1793] GENET'S THREATS. 363 a crowd surrounded the building, demanding that he should be given up to their vengeance, but they failed through the firmness of the authorities. At New York, in defiance of international law, Genet invited the refugees from Domingo to form themselves into a battalion to serve the French republic. The strong feeling excited by Genet's threat to appeal to the people, a statement which obtained authority by Jay and Rufus King having assumed responsibility for its truth, led Genet personally to write to Washington. His letter, it is hardly necessary to say, was offensive; he called upon the president to make an explicit denial of the fact of his threat. He received a reply from Jefferson that it was not customary for foreign ministers to have direct correspondence with the president, and that the president did not think it a matter of duty or propriety to reply to the statement. In a note to Randolph, the attorney-general, he demanded that Jay and King should be prosecuted for libel. He was referred to the courts. By his agents Two of his schemes now became known. he had begun in South Carolina the organization of a force, designed to march through Georgia to attack Florida. The second was an expedition against New Orleans. Commissions had been issued by him, and men enlisted in Kentucky to descend the Mississippi and seize the city. The leadership had been given to George Rogers Clarke, whose operations in Illinois, and with regard to Vincennes, I have recorded.* United States writers represent him as being in extreme embarrassment, chiefly owing to his intemperate habits, and, hence, ready for any expedition which would bring him money. The execution of these plans had been impeded from want of means to carry them out. Genet was one of those natures that impulsively adopt a policy without seeing a clear way to its execution; he had evidently counted on some arrangement by which the remainder of the debt due to France could be obtained as the fund to work upon. When *[Ante., VI., p. 501.] the facts were only imperfectly known, steps were taken to inquire into the character of these reports. The Spanish minister brought to Jefferson's attention the proposed attack on New Orleans. Shelby, the governor of Kentucky, to whom the matter was referred, stated that he was powerless to intervene. Indeed, the project collapsed only from want of money to carry it out and from Genet's recall. Baron Carondelet, governor-general of Louisiana, wrote to Simcoe informing him of the proposed attack on New Orleans, and that brigadier Clarke on behalf of Genet was raising 5,000 men; believing that it was the interest of Great Britain that Louisiana should remain in possession of Spain, he applied for assistance to resist the attempt. He asked that a corps of 500 men should be sent to Saint Louis. Simcoe replied from Miami Rapid stating that he was present to establish a post in case Wayne should invade the British possessions. He agreed in the opinion that it was for British interests that the territory should be possessed by Spain. He was, however, unable to afford assistance even if authorised to do so, for he had not the necessary force. Moreover, the Indians were determined to resist the encroachments of the United States, who were claiming their whole country, and in these circumstances his own position demanded much caution. Genet's conduct had reached such a pitch of audacity that Washington proposed to his cabinet to discontinue his functions and to order him out of the country. Had this course been followed, it is probable that Genet would have ended his days by the guillotine, for the Girondists who had appointed him had suffered that fate, and Robespierre was in power. Washington was sustained in this view by Hamilton and Knox. As might have been expected, it was opposed by Jefferson and Randolph. They suggested, what was in itself ridiculous, that Genet might not obey the order, and that the government had no power to enforce it. It * [Can. Arch., 69. 1, p. 38, 2nd January, 1794.] +[Ib., p. 41, 8th April.] 1793] GALBAUD IN CANADA. 365 was more sagaciously pointed out that the act might be regarded as one of persecution, and might revive Genet's popularity to the extent of influencing the elections for the next congress. It was said, besides, that it would expose the United States to the enmity of France, the only nation, as Jefferson thought fit to express himself, sincerely friendly to them. It was, therefore, determined to apply to France for Genet's recall. The request was conceded, and in 1794 Fauchet arrived from France to replace him. Genet ceased to be the accredited minister, but he felt it prudent not to return to Paris, and he remained in the United States, in a few months to pass entirely out of notice. No active measures were taken by Genet to effect any direct result in Canada; but the province was visited by his agents, who were not sparing of endeavours to stir up bad. feeling in every direction. In October, M. Galbaud, governor of Saint Domingo, had arrived with his aide-de-camp and a sergeant. Galbaud pretended that he had quarrelled with. Genet, and therefore had sought refuge in Canada. He with his staff surrendered as prisoners of war and signed their parole. At Montreal, Galbaud attracted attention by his conduct, and