The Neutrality Crisis

NARRATOR: In spring 1793, a merchant ship called the Little Sarah sailed into Philadelphia on what should have been a routine trip. There, it filled its decks with corn and flour before taking off back towards Kingstown, Jamaica. cargo would be sold. But the brig would not get far. Shortly after leaving Philadelphia, in the Cape of Delaware, a French ship named the Embuscade sidled up beside it and demanded to board.

The Embuscade knew something the Little Sarah didn't. Less than two months before, France had declared war on Great Britain. The Little Sarah flew under a British flag. That meant it was a prime target for French privateers who would seize the ship, sell off its cargo, and repurpose the merchant vessel into a ship of war.

The French overtook the British ship. and towed the little Sarah back into Philadelphia. Its British flag was flipped upside down. Crowds cheered the arrival of the captured prize. Its crew replaced the corn and flour with 14 cannons. The Little Sarah was now a privateer. Soon, it would sail out from Philadelphia with an American crew to hunt down other British ships.

The Little Sarah was just the last in a series of victories on the sea against the British, all led by the French minister known as Citizen Genet. Young, energetic, and charismatic. Genet was a phenomenon in the States. He recruited American fighters to invade Spanish Florida and used American ports to launch attacks on British ships.

The little Sarah may have been Genet's latest victory, but for Washington, it was the last straw. The brash Frenchman threatened to drag the United States into a European war. Refuse the French, and Washington risked a revolution of his own. Defy the British, and the American experiment would be over before it had a chance to begin.

Americans were split. Thomas Jefferson called for Washington to honor the treaty of alliance between France and the United States. Alexander Hamilton feared what a British embargo could do to American trade and began to consolidate Federalist support for the dissolution of the treaty. Here, caught between two cabinet members, two mighty countries, and his own nation divided it.

President George Washington faced a critical decision.

GEORGE WASHINGTON: Shall a proclamation issue for the purpose of preventing interferences of the citizens of the United States in the war between France and Great Britain? Shall it contain a declaration of neutrality, or not? What shall it contain?[1]

NARRATOR: This is inventing the Presidency, Episode 5, The Neutrality Crisis.

In 1789, the same year that Washington became president, France underwent a radical shift of its own. The outbreak of the French Revolution forced King Louis XVI to submit to a constitutional monarchy. Early on, the French Revolution enjoyed wide support from Americans. One of the most prominent French allies during the American Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette, took a prominent role in the French Revolution as well.

After the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, Lafayette presented the key to the Bastille to Washington. That key is still on display at Mount Vernon today and has become a powerful symbol of the historic friendship between the United States and France. But the constitutional monarchy would not last.

In 1792, the king would be deposed and France became a republic. The rise of republican France, however, did not mean the end of the French Revolution. The French had been the United States most important ally during the Revolution. And many Americans cheered on the French attempt to launch their own revolution.

Other European nations reacted with alarm. They feared that the revolution would spill out into their borders. Austria and Prussia declared war against revolutionary France. In 1793, the revolution took a turn.

NEWSPAPER: March 18th, 1793. The diary or Loudon's register. By this day's mail. Death of Louis XVI. The post brought this day a certainty of the execution of the King of France on the 21st January last, between 10 and 11 o'clock of the day.

As soon as the execution was effected, three huzzahs were given by the spectators, hats thrown in the air, and, it is said, the executioners and many near the scaffold dipped their buttons in the king's blood as marks of victory and triumph.[2]

NARRATOR: Some Americans celebrated the death of the French king, the death of a tyrant as they saw it.

Others were horrified by the act. The Americans had overthrown their king, to be sure, but they had not publicly executed him and shown his severed head to the crowds. Many were scandalized by the continued imprisonment and eventual execution of his queen, Marie Antoinette, out of the belief that she, as a woman and a mother, ought to have been spared.

Ten days after the death of Louis XVI, France declared war on Britain, the Netherlands, and Spain. By the time news reached the United States, nearly all of Europe was embroiled in war. The United States may have been an ocean away from the trouble, but it quickly found itself entwined within the war in Europe.

