Republicans and later as Democrats. By their opponents I 79 2 they were called Anti-federalists, but neither the Anti-federalists of this period nor their opponents, the Federalists, are to be confused with the parties that went by these names during the struggle over the adoption of the constitution. The new Anti-federalist party probably contained a majority of the old party of that name, but it also contained James Madison and many others who had been supporters of the constitution. On the other hand, some of the old Anti-federalists, such as Patrick Henry, became Federalists. In like manner, it should be remembered that the Republican party that elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860 is not the original party of that name.

In the election of the second congress, the new party The Election lines had not been closely drawn as they were in the of 1792 more important election of two years later. By 1792, the Republican party had become so strong that the Federalists felt anxiety as to the result. Washington had frequently expressed a desire not to serve another term and the Federalists feared that no other man whom they could put up could win. But, through the influence of his friends including Jefferson and Madison themselves, Washington reconsidered his determination. The Republicans gave him their support and the electoral vote for him was again unanimous. For vice-president the Republicans brought forward George Clinton as a candidate against John Adams; Adams was reëlected by seventyseven electoral votes to Clinton's fifty. The Republicans, however, elected a majority of the members of the house of representatives. It was the beginning of the end for the Federalists.

A Friendly
Delusion

Sympathy and
Enthusiasm

December,

1792

CHAPTER V

GENET AND NEUTRALITY

H

ITHERTO Washington and his advisers had devoted most of their attention to the internal affairs of the country and to getting the new governmental system into good working order. But the time was at hand when the relations of the United States with foreign powers was to involve burning questions and require skilful management to keep the young republic out of the dangerous whirlpool of war created by the French revolution, the progress of which had been watched with great interest. Every one felt that France was now to gain all the blessing of free government with which America was familiar. Our glorious example, it was clear, was destined to change the world, and monarchies and despotisms were to disappear." In their gratitude and sympathy, Americans forgot the inherent differences between French and English temperaments; "the dusty tramp of liberty's columns through the streets of Paris seemed part of the world's procession for human rights."

66

When that revolution became more violent, the unanimity of American applause was broken. But the residual enthusiasm was great and, when news came that Austrian and Prussian troops had invaded France for the purpose of restoring Louis XVI. to his old authority, sympathy with France rose to fever heat. When came tidings that the allies had been driven back at Valmy and that the convention had proclaimed a French republic, the rejoicing was tremendous. At Philadelphia,

church bells were rung, shops were shut, and the people 1 7 9 2 "hastened into the streets to talk of nothing but Dumour- 1793 iez and Thomas Paine and the great French victories. When night came the inns and taverns were full of tipsy revellers singing and shouting and drinking toasts" and a few jolly gentlemen who knew a little French sang "Ça Ira." At New York, a whole day was given over to feasting, ringing of bells, and firing of cannons; at Boston the birth of the new republic and the expulsion of her invaders were celebrated with a grand "civic feast." Men and women seemed to have gone mad with enthusiasm. Almost every house had its liberty cap; almost every hat bore a cockade. As titles of respect, "Mr." and "The Honourable" were temporarily laid upon the shelf as relics of aristocracy, and men addressed their neighbors as "Citizen" this and that. There were some who scoffed at such behavior, but the craze swept over the country like a pestilence. Von Holst says that "the more attentively the legislators of France listened to Danton's voice of thunder and Marat's fierce cry for blood, the more boldly did demagogism in its most repulsive form rage in the United States."

For three months, not a vessel from England or France entered New York harbor and rumors that came by the way of Louisiana and the West Indies was the nearest approach to European tidings. Early in April, a British packet arrived with startling news

. . Blasphemy's loud scream

With that sweet music of deliverance strove,
And all the fierce and drunken passions wove
A dance more wild than e'er was maniac's dream.

The king who had sent us aid
had been tried and guillotined,
the much loved Lafayette had
been forced to flee, and England
and Spain had joined in the

Louis XVI.

1 7 9 3 struggle against France. The Republicans at once declared for America's late ally and the extremists became more violent than ever. The Federalists were much inclined to support England and thoughtful men of both parties saw great danger in the situation.

Washington Hastens to the Front

April 18

Washington's

Washington at once hastened from Mount Vernon to Philadelphia to wrestle with his difficult problem. By the treaties of 1778 the United States was bound to give the privileges of its ports to prizes captured by French privateers and to forbid such privileges to any nation at war with France, while each of the contracting powers guaranteed the American possessions of the other. Neither of the treaties had been abrogated; if the United States observed their terms, she would certainly be drawn into On the day after his arrival, Washington sent to the members of his cabinet a set of thirteen questions concerning the proper attitude of the government in the crisis. Among them were the following: "Shall a proclamation issue for the purpose of preventing interferences of the citizens of the United States in the war between Great Britain &c.?" "Shall it contain a declaration of neutrality or not?" "What shall it contain?" "Shall a minister from the Republic of France be received?" "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 hold them suspended till the government of France shall be established?" "If they have an option, would it be a breach of neutrality to consider the treaties still in operation?" "Does the war in which France is engaged appear to be offensive or defensive on her part? Or of a mixed character?" "If of a mixed and equivocal character, does the guarantee in any event apply to such a war?"

These questions had been drawn up by Hamilton Foreign Policy whose sympathies were with England. From their tenor it is easy to see that he was anxious to find a loophole by which the United States might avoid the obligations of the treaty. Washington and Jefferson also were

anxious to keep the United States out of the conflict, 1 7 9 3 although Jefferson was willing to aid France as far as was possible without being drawn into the war. Washington had long been of the opinion that the proper policy for the United States was to hold aloof from the affairs of the Old World. Even before he became president he had written to Sir Edward Newenham: "I hope the United States of America will be able to keep disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and wars; and that before long they will, by the adoption of a good national government, have become respectable in the eyes of the world, so that none of those who hold possessions in the New World or the West Indies, shall presume to treat them with insult or contempt. It should be the policy of the United States to administer to their wants without being engaged in their quarrels. And it is not in the power of the proudest and most polite people on earth to prevent us from becoming a great, respectable, and a commercial nation if we shall continue united and faithful to ourselves."

the Minister from France

In the cabinet meeting held on the nineteenth, senti- The Status of ment was divided, Hamilton and Knox manifesting British sympathies while Jefferson and Randolph inclined the other way. All agreed that a proclamation of neutrality should be issued and that a French minister should be received, but there was a difference of opinion as to how he should be received; Hamilton and Knox favored reservation and qualification. As to the treaties, Hamilton held that, as they had been made with the French king and as the king had been overthrown, they were not binding. Both he and Knox argued that the subject should be reserved for future consideration and that the minister, when he arrived, should be so informed "lest silence on the point should occasion misconstruction."

Proclamation

The proclamation was drawn by Randolph and issued The under date of the twenty-second of April. It did not contain the word "neutrality," but it warned citizens of the United States to abstain from acts of hostility toward any of the warring powers. The document was unsatis