificate of Mr. Jay and Mr. King might
possibly produce was foreseen; and Mr. Genet sought to avoid its
influence by questioning its veracity. Not only had it never been
alleged that the exceptionable expressions were used to the President
personally, but it was certain that they had not been uttered in his
presence. Affecting not to have adverted to this obvious circumstance,
the minister, on the 13th of August, addressed a letter to the chief
magistrate, which, being designed for publication, was itself the act
he had threatened, in which he subjoined to a detail of his
accusations against the executive, the demand of an explicit
declaration that he had never intimated to him an intention to appeal
to the people.

On the 16th this letter was answered by the secretary of state, who,
after acknowledging its receipt by the President, added, "I am desired
to observe to you that it is not the established course for the
diplomatic characters residing here to have any direct correspondence
with him. The secretary of state is the organ through which their
communications should pass.

"The President does not conceive it to be within the line of propriety
or duty, for him to bear evidence against a declaration, which,
whether made to him or others, is perhaps immaterial; he therefore
declines interfering in the case."

Seldom has more conclusive testimony been offered of the ascendency
which, in the conflicts of party, the passions maintain over reason,
than was exhibited, on this occasion, by the zealous partisans of the
French minister. It might have been expected that, content with
questioning the fact, or with diverting the obloquy attending it from
the French nation, no American would have been found hardy enough to
justify it; and but few, to condemn those gentlemen by whose means it
had reached the public ear. Nothing could be farther removed from this
expectation, than the conduct that was actually observed. The censure
merited by the expressions themselves fell, not upon the person who
had used them, but upon those who had communicated them to the public.
Writers of considerable political eminence, charged them as being
members of a powerful faction who were desirous of separating America
from France, and connecting her with England, for the purpose of
introducing the British constitution.

As if no sin could equal the crime of disclosing to the people a truth
which, by inducing reflection, might check the flood of that passion
for France which was deemed the surest test of patriotism, the darkest
motives were assigned for the disclosure, and the reputation of those
who made it has scarcely been rescued by a lapse of years, and by a
change of the subjects of controversy, from the peculiar party odium
with which they were at the time overwhelmed.

Sentiments of a still more extraordinary nature were openly avowed. In
a republican country, it was said, the people alone were the basis of
government. All powers being derived from them, might, by them, be
withdrawn at pleasure. They alone were the authors of the law, and to
them alone, must the ultimate decision on the interpretation belong.
From these delicate and popular truths, it was inferred, that the
doctrine that the sovereignty of the nation resided in the departments
of government was incompatible with the principles of liberty; and
that, if Mr. Genet dissented from the interpretation given by the
President to existing treaties, he might rightfully appeal to the real
sovereign whose agent the President was, and to whom he was
responsible for his conduct. Is the President, it was asked, a
_consecrated_ character, that an appeal from his decisions must be
considered criminal? or are the people in such a state of monarchical
degradation, that to speak of consulting them is an offence as great,
as if America groaned under a dominion equally tyrannical with the old
monarchy of France?

It was soon ascertained that Mr. Dallas, to whom this threat of
appealing to the people had been delivered, did not admit that the
precise words had been used. Mr. Genet then, in the coarsest terms,
averred the falsehood of the certificate which had been published, and
demanded from the attorney general, and from the government, that Mr.
Jay and Mr. King should be indicted for a libel upon himself and his
nation. That officer accompanied his refusal to institute this
information with the declaration that any other gentleman of the
profession, who might approve and advise the attempt, could be at no
loss to point out a mode which would not require his intervention.

While the minister of the French republic thus loudly complained of
the unparalleled injury he received from being charged with employing
a particular exceptionable phrase, he seized every fair occasion to
carry into full execution the threat which he denied having made. His
letters, written for the purpose of publication, and actually
published by himself, accused the executive, before the tribunal of
the people, on those specific points, from its decisions respecting
which he was said to have threatened the appeal. As if the offence
lay, not in perpetrating the act, but in avowing an intention to
perpetrate it, this demonstration of his designs did not render his
advocates the less vehement in his support, nor the less acrimonious
in reproaching the administration, as well as Mr. Jay and Mr. King.

Whilst insult was thus added to insult, the utmost vigilance of the
executive officers was scarcely sufficient to maintain an observance
of the rules which had been established for preserving neutrality in
the American ports. Mr. Genet persisted in refusing to acquiesce in
those rules; and fresh instances of attempts to violate them were
continually recurring. Among these, was an outrage committed in
Boston, too flagrant to be overlooked.

