Our naval war with France

Front matter

REFERENCE LIBRARY

TITLE.

AUTHOR-

Preface

The spoliation of American commerce by the French, and the resulting hostilities during the last years of the eighteenth century, form the earliest episode of importance in our history under the Federal Constitution. It is, perhaps, natural that they should have been to a great extent overshadowed by the tremendous convulsions of the French Revolution. Yet these hostilities between the United States and France continued in an acute form nearly three years, and amounted to actual war, although war was declared on neither side. Important frigate actions and very many minor contests furnish some of the most stirring exploits in the early history of the navy.

An examination of manuscript sources and contemporary newspapers has brought to light much material never before utilized. For aid in this search, the writer is indebted to the officials of the Navy Department, the Boston Public Library, and the Massachusetts Historical Society, and to many other persons. He is under especial obligations to Professor Edward Channing of Harvard University, and to Charles W. Stewart, Esq., Superintendent of Library and Naval War Records, Navy Department.

Gardner W. Allen.

Boston, March, 1909.

Contents

I. Early Misunderstandings .... 1

II. Negotiations 16

III. French Spoliations 28

Chapter I

The British colonies of North America having declared their independence and being involved in an unequal struggle with the mother-country, the newborn nation appealed to France for aid at an early period of the contest. The American envoys, Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Arthur Lee, were happily able to engage the attention of Louis XVI and his ministers. They, however, cautiously held aloof at first, naturally unwilling to support a rebellion while success appeared almost hopeless ; but the defeat and capture of Burgoyne’s army in 1777 turned the scale in the wavering French councils, and it was decided to espouse the American cause. Accordingly, on the 6th of February, 1778, two treaties between the United States and France were signed at Versailles, — a treaty of amity and commerce and one of alliance.

In their desperate strait the Americans gladly assumed obligations, imposed by these treaties, which in after years proved embarrassing. Without the French alliance and the liberal loans of the king the fortunate outcome of the war must surely have been impossible ; and gratitude to France was a universal sentiment in America. Some of the provisions of a consular convention, concluded between the two nations in 1788, also caused complications a few years later.

In his annual address to Congress, December 8, 1790, President Washington called attention to the disturbed situation of Europe and the necessity for circumspection on the part of the United States.1 Shortly after this, France complained of certain duties imposed by the United States, and this caused discussion as to the interpretation of the treaty of commerce of 1778 ; 2 but no serious trouble arose between the two countries until after the breaking out of the general European war brought on by the French Revolution.

A strict fulfillment of our treaty obligations would have drawn the United States into this war as an ally of France. The question as to whether the treaties had been terminated by the revolution and change of government in France was discussed in Washington’s cabinet, and it was agreed that they had not been. According to the eleventh article of the treaty of alliance the United States guaranteed “ to His Most Christian Majesty the present possessions of the Crown of France in America, as

1 State Papers , vol. i, p. 18. See Appendix I for authorities.

well as those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace.” This referred especially to the French West Indies, and to have complied with the treaty would have involved the United States in the defense of these islands against the attacks of England. In view of the exhausted condition of the country at the time, slowly recovering from the strain of the War for Independence and loaded with debt, to have embarked in another great war would have been suicidal. As a matter of self-preservation it was necessary to maintain strict neutrality. In February, 1793, soon after the execution of Louis XYI, the war in Europe became general, involving besides France the maritime nations of Great Britain, Spain, and Holland.