Here is Sandra Moats, author of Navigating Neutrality.

SANDRA MOATS: January, February, 1793, the United States gets word that France and Britain are at war. Once again, they had a series of these imperial wars, and this is just the latest round. Of course, we're in a very different position now. We're no longer colonies.

We're no longer part of the British empire. We've just won our American Revolution with France's help. We also still have very strong ties to Britain, culturally, economically, all of that. So both of these countries see the United States as potentially an ally for either side. France saying, Hey, we helped with your war.

Why don't you help with ours? Britain saying, Hey, you colonists, we still have strong ties. Washington very smartly realizes this would be a disaster for us to get involved in this one. It's an imperial war. It's a continental war. It's a imperialistic. It has absolutely nothing to do with the United States.

And secondly, we would just be pawns even says that the cost to us would be great. And the benefits results would be terrible, and especially given that we're only four or five years into the new constitution. This would just be a disastrous mistake. So the idea is to tamper expectations and to also warn American citizens stay out of this thing.

NARRATOR: At this point in time, Washington was struggling to maintain control in both the Northwest Territories and Western Pennsylvania. The small U. S. Army was occupied in the Northwest War at this time, and there was no U. S. Navy to fall into an international transatlantic war to topple the young nation, especially against the might of the British Navy, which was, at that point, the strongest in the world.

Here is Lindsay Chervinsky.

LINDSAY CHERVINSKY: When France declared war on Great Britain in February of 1793, Washington immediately, as soon as he heard the news in April, he knew that the nation had no business getting into this war. The country was just really beginning to recover from the revolution. economically, environmentally, physically, mentally, financially, and it had no business getting in a war that was going to wreck all of those things.

Even if it had wanted to fight, the nation had no army or navy, so it had nothing to fight with. So, this was really not a complicated answer. However, there What neutrality looked like was actually a much more complex problem for a couple of reasons. First, in 1778, when the United States had signed a treaty of, uh, enmity in commerce and a treaty of defense with France, The defense treaty obligated both sides to come to each other's aid if they were attacked.

So if France was attacked in theory by Great Britain, the United States would need to come to France's aid. So the question here was, well, was France attacked if France was the one that declared war? That was one question that sort of complicated matters and whether it obligated the United States to come to France's aid.

The second question is, what is neutral behavior? And this particularly is important around American ports at a time when commerce and trade is mostly taking place on the high seas, people are often bringing their ships in and out of American ports and Caribbean ports and French ports and British ports.

And sometimes it's clear that they have no, no role in the war. Maybe they're just trading food and clothing, but other times it's not as clear. Are they trading? Arms, are they trading ammunitions? Are they trading things like wood that can be used to repair ships that are used to fight naval battles?

There are a lot of things that are fuzzy, a lot of details that are complicated. And that was really Washington's concern is how do we define what neutrality is and then how do we enforce it? Because that also had never been done, was untested. It was unclear what laws were in play, what courts would hear that decision, who would enforce a punishment.

These were all decisions and questions that had to be answered. And it was kind of up to Washington to do so.

NARRATOR: For a brief period, the distance of the ocean afforded Washington some time to plan. But his respite would be quickly cut short. Not long after news broke about the execution, on April 8th, 1793, a charismatic French emissary arrived in Charleston, South Carolina.

His name was Edmond Charles Genet. He was young and idealistic. His first diplomatic post had been to the court of Catherine the Great in Russia. But his revolutionary zeal proved too controversial, and he was eventually deported. But the government saw great promise in the idealistic, charismatic Genet, who could speak English fluently.

Here is one description of Genet, written by John Steele to Alexander Hamilton.

JOHN STEELE: You have heard much of this citizen, no doubt, and therefore anything of him from me will seem superfluous. But as I am writing of the man that we are all afraid of Permit me to say that he has a good person, fine, ruddy complexion, is quite active, and seems always in a bustle, more like a busy man than a man of business.

