XVI. to this country, and the first French minister recognised by the Federal Government. He remained till 1790, and was succeeded by Colonel Ternan,* as a Minister Plenipotentiary. Mr. Short was left at Paris in charge of the affairs of the legation; we extract a paragraph from a letter to him, written by Mr. Jefferson soon after his return.

"NEW-YORK, July 7, 1790.

"I mentioned that being about to immerge into the forests of Albemarle, where I should hear nothing of what was passing in the world, I should not write to you again, till I should emerge. I mentioned, too, the footing on which stood the proposal for my translation to a new office-it was not till the middle of February, that a second letter from the President determined me to accept it.

in the mean time we have been very near losing the Presi dent; he was taken with a peripneumony, and on the 5th day he was pronounced by two of the three physicians present to be in the act of death-a successful effort of nature, however, relieved him and us. You cannot conceive the public alarm on this occasionit proves how much depends on his life."

The Federal Government, just after its organization, was embarrassed by a difficult and perplexing negotiation. America had scarcely achieved its own independence when a revolution began in France. An uncommonly strong and universal sympathy was immediately awakened in the people of the United States. The great æras of that revolution were celebrated in this country by civic feasts, where the red cap of liberty was passed from head to head,--the well known airs of Ca ira, Les Marseillais and La Carmagnole were sung in the theatres, streets, and on public occasions--the tri-coloured cockade was worn by most of the citizens--the "taking of the Bastille," the "declaration of the rights of man," and "the citizen," the "abolition of feudal rights" and of "honorary distinctions," the "confederation of the French," were commemorated with the roasting of oxen, and other tokens of joy. In the language of the day, the

* We find this name in the Moniteur (A. 1. No. 66) written, Ternant.

American people were disposed to "fraternize" with the French nation. At the moment of the greatest exaltation and most heated state of the public mind, a war broke out between France and England; and though actual hostilities were first committed by the French, the conduct of Great Britain was viewed with deep sensibility and almost general indignation in America.

In the course of this business there arose a question of unusual delicacy and difficulty: not only whether a minister should be received at all from the French Republic, but whether he should be received unconditionally. It was the first time these questions had been submitted to the consideration of the administration, and they were now presented under circumstances of peculiar embarrassment. The government, hardly established, found itself under the necessity of deciding upon the claims of a new state, erected from the ruins of one of the most powerful nations of Europe. No one doubted but that the ancient government of the Bourbons was for the moment overthrown-the king in the Temple, a state prisoner, the noblesse and clergy emigrated, the army disorganized and succeeded by the national guard, the Austrians and Prussians expelled, or withdrawn beyond the Rhine, and the National Convention, having met in September 1792, decreed the abolition of royalty and the foundation of the Republic. It was, also, quite obvious, that the progress of the Revolution had been regular and systematic. The crimes and bloody deeds of that period do not admit of defence, but they were susceptible, at the time, of an explanation. No great and sudden changes in a highly civilized condition of society take place without violence; and when every sort of government, every description of police or authority was obliterated, atrocities could not excite much astonishment in a city of the size of Paris, already too well known in history by one of the most sanguinary transactions of which we have any record. The death of the King, whatever feelings of horror and indignation it might awaken, was considered by many as a political event; even, indeed, by those eminent men, whose proceedings in 37

VOL. I.

the Old Jewry have only been rescued, by the eloquence of Mr. Burke, from that common and wide grave, into which the numberless writings and dissertations on the French Revolution have fallen. It was one more sacrifice, as Louis himself often said, to the Revolution. Every step, deep in gore as they certainly were, the French people seemed to gain something on the score of liberty. Through the different stages of the States General, the union of the three orders, the National Constituent Assembly, the Legislative Assembly, and the National Convention, when the Republic was decreed, the freedom of the citizen was apparently making a conquest over the oppressions and abuses of the ancient and royal government. It seems, therefore, just to remark, that if the Republic was not established, at least the monarchy was overthrown. There was, also, a strong feeling of confidence in America that the Revolution would succeed; not only, because it was the general and most ardent hope and wish of the people, but the complete success of their own undertaking naturally led them to believe, that the efforts of a nation in the same cause would be attended with results equally fortunate.

