214

as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives, policy, interest and every other consideration that ought to actuate a people situated as we are, already deeply in debt, and in a convalescent state from the struggle we have been engaged in ourselves." - Sparks' ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. xi., p. 164. See also Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 138-139; Irving, Life of Washington, vol. V., pp. 274-275.

5. If they have the right, is it expedient to do either? and which?

6. If they have an option, would it be a breach of neutrality to consider the treaties in operation?

7. If the treaties are to be considered as now in operation, is the guarantee in the treaty of alliance applicable to a defensive war only, or to a war, either offensive or defensive?

8. Does the war in which France is engaged appear to be offensive or defensive on her part? or of a mixed and equivocal character?

9. If of a mixed and equivocal character, does the guarantee in any event apply to such a war? 10. What is the effect of a guarantee, such as that to be found in the treaty of alliance between the United States and France?

11. Does any article in either of the treaties prevent ships of war, other than privateers of the powers opposed to France, from coming into the ports of the United States to act as convoys to their own merchantmen? or does it lay any other restrains upon them more than would apply to the ships of war of France?

12. Should the future regent of France send a minister to the United States, ought he to be received?

13. Is it necessary or advisable to call together the two Houses of Congress with a view to the present posture of European affairs? if it is, what should be the particular objects of such a call?

*

p.

Washington's letter to the Cabinet and the questions will be found in Sparks' ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. x., pp. 337, 533-534; Hamilton's ed. of Hamilton's Works, vol. iv., 359. Jefferson's account of the Cabinet meeting at which the proclamation was discussed is in his Works, vol. ix., pp. 142-143 (ed. 1854). See also vol. iv., pp. 17-20, 29-31. For Jefferson's opinion on the French treaties, see Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vi., pp. 219-231.

Life of Madison, p. 53 et seq.

with regard to the measures to be taken by him in consequence of the revolution which had overthrown the French monarchy; of the new organization of a republic in that country; of the appointment of a minister from that republic to the United States, and of the war, declared by the National Convention of France against Great Britain. The first of these questions was, whether a proclamation should issue to prevent interferences of the citizens of the United States in the war? Whether the proclamation should or should not contain a declaration of neutrality? The second was whether a minister from the republic of France should be received. Upon these two questions the opinion of the cabinet was unanimous in the affirmative that a proclamation of neutrality should issue and that the minister from the French republic should be received. But upon all the other questions, the opinions of the four heads of the departments were equally di vided. They were indeed questions of difficulty and delicacy equal to their importance. No less than whether, after a revolution in France annihilating the government with which the treaties of alliance and of commerce had been contracted, the treaties themselves were to be considered binding as between the nations; and particularly whether the stipulation of guarantee to France of her possessions in the West Indies, was binding upon the United States to the extent of imposing upon them the obligation of taking side with France in the war. As the members of the cabinet disagreed in their opinions upon these questions, and as there was no immediate necessity for deciding them, the further consideration of them was postponed, and they were never afterwards resumed. While these discussions of the cabinet of Washington were held, the ministerplenipotentiary from the French republic arrived in this country. He had been appointed by the National Convention of France which had dethroned, and tried, and sentenced to death, and executed Louis the XVIth, abolished the monarchy, and proclaimed a republic one and indivisible, under the auspices of liberty, equality and fraternity, as thenceforth the government of France. By all the rest of Europe, they were then considered as revolted subjects in rebellion against their sovereign; and were not recognized as constituting an independent government.

"General Hamilton and General Knox were of opinion that the minister from France should be conditionally received, with the reservation of the question, whether the United States were still bound to fulfill the stipulations of the treaties. They inclined to the opinion that treaties themVOL. IV 15

215

selves were annulled by the revolution of the government in France -an opinion to which the example of the revolutionary government had given plausibility by declaring some of the treaties made by the abolished monarchy, no longer binding upon the nation. Mr. Hamilton thought also, that France had no just claim to the fulfillment of the stipulation of guarantee, because that stipulation, and the whole treaty of alliance in which it was contained were professedly, and on the face of them, only defensive, while the war which the French Convention had declared against Great Gritain, was on the part of France offensive, the first declaration having been issued by her — that the United States were at all events absolved from the obligation of the guarantee by their inability to perform it, and that under the Constitution of the United States the interpretation of treaties, and the obligations resulting from them, were within the competency of the executive department, at least concurrently with legislature. It does not appear that these opinions were debarred or contested in the cabinet. By their unanimous advice the proclamation was issued, and Edmund Charles Genêt was received as minister-plenipotentiary of the French republic. Thus the executive administration did assume and exercise the power of recognizing a revolutionary foreign government as a legitimate sovereign with whom the ordinary diplomatic relations were to be entertained. But the proclamation contained no allusion whatever to the United States and France, nor of course to the article of guarantee or its obligations."

