CHAPTER XXXVI

FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1793-1800

394. The French Revolution began one week after Washington became President. That tremendous movement soon involved all Europe in war; and the new-born American nation had only four years of quiet, to arrange its pressing affairs, before it was drawn into serious foreign complications. Those complications absorbed much American energy, and vitally affected American development for twenty years, and then closed with a great war. This chapter is concerned with them during the Federalist period, to 1801.

I. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE TO 1795

395. Popular sympathy went out enthusiastically to the French Republic in its desperate struggle against the "coalized despots" of Europe. From one end of America to the other, there burst forth a fine frenzy for "Democratic clubs" and other imitations of new French customs; and loud demands were voiced that we return to France, in her need, the aid we had received from her in our own Revolution.

396. Washington steadfastly withstood this popular movement. On receiving news of war between France and England, in the spring of 1793, he called the first Cabinet meeting (§ 370), and, with the unanimous approval of that body, decided upon his famous "Neutrality Proclamation."

The President had no authority to fix the policy of the nation. That belongs to Congress. Accordingly, the proclamation did not say that the United States would remain neutral. It did call the attention of our citizens to their duties while we were

neutral, and it dwelt effectively upon the advantages of neutrality. It was really an impressive argument for that policy. For the moment, its chief result seemed to be a storm of violent abuse directed at Washington.

397. The new French minister, "Citizen” Genêt, tried to use our ports for French privateers as if America had been an ally of France in the war; and, in such attempts to embroil us with England, he had much popular sympathy. Soon, however, Genêt overreached himself. When checked by our government in his efforts to disregard our neutrality, he threatened to appeal from the government to the people. Any such action by the representative of a foreign power is the extreme of insolence. Washington promptly demanded that France recall its minister, and the people generally supported this defense of American dignity.

398. Then public opinion began overwhelmingly to approve Washington's stately recommendation for neutrality in the great proclamation. That policy was established, by the informal mandate of the nation, and America was started upon a century-long period of separation from Old-World quarrels. In Washington's day such separation was especially wholesome, because we could then enter European politics only as a tail to the French or English kite.

II. RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND

399. Our troubles with England concerned (1) the unfulfilled treaty of 1783 (§ 290); (2) our wish to trade with the British West Indies - from which England's navigation acts now shut us out; and (3) conflicting views of international law as to

1

1 International law is not law, but custom which has won general approval, and which defines how nations are expected to act toward one another under given conditions. This body of custom has grown more definite, and has changed greatly, during the past century; but many of the points then in dispute between England and America are still unsettled. On the whole, however, America stood for an advanced interpretation, and her contentions have won ground, to the gain of ourselves and the world.

§ 401]

TROUBLES WITH ENGLAND

rights of neutral trade during the European war.

337

The first

two points were of merely temporary interest. Some things about the third matter are still vital.

400. The English navy was trying to conquer France by shutting off foreign commerce. England looked upon our trade with France as an aid to the military resistance of that power. We regarded England's restrictions upon that trade as interference with neutral rights. Two of the points in dispute called for special notice.

a. France began (May, 1793) seizing American ships bound to England with foodstuffs, on the ground that such cargo was "contraband." England was soon absolute mistress of the seas, and she gladly followed this example. She offered payment to the American owners, it is true, for the food she seized; but we held that only military supplies were contraband.'

b. England captured neutral vessels bound even to an unblockaded port, if they carried goods belonging to citizens of a country with which she was at war. America claimed, "Free ships make free goods." 2

401. More serious, to our eyes to-day, was the seizure of American seamen, though at the time it awoke far less protest than the seizure of property. England had always recruited sailors for her men-of-war by the press gang; and so essential was the war navy - English courts had always refused to interfere. Great numbers of British seamen had recently deserted to American merchant ships to get better wages and

1 The Russian-Japanese War and still more the present European War (1916) prove that this is still a vexed question. Food or clothing for an army, or for a besieged town, has always come under the head of military supplies. These recent wars show that whole provinces, and whole countries, may be "besieged," and that almost any sort of goods may become "military supplies."

