Edmund Genet and the "Conspiracy" to Destroy America

One of the few consistent truths throughout the course of United States history has been that Americans of all generations have believed that conspiracies to thwart their freedom lurk around every corner and under every rock. Whether it takes the form of Catholic incursion or McCarthy communist witch hunts, Americans have always been on the lookout for the next big threat to our seemingly fragile republic.

And our founding generation was no different.

During the early years of the new American republic, scandals and conspiracies against the infant republic were a regular fixture in the halls of government. Divisions between those who supported a strong federal government (the Federalists) and those for limited centralized power (the Democratic-Republicans) created a rift in the political arena that seemed to grow with each passing day. Issues such as the Jay Treaty, which created an economic alliance with Britain over France, had caused an uproar amongst Democratic-republicans that only intensified with the later election of Federalist John Adams. For Democratic-republican leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the cause of France was the cause of America. They passionately believed that America needed to throw its weight behind the French cause, which was rapidly moving toward revolution itself. In their minds, to deny the French would be treasonous against the very ideals of the American Revolution itself. And as war between England and France continued to become more of a reality, America's economic and political preference with the British made relations with the French extremely tense.

The arrival of Edmond Genet as French ambassador to the United States in 1793 only intensified the ongoing political battle. Genet had been sent to America in an effort to garner support for the French cause. Democratic-republicans like Jefferson were initially ecstatic over Genet's arrival. As Gordon Wood points out in his book, Empire of Liberty:

He [Genet] landed in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1793, and in his month long journey north to Philadelphia he was everywhere greeted with warmth and enthusiasm. Americans sang "Marseillaise," waved the French revolutionary flag, and passed liberty caps around. Some Federalists thought the French Revolution was being brought to America. Later in his life John Adams still vividly recalled the frenzied atmosphere of "Terrorism, excited by Genet," that ran through the nation's capital in the late spring of 1793. "Ten thousand People in the Streets of Philadelphia, day after day, threatened to drag Washington out of his office and effect Revolution in the Government, or compel it to declare War in favour of the French Revolution, and against England" (185-186).

Perhaps nobody was as excited to see Edmund Genet as was Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to his friend James Madison, Jefferson attacked President Washington's quest for neutrality, stating that Genet's intentions (and the larger French intentions) were as pure as the driven snow:

"It is impossible for anything to be more affectionate, more magnanimous, than the purpose of Genet's mission. He [Genet] wishes to do nothing but what is for our own good and we should do all in our power to promote it." (Jefferson to Madison, May 19, 1793).

For Federalist leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Genet's arrival was not met with the pomp and circumstance afforded it by the Democratic-republicans by instead with a deep sense of concern. As Ron Chernow points out in his autobiography on Hamilton:

Where others saw camaraderie and high spirits, Hamilton detected an embryonic plot to subvert American foreign policy. The organizers of Genet's reception "were the same men who have been uniformly the enemies and the disturbers of the government of the U[nited] States."

[...]

In private talks with George Hammond, Hamilton promised that he would vigorously contest efforts to lure America into war alongside France. He also predicted that the United States would extend no large advances to the revolutionary government, and he delayed debt payments owed to France. In a dispatch to London, Hammond noted that Hamilton would defend American nutrality because "any event which might endanger the external tranquility of the United States would be as fatal to the systems he has formed for the benefit of his country as to his...personal reputation and...his...ambition." (Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 439).

And Hamilton wasn't alone in his disdain for the French ambassador. After observing Genet's antics, President George Washington commented:

"Is the Minister of the French Republic to set the Acts of his Government at defiance, with impunity? and then threaten the Executive with an appeal to the People? What must the world think of such conduct, and the Government of the U. States in submitting to it?"(Elkins and McKitrick, Age of Federalism, 351).

For the Federalists, Genet's arrival was seen as a precursor to an even deeper plot to undermine the sovereignty of the new American republic. In a very real sense, Hamilton (and other fellow Federalists) saw Genet's presence in America as a possible foreshadowing of the French guillotine, which would sever not only the heads of Federalist leaders, but would destroy everything the revolution had created. As historian Paul Newman, author of the book, Fries's Rebellion points out:

"The Republican leadership, men like Jefferson and Madison, were not the Hamiltonians’ greatest fear. What frightened them most was the popular following the two Virginians and their newfound French ally attracted, and the fact that citizens had begun to publicly criticize and directly oppose Federalist policies" (52).

