so frequent the wars between them for several centuries, that they were considered as natural enemies to each other. In the third and fourth years of the French revolution, which began in 1789, the factions which rapidly succeeded one another, the outrages and cruelties committed, under the sacred name of liberty, and the threats of that nation to spread their wild political opinions in other kingdoms of Europe, not only alarmed Great Britain, but led her to arm, for the purpose of checking the revolution, and of restoring, if possible, a monarchical government to that distracted country. In their hostility towards each other, the French and British rulers disregarded and violated neutral rights; and while the former insisted on the United States making common cause with them against monarchy, and especially against the British nation, the latter, supposing an undue partiality for France, in the Americans, committed depredations on their commerce, either to deter the United States from showing any favor to the French people, or to injure that nation, by preventing their receiving supplies from America.

A new minister was sent to the United States in 1793, to remind the people of their obligations to the French nation, and to demand gratitude and assistance on account of benefits received from that country in the war of the Revolution; and he treated the President with great disrespect, if not with insolence, by presuming to dictate what measures he should adopt to favor the views of France. And when he learnt the true character of Washington, who was resolved to discharge his duty to the country, rather than compromit the peace of the nation, he had the presumption to appeal to the people at large, and to demand their aid. There was but one step more to be taken to degrade and dishonor the national character; and that was taken by a certain portion or class of the people, in justifying the insolent interference of this foreign agent.

War had now taken place between France and England; and while many in the United States were disposed to take part with France, from motives of partiality to that nation, or considerations of policy, or a love of republican liberty, the greater portion of the best informed and most prudent were desirous of avoiding a close alliance with either of those nations, and for maintaining a neutral position. This was the decided opinion of President Washington; and, after consulting with the members of his Cabinet, and some other confidential friends, he issued a proclamation, prohibiting all interference by the citizens of the United States,

especially that of arming by sea or land, in aid of either nation against the other. The immediate cause of the proclamation was the arming of vessels, in some of the southern ports, belonging to the United States, with commissions from the French government and its agents, to commit depredations on the commerce of Great Britain.

M. Genet, then recently arrived as Envoy from the French government, to reside in the United States, authorized and encouraged these proceedings, so inconsistent with the character and policy of the federal administration, which had resolved to maintain neutral ground at that time. M. Ternan, the immediate predecessor of Genet, had conducted with great prudence and discretion, in his official acts and communications towards the American government. The present minister manifested a very different spirit. He brought with him from France, all the enthusiasm for liberty and revolutions, which then prevailed in that nation, and which would allow no intercourse with monarchical governments, but denounced them all as oppressive and tyrannical. Like the extravagant revolutionists in that nation, he demanded that all the friends of civil liberty should unite in war, on the side of France, and that the people of the United States, especially were bound to assist his nation. He could not brook opposition to this dangerous opinion, nor wait for the proper consent and sanction of the federal rulers; but assumed the right to dictate measures such as he wished; and when his plans were disapproved and declared improper by the President, he attempted, though in vain, to excite the people against the government. Happily, for the peace and honor of the United States, with all their love of liberty, the people had a just regard for civil order and legitimate authority; and they gave their approving voice to the course pursued by the executive, in frowning upon this presumptuous foreign agent.

On this difficult occasion, the President, with his characteristic prudence, sought the opinion of his Cabinet, to whom he submitted the following inquiries, in April, 1793,"Shall a proclamation be issued for the purpose of preventing the interference of citizens of the United States in the war between France and Great Britain? Shall it contain a declaration of neutrality? What shall it contain? Shall a minister from France be received? and, if received, shall it be absolutely, or with qualification? And with what qualifications, if any? Are the United States obliged in good faith to consider the treaties before made with

France, as applying to the present situation of the parties? May they renounce them, or hold them suspended, till the government of France is established? If they have the right, is it expedient to do either; and which? If they have an option, would it be a breach of neutrality to consider the treaties in operation? If the treaties are now to be considered as in operation, is the guarantee in the treaty of alliance applicable to a defensive war only, or to war either defensive or offensive? Does the war in which France is now engaged appear to be offensive, or defensive, on her part? or of a mixed and equivocal character? If, of a mixed and equivocal character, does the guarantee, in any event, apply to such a war? What is the effect of a guarantee, such as that in the treaty of alliance (1778) between the United States and France? Should a future regent of France send a minister to the United States, ought he to be received? Is it advisable to call Congress together, with a view to the present posture of European affairs?"

