of a prerogative in the president of the United States to engage the nation in war.* He therefore entered the lists against Mr. Hamilton in the public journals, and in five papers under the signature of Helvidius, scrutinized the doctrines of Pacificus with an acuteness of intellect never perhaps surpassed, and with a severity scarcely congenial to his natural disposition, and never on any other occasion indulged. Mr. Hamilton did not reply; nor in any of his papers did he notice the animadversions of Helvidius. But all the Presidents of the United States have from that time exercised the right of yielding and withholding the recognition of governments consequent upon revolutions, though the example of issuing a Proclamation of neutrality has never been repeated. The papers of Pacificus

and Helvidius are among the most ingenious and profound Commentaries on that most important part of the Constitution, the distribution of the Legislative and Executive powers incident to war, and when considered as supplementary to the joint labors of Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist, they possess a deep and monitory interest to the American philosophical Statesman. The Federalist exhibits the joint efforts of two powerful minds in promoting one great common object, the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The papers of Pacificus and Helvidius present the same minds, in collision with each other, exerting all their energies in conflict upon the construction of the same instrument which they had so arduously labored to establish; and it is remarkable, that upon the points in the

* Regarding this, Madison says: "I am extremely afraid that the President may not be sufficiently aware of the snares that may be laid for his good intentions by men whose politics at bottom are very different from his own. An assumption of prerogatives not clearly found in the Constitution, and having the appearance of being copied from a monarchical model, will beget animadversion equally mortifying to him and disadvantageous to the Government. Whilst animadversions of this sort can be plausibly ascribed to the spirit of party, the force of them may not be felt. But all his real friends will be anxious that his public conduct may bear the strictest scrutiny of future times, as well as of the present day; and all such friends of the Constitution would be doubly pained at infractions of it under auspices that may consecrate the evil till it be incurable."- Madison to Jefferson, June 13, 1793, Madison's Works, (Congress ed.), vol. i., p. 582.

229

papers of Pacificus most keenly contested by his adversary the most forcible of his arguments are pointed with quotations from the papers of the Federalist written by Mr. Hamilton." *

These newspaper polemics greatly aroused the people, the excitement being increased by an event which occurred at New York. The French ship L'Ambuscade lay in the harbor, and toward the close of July another French ship was reported off Sandy Hook. The French captain sent a lieutenant to greet her, but the latter soon ascertained that she was a British frigate the Boston. British captain challenged the French to combat, and on the morning of August 1 the battle took place off Long Branch. The British ship was badly beaten and fled, and L'Ambuscade was given a rousing reception upon her return to port.†

The

But this was the last cause of exultation on the part of Genêt's adherents. About the middle of May the citizens of Philadelphia sent an address to Washington thanking him for the neutrality proclamation and promising to adhere strictly to its terms. On July 22 the citizens of Boston did likewise, and on August 8, the day on which Genêt was received at New York with every mark of attachment, the citizens of that city declared for neutrality. These addresses were fol

See also Hamilton's Works, vol. vii., pp. 76117 (ed. 1851); Gay, Life of Madison, p. 207. The Helvidius papers will be found in Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. i., pp. 611-654.

Lamb, City of New York, vol. ii., p. 393; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 121-124.

230

lowed by others from Beverly, Salem, Hartford, Princeton, Newark, Baltimore, Richmond, Alexandria and other cities. One of the causes of this reversion of feeling was the unwarranted manner in which affronts were offered the President, the government and the citizens. A sample of such conduct was the action of the French frigate La Concord at Boston. Soon after she arrived a huge white placard was placed at her masthead containing the names of several of the most prominent men of the town who were accused of being aristocrats, unfriendly to the French Revolution, and averse to having Americans serve in French privateers. This was too much for Boston, and though the French Society denied responsibility

and the captain declared it had been done while he was ashore, the anger of the people was not appeased. On the contrary, it was aroused to a still higher pitch by the actions of the same ship. A British ship had been captured by a French privateer and sent to Boston for condemnation, but its owners replevined the ship and a United States marshal was sent to serve the writ. The French vice-consul, however, told the prize-master to retain possession of the ship, which he did for three days, when it was drawn to the wharf by the marshal. On October 3, 1793, Washington issued a proclamation revoking the exequatur

* McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 134-135.

of the vice-consul. This provoked a storm of protest, particularly from Genêt, who wrote an insolent note to Jefferson saying that he did not recognize the proclamation as valid, that Washington had overstepped his authority, and demanding that the viceconsul's conduct should be investigated by gated by the sovereign State of Massachusetts.†

Many other instances were now brought to light wherein the French had defied the government and set its laws at naught, and to ruin his cause still more completely Genêt attacked Washington most intemperately,

threatening to appeal from the President to the people. Washington scarcely noticed this further than to ask, "Is the minister of the French Republic to set acts of this government at defiance and then threaten the executive with an appeal to the people?" The statement that this attack on Washington had been made had appeared in print over the signatures of John Jay and Rufus King; and early in August Genêt wrote a

* Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vi., p. 401; American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 178-182; Turner, in Report of American Historical Association for 1903, vol. ii., p. 281. † Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., p. 156; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 135-136. "A more remarkable chapter can hardly be found in the history of diplomacy, than might be furnished from the records of this mission of Genêt. It is a memorable instance of the infatuation to which a man of respectable talents and private character may be driven by political frenzy.”— Sparks, Life of Washington, p. 452. See also Tucker, Life of Jefferson, p. 312.