In order to get the opinions of his cabinet on the situation, the President submitted to the members certain questions, and obtained their unanimous approval of two important measures : that neutrality should be proclaimed, and that the Republic of France should be recognized and a French minister received. April 22, 1793, Washington issued his proclamation, in which it is declared that the United States will “ pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers,” that American citizens engaging in contraband trade will not be protected by the government against punishment or forfeiture, and that the United States will prosecute all persons who violate the law of nations. It was agreed that the word “neutrality”

should be omitted from the text of the proclamation.1 Public sentiment in America at this time was strongly in favor of France, and the proclamation was unpopular, although it was approved by both the Senate and House of Representatives at the next session of Congress.2

Shortly before this, on April 8, there had arrived at Charleston, South Carolina, the newly appointed French minister to the United States, Citizen Genet. In a letter written after his arrival, to the French minister of foreign affairs, Genet attributes to contrary winds his landing at this point instead of proceeding directly to Philadelphia, the seat of government.3 Yet the frigate Embuscade in which he came he sent north at once, and she soon arrived at Philadelphia, while he himself made the journey by land, after a halt of two weeks or more in Charleston. During his stay in the south Genet entered upon a course of conduct certain to embarrass the United States, and from this time forth his behavior indicates a misapprehension of the rights and powers of the American executive under the Constitution, as well as of the duties and limitations of his own office. He had brought with him two hundred and fifty blank commissions, and four of these he now issued to privateers, which were rapidly fitted out and

1 St. Pap. vol. i, p. 44; Washington, vol. xii, pp. 279-282; Jefferson, vol. i, pp. 226, 227, vol. vi, pp. 315, 346.

2 St. Pap. vol. ii, p. 127.

8 American Historical Association, 1903, vol. ii, pp. 211-213 ; for Genet’s instructions from his government, see p. 201.

manned, partly by Frenchmen and partly by Americans.1 They were sent to sea and soon began to return with English prizes, some of them captured within the territorial waters of the United States. The British minister complained of these proceedings, and one of the prizes, taken in Delaware Bay by the Embuscade, was afterwards surrendered by Genet.2

In a letter to Jefferson, the Secretary of State, dated May 27, after his arrival in Philadelphia, Genet vigorously defended his conduct against the complaints of the British minister. In his reply of June 5, in speaking of the arming of privateers in American ports and the enlisting of American citizens for the French service, Jefferson expressed the opinion of the President “ that the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom they are at peace, was incompatible with the territorial sovereignty of the United States ; . . . that it is the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits, and the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring powers ; that the granting military commissions, within the United States, by any other authority than their own, is an infringement on their sovereignty, and particularly so when granted to

1 Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 253, 848.

their own citizens, to lead them to commit acts contrary to the duties they owe their own country.” About the end of May two American citizens who had enlisted on a French privateer were arrested, and were judged by the attorney-general to be indictable for disturbing the peace of the United States.1

Genet was everywhere received with great enthusiasm by the people, and expected the warm support of the government in the cause of France. Consequently the reserve of the administration was disappointing to him. Even Jefferson, who at first regarded him with favor, was soon repelled by his actions. In a letter to Madison, July 7, he says : “Never, in my opinion, was so calamitous an appointment made as that of the present Minister of F. here. Hot headed, all imagination, no judgment, passionate, disrespectful & even indecent towards the P.” 2

In June the sale of prizes brought into Philadelphia by a French vessel was stopped by a United States officer, and another French vessel, which had been fitted out at New York and was on the point of sailing, was detained. These acts aroused a vehement protest from Genet and from the French consuls at Philadelphia and New York. They claimed exclusive jurisdiction in the disposition of prizes, by reason of their consulates having been

1 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 77-86 ; Washington, vol. xii, p. 317 ; Jefferson, vol. vi, pp. 273-276.