gave ground for the belief that he was tampering with the Indians. He had expressed a desire to remain in Canada for the winter, but he created such suspicion that he was ordered to sail for Europe. He avoided this course by secretly leaving for the United States. The sergeant remained behind in Montreal, where he endeavoured to establish clubs among the humbler classes. He was arrested, and shipped for England. * Genet's intrigues by no means failed in exercising a mischievous influence. They were reported to the home government, for the duke of Portland wrote that "he was sorry to find the progress made by the French agents of Genet to produce a feeling shewn in acts of a mutinous and treasonable character." + * [Can. Arch., Q. 66, p. 171. Dorchester to Dundas, 23rd Oct., 1793.] [Can. Arch., Q. 68, p. 137, August 13th.] Genet's discomfiture greatly increased the strength of the government and of the federal party, while Jefferson's retirement from the ministry, at the close of 1793, did not encourage the partisans of France in their boisterous agitation. His last official papers consisted of attacks upon the British government. The retention of the posts had been justified by the British ministry on the ground of the difficulties created in the courts of law for the collection of debts due to creditors in England. Jefferson set all truth at defiance, and declared that no impediment existed. A second report followed, in which he recommended a tariff of discriminating duties, specially directed against Great Britain. Jefferson retired to his place at Monticello, declaring that he had abandoned political life. In this position he has been described by a leading historian of the United States as "the spider drawn into a corner, yet still sensitively feeling every thread of his wide extended net to play no less assiduously at Monticello, than he had done at Philadelphia, the part of a watchful, zealous, untiring party leader." His influence on Madison had in no way decreased, for on the meeting of the new congress, in January, 1794, Madison introduced a series of resolutions, proposing discriminating tonnage duties on the vessels of powers not in alliance with the United States; further, that special import duties. should be imposed on the manufactures of such nations. In the matter of the West India trade, that the importations of foreign vessels from ports to which American vessels were not admitted should be specially taxed. After the resolutions had been debated for a month, and they had manifested an extremely angry feeling towards Great Britain, the first of the number was carried by fifty-one to forty-six. What was then called the republican party, in opposition to that of the federalists, had abandoned the tone of argument which they hitherto had directed against the government, viz., assailing them for having funded the debt; the aristocratic tendencies of the executive; its imitation of British institutions; its [Hildreth, IV., p. 455.] 1794] DISCONTENT WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 367 want of sympathy with France. On this point the intelligence of the country was against such policy. What Jefferson and Madison trusted would act as a lever to raise them to power was, unfortunately, a widespread antipathy to Great Britain. The republicans came into power seven years later. That they did succeed in their efforts was neither by the wisdom of their policy nor owing to the general weight of public opinion in their favour. The federal party lost the confidence of many of its supporters by the want of judgment shewn in the advocacy of the alien and sedition bills, and by much vacillation on the part of Adams.* Had Hamilton been listened to, the federalists would have retained their prestige. The causes of discontent against Great Britain, although dwelt upon by the politicians desirous of profiting by the enmity they were striving to create, are simple of explanation. Prominent with the south was the serious grievance that Carleton, in the evacuation of New York, contrary to the treaty had carried off negroes. There can be no doubt that such was the case; but in Carleton's view these persons, regardless of colour, were loyalists, and it would have been infamous to have left them behind because they were not white men. The retention of the posts had been adhered to by Great Britain on the ground that the treaty was not being carried out in the matter of the debts due to English creditors, and that unnecessary and insurmountable impediments were thrown in the way of their collection. England was even arraigned on the charge that she had brought her influence for peace to be declared between Algiers and Portugal. During the war, the cruisers of Algiers had been kept in their ports by the Portuguese fleet, so they had been [The closeness of the electoral contest on this occasion establishes this view. In 1801, for Jefferson and Burr sixty-six votes were recorded; for Adams, sixtyfive; for Pinckney, sixty-four. During the contest, when it seemed as if New York would be unfavourable to Jefferson, he sought the influence of the Livingston family by appealing for their support with the declaration that it was necessary to have men of family and character in his administration, and that the name of Mr. Robert Livingston could not be omitted. |