GOUVERNEUR MORRIS IN FRANCE. argued several times before, and it had been decided that nothing could be done. Yet these petitions continued to come, not only from white people, but also from the negroes themselves. It was claimed that the petition to emancipate was a harbinger of a great loss of property and of a social revolution entailing a loss of thousands of lives. San Domingo was held up as an example of the sad results of emancipation. It was even charged that emissaries had been sent among the negroes to tamper with 315 them and excite the spirit of insurrection, and that France had sent agents to the country to see whether the negroes would constitute a good asset for future use.* Other speeches in a similar vein were made, and the motion to refer the petition to the committee was withdrawn. On January 3, by a vote of 85 to 1, the House resolved that petitions inviting Congress to consider and legislate on subjects precluded by the Constitution should receive "no encouragement or countenance."t CHAPTER XI. 1794-1797. MONROE AND PINCKNEY IN FRANCE. Monroe sent to France French complaints - Monroe introduced to the French Convention - Washington annoyed by fervor of Monroe's reception - American complaints sent to Monroe - His letter to the Committee of Public Safety The repeal of French decrees - Monroe misinformed as to the purpose of Jay's mission Correspondence between Jay and Monroe Jay's refusal of a copy of the British treaty - One obtained by Adet His complaints Monroe's quandary The French decree of July 2, 1796- Spanish complaints Monroe's recall - Pinckney's appointment - Directory's refusal to recognize Pinckney Monroe's farewell to the Directory - Pinckney's orders to leave France-Monroe's View of the Conduct of the Executive. -- - In 1789 Gouverneur Morris had gone to France on private business, and, feeling that Louis XVI. had given the United States support in its struggle for independence which it would be ungrateful to forget, had been active in behalf of the French king during the French Revolution. In 1792 his ministry to France was confirmed by a small margin and at the very time he received his credentials Morris was aiding the king's escape from Paris. He had especially as "my offended the French and American republicans by referring to the American government court," and was altogether unsatisfactory to the ruling powers in France. As Morris was entirely out of sympathy with the revolutionary party, the French government seized the opportunity when Genêt's recall See the speeches of Mr. Rutledge and others, Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., pp. 230-245; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii., pp. 437-444. McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 454-456. 316 MONROE APPOINTED; THE FRENCH COMPLAINTS. It was demanded, to ask that Morris be likewise recalled by the United States.* Having appointed Jay, a Federalist, to the British mission, Washington decided to appoint a man of the opposite party to the French mission. He well knew Mr. Monroe's proclivities, but as it was desirable to select a man who would be entirely acceptable to the French government, Monroe's nomination was unanimously approved by the Senate.t was hoped that he would be successful in his efforts to settle the differences existing between the two countries which were beginning to threaten serious consequences. Indeed, the objects of his extraordinary mission had now assumed vital importance. "The surreptitious attempts of France to throw this country into a war had been but a part of the injuries committed by her. The long continued and distressing embargo on the vessels in the port of Bordeaux, illegal captures by French ships of war and privateers, the seizure and forced sales of cargoes and their appropriation to public use without payment, the non-performance of contracts of contracts made by the agents of the government for supplies, the oppressions exercised by their courts of admiralty, the "The * Gordy, Political History, vol. i., pp. 265-266; Sparks, Gouverneur Morris, vol. i., chaps. xx.-xxi., vol. ii., p. 61 et seq. Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 286-287, 332. See also American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 463; D. C. Gilman, Life of Monroe, p. 37. taking all foreign trade from individuals into the hand of government, successive orders and decrees contrary to treaty stipulations, [all these] were fast making up a catalogue of wrongs against our selfstyled ally, that far overshadowed those which had so justly excited public indignation against Great Britain. Unless these could be redressed, war, submission to the will of France, or national disgrace or private ruin must follow.''* The French complaints may be grouped under two heads: those based upon the alleged infractions of the. treaties of 1778 and the convention of 1788; and those arising from the provisions of the Jay treaty which were prejudicial to French interests. The French complained that the American courts took cognizance of prizes brought into American ports by French cruisers and privateers; but in every instance it was shown that the prize had been taken in American territorial waters or by a privateer fitted out in an American port. prominent case was that of the ship Cassius, which originally had been armed at Philadelphia, sailed under another name, refitted in the West Indies, cruised under command of an American citizen, brought a prize into Philadelphia, and was there seized and her captain held. Another privateer, the Vengeance, was held and One Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., p. 139. MONROE REACHES PARIS; THE FRENCH DECREES. tried, but finally released.* On the other hand, it was charged that British cruisers with their prizes were in some cases permitted to enter American ports, in direct contravention of Article XVII. of the treaty of commerce of 1778. The French claimed, moreover, that the United States had not faithfully observed the ninth and twelfth articles of the consular convention of 1788 granting jurisdiction to consuls in disputes between their own citizens and to captains the right to recover deserters from their vessels. Under the second heading the French complained that the list of contraband was increased when it Ishould have been diminished. That list was, however, precisely that recognized by the law of nations, and its stipulations provided that provisions should be paid for when seized. Another count in the indictment was that under Jay's treaty the French could not sell their prizes in American ports, as they had formerly done and as they claimed the right to do under their treaty; but the Secretary of State showed that this was not a right, but merely a privilege, which had been temporarily accorded them. But the lack of ports for refitting their vessels and for the disposal of their prizes was severely felt by the French, and their complaints on this head were natural and reasonable.† * Report of the American Historical Association for 1903, vol. ii., pp. 417, 779, 842, 858, 907, 976, 1019. Ibid, pp. 681, 747, 824, 862, 902, 911, 934, 1006, 1066. 