1793.]

CABINET CONSULTATION.

505

be difficult to preserve that neutrality between the belligerents which was so suited to the circumstances of his country, and so essential to its continued prosperity. The great mass of the American people had looked on the recent revolution in France with the liveliest interest, not merely because their sympathies would naturally side with a nation struggling for civil freedom, but also because they were grateful for the services rendered by France in their own war of independence, and because, moreover, they considered the new-born spirit of liberty in France had taken its origin from the American Revolution. The recollection of their long and bitter contest with Great Britain was too recent, kept alive as it was by her commercial restrictions, for the national resentment to have entirely subsided. A large part of the American people, therefore, when they found that Great Britain was at war with France, for no other reason than that she had overthrown her own monarchy, was disposed to make common cause with their old ally, especially when the cause was that of civil liberty.

The President, aware of this state of the public mind, and impelled by every consideration of patriotic prudence to preserve the neutrality of the United States if he could, wrote from Mount Vernon, whither he had repaired after the rising of Congress, to the members of his Cabinet on the importance of this policy, and of the dangers which threatened it. Hastening back to Philadelphia, he submitted to their consideration a number of queries as to the course to be pursued towards France, the most material of which were:- should a proclamation issue, warning the citizens of the United States against taking part in the war? should a Minister from the party in power in that country be received at once? were the treaties between the United States and France still in

506

CABINET CONSULTATION.

[CHAP. VII.

force? were we bound by the guarantee of the French islands in the treaty of 1778; and if so, was the present war of France offensive or defensive?

In favor of issuing such a proclamation, the Cabinet was unanimous.

They also agreed that the President should receive a Minister from the republic, but as to the mode of his reception the members widely differed. Messrs. Jefferson and Randolph thought there should be no deviation from the ordinary mode. Messrs. Hamilton and Knox thought otherwise, They asserted the right of a nation to absolve itself from its treaty obligations with another country, when such a change had taken place in the circumstances of that country as to render a continuance of the connection dangerous or disadvantageous to the other party.

Applying this principle to the present state of things in France, in which the power of the government could not yet be considered permanent, and to the immense foreign force then arrayed against the new republic, they urged that a continuance of the former close connection between the two countries, especially if the guarantee was enforced, might prove dangerous to the safety of the United States. They therefore thought that the obligation of the treaties with France should be reserved for future consideration.

As to the clause of the guarantee, they also differed. Messrs. Jefferson and Randolph considered there was no present necessity for deciding this question; while Messrs. Hamilton and Knox regarded the treaty of alliance as merely defensive, and, consequently, that the guarantee could not be insisted on, in an offensive war, like the present.

Their adversaries denied that the guarantee would

1793.]

PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY.

507

necessarily involve the United States in a war. They asked, Are we to enter into war.before we are called on by our allies? Can they call on us before their islands are invaded, or imminently threatened? If they can save themselves, have they any right to call on us? Are we obliged to go to war at once, without first trying negotiations with their enemy? Will the islands be lost, if we do not save them? Have we the means of saving them? If we cannot save them, are we bound to go to war for a desperate object. These questions offer grounds of doubt whether the guarantee would draw us into war, and, consequently, the danger was not certain enough to warrant us in declaring the treaties null.

They denied that any course now taken would deprive the United States of the future right of non-compliance with the treaty, when compliance would involve us in serious and inevitable danger; that it would be unwise, therefore, to incur the imputation of bad faith, when it might be unnecessary, and would relieve us from no future evil from which we could not as well, or better, relieve ourselves, if we showed a present disposition to comply with our engagements.

The President having requested the opinions of his Secretaries in writing, they were given at length by Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Hamilton; and on examining them with his wonted care, he concurred with the Secretary of State, and decided on receiving a Minister without qualification; and that the subject of the guarantee did not require an immediate decision.

The proclamation of neutrality having been decided on, it was forthwith prepared, and issued on the twentysecond of April, by the Attorney-General. It reminded the citizens of the United States of their duty and interest to observe neutrality towards the belligerent nations

508

ARRIVAL OF GENET.

[CHAP. VII.

of Europe, and warned them, that if they, by hostilities against any of those belligerents, incurred punishment under the law of nations, they would not receive the protection of the United States.

A short time before the proclamation issued, a Minister from France, in the place of the one who had been appointed by the unfortunate Louis, arrived at Charleston, South Carolina. This Envoy, familiarly known as citizen Genet, according to the mode of designation then prevalent in France, was a man of warm temperament, zealously devoted to the cause of the revolution, and cordially co-operating with its leaders in propagating the new-born passion for liberty in every other country. He spoke English fluently, and being impressed with the conviction that the people of the United States were strongly disposed to make common cause with France, while the policy of the government was suspected to incline more to Great Britain, he determined to improve the popular sentiment as far as he could; and, if possible, to involve the United States in a war with Great Britain. Such, indeed, were the instructions of those who sent him.

He was received in Charleston with enthusiasm, and his journey from that place to Philadelphia bore the character rather of a conqueror returning from a successful campaign, than that of a messenger of peace and of national courtesies.

The day after he reached Philadelphia, and before his official credentials were presented, he received addresses of compliment and congratulation from different societies, to which he replied in the most fervid and exaggerated strain.

The next day he had an interview with the President, when he declared that by reason of the distance of the

1793.]

CONDUCT OF GENET.

509

United States from the theatre of action in Europe, and from other considerations, France did not wish them to engage in the war. This assurance was the more readily credited because France had an obvious interest in the neutrality of the United States, as she could, by means of their shipping, carry on foreign commerce, especially with her colonies, that might be otherwise impracticable.

In the course of his short stay in Charleston, Genet authorised the fitting out and arming of vessels in that port, and gave them commissions to cruise against the enemies of France. The French consuls in the United States were, moreover, authorised by him to hold courts. of vice-admiralty on any vessels their cruisers might capture, to condemn them, and sell the prizes. A British ship from Philadelphia had been already captured by a French cruiser within the capes of the Delaware.

This capture and the acts of sovereign authority exercised by Genet had been made ground of formal complaint by the British minister Hammond, and he had demanded a restitution of all vessels thus illegally captured.

It was agreed by the Cabinet that these acts were violations of the sovereignty of the United States; that they should for the future be prevented, and that such American citizens as had participated in them should be punished.

On the question of restoring the captured property, the Cabinet differed. Messrs. Jefferson and Randolph urged that if the commissions issued by citizen Genet were invalid, the captures were void, and the courts would award restitution. If, on the other hand, the commissions were good, the legal right was in the captor, and could be taken from him only by force, that is, by an act of reprisal for the offence against the United States; but