2 Jefferson, vol. vi, pp. 323, 338.

constituted complete courts of admiralty by the National Convention of France. This assumption of power by the French government was not recognized by the United States, inasmuch as it had been conferred neither by treaty nor by the consular convention of 1788.1

Another grievance of Genet’s related to the debt of the United States to France, which it had been arranged by convention to pay in installments covering several years. The French government proposed that it should now be paid all at once, the amount to be expended in the United States in the purchase of provisions and naval stores, of which the French were greatly in need. The condition of the national finances at that time, however, was such as to make it impossible for the United States to accept this proposal.2

The guarantee by the United States of the French West Indies made no trouble at this time. Jefferson wrote to Madison, J une 9 : “ Genet mentions freely enough in conversation that France does not wish to involve us in the war by our guarantee.” In fact the fulfillment of this obligation was never insisted upon by France, perhaps partly from motives of policy, not wishing to be pressed too hard herself on the subject of treaty stipulations, but more likely because it was thought that the Americans would

be more useful as neutral carriers of provisions than as belligerent allies unable to keep the sea in the face of England’s navy. However, the matter is occasionally mentioned in the correspondence of the time, and assumed importance in the negotiations of 1800. 1

In spite of the remonstrances of the administration, Genet continued to fit out privateers in American ports. He insisted that the twenty-second article of the treaty of commerce of 1778 expressly conferred the right to arm and fit out vessels of war in our ports and to sell the prizes taken by them, whereas the article simply denied this right to the enemies of either party, leaving open the question as to French and American vessels, for reasons which appeared sufficient at the time. He also claimed that under the seventeenth article2 the United States had no right to detain vessels believed to have been captured within territorial limits. Genet’s conduct at this time brought down upon him a severe reprimand from his own government in a letter, dated July 30, 1793, from the minister of foreign affairs of the French Republic.3

Meanwhile the French were not the only offend-

2 See Appendix II for these articles.

8 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 96, 141, 145 ; Amer. Histor. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, p. 228.

ers, as an English privateer fitting out in Georgia was seized under general orders issued by the President, and Genet complained of certain other English vessels of the same class. He also protested against the seizure by the English, on the high seas, of French goods in American vessels, which he called an insult to the American flag. Yet these seizures were made in accordance with international law. In the case of the United States and France free ships made free goods, according to the twenty-third article of the treaty of commerce, but there was no such agreement between the United States and England. 1

The actions of the French minister and consuls were becoming every day more offensive, and as the United States had no navy it was impossible to check them. In July the British and French ministers were informed by the Secretary of State that the President expected certain vessels of both parties to be held in port until a legal opinion could be obtained on the various points under discussion. Among the French vessels was a prize of the Embuscade, the Little Sarah, which had been fitted out and armed as a privateer at Philadelphia. In spite of the President’s request and Genet’s verbal assurance to Jefferson, the Little Sarah was allowed to sail on a cruise. At last, on August 7, Jefferson informed the minister in a peremptory letter that all prizes

taken by French vessels after June 5, when the position of the administration had been defined, must be restored or the French government would be held responsible for the indemnification of the owners.1

By this time it had become evident that forbearance could no longer serve any good purpose, and on August 1 a cabinet meeting was held “ to consider what was to be done with Mr. Genet,” and it was decided that he must go.2 Accordingly the Secretary of State wrote a long letter, dated August 16, 1793, to Gouverneur Morris, United States minister to France, instructing him to request the recall of Genet. In this letter Jefferson expounds the disputed articles in the treaty of 1778 at great length, and clearly exposes the fallacies of Genet’s interpretation of them. He gives an account of the minister’s proceedings, and quotes several insulting passages from his letters to the administration. A copy of this letter was sent to Genet, and elicited from him a response, in which he denied the right of the President to request his recall and demanded that all the matters in dispute should be referred to Congress as representing the sovereign people in whom alone authority rested ; and he complained that Congress was not called in extraordinary session for this purpose.3 Congress subsequently pro-