We find the Cabinet determined, with an unanimous voice, to receive the French Minister, but a difference of opinion appears to have existed, as it respects the conditions, with which this act should be accompanied. Louis XVI. had personally been a constant and great friend and benefactor to America. His portrait and that of the queen, a present to the Congress of the Confederation, for a long time hung in a conspicuous place in the hall of that assembly. The first celebrated treaty of alliance and commerce had been concluded and signed in his name, and by his ministers, and the Republic, whose representative now presented himself to the notice of the people and the administration, was founded in the blood and on the wrecks of the Bourbon family. Again, the royal government was, still, nominally in existence; recognised by all the principal powers of Europe; and exercised by a regency at Coblentz on the Rhine, in the name of Louis XVI., while he lived, and at his death,

the Dauphin, his son, then a prisoner in the Temple, was immediately proclaimed by the title of Louis XVII. A civil war, limited in extent, though remarkably destructive of life, also raged with uncommon fury in the Bocage or La Vendée. This was the situation of things. The Republic, on one side, actually standing in possession of the authority and the territory belonging to the French nation; with a slight probability, indeed, on the other, of a restoration of the royal government. It could not, therefore, be considered a departure from the laws of nations to receive the French Minister; and this the President resolved to do, without any qualifying or explanatory act.

Louis XIV., by acknowledging the Pretender, gave great offence to the English Government; and it was alleged to be one of the principal causes of the war that England declared at the time against France. The subject of recognising new governments has been much discussed, but no precise rules have been laid down for the regulation of states in this particular. Writers place, perhaps, more stress upon the circumstance of actual possession than any other. Foreign nations have clearly no right to interfere in the domestic concerns of other countries; but when one party is obviously master of the power and territory, the neutral state is fully warranted in acknowledging it. And if the first party should ultimately be overthrown and expelled, the successful one would not have just cause of complaint against the neutral. The reason of this rule is apparent. It is highly desirable that the intercourse of civilized nations should be maintained, and the impropriety, nay, the impossibility of the case precludes a close investigation into the domestic affairs of foreign states.

M. Genet, appointed by the Executive Council, Minister to the United States, in January 1793, arrived in this country, in April of the same year, in the Ambuscade frigate. He landed in Charleston, South Carolina, and was received with marks of respect, attention and enthusiasm. While at Charleston, M. Genet authorized different persons to fit and arm vessels, to enlist men in that port, and gave commis

sions to cruise, and commit hostilities upon nations, with whom the United States were at peace, the port of Charleston being particularly convenient for the purpose of molesting the English West India trade. Captures, made by those vessels, were soon brought in; and the French Consuls began, at once, under the authority of the Minister, to try, condemn, and authorize their sale. M. Genet was not at this time accredited as a foreign Minister by the Government of this country, and actually did not arrive at the seat of government, Philadelphia, till the middle of May. His progress through the country, from Charleston, was attended with every circumstance that could manifest the very deep interest the people took in the French Revolution, and the satisfaction with which a representative from that republic was received in the United States. The Minister must have been well satisfied, that the nation were exceedingly desirous of a union with France; and were quite prepared to enter, with that country, into a war against the monarchies of Europe. These sentiments soon became deeply impressed upon the mind of M. Genet, a man, obviously, of a sanguine temperament, heated and excited by the passions and politics of the times.

It is quite in course here to mention a circumstance, that first appears to have allayed the fever heat of the public pulse; to have awakened the earliest feelings of distrust in the political success of the French. We allude to the death of the King, which happened about this period, and whose willingness to engage in our Revolution was undoubtedly remembered with gratitude. In the outset, the Americans beheld the French revolution with a feeling of delight and admiration, unmingled with that intense anxiety, and often extreme despondency, with which they watched the progress of their own. But, left free to examine and deliberate, the atrocities that accompanied it, and that seemed to accumulate, as the abuses, against which they were levelled, disappeared, produced in a short time, a slow, but unfailing reaction in the public mind. The execution of the king, without doubt, weakened the party of the National Conven