CHAPTER XV.

MONROE IN FRANCE.

OSEPH FAUCHET, who succeeded Genet as

JOSEPH minister from France to this country, comported

himself with comparative propriety. He did, indeed, take sharp issue with the United States in its interpretation of the treaty of 1778. But it is diffi

Fauchet on the treaty of 1778.

cult not to believe that in this instance France had a good case. The 19th article

of that treaty said that no shelter should be given in the ports of the United States or France "to such ships as shall have made prizes of the subjects, people, or property of either of the parties." The United States construed the clause as though it read, "To such ships as shall bring in their prizes." Fauchet insisted on construing it literally, and also urged that "capturing vessels" meant the whole fleet, and not the particular vessels that had made the capture.

But Adet, who succeeded Fauchet, in the summer of 1795, did not conduct himself with so much moderation. In a letter written shortly after his arrival Adet's letter to in this country (September 28, 1795), he complained bitterly that the United States did not take effective measures to prevent England from seizing American vessels laden with provisions for the

Pickering.

ports of France. He quoted to Timothy Pickering, who had succeeded Edmund Randolph, as Secretary of State, the following passage in a letter from Jefferson to Pinckney, September 7, 1793: "This act, too, tends directly to withdraw us from the state of peace in which we are wishing to remain. It is an essential character of neutrality to furnish no aids (not stipulated by treaty) to one party which we are not equally ready to furnish to the other. If we permit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we are equally bound to permit it to France. To restrain it would be a partiality which might lead to war with France. And between restraining it ourselves, and permitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully is no difference. She would consider this as a mere pretext of which she would not be the dupe and on what honorable ground could we otherwise explain it? Thus we should see ourselves plunged by this unauthorized act of Great Britain, into a war with which we meddle not and which we wish to avoid, if justice to all parties and from all parties will enable us to avoid it." And then he ventured to characterize the conduct of the United States in the following language: "It cannot, therefore, be doubted that the French Republic has a right to complain if the American government suffers the English to interrupt the commercial relations which exist between her and the United States; if, by a perfidious condescension, it permitted the English to violate a right, which it ought to defend for its honor

and its interest; if, under the cloak of neutrality, it presented to England a poignard to cut the throat of its faithful ally; if, in fine, participating in the tyrannical and homicidal rage of Great Britain, it concurred to plunge the French people into the horrors of famine."

Attempts to in

idential elec

tion.

But notwitstanding the insolent tone of this letter, he had profited by Genet's experience. He had learned that he could not drive the American govfluence the pres- ernment out of the path it wished to pursue, and that the people could not be alienated from the government they had chosen. He, therefore, resolved to employ different measures to reach the same end. He resolved to take a hand in the presidential election. His plan was to frighten the people with the danger of a war with France, and then tell them that the way to avert it was to elect Jefferson president. Accordingly, he wrote letter after letter to the American Secretary of State, and sent at the same time a copy to be published in the Democratic Aurora. In the space of three weeks, four of his articles appeared in that paper, the manifest object of which was to influence the presidential election. The first reported a decree of the French government to the effect that France would treat the ships of neutrals in precisely the same way in which they permitted themselves to be treated by England. In other words, if the Americans permitted England to search, capture, and confiscate their ships, France would also search, capture, and confiscate their

ships. The fourth, after speaking of his government as "terrible to its enemies but generous to its allies," demanded the fulfillment of the treaty to which the United States owed their existence as a nation, and closed with praising the sentiments of Jefferson.

In the meantime, Monroe was perpetrating a series of diplomatic feats in France almost as remarkable as those of which Genet had been guilty in this country, although of quite a different character.

erneur Morris,

He had gone to France as minister in 1794 Recall of Gouvto take the place of Gouverneur Morris, who had not been satisfactory to the French revolutionists because of his evident lack of sympathy with their excesses. To Gouverneur Morris, deeds had seemed of more importance than words, and the cloak of "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality" which the French revolution had thrown around its odious and blood-thirsty despotism had not to his mind changed its character. But Monroe was of a different temperament. He was an extreme sympathizer with France. He had opposed Jay's mission, and he went to France, as his whole

career there shows, not so much to repre- Monroe's object. sent the United States in that country, as

to promote what seemed to him the cause of the people against the "conspiracy of kings;" and to promote the cause of the people was, in his view, to bring the United States and France into the closest possible relations. In speaking of Genet, Hildreth says, he was filled with "an

enthusiasm aggravated to the highest pitch by the union of the kings and aristocracies of Europe against the French Republic, and potent enough to drive even wise men into madness.' Whoever wishes to understand that sentence should study Monroe's career in France.

His address to the National Convention.

He had been authorized by his instructions to declare the sincere wishes of the President and the people for the success of the French Revolution, and was told that while he went to France to strengthen our friendship with that country, he was not to betray the dignity of the United States, or show the most remote mark of undue complaisance. Shortly after his arrival in Paris, he wrote a letter to the French National Convention, requesting them to fix the day and prescribe the mode by which he should be acknowledged as the representative "of their ally and sister Republic." Two days later, he presented a florid address in the hall of the National Convention. Forgetting as Randolph wrote him, in reply to the letter in which he gave an account of this, the neutrality of the United States, the jealousy of allied powers, the sound reasons England had for suspecting the American people of breaches of faith in favor of the French, the desirability of doing nothing to excite unnecessary suspicion, he opened his heart as though private affections and opinions were the only points to be considered. He told the government of the most absolute despotism of modern times, a despotism as absolute as any known to history, that it