2 Jefferson, vol. i, p. 252.

hibited all such transactions as those in which Genet was engaged.1

The course pursued by Genet and by the French consuls encouraged by him was not interrupted by the stand taken by the administration, and on September 7 the Secretary of State issued a circular letter to the consuls, in which he states that having learned that they were exercising admiralty jurisdiction, trying prizes, and enlisting American citizens to serve against nations at peace with the United States, “ I have it in charge, from the President of the United States, to give notice to all consuls and vice-consuls of France in the United States, as I hereby do to you, that if any of them shall commit any of the acts before mentioned, or assume any jurisdiction not expressly given by the convention between France and the United States, the exequatur of the consul so transgressing will be immediately revoked, and his person be submitted to such prosecutions and punishments as the laws may prescribe for the case.” 2 A month later the President revoked the exequatur of the French vice-consul at Boston, who had by force of arms seized a vessel and cargo which had been replevied by the United States marshal.3

In October Genet reported to his government that since his arrival in America he had fitted out

1 Act of June 5, 1794, Statutes at Large , vol. i, p. 381.

2 St. Pap. vol. i, p. 167 ; Claims , p. 284.

8 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 179-192 ; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, p.281 ; Jefferson , vol. vi, p. 401.

fourteen privateers, mounting one hundred and twenty guns in all, which had taken eighty prizes.1

Meanwhile the French minister had entered upon one of the chief objects of his mission, and from this time on was actively engaged in maturing a project which promised yet more trouble for the United States. This was the conquest for France of Florida and Louisiana, at that time dependencies of Spain. Genet organized an expedition in South Carolina and Georgia to be directed against Florida, and another in Kentucky which was to descend the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and attack New Orleans. Jefferson believed that the United States must inevitably become involved in war with Spain.2

The request for Genet’s recall was complied with by the French government, who sent out in his place the Citizen Fauchet, accompanied by three commissioners who were to act with him and whose concurrence was necessary in all measures. They

1 Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 246, 254.

2 St. Pap. vol. i, pp. 443-453, vol. ii, pp. 35-57, vol. x, pp. 346- 349 ; Jefferson, vol. i, pp. 235, 236, vol. vi, p. 316 ; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1896, vol. i, pp. 930-1107 ; 1897, pp. 569-679 ; 1903, vol. ii, pp. 10-12, 199, 205, 219-223, 264-268, 826. An important object of these schemes was to secure a source of food supply for the French West Indies ; the acquisition of Canada was also desired. Genet’s operations were preceded and followed by years of intrigue on the part of France, England, and Spain for the possession of Louisiana and its extension eastward. See Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp 567, 840, 990, 1015, 1038, 1048, 1075, 1097 ; also American Historical Review , April, 1897, April and July, 1898, January and April, 1905.

were a consul-general, a consul for the State of Pennsylvania, and a secretary of legation. A decree of the committee of public safety of France, dated October 11, 1793, required the commissioners to disavow Genet’s conduct and send him back to France, to disarm the privateers fitted out by him, and to dismiss the consuls concerned in any proceedings compromising American neutrality. The commissioners’ instructions repeat the orders of the decree and require them to attempt the negotiation of a new treaty of commerce.1 This was a measure earnestly desired by the French government, which had also been included in Genet’s instructions, had been urged before his time, and continued to be for several years without result.2

Owing to delays the commissioners did not arrive in Philadelphia until February, 1794. Genet, therefore, continued to serve until that time, when his schemes relating to Florida and Louisiana fortunately came to an end, and later gave place to peaceful negotiations. The administration was thus saved the serious embarrassment which threatened its relations with Spain. The United States government, however, declined to arrest Genet, when requested by Fauchet to do so, “ upon reasons of law and magnanimity.” 3 He was allowed to go

1 Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 287-294.

8 Foreign Relations, vol. i, p. 709 ; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 308, 309, 313-316, 345.

free, and, this being the period of the guillotine’s greatest activity, prudently decided not to return to France.