Ford's ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. xii.,

p. 302.

dictatorial letter to Washington in which he demanded that the latter make an explicit denial that such a threat had been made.* Washington did not deign to notice this audacious epistle, but Jefferson sent a very frigid note to the effect that the Secretary of State was the proper personage to be addressed by foreign agents, and that it was not customary for them to carry on direct correspondence with the President.† Thereupon Genêt wrote a note to Attorney-General Randolph demanding that the government should prosecute Jay and King for libel, but Randolph told him that it was no affair of the government's and that if Genêt felt abused he must seek redress in the State courts.‡

This unwarranted conduct convinced Washington that Genêt's usefulness to the French government had been so greatly impaired as to necessitate his recall. On August 1 a cabinet meeting was held and it was decided that Genêt must go.|| Therefore on August 16, 1793, Jefferson wrote a letter to Morris, the American minister at Paris, giving a full account of the matter, with the correspondence, to be laid before the French government. He concluded his note by saying, "If our citizens

*Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., p. 157; Pellew, John Jay, p. 288; Bassett, Federalist System, p. 96.

252.

Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 272.
McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 137-141.

Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. i., p.

VOL. IV-16

231

have not already been shedding each other's blood it is not owing to the moderation of M. Genêt."*

66

The dignity and firmness of the President had now produced their usual effect,† and the opposition party felt that an attack on the administration could be placed on no ground more disadvantageous than on its controversy with M. Genêt. The conduct and language of that minister were offensive to reflecting men of all parties. To the various considerations growing out of the discussions themselves, and of the parties engaged in them, one was added which could not be disregarded. The party in France to which M. Genêt owed his appointment had lost its power; and his fall was the inevitable consequence

* Ibid, vol. vi., pp. 371-393; Morse, Thomas Jefferson, p. 159. On the preparation of this letter, see Jefferson's Anas, in Ford, vol. i., p. 259 et seq.

In writing to Richard Henry Lee, Washington alludes to the trial through which he had just passed. He says: "The specimens you have seen of Mr. Genêt's sentiments and conduct in the gazettes form a small part only of the aggregate. But you can judge from them to what test the temper of the executive has been put in its various transactions with this gentleman. It is probable that the whole will be exhibited to public view in the course of the next session of Congress. Delicacy towards his nation has restrained the doing of it hitherto. The best that can be said of this agent is, that he is entirely unfit for the mission on which he is employed; unless (which I hope is not the case), contrary to the express and unequivocal declaration of his country made through himself, it is meant to involve ours in all the horrors of a European war."- Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 157-158. On the discussions in the Cabinet regarding Genêt's recall, see Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. i., pp. 265 et seq., 270 et seq.

232

of the fall of his patrons. That he would probably be recalled was known in America, and that his conduct had been disapproved was generally be lieved. The future course of the French Republic toward the United States could not be foreseen; and it would be committing something to hazard not to wait its development." A new minister (Fauchet) was therefore appointed, who arrived in February of 1794. Fauchet was accompanied by three commissioners who were to act with him in all matters concerning the relations of France and the United States. On October 11, 1793, the French Committee of Public Safety decreed that the commissioners should disavow Genêt's disavow Genêt's

conduct and send him back to France. The commissioners were instructed also to disarm the privateers fitted out by Genêt and to dismiss such consuls as had been concerned in any proceedings tending to compromise American neutrality. They were also to attempt the negotation of a new treaty of commerce.* This had been included in Genêt's instructions, had been urged long before his time, and continued to be urged for some years to come, without result.† Though the commissioners were instructed to send Genêt to France, he never returned because his political friends at home, the Girondists, had fallen from

*Turner, in Report of American Historical Association for 1903, pp. 287-294.

† Ibid, pp. 9, 108-114, 129, 135, 202, 207, 209, 344, 638, 649, 725, 743.

power, and also because he had married a daughter of Governor Clinton. He continued to live unnoticed in his adopted country until his death at Schodack, New York, July 14, 1834.*

Before he had been superseded, however, the country was given additional evidence of his misconduct. Jefferson had received numerous hints that Genêt's agents were fomenting trouble in the South and West by raising, arming and drilling two armies one to go down the Mississippi and attack the Spanish settlements at New Orleans, and the other to attack the Floridas. It was stated that 5,000 men were being enlisted in South Carolina in the service of France, and in December of 1793 the Assembly of that State took the matter under advisement. But though several arrests were made and there was plenty of evidence for a conviction, nothing came of the inquiry. The Kentucky authorities did not even go through the form of a prosecution, and the entire matter was dropped. Though requested by Fau

* For something of his later history, see Bonney, Legacy of Historical Gleanings, vol. i., p. 159 et seq.

See Marshall, Life of Washington, vol. ii., pp. 260-284; Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., p. 159; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. i., pp. 116-117; Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. i., pp. 235-236 and vol. vi., p. 316; Reports of the American Historical Association for 1896, vol. i., pp. 930-1107; 1897, pp. 569-679; 1903, vol. ii., pp. 10-12, 199, 205, 219223, 264-268, 567, 826, 840, 990, 1015, 1038, 1048, 1075, 1097; American Historical Review for April, 1897, April and July, 1898, January and April, 1905; Albach, Annals of the West, p. 663; Amer

66

chet to do so, the government refused to arrest Genêt upon reasons of law and magnanimity."*

The Genêt affair considerably injured the Republican cause, for the rancorous attacks of Genêt discredited all who supported him. Jefferson, too, became disgusted with his actions, writing to Madison on July 7 as follows:

"Never in my opinion, was so calamitous an appointment made as that of the present Minister of F. here. Hot headed, all imagination, no judgment, passionate, disrespectful, & even indecent towards the P. in his written as well as verbal communications, talking of appeals from him to Congress, from them to the people, urging the most unreasonable and groundless propositions & in the most dictatorial style, &c., &c., &c. Even if it should be necessary to lay his communications before Congress or the public, they

233

To

will excite universal indignation. complete our misfortune, we have no channel of our own through which we can correct the irritating representations he may make." *