These questions fully manifest the attention and anxiety of the provident mind of Washington, at this very critical period. He was sensible of the delicacy of his situation, as chief magistrate; and while he must have been aware that he was to give the tone to public measures, he was desirous of obtaining further light from others, than that which he found in his own reflections. The difference of opinion in his Cabinet was particularly unfortunate, in a situation so full of difficulty and doubt. Still he had the firmness to pursue such a course as he deemed just and proper, and at the same time such as promised to be most favorable to the interest and welfare of the country. He well knew, that clamors would be made, and censures heaped on his official character, for adopting a neutral policy; as indications had already been given in various parts of the country, in favor of uniting the destinies of the United States with those of the French nation, and of rushing into war with England, at every hazard.*

The following toast was given at a festival in Philadelphia, in July, 1793, which was attended by respectable citizens, and the Governor of Pennsylvania was a guest. "May the sister republics of France and America be as incorporate, as light and heat; and the man who endeavors to disunite them, be viewed as the Arnold of his country. May honor and probity be the principles, by which the connections of free nations shall be determined; and no Machiavelian commentaries explain the text of treaties. The treaty of alliance with France, may they who would violate or evade it, be deemed traitors, and consigned to infamy. May remorse attend that man who would think of opposing the French, while they war for the rights of man. A dagger to the bosom of that man who makes patriotism a cover to his ambition."

The neutral position taken by the administration, as to the war now began between France and Great Britain, made it proper to forbid all naval armaments in the ports of the United States, and by citizens thereof, against either of the belligerent powers, and this was accordingly distinctly and expressly done, in the summer of 1793, by the President, in addition to his proclamation previously issued. The opposition party of that period censured the measure, as pusillanimous, as well as ungrateful to the French people, in whose friendship America had before largely shared. One or two public journals, under the control of his invidious political enemies, were incessant and shameless in their criminations. Washington did not condescend to notice these virulent attacks, in a public manner; but his private letters to some personal friends showed that he was not insensible to the cruel charges brought against his official character. He was not one of those politicians, who, if sustained by the majority, disregarded the complaints of other portions of the people; but being a sincere patriot and truly desirous of the prosperity, the welfare, and the liberty of the United States, he acted from honorable and pure motives, in public as well as private concerns, and to be represented as an enemy to civil freedom, or as regardless of his country's true glory, was therefore more than even he could bear without deep sensibility, conscious as he was of patriotic and upright intentions.

The public conduct of M. Genet, at first wore some semblance of moderation and propriety, for he declared France did not expect the United States to join that nation in the war with England. But his conduct soon after discovered a desire to excite the war fever; and if the measures he recommended to be pursued had not been checked by the President, war with England must have followed in a short time. He gave commissions to armed vessels in the ports of the United States to attack British vessels, and he assumed or claimed a right to appoint commissioners to decide on the validity of captured vessels brought into American ports. This was assuming a power belonging only to the supreme executive of the United States, and a jurisdiction in which none had due authority but the federal courts and judges.

When this presumptuous attempt to exercise authority within the United States, by a foreign agent, was justly rebuked by the President, the French Envoy became still more insolent; and more than intimated that Washington was a secret enemy to republican freedom, had exceeded

his constitutional power, and was justly obnoxious to the indignation of the people who had clothed him with civil authority. Genet also addressed an insolent letter to the Secretary of State, at this time, denying the right of the President to revoke his recognition and permission to M. Duplaine to act as French Consul in Massachusetts, which had been done on account of his improper conduct.

Genet impugned the authority of the President; and pretended that the state authority of Massachusetts, or the people, had the sole right to dismiss the consul. This minister of France was chargeable with several other similar acts of gross impropriety.

The President, therefore, requested the rulers of France to recall M. Genet. And soon after, his commission was withdrawn, and a successor appointed in his place.* But if more prudent than Genet, he possessed much of his spirit; and like him urged upon the government of the United States the supposed obligations of America to make common cause with France, which it was alleged, was engaged in support of civil liberty and the rights of

man.

The conduct of the British government, at this period, added to the difficulties with which the federal administration was surrounded. The forts on Lake Erie and vicinity, which should have been given up to the United States, according to the treaty of 1783, were still occupied by British forces, though the President had frequently complained of the high impropriety of their retention. Most of the States had also agreed to pay the debts claimed by a class of refugees, as the treaty provided. And as the States were sovereign and independent, when the treaty was made, the federal government had not an entirely undisputed right to enforce payment. It did recommend a compliance with this article of the treaty, and the States very generally admitted the justice of the measure, and made provision to pay the debts claimed. Still the western parts within the United States were occupied by the British, and it now became proper for the President to speak with more emphasis and decision, on the subject, to the Court of England. Another act of the British ministry added to the public reasons for calling on that nation to justify its conduct towards the United States, and a more express demand for justice and good faith. The British government had often advanced

* M. Genet remained in the United States; and afterwards married a daughter of Mr. Clinton, Governor of the State of New York.