It may be said for Genet that many of his doings were in accordance with his instructions, which, however, were issued before England and Spain had become involved in the war against France and before the American proclamation of neutrality. Moreover, his attempts to carry out his instructions were marked by an entire absence of the circumspection and tact essential in diplomacy, and by a total want of respect for the government to which he was accredited. In the French department of foreign affairs Genet was considered to have had his head turned by the adulation heaped upon him in America by the extreme partisans of France, and was blamed for antagonizing the United States government by persisting in his course against the wishes of the administration.1 Robespierre is quoted as expressing the opinion that a “ man of the name of Genet ... has made use of the most unaccountable means to irritate the American government against us.” 2

While Genet’s republican sentiments are estimable, his sincerity in declaring “ that I love passionately my country, that I adore the cause of liberty, that I am always ready to sacrifice my life to it,” 3

1 Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, p. 283.

2 Washington , vol. xii, p. 403.

8 St. Pap. vol. i, p. 162.

is open to suspicion, from the fact that he never returned to France, even after the perils of the reign of terror were over, but left her to fight her way to liberty without his aid. Having married a daughter of Governor Clinton of New York, he settled in that state, and lived there in peace and quiet during the remainder of his long life.

Chapter II

The administration, while relieved from the embarrassments brought upon it by Genet, was nevertheless for the next four years subjected to the annoyance of incessant complaints on the part of the French department of foreign affairs and its ministers, Fauchet and his successor, Adet. These complaints were made a pretext for hostile acts which bore heavily upon American commerce.

Jefferson, having resigned the office of secretary of state, was succeeded in January, 1794, by Edmund Randolph, and he in turn by Timothy Pickering in December, 17 95. Gouverneur Morris, United States minister to France, whose republican principles were not sufficiently radical to suit the French, was recalled in May, 1794, and James Monroe was sent to take his place. Monroe administered American affairs until the arrival in Paris, in December, 1796, of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who was sent to relieve him. Fauchet, the French minister to the United States, was succeeded in June, 1795, by Adet, who was recalled in October, 1796, and six months later left the affairs of his nation in the hands of the consul-general, Letombe.

In the mean time our relations with England had long been unsatisfactory, as many of the provisions of the treaty of peace of 1783 had not been carried out. Moreover, the European war had subjected American commerce to British as well as to French aggressions. In view of the danger of still further estrangement, it was deemed of vital importance to negotiate a new treaty with Great Britain, and for this purpose John Jay was sent to England in April, 1794. His mission was so far successful that a treaty was concluded November 19, which was finally proclaimed in February, 1796. This treaty was far from satisfactory ; it was sharply and justly criticised at the time, and has been ever since. Yet it relieved some of the most pressing matters in dispute, contained the most favorable terms that England could possibly have been induced to yield at that time, and with little doubt prevented war between the two countries. It secured compensation for injuries already inflicted upon American commerce, which was now, for a time at least, free from spoliation at the hands of British cruisers. Jay was unable to provide in the treaty for the protection of American seamen against impressment into the British naval service. This practice, which ultimately led to war between the two nations, was just beginning at this time.

After Genet’s recall the complaints of France against the United States continued, but at first grew less acrimonious, and for a time better feeling prevailed between the two governments. Then with the promulgation of J ay’s treaty with England conditions changed again for the worse. This treaty conflicted in some of its provisions with the treaties of 1778 with France, and for this reason it was very offensive to the French, who, moreover, were irritated that the Americans should have been willing to establish amicable relations with their old enemies. The sources of French discontent, repeatedly urged in the course of the correspondence between the two republics from 1794 to 1798, may be summarized under two heads : first, complaints based on alleged inexecution of the treaties of 1778 and the convention of 1788; and second, those arising from provisions of the late treaty with England supposed to be unfriendly to France or prejudicial to her interests.1

Under the first head the French complained that United States courts took cognizance of prizes brought into American ports by French cruisers and privateers ; but it was shown that in every case alleged there was evidence that the prize had been taken in American territorial waters or by a privateer fitted out in an American port. A case which brought forth loud and long-continued protests from the French was that of the Cassius, which had been originally armed in Philadelphia, had sailed under another name, refitted in the West

1 St. Pap. vol. ii, pp. 113-499, vol. iii, pp. 5-36, vol. iv, pp. 93- 137. See, also, report of Adet, March 21, 1796, to the French minister of foreign affairs, on Franco- American relations since 1793, Amer. Hist. Assoc, vol. ii, pp. 846-881.