The following clip from HBO's John Adams miniseries helps to illustrate some of the tensions that Genet's arrival had caused:


In the end, it would be Genet's arrogance and lack of foresight that would be his undoing. The harsh tone in both his letters and speeches against the American government ended up costing Genet not only his American allies but his French support back home as well. Instead of coming off as the great "citizen of world liberty", Ambassador Genet became a liability. In addition, the American populace was beginning to see that the French Revolution was not as similar to their own as they had once thought. And as the French Jacobins seized power in 1794 (and demanded the return of Genet to France to face execution) the former French ambassador was forced to plea for asylum from the very government officials he had once opposed. Coincidentally, it was Hamilton, Genet's fiercest opponent, who advocated for Genet's asylum in the U.S. Genet lived out the rest of his life as a humble New York farmer.

And the republic, despite all of the threats to its security, lived on...happily ever after.

The American Revolution: A Blessing for the British?

Is it possible that the American Revolution was just as beneficial -- if not more beneficial during the 19th century -- for Great Britain as is was for us? Surely not! After all, we're the ones who triumphantly and gloriously won independence. The "Mother Country" suffered a huge blow by losing her precious American colonies.

Right?

Not so fast.

In his book "Rise and Fall of the British Empire" historian Lawrence James devotes an entire chapter to this very question. He claims that during the years immediately following the war with the American colonies, Great Britain actually reaped huge rewards; rewards that far exceeded those made by the newly established United States of America -- which, by the way, actually struggled more than it did prosper in its infancy.

For the British, the reality of parting ways with its former American colonies was better than most expected. Yes, the burden of humiliation that came with such a loss was staggering, but it wasn't crippling. Instead of limping away with their tail between their legs, Britain actually experienced more prosperity than ever before. Trade between the former mother nation and its now independent child actually increased after 1783, particularly cotton exports, which augmented from 15.5 million pounds in the 1780’s to 28.6 million pounds in 1800 (James, 119). Along with an increase in trade, the British Empire benefited by not having to pay for the protection of its American colonies, which had proven very costly in the past (The French and Indian War should come to mind). In essence, the American Revolution aided Britain in becoming the economic world juggernaut of the 19th century.

American colonial independence also added a measure of credence to Adam Smith’s assertion that the American colonies were more of a liability than an asset. In his book Wealth of Nations, Smith claimed that colonies were beneficial to empires, so long as control could be maintained. The American colonies, however, had become “less in the view and less in the power of the mother country,” and were therefore a liability. Maintaining control while being separated by an ocean was, in Smith's mind, a dangerous illusion.

The reality of the post-war period was that the American colonists needed the British more than the British needed the colonists. As James points out in his book:

Naturally there were alarms about the commercial consequences of a break between Britain and America,” but those fears subsided as British experts came to the realization that the infant American republic, 'could not survive economically without Britain (119).

The fact that the United States joined in an economic accord with their former rival is also indicative of how powerful the British economy really was. This economic agreement between America and Britain (known as the Jay Treaty) helped to deliver the former colonies from economic ruin (not to mention the fact that it made Britain a lot of money). As historian Joseph Ellis points out in his book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation:

The Jay Treaty, in effect, bet on England instead of France…as being the hegemonic European power of the Future, which proved prophetic (136-137).

We often look at the American Revolution from the perspective of the colonists and rightfully so. When we take a step back, however, and examine the revolution's impact on everyone else involved, we can see just how "revolutionary" it really was. Not only did it benefit the colonies, but it also greatly improved conditions for Great Britain. In a very real sense, the American Revolution also helped the former "Mother Country" become the premiere world power of the 19th century.

At least it didn't hurt!

Newt Gingrich on the Founding Fathers: Ugh...Here We Go Again!

Over at one of my favorite blogs, Historiann comments on the ongoing (and never ending) "custody battle" over the legacy of the founding fathers. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's comments that the founders of this nation "would all be appalled" by the Obama Administration's spending spree has caused some historians and fans of early America to cry, "foul!"



