FRENCH RETALIATORY DECREES. denied these allegations, fully refuting the complaints contained in the exposition.* Presuming that the House of Representatives would refuse to pass the laws necessary to put the Jay treaty into operation, the French government did not press the subject; but when news arrived that the treaty had been ratified and that the House of Representatives had passed laws putting it into effect, the French government immediately instituted retaliatory measures. On June 25, 1796, De la Croix inquired of Monroe whether the news contained in the American gazettes to the effect that the House had put the Jay treaty into effect was true, adding, "After the Chamber of Representatives has given its consent to this treaty, we ought, no doubt, to consider it in full force; and as the state of things which results from it merits our profound attention, I wish to learn from you in what light we are to consider the event which the public papers announce, before I call the attention of the Directory to those consequences which ought especially to interest this republic." While Monroe could give no positive information regarding the matter, he doubted not that the intelligence was true. Thereupon, on July 2, 1796, the Directory issued a decree "that all neutral or allied powers shall, without delay, be notified, that the flag of the French republic will * American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 733-735; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 287-288. 325 treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them."* It was rumored that measures hostile to American commerce were contemplated by the French government. That he might ascertain the truth of these rumors, Secretary of State Pickering addressed a note to Adet, the French minister, inquiring whether the French government had issued any new decrees or regulations relative to the commerce of the United States, and if so, what they were. On July 14, 1796, Adet replied, declaring that he had no information relating to any orders which might have been given by the French government, or what orders had been issued to French ships respecting neutral vessels trading with their enemies. It is probable that secret orders had been sent to the French ships in the West Indies to capture American vessels, for in the preceding June, a ship called the Mount Vernon was captured off the Capes of Delaware by a French privateer. This vessel was sold in Philadelphia to an English citizen, but, as she could not be registered in his name, she sailed under the registry of her former owner. A French privateer, The Flying-Fish, had been watching her and seized her before she was well out of the bay. * American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 741; Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, 2d session, p. 2769. † McMaster, vol. ii., p. 313 et seq. 326 MONROE RECALLED; PINCKNEY NOT RECOGNIZED. The incident caused considerable excitement before it was learned that the American registry of the boat was merely a fiction.* In August, 1796, Spain concluded a treaty with France, and soon afterward began to complain at the British treaty as jeopardizing her interest as well as those of France. On this ground she refused to turn over the posts on the Mississippi, and furthermore endeavored to induce the Westerners to form an independent empire a project which failed entirely. France also urged Holland to aid her in defeating the British treaty, a thing Holland dared not refuse to do. The administration had been sincerely anxious to adjust all disputes with France, and Monroe had been instructed to justify his government in relation to the treaty with England; but he did not approve the policy of the President with regard to France, thinking that she had just grounds for complaint, and consequently his conduct became quite unacceptable to the President. Therefore, in order to insure an earnest and active representation of the true sentiments of the government, Wash ington determined to appoint a new envoy in Monroe's place, choosing Charles Cotesworth Pinckney for this mission. On August 22 Monroe was notified of his recall, and early in September General Pinckney embarked for France, where he arrived about December 1.* Upon his arrival in Paris, Pinckney, in company with Monroe, waited upon the minister of foreign affairs and presented his credentials. They were laid before the Directory, and a few days later Monroe received. word that the Directory would no longer recognize "a minister-plenipotentiary from the United States until after a reparation of grievances demanded of the American government, and which the French republic had a right to expect." De la Croix said, however, "that this determination, which has become necessary, does not oppose the continuance of the affection between the French republic and the American people, which is grounded on former good offices and reciprocal interest; an affection which you have taken pleasure in cultivating, by all the means in your power." Hence Pinckney's position was most embarrassing, as the Directory refused to hold any com *American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., pp. 741-742, and ibid, pp. 559-579, for Pickering's letter of January 16, 1797, answering the French complaints. See Adams' message in Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 235; American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 746 and vol. ii., p. 6; Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 358-359. DEPARTURE OF MONROE AND PINCKNEY. munication with him, and he did not know at what moment the police might order him to quit France.