2 This maxim had been set up by Holland in 1650, and agreed to by northern European nations in 1780, except for England's opposition. War on land has long recognized, in considerable degree, that private property should be taken by a hostile army only as a necessary war measure, not merely for plunder. At sea, this civilizing doctrine has made slower progress, and piratical customs have continued.

better treatment there. These deserters were often protected by fraudulent papers of "citizenship," easily secured in American ports. English vessels claimed the right to search American ships and to take back such sailors. Soon the practice was extended to the impressment of other British subjects found there, and even to those who had been legally "naturalized " by American law. Worse still, in irritation at the American encouragement to their deserters, English officers sometimes impressed born Americans, either by mistake or by set purpose.

402. The "right of search "exists. In time of war, a war vessel of either power may stop and search a neutral trading vessel to find out (1) whether it really is a neutral vessel as its flag proclaims; (2) whether it is bound for any blockaded port; (3) whether it carries "contraband." If "strong presumption" is found against the vessel on any of these points, it may be carried to a “prize court" for trial; and if there adjudged guilty, it becomes "lawful prize." But no "right of search" applies to seizing people; and the "right" must always be exercised with discretion and without unduly embarrassing neutral trade.

403. All England's invasions of neutral rights were attempted by other European belligerents also; but England's navy was the only one able to injure us seriously. As scores of American vessels with valuable cargoes were swept into British prize courts, American feeling rose to war heat. In the spring of 1794 Congress laid a temporary embargo upon all American shipping (that it might not be caught at sea, without warning, by the expected war), and threatened to seize all moneys in America due British creditors, to offset British seizures of American ships. This would have meant war.

404. That disaster was averted only by the calm resolution of Washington. He appointed John Jay special envoy to negotiate with England; and in November, 1794, "Jay's Treaty" was ready for ratification. By its terms, impressment was not mentioned nor blockade defined. England had her way, too, as

1 England denied the right of an Englishman to change his allegiance :"Once an Englishman, always an Englishman." The American contention of a man's right to change his citizenship by "naturalization" has prevailed.

§ 406]

THE JAY TREATY OF 1794

339 to contraband and neutral ships; but she agreed to vacate the Northwest posts, to open to American trade her West India ports under certain restrictions,' and to pay American citizens for recent seizures of ships and goods. The American government dropped the claim for compensation for the deported Negroes, and promised to pay the British creditors who had not been able to collect pre-Revolutionary debts.

It took all Washington's influence to get the treaty ratified in the Senate. Among the people, excitement and opposition were intense. Jay was burned in effigy. Hamilton was stoned from a public platform where he advocated ratification. Washington himself once more was heaped with vituperation. The Virginia legislature voted down a resolution expressing trust in her greatest son, and the national House of Representatives struck out the customary words" undiminished confidence" from an address to him.

405. The treaty certainly left much to be desired; but at worst it was well worth while. America secured undisputed possession of her full territory and satisfaction for commercial injuries. For other matters, we gained what we needed most -time. To our new and unprepared nation, war at that moment would have been ruin. The treaty permitted an honorable escape. Moreover, one feature of the treaty was a distinct step onward for civilization. It provided for the first instance of international arbitration in the modern sense (§ 406).

406. The treaty of 1783 had named the St. Croix River as the boundary of Maine from the sea to the highlands. But

1 England offered to open the West India ports to American trade, but only to small coasting vessels, and upon condition that America promise for twelve years not to export to any part of the world molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, or cotton. The English intention, probably, was simply to maintain her navigation system with regard to other countries, by making sure that American vessels, admitted to the Island ports, should not carry the products of those colonies to other parts of the world as well as to the United States, and that such products, after being brought to the United States, should not be reëxported. Jay seems to have been ignorant that these restrictions would hamper American commerce. The twelfth article of the treaty, containing this trade provision, was cut out by the Senate before ratification.