Yes, these two intellectual "heavy hitters" (Hannity and Gingrich) have succumbed to that ageless American tradition of proclaiming to one and all that early America was a perfect Utopian world free from political strife, where all Americans embraced political unity and shared in the superior intellect and understanding that was exclusively unique to only that generation of Americans.

Only one problem: early America wasn't all a "happy, happy, joy joy" time. As Historiann points out:

Let’s not romanticize the early Republic, m’kay? This is a period in which the modest revolutionary promise of the 1770s was thoroughly and utterly strangled. Maybe this is why I’ve never been drawn to do research in this period: I find it to be an utterly depressing and demoralizing period in American history, but many people like to pretend it was totally awesome for every American, when clearly, it wasn’t: there’s ethnic cleansing of Native Americans in the Northwest Territory and later in Cherokee country, Anglo-American women are being told to shut up and sing louder about how awesome things are, and get this: slavery is going to become even more dehumanizing and unendurable! More African American families will be further destabilized because of the invention of the Cotton Gin and the expansion of cotton culture into the Old Southwest. States like Maryland and Virginia that have been aggressively farmed since the seventeenth century discovered that their most profitable export crop would be slaves.

And though I certainly do not share her utterly depressing view of early America (I am probably biased...it's my favorite era of history to study) I do agree that the founding era of this country is often misrepresented in our current pop-culture. Life wasn't pure bliss for many women, poor families, Native Americans, Blacks (free and slave), immigrants, etc. Now, with that said I also agree with historian Gordon Wood who states in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, that of all the places to live on planet earth in the 18th century, the American colonies/early America was probably at or near the top of the list. Let's just be careful with assuming that it was a PERFECT society, shall we!

And then of course there is Newt's "brilliant" statement that ALL the founding fathers would be united in their disgust for the current Obama Administration. Now, perhaps Newt is right in part. The founders would be utterly shocked to see a Black man as president. After all, they lived in an era where African Americans had zero say in government affairs, so I guess Newt is right in a roundabout way. However, if we put the racism of early America aside, I think Newt gets this one wrong.

Sure, several of the founders would be appalled at the current economic plan of the Obama Administration (and the Bush Administration before him). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison certainly come to mind. Jefferson was, among other things, passionately against government involvement in almost every facet of life. He strongly believed that government intervention in the affairs of man could be equated to slavery. In essence, Jefferson was very much a Libertarian. However, there are others who would be extremely happy with America's massive bureaucracy and federal involvement with the economy. To be certain, Alexander Hamilton is probably not be rolling over in his grave with anger but is instead smiling with glee. After all, this is the man who essentially proposed America's first ever "bail out" (a topic I have written on before and which you can read by clicking here). In addition, most of the Federalists would probably be close to as happy with things as Hamilton.

And this brings me to an important point: this whole argument over government intervention v. individual autonomy is far from new in the American experience. In fact, it's as old as is the nation itself. It was this debate which caused Vice President Jefferson to openly attack his "superior," President John Adams, who in return passed the unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts which he hoped would squash any and all of his critics. It was this basic issue that caused Jefferson to dramatically reduce federal spending in virtually all arenas during his presidency, and which caused his successor, James Madison, to confront the British in the War of 1812 with almost zero military of any kind. It is this basic issue that even caused the "father" of our nation, George Washington, to create the unpopular but economically driven Jay Treaty with Britain; a treaty that cost Washington a great deal of political support as his critics (again, led by Jefferson) openly questioned the president's bold decision.

In conclusion, I have no problem with Gingrich's questioning of Obama. I myself am against massive government spending. With that said, whenever I hear someone exclaim "What would our founding fathers do if..." or "I'm sure the founding fathers would be flipping in their graves over..." it tends to get my blood boiling. Like today, there was no consensus in early America over these and other issues. In reality, early America was arguably one of the most contentious eras we have ever seen (with an obvious exception being made for the Civil War of course).

So, let's quit "hijacking" the legacy of the founders just to make us feel better or to garner support for our respective positions. Chances are, no matter what you believe, that there are SEVERAL founders out there who would disagree.