The French Republic had selected as its new minister, in the place of Jean Baptiste Ternant, Citizen Edmond Charles Edouard Genêt, a gentleman of fair talents, possessed of all the fire and temper of the Celtic race, and as Moore says, " gurgling with the fer

mentation of the new wine of the

*See also Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, p. 162 et seq.; Parton, Life of Thomas Jefferson, p. 465 et seq.; Hamilton's Works, vol. iv., p. 359 et seq.; Jefferson's Writings, vol. vi., p. 218; Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. i., p. 226 et seq.; Ford's ed. of Washington's Writings, vol. xii., p. 280 et seq.

216

Revolution."* Indeed, in him was incarnated one phase of the Revolution: he fervently believed that the cause of France was the cause of the human race. He passionately loved his country, adored the cause of liberty, was ready to sacrifice his life for it, and could not see why all enemies of tyranny, all virtuous men, should not aid France in her struggle. To love liberty was to love France; to espouse the cause of France was to champion the cause of liberty- and hence of humanity.†

The real object of his mission, therefore, was to make this country subservient to the interests of France. Genêt's instructions throw a flood of light on his subsequent course of action. In case the American Government appeared "timid and wavering," he was "to take such steps as will appear to him the exigencies may require to serve the cause of liberty and the freedom of the people,

in expectation that the American Government will finally determine to make common cause with us." In other words, he was to take such steps as were necessary in order that the American government might resolve to make common cause with France; and, in furthering this object, he intended to enlist the people so strongly on the side of France that the government would be compelled to espouse her cause or be overthrown. Addi

tional instructions were given him to make a new treaty with the United States upon a basis more "liberal and more fraternal than that of 1778,” and in such a way as to commit the United States to an alliance with the French against all Europe. But until such a treaty should be concluded, he was to draw every advantage which the provisions of the subsisting treaty secured to the republic," being expressly enjoined to make himself thoroughly master of the sense of the treaty of 1778 and to be watchful in the execution of the articles which are favorable to the commerce and navigation of the French Republic.” *

It will be remembered that in 1778 the United States had concluded a treaty of alliance and a treaty of commerce with France. The "essential and direct end" of the treaty of alliance was to maintain the liberty, sovereignty and independence of the United States. The treaty was to be " eventual and defensive," and it is evident that, with the exception of the eleventh article, the intention was to limit the treaty to the war then being waged for independence. But by the eleventh article the United States.

* For extracts from these papers, see Pitkin, Political and Civil History of the United States, vol. ii., pp. 360-364. See also F. J. Turner, in Report of the American Historical Association for 1903, vol. ii., pp. 202-211.

Lyman, Diplomacy of the United States, vol. i., p. 52.

218

Undoubtedly this was one of the most important measures of Washington's administration. "The murmurs and disgust which this measure occasioned evinced its necessity and wisdom." It laid the solid basis for that system which our country has steadily pursued in its intercourse with foreign nations and to which a large share of its prosperity may be ascribed. It was essential to the independent existence and character of the United States, and it is greatly to Washington's credit that he dared to do what he considered right and just in the face of popular clamor. Hamilton said that

"The declaration of the French nation that it will treat as enemies the people who, refusing or renouncing liberty and equality, are desirous of preserving their prince and privileged casts, or of entering into an accommodation with them'; and its promise not to lay down its arms until the sovereignty and liberty of the people on whose territories the French armies shall have entered shall be established, and not to consent to any arrangement with the prince and privileged classes so dispossessed' could not but be regarded as an outrage little short of a declaration of war against every government of Europe, and as a violent attack upon the freedom of opinion of all mankind."+

ton's character was widely revered and though he possessed a large share of the affections of the people, yet at this time not only the Republicans but many others began openly to assault his character and motives, pursuing these tactics with a perseverance and acrimony that can hardly be credited at the present time.*

Meanwhile Genêt Genêt had scarcely landed before he began his work, not like a foreign minister, but like a sovereign in his own empire. He had not yet presented his credentials or been recognized by the President, nor had he even taken over the books and papers of the minister he was to succeed. Nevertheless, being furnished with blank army and navy commissions and letters of marque, he bought and armed two swift-sailing vessels renamed the Citizen Genêt and the Sans Culottes-and gave them commissions to commit depredations on the commerce of nations with whom the United States was at peace. These cruisers, manned partly by French and partly by American seamen, were to capture home-bound British merchantmen and bring their prizes into United States ports to be tried, condemned and sold by

says: "The proclamation was in truth a most unfortunate error. It wounds the national honor by seeming to disregard the stipulated duties to France. It wounds the popular feelings by a seeming indifference to the cause of liberty."Rives, Life and Times of James Madison, vol. iii.. pp. 334-335.

*Sparks, pp. 449–450. See also Pellew, John Jay, pp. 286-287.