210 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE SETTLED. River; and thence down the middle thereof to the Atlantic Ocean." The line was to be ascertained by a commissioner and surveyor appointed by each of the contracting parties, who were to meet at Natchez within six months from the time of ratification. The troops and garrisons of both parties were to be withdrawn within the same period.* It was agreed that the navigation of the Mississippi from its source to the Ocean should be free only to the subjects and citizens of the two countries, unless his Catholic Majesty "should extend this privilege to the subjects of other powers by special convention;" that the Americans might enjoy the benefits of this navigation below the 31st parallel; that they were at liberty for a term of three years" to deposit "to their merchandises and effects in the port of New Orleans, and to export them without paying any other duty than a fair price for the hire of the stores; and his Majesty promises either to continue this permission if he finds during that time that it is not prejudicial to the interests of Spain, or if he should not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them an equivalent establishment on another part of the banks of the Mississippi."† Both parties were to use their utmost Chadwick, Relations of the United States and Spain, pp. 37-38. Phelps, Louisiana, pp. 172-173; Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 164-165; Ogg, Opening of the Mississippi, pp. 456-457. endeavors to maintain peace and harmony among the Indian tribes on their borders; to restrain by force, if necessary, the Indians within their limits from hostile acts against the other; and neither party was to make any treaties with those who did not live within its respective limits. It was provided that free ships should make free goods, and that no citizen or subject of either party should be given a commission or letter of marque for arming any vessel to act as a privateer against the other, under penalty of being considered a pirate. The treaty was ratified by the United States almost without opposition.* Thus, after a tedious negotiation of about 15 years, the boundaries between the Spanish possessions in America and the United States were settled and the Americans secured the right of navigating every part of the Mississippi. But Spain soon came to regret the liberality of this treaty, and on one pretext or another, Natchez and the other Spanish ports on the Mississippi, between 31° and 32° 30', were held by the Spanish troops for more than two years. In May of 1797 the Spanish government protested against that clause in the Jay treaty which provided that the Mississippi should be open to England and the United States, on the ground that, ac * Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 323. See the correspondence regarding this in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii., pp. 20, 78. State of public affairs in 1793-Effect of the French Revolution on public opinion in America - Washington's questions to the Cabinet regarding neutrality - Opinions of Hamilton, Knox, Jefferson and RandolphArrival of Genêt - Object of his mission - His reception in South Carolina - Washington's neutrality proclamation Genêt's privateers Protest of the British minister - Popular enthusiasm for the French cause Genêt's correspondence with the government The case of the Polly - Republican sentiment Abuse of Washington - His indifference - The case of the Little Democrat - Genêt's letter to Jefferson and his reply Papers of Pacificus and Helvidius-Turn in public opinion-Demand for Genêt's recall Appointment of a new minister - Genêt's intrigue in Florida and Louisiana - Results of the Genêt affair. When the United States began its existence as a nation it was bound to two great European nations, France and Great Britain - to the former by treaties of amity and commerce and of alliance, and to the latter by ties of blood, commerce and ideals. While it was not to our interest to be bound to any nation, still we were in a weak and defenceless state and in a difficult position regarding foreign relations. The American statesmen of the time seemed to deem it wisest to take a subordinate position among the world powers until such time as we should be strong enough to assert our absolute independence, politically and economically. But in 1793 an incident occurred which began to alienate us from France and nearly resulted in a war. About the same time a dispute with England arose which was not settled until after the country was plunged into the throes of a second war. The great events of the period in Europe could not fail to have a marked effect upon America and her interests. From its inception the French Revolution especially had been regarded with the deepest interest by Americans, who were disposed to rejoice at the prospect of the establishment of another republic founded on liberty, equality and the rights of man. But the actual course of events *American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii., pp. 440, 469. † Ogg, Opening of the Mississippi, pp. 458–459. 212 INFLUENCE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. in France soon dispelled these hopes and expectations in the minds of many Americans. The monarchy was abolished; the king was executed; the Republic was proclaimed; and war was declared against England, Holland and Spain. The people of the United States were loath to believe that France was not destined to meet with the same success which happily the Americans attained in their struggle for liberty and justice. . The overthrow of the monarchy seemed to have electrified the country. Marshall says: be established. By the many, these popular doubts were deemed unpardonable heresies; and the few to whom they were imputed, were pronounced hostile to liberty. A suspicion that the unsettled state of things in France had contributed to suspend the payment of the debt to that nation, had added to the asperity with which the resolutions on that subject were supported; and the French Revolution will be found to have had great influence on the strength of parties, and on the consequent political transactions of the United States." Therefore, when Washington was inaugurated for the second time on March 4, 1793, it was a time when the country stood most in need of his impartial honesty and firmness. At this time the French Revolution was at its "The war in which the several potentates of height, and the threatened outbreak Europe were engaged against France, although, in almost every instance, commenced by that power, was pronounced to be a war for the extirpation of human liberty, and for the banishment of free government from the face of the earth. The preservation of the independence of the United States was supposed to depend on its issue, and the coalition against