A schooner, brought as a prize into the port of Boston by a French
privateer, was claimed by the British owner; who instituted
proceedings at law against her, for the purpose of obtaining a
decision on the validity of her capture. She was rescued from the
possession of the marshal, by an armed force acting under the
authority of Mr. Duplaine, the French consul, which was detached from
a frigate then lying in port. Until the frigate sailed, she was
guarded by a part of the crew; and, notwithstanding the determination
of the American government that the consular courts should not
exercise a prize jurisdiction within the territories of the United
States, Mr. Duplaine declared his purpose to take cognizance of the
case.

To this act of open defiance, it was impossible for the President to
submit. The facts being well attested, the exequatur which had been
granted to Mr. Duplaine was revoked, and he was forbidden further to
exercise the consular functions. It will excite surprise that even
this necessary measure could not escape censure. The self-proclaimed
champions of liberty discovered in it a violation of the constitution,
and a new indignity to France.

Mr. Genet did not confine his attempts to employ the force of America
against the enemies of his country to maritime enterprises. On his
first arrival, he is understood to have planned an expedition against
the Floridas, to be carried on from Georgia; and another against
Louisiana, to be carried on from the western parts of the United
States. Intelligence was received that the principal officers were
engaged; and the temper of the people inhabiting the western country
was such as to furnish some ground for the apprehension, that the
restraints which the executive was capable of imposing, would be found
too feeble to prevent the execution of this plan. The remonstrances of
the Spanish commissioners on this subject, however, were answered with
explicit assurances that the government would effectually interpose to
defeat any expedition from the territories of the United States
against those of Spain; and the governor of Kentucky was requested to
co-operate in frustrating this improper application of the military
resources of his state.

It was not by the machinations of the French minister alone that the
neutrality of the United States was endangered. The party which, under
different pretexts, urged measures the inevitable tendency of which
was war, derived considerable aid, in their exertions to influence the
passions of the people, from the conduct of others of the belligerent
powers. The course pursued both by Britain and Spain rendered the task
of the executive still more arduous, by furnishing weapons to the
enemies of neutrality, capable of being wielded with great effect.

The resentment excited by the rigour with which the maritime powers of
Europe retained the monopoly of their colonial commerce, had, without
the aid of those powerful causes which had lately been brought into
operation, been directed peculiarly against Great Britain. These
resentments had been greatly increased. That nation had not mitigated
the vexations and inconveniences which war necessarily inflicts on
neutral trade, by any relaxations in her colonial policy.

[Sidenote: Decree of the national convention relative to neutral
commerce.]

To this rigid and repulsive system, that of France presented a perfect
contrast. Either influenced by the politics of the moment, or
suspecting that, in a contest with the great maritime nations of
Europe, her commerce must search for security in other bottoms than
her own, she opened the ports of her colonies to every neutral flag,
and offered to the United States a new treaty, in which it was
understood that every mercantile distinction between Americans and
Frenchmen should be totally abolished.

With that hasty credulity which, obedient to the wishes, can not await
the sober and deliberate decisions of the judgment, the Americans
ascribed this change, and these propositions, to the liberal genius of
freedom; and expected the new commercial and political systems to be
equally durable. As if, in the term REPUBLIC, the avaricious spirit of
commercial monopoly would lose its influence over men; as if the
passions were to withdraw from the management of human affairs, and
leave the helm to the guidance of reason, and of disinterested
philanthropy; a vast proportion of the American people believed this
novel system to be the genuine offspring of new-born liberty; and
consequently expected that, from the success of the republican arms, a
flood of untried good was to rush upon the world.

The avidity with which the neutral merchants pressed forward to reap
the rich and tempting harvest offered to them by the regulations and
the wants of France, presented a harvest not less rich and tempting to
the cruisers of her enemies. Captures to a great extent were made,
some with, others without, justifiable cause; and the irritations
inseparable from disappointment in gathering the fruits of a gainful
traffic, were extensively communicated to the agricultural part of
society.

The vexations on the ocean to which neutrals are commonly exposed
during war, were aggravated by a measure of the British cabinet, which
war was not admitted to justify.

[Sidenote: British order of 1793.]

The vast military exertions of the French republic had carried many
hands from their usual occupations, to the field; and the measures of
government, added to the internal commotions, had discouraged labour
by rendering its profits insecure. These causes, aided perhaps by
unfavourable seasons, had produced a scarcity which threatened famine.
This state of things suggested to their enemies the policy of
increasing the internal distress, by cutting off the external supply.
In execution of this plan, the British cruisers were instructed "to
stop all vessels loaded wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal,
bound to any port in France, or any port occupied by the armies of
France, and to send them to such ports as shall be most convenient, in
order that such corn, meal, or flour, may be purchased on behalf of
his majesty's government, and the ships be relieved after such
purchase, and after a due allowance for freight; or that the masters
of such ships on giving due security, to be approved by the court of
admiralty, be permitted to proceed to dispose of their cargoes of
corn, meal, or flour, in the ports of any country in amity with his
majesty."