* Toward the close of December, Monroe took leave of the Directory, concluding his address as follows: "I beg leave to make to you, citizen directors, my particular acknowledgments for the confidence and attention with which you have honored my mission during its continuance, and at the same time to assure you that, as I shall always take a deep and sincere interest in whatever concerns the prosperity and welfare of the French republic, so I shall never cease, in my retirement, to pay you, in return for the attention you have shown me, the only acceptable recompense to generous minds, the tribute of a grateful remembrance."† In reply, the President of the Directory said: "By presenting this day to the executive directory, your letters of recall, you offer a very strange spectacle to Europe. France, rich in her freedom, surrounded by the train of her victories, and strong in the esteem of her allies, will not stoop to calculate the consequences of the condescension of the American government to the wishes of its ancient tyrants. The French republic expects, however, that the successors of Columbus, Raleigh, and Penn, always proud of their liberty, will never forget that they owe it to France. They will weigh in their wisdom the magnanimous friendship of the French people, with the crafty caresses of perfidious men, who meditate to bring them again under their former yoke. Assure the good people of America, Mr. Minister, that, like them, we adore liberty; that they will always possess our esteem, and find in the French people that republican generosity which knows how to grant peace, as well as to cause its sovereignty to be respected. "As for you, Mr. Minister-plenipotentiary, you have contended for principles; you have known the true interests of your country-depart with our regret; we restore, in you, a representative *McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 319-320. † American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. i., p. 747. VOL. IV-22 327 to America; and we preserve the remembrance of the citizen whose personal qualities did honor to that title." * On December 13 Pinckney wrote to De la Croix, inquiring whether he should leave France immediately or remain until he heard from the American government. De la Croix replied that, as the Directory recognized no American minister, it was the desire of the French government that he should no longer remain in France. Pinckney wished a written answer, but received none until February 3, 1797, when, elated by their victories in Italy, the Directory gave him written orders to quit the territories of the Republic, adding that he was liable to arrest if he stayed in Paris in violation of the law forbidding strangers to reside in France without letters of hospitality. He therefore asked for his passports and immediately retired to Amsterdam, where he remained until joined by Marshall and Gerry who, after Adams became President, were joined with him as envoys extraordinary to the French republic.§ Upon his return to the United States, Monroe issued a pamphlet, setting forth his side of the proceedings, under the title View of the Con 328 WASHINGTON'S CRITICISM OF MONROE'S CONDUCT. duct of the Executive in the Foreign Affairs of the United States, connected with the Mission to the French Republic, during the years 1794, 95 and 96. Regarding this View, Washington said: "As to the propriety of exposing to public view his [Monroe's] private instructions and correspondence with his own government, nothing needs be said; for I should suppose that the measure must be reprobated by the well-informed and intelligent of all nations, and not less by his abettors in this country, if they were not blinded by party views, and determined at all hazard to catch at anything, that in their opinion will promote them. The mischievous and dangerous tendency of such a practice is too glaring to require a comment." * Ford's ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. xiii., p. 451. See also Sparks' ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. x., pp. 226, 504; Gilman, Life of Monroe, pp. 65–73, 221–229; S. B. Washburn, Foreign Relations of the United States, p. 129 (1876); Rosenthal, America and France, p. 295. Among contemporary sketches of the progress of events as affecting the relations of United States and France are: William Duane, History Perhaps the sharpest criticism of Monroe's conduct in France is contained in Washington's Farewell Address, in which we read: 66 Constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in a condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet with being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more, there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." of the French Revolution, with a Free Examination of the Dispute between the French and American Republics (Philadelphia, 1798); J. Dennis, Address on the Origin, Progress, and Present State of French Aggression (Philadelphia, 1798); Robert Walsh, Enquiry with the Past and Present Relations of France and the United States (London, 1811); Camillus, History of French Influence in the United States (Philadelphia, 1812). |