France was treated as a coalition against America also. A cordial wish that the war might terminate without diminishing the power of France, and so as to leave the people of that country free to choose their own form of government, was perhaps universal; but perfect unanimity of opinion did not prevail respecting the probable issue of their internal conflicts. By some few individuals, the practicability of governing under the republican form an immense military nation, whose institutions, habits, and morals are adapted to monarchy, and which was surrounded by armed neighbors, was deemed a problem which time alone could solve. The circumstances under which the abolition of royalty was declared, the massacres which preceded it, the scenes of turbulence and violence which were acted in every part of the nation, appeared to them to present an awful and doubtful state of things, respecting which no certain calcu lations could be made; and the idea that a republic was to be introduced and supported by force, was, to them, a paradox in politics. Under the influence of these appearances, the apprehension was entertained that the ancient monarchy would be restored, or a military despotism would of war among the powers of Europe made it impossible for the President of the United States to remain indifferent. The majority of the people looked upon the Revolution with enthusiastic satisfaction, doubting not that France would secure thereby every blessing she desired. The victory of Dumouriez over the Austrian and Prussian forces, announced early in January of 1793, was celebrated by civic feasts. In Boston, a roasted ox was borne in pageant, elevated on a car drawn by 16 horses, its gilded horns displaying the French and American flags and an inscription in front bearing the words: "A peaceoffering to liberty and equality." Following this were four carts laden with loaves of bread and hogsheads of punch, which, after the procession, * Marshall, Life of Washington, vol. ii., pp. 251-252. FRENCH SENTIMENT IN AMERICA. "Ca were distributed to the multitude, the remnants being sent to the jail and almshouse. A banquet was held at Faneuil Hall at which the lieutenantgovernor, Samuel Adams, presided. At a public dinner at Philadelphia, a pike was fixed at the head of the table bearing a liberty cap on which the American and French flags were entwined, the whole being surmounted by a dove and olive branch. ira" and "Yankee Doodle " became the most popular airs: the "Brutus crop began to supersede the queue and tie-wig; and it was considered undemocratic to say "Mr.," the word "Citizen " being used instead.* There were many Americans who were willing to join France in a contest with Great Britain and to engage in privateering expeditions against the commerce of the belligerent powers, regardless of the consequences to themselves or to the country.† On the other hand, the merchants of British proclivities were greatly perplexed by the situation, for the United States and France were already in treaty alliance, while with England there was no treaty. Furthermore, our treaties with France committed us to a perpetual guarantee of French possessions in America, and provided to French privateers and prizes a shelter in American ports, though such shelter was explicitly refused to the enemies of France. Thus, France and * Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 260-261. On the rejoicings in this country, see McMaster, vol. ii., p. 89 et seq. 213 America were bound to an alliance inconsistent with the strict theory of neutrality, yet which gave France the right to expect some return for the great services she had rendered to America during the Revolution. Hamilton promptly began to riddle these treaties in their weak spots. They had been made with the King of France and his successors, and might not hold under the existing revolutionary government; the guarantee might not apply to an offensive but only to a defensive war; and though under the compact we were bound to exclude English privateers, English ships of war were not excluded. On such equivocal points the President did not wish to stand, but rather considered it best to concede the existence of the treaties.* Washington followed the dictates. of his judgment rather than the impulse of his feelings. Realizing that the effects of the war must soon be felt in the United States, he considered it his duty to ward off disaster if possible. He was satisfied that the best interests of the country demanded that the United States remain neutral, and was convinced that this course might be pursued without violating national faith or national honor. But he Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 263–264. Sometime later, in reviewing his opinions regarding France, Washington wrote as follows: "My conduct in public and private life, as it relates to the important struggle in which the latter is engaged, has been uniform from the commencement of it and may be summed up in a few words: that I have always wished well to the French revolution; that I have always given it 214 WASHINGTON'S QUESTIONS REGARDING NEUTRALITY. knew that neutrality must be impartial and that to preserve a state of strict neutrality and to avoid collisions with the contending powers would be diffi cult. Aware of the importance and delicacy of the situation, he asked the advice of his Cabinet as to the proper course of action. He submitted certain questions, particularly with respect to the existing relations with France. These were submitted confidentially, but shortly afterward were made public. They were as follows: QUESTION 1. Shall a proclamation issue for the purpose of preventing interferences of the citizens of the United States in the war between France and Great Britain, &c.? Shall it contain a declaration of neutrality or not? What shall it con tain? 2. Shall a minister from the Republic of France be received? 3. If received, shall it be absolutely or with qualifications? and if with qualifications, of what kind? 4. Are the United States obliged by good faith to consider the treaties heretofore made with France as applying to the present situation of the parties? May they either renounce them or as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to intermedd le 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. hold them suspended until the government of France shall be established? 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? Washington requested that the Cabinet officials submit their answers in writing. Regarding the opinions thus submitted, John Quincy Adams says:t "On the 18th of April, 1793, President Washington submitted to his cabinet thirteen questions * 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., p. 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 Jeffer son's Writings, vol. vi., pp. 219-231. Life of Madison, p. 53 et seq. |