In the particular character of the war, and in the general expressions
of some approved modern writers on the law of nations, the British
government sought a justification of this strong measure. But by
neutrals generally, it was deemed an unwarrantable invasion of their
rights; and the remonstrances made against it by the American
government in particular, were serious and earnest. This attempt to
make a principle, which was understood to be applicable only to
blockaded places, subservient to the impracticable plan of starving an
immense agricultural nation, was resisted with great strength of
reasoning by the administration; and added, not inconsiderably, to the
resentment felt by the body of the people.[11]

[Footnote 11: See note No. VI. at the end of the volume.]

Hostilities on the ocean disclosed still another source of irritation,
which added its copious stream to the impetuous torrent which
threatened to sweep America into the war that desolated Europe.

The British government had long been accustomed to resort to the
practice of manning their fleet by impressment. The exercise of this
prerogative had not been confined to the land. Merchantmen in their
ports, and even at sea, were visited, and mariners were taken out of
them, to be employed in the royal navy. The profits of trade enabling
neutral merchants to give high wages, British sailors were tempted, in
great numbers, to enter their service; but the neutral ship furnished
no protection. Disregarding the bottom in which they sailed, the
officers of the navy impressed them wherever found, often leaving
scarcely hands enough to navigate the vessel into port.

The Americans were peculiarly exposed to the abuse to which such
usages are liable. Descended from the same ancestors and speaking the
same language, the distinction between them and the English, though in
general sufficiently marked, was not always so visible as to prevent
unintentional error; nor were the captains of ships of war, at all
times, very solicitous to avoid mistake. Native Americans, therefore,
were frequently impressed, and compelled to serve against the French
republic.

The British cabinet disclaimed all pretensions to the impressment of
real American citizens, and declared officially a willingness to
discharge them, on the establishment of their citizenship. But time
was necessary to procure the requisite testimonials; and those
officers who had notoriously offended in this respect, were not so
discountenanced by their government as to be deterred from a
repetition of the offence. There was too, one class of citizens,
concerning whose rights a difference of opinion prevailed, which has
not even yet been adjusted. These were British subjects who had
migrated to, and been adopted by, the United States.

The continuance of the Indian war added still another item to this
catalogue of discontents.

The efforts of the United States to make a treaty with the savages of
the Miamis had proved abortive. The Indians insisted on the Ohio as
the boundary between them and the whites; and, although the American
commissioners expressed a willingness to relinquish some of the lands
purchased at the treaty of fort Harmar, and pressed them to propose
some line between the boundary established by that treaty and the
Ohio, they adhered inflexibly to their original demand.

It was extensively believed in America, and information collected from
the Indians countenanced the opinion, that they were encouraged by the
government of Canada to persevere in this claim, and that the treaty
was defeated by British influence. The conviction was universal that
this influence would continue so long as the posts south of the lakes
should be occupied by British troops; and the uneasiness which the
detention of those posts created, daily acquired strength.
Unfortunately, the original pretext for detaining them was not yet
removed. The courts of the United States had not yet declared that
British debts contracted before the war, were recoverable. In one of
the circuits, a decision had been recently made, partly favourable,
and partly unfavourable, to the claim of the creditor. To this
decision writs of error had been brought, and the case was pending
before the supreme court. The motives therefore originally assigned
for holding the posts on the lakes still remained; and, as it was a
maxim with the executive "to place an adversary clearly in the wrong,"
and it was expected that the existing impediments to the fulfilment of
the treaty on the part of the United States would soon be done away,
it was thought unadviseable, had the military force of the union been
equal to the object, to seize those posts, until their surrender could
be required in consequence of a complete execution of the treaty. In
the mean time, the British minister was earnestly pressed upon the
subject.

This prudent conduct was far from being satisfactory to the people.
Estimating at nothing, infractions made by themselves, and rating
highly those committed by the opposite party, they would, in any state
of things, have complained loudly of this act of the British
government. But, agitated as they were by the various causes which
were perpetually acting on their passions, it is not wonderful that an
increased influence was given to this measure; that it should be
considered as conclusive testimony of British hostility, and should
add to the bitterness with which the government was reproached for
attempting a system "alike friendly and impartial to the belligerent
powers."

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25