Indies, and then cruised under command of an American citizen. She brought a prize into Philadelphia, and was there seized and her captain arrested. The Vengeance, another privateer that attracted especial attention, was held, tried, and finally released.1 It was charged, moreover, that British vessels of war having taken prizes were admitted, in some cases with their prizes, into American ports, in contravention of the seventeenth article of the treaty of commerce of 1778. The wording of this article 2 is not clear, and there was a difference of opinion as to its precise meaning, the French insisting that all war vessels which had ever taken prizes from them must be kept out, while the American interpretation included only vessels attempting to bring in prizes. In any event, the article stipulated merely that proper measures should be taken to cause such vessels to retire, but it was not within the power of the United States government, with no navy, to force compliance.3

Furthermore, the French declared that the ninth and twelfth articles 4 of the consular convention of 1788, granting jurisdiction to consuls in disputes between their own citizens and also the right to

2 See Appendix II.

4 See Appendix II.

recover deserters from their vessels, had not been effectively executed. In respect to the latter, they complained that American judges refused to issue warrants for the apprehension of deserters until furnished with the original registers of the vessels concerned ; this was in accordance with a strict construction of the wording of article nine. As to jurisdiction, the consuls claimed more than the convention allowed or than was practicable.1

Under the second head, relating to the treaty with England, the main French grievance was that the list of contraband was increased, whereas it should have been diminished, in accordance with the liberal principles of the armed neutrality of European powers during the American Revolution. This was a reform earnestly desired by the United States, and which Jay had vainly endeavored to get incorporated into the treaty. As it was, the list of contraband adopted was precisely that recognized by the law of nations, and it was stipulated that when provisions were seized they should be paid for. Another charge was that Jay’s treaty prevented the French from selling their prizes in American ports, as they had formerly done and claimed the right to do under their treaty ; but the Secretary of State showed clearly that it was not a right, but a privilege which had been temporarily accorded to them. They had the advantage of

the English, however, where the treaties conflicted, by reason of priority. Nevertheless, it cannot be doubted that Jay’s treaty was detrimental to France. Poor crops at home made her dependent upon America for food, and the seizure of provisions by the English worked great hardship. The lack of accessible ports for refitting and the disposal of prizes was also severely felt by the French. Their complaints, therefore, were natural and not unreasonable.1

A complaint of a more special and temporary nature related to an outrage committed against the French minister, Fauchet, at the conclusion of his mission in the United States. The sloop in which he sailed for Newport, whence he was to take his homeward passage, was held up off that port, August 1, 1795, by the British frigate Africa; but Fauchet had previously landed at Stonington with his papers. The English captain, however, caused the minister’s baggage on the sloop to be searched, and also sent an insulting letter to the governor of Rhode Island by the British vice-consul. For this violation of American neutrality and of the law of nations, the President revoked the exequatur of the consul, ordered the Africa away from Newport, and demanded

1 St. Pap. yoI. ii, pp. 115-126, 185, 206-210, 253-273, 444- 472, 477-488, vol. iv, pp. 43-61, 66-70, 98, 99, 117-124; Claims, p. 251; Amer. Hist. Assoc. 1903, vol. ii, pp. 747, 824, 902, 911, 934, 1006, 1066, and Index for further references to Jay’s mission and treaty. On the difficulties of France in obtaining food and supplies, see Ibid. pp. 8, 305, 319, 526-529 ; Mahan, ch. v.

reparation on the part of the British government. 1

Such were the causes of the chronic irritation characterizing the attitude of France towards the United States, which led to the enactment by the French government of a series of harsh decrees that dealt a severe blow at American commerce.