317 Monroe reached Paris in August of 1794, after the death of Robespierre, and found our affairs 66 in the worst possible situation. The treaty between the two republics was violated. Our commerce was separated in every quarter, and in every article, even that of tobacco not excepted. Our seamen, taken on board our vessels, were often abused, generally imprisoned, and treated, in other respects, like the subjects of the powers at war with them."* On May 9, 1793, the French government had authorized ships of war and privateers" to seize and carry into ports of the republic merchant vessels which were loaded wholly or in part with provisions, being neutral property, bound to an enemy's port, or having on board merchandise belonging to an enemy." On May 23 it was declared that this did not apply to the United States, but on July 27 another decree was passed which left the American commerce exposed to the provisions of the first act, in spite of the fact that the first decree violated a treaty between the United States and France.t In his instructions from Randolph, June 10, 1794, Monroe had been warned not to forget the dignity of the United States; || but, despite the * American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 694. Ibid, vol. i., pp. 244, 377, 749. 326. Lyman, Diplomacy of the United States, p. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 668-669; Gilman, Life of Monroe, pp. 44-45. 318 MONROE'S RECEPTION; WASHINGTON'S REBUKE. existing situation, hardly had he arrived, when (on August 14) he wrote directly to the Convention requesting that a day be designated when "the representative of their ally, and sister republic" should be received and acknowledged.* The Convention decided that he should be "introduced into its bosom " the very next day.† Upon his introduction, Monroe delivered to the President of that convention his credentials, two letters addressed by the Secretary of State to the Committee of Public Safety, and a written address in which he likened the French government to that of the United States, since both rested on the same basis and cherished the same principles "the equal and inalienable rights of man." This was translated into French, read by the Secretary of the Convention, and had its sentiments loudly applauded. Merlin de Douai, the President of the Convention, then poured forth his sentiments, hinting that a fraternity, closer than a mere diplomatic alliance, ought to unite the two nations against * American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 673. Gilman, Life of Monroe, p. 45. The letters and address are in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 673674. Gilman (pp. 46-48) gives the address. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 674, 688. § Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 334. See also Adams, Lives of Madison and Monroe, pp. 249-250. Monroe in his declaration of friendship that it was decreed by the Convention that the flags of the two republics should be united and suspended in the Assembly Chamber.* Monroe thereupon presented to the Convention the flag of the United States, which he requested that body to accept as a proof of the sensibility with which the United States received every mark of friendship from France.† When Washington learned the particulars of this reception he was considerably annoyed, for he had expected that Monroe's credentials would be presented and accepted with no special demonstrations. The progress of Jay's negotiations also determined him to keep French relations within neutral lines. But by parading resolutions of sympathy for France recently passed by Congress, Monroe had very unwisely added to the warmth of the official occasion and heightened the impression of an international alliance. Washington therefore wrote to Monroe in a tone of mild censure, informing him that demonstrations less conspicuous had been expected; that the warmth of some of his expressions was not warranted by his instructions; that the documents sent with the resolution of sympathy should have been regarded, so far as the President was concerned, only in the light of an execution of a task imposed upon him by Congress; * Gilman, Life of Monroe, pp. 49-50. † McMaster, United States, vol. ii., p. 257. AMERICAN GRIEVANCES; MONROE'S OPINION. and that, in order to avoid giving offence to England and Spain, he should in future cultivate the friendship of France with zeal, but without unnecessary êclat.* Long before Monroe received this communication from Philadelphia, he had been best with petitions from Americans seeking his aid in collecting indemnities for injuries sustained at the hands of the French. Some had been injured by the embargo at Bordeaux, where 100 vessels had been detained for more than a year. Some claimed compensation for supplies sold to the government of San Domingo. Others had received injuries, not merely in violation of the general principles of international law, but of specific articles of the treaties of 1778. On September 3, 1794, Monroe wrote a letter to the Committee of Public Safety, in which, after stating that specific articles of the treaties of 1778 had been violated, he said: "It is my duty to observe to you that I am under no instruction to complain of or request the repeal of the decree authorizing a departure from the 23d and 24th articles of the treaty of amity and commerce [which secured the neutral right of carrying enemy goods and enemy commerce]; on the contrary, I well know that if, upon consideration, after the experiment made, you should be of opinion that it produces any solid benefit to the republic, the American government and my countrymen in general, [you] will * Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 335; and Randolph's letter quoted in Gilman, Life of Monroe, pp. 53-55. Gilman, however, says that Monroe acted according to his understanding of his instructions and quotes a letter from Monroe (Life of Monroe, p. 53). 319 not only bear the departure with patience, but with pleasure.” Monroe knew that the administration was particularly anxious to maintain strict neutrality between France and Great Britain and that lending money to the French republic would constitute a violation of such neutrality. Nevertheless, on November 13, when a committee of the French government asked him whether the United States would advance funds to France, he replied that, while he had no authority to answer the question, he was sure that the United States would do so, if it be in her power. He stated also that in his opinion the United States would be more likely to do so if France would promise not to conclude peace with either England or Spain so long as the American grievances against them remained unsettled. In a letter (December 2) to the Secretary of State, Monroe said that France was so partial to the United States that, even if she could decide whether the United States should go to war with England, she "would leave us to act in that respect according to our own wishes. And I am likewise persuaded, if we do embark in the war, that they will see us through it; and have some hope, if we do not, and especially if we aid them in the article of money, that they will support, as far as they will be able, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 677. † Ibid, vol. i., pp. 685-687. |