His system is, I think, to laugh us into the war, if he can.[3]

NARRATOR: As minister of the new government of France, Genet was supposed to present himself directly to President Washington. But instead of going directly to Philadelphia, he took the scenic route through South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

All along the way, he was actively recruiting Americans to join the war on the side of France. Genet's instructions from France were, to put it modestly, ambitious. The French wanted an advance of nearly three million dollars on the American debt to France from the war. They called for a grandiose new national pact between the United States and Revolutionary France, which would pave the way for the spread of republicanism to Spanish Louisiana and British Canada, and give American and French merchants equal footing.

They also authorized Genet, with or without American permission, To use the United States as a base to commission privateers in the ongoing war against Great Britain and its allies. But Genet made some crucial missteps. Within days of his arrival in South Carolina, Genet had already commissioned four American privateers.

Sandra Moats explains the use of privateers. In this period,

SANDRA MOATS: everyone thinks piracy is the big thing in this age. It's not. Privatarian is because it's licensed piracy. It's you've been given a commission by a government to attack enemy ships on behalf of that government. So what you do is the state, whether it's the king of Britain or the queen of Scotland or whatever, it has commission.

So they give, and they're known as letters of marque. And basically what that does is it gives you as a ship captain, a license to privateer on behalf of the British government, the American government, whoever has authorized that commission. And it lays out the terms. You outfit your ship, you are acting basically as on behalf of the British Navy or the French Navy and anything you collect, you basically split the share.

The British government, the French government gets a share. And then you get to collect a share, and then you take the, you know, you literally go in, jump on someone else's ship, capture the ship, take that ship and its belongings into port, and then basically cash out. And then the British government, if you're working for them, they'll take their cut, and then you as the ship captain get your cut, and then you give whatever is left to your crew.

And as you can see, the more ships you capture as a privateer, the more lucrative it is. It's actually an industry to take regular merchant ships and turn them into warships. So put turrets on them, put cannon. A regular merchant ship only requires about seven or ten guys to run. A privateer requires about a hundred men.

Because you've got to keep the ship moving, you've got to keep it afloat, and you've got to keep the war part going.

NARRATOR: The use of American ships to capture British ones could potentially convince the British that the Americans had joined the conflict on the French side. If that happened, not only would trade with Britain cease, but the British would have cause to seize American vessels.

And that could mean huge economic losses. But support for the French Revolution was high in the United States. Everywhere he went, Genet was cheered on by crowds of American supporters. Recall how Washington blamed the Democratic Republican societies for riling up support for the Whiskey Rebellion.

Well, these same societies hosted grand receptions for Genet as well. Washington even blamed Genet for the formation of such societies.

GEORGE WASHINGTON: These things were evidently intended to disquiet the public mind. But I hope and trust they will work their own cure, especially when it is known more generally than it is that the democratic society of this place were instituted by Mr. Genet for the express purpose of dissension, and to draw a line between the people and the government. After he found the officers, the latter would not yield to the hostile measures in which he wanted to embroil this country.[4]

NARRATOR: Genet's popularity and the rising support for the French Revolution worried Washington.

He quickly assembled his cabinet to debate their options on an official position of neutrality in the European war. Once again, Hamilton and Jefferson found themselves at odds. Hamilton wanted to protect American commercial interests by adhering to a policy of neutrality. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that such a policy was a violation of previous treaties between the United States and France, in which the United States promised to come to the aid of France in the war.

While he was not eager to launch the United States into a war, he did not think the executive had the right to forbid citizens from supporting the French Revolution. It was up to Washington to mediate between these two strong personalities.

SANDRA MOATS: Washington, I think it's just his tremendous political skills.

Not only is he a big idea person, I think that's something we forget about. He's also a really skilled political negotiator. And what he realizes is this proclamation is not going to be successful unless he has the full backing of his cabinet. And of course, the cabinet consists of the famous rivals, Hamilton and Jefferson, who are the two leading members.

And then Henry Knox, the secretary of war, and then Edmund Randolph. And he even, before they even sit down to start having their meetings. Washington writes to both Hamilton and Jefferson, basically saying to each of them, I expect you guys to both be constructive and productive in these meetings. We need to work together and all of that.

So he gives them a warning at the outset. And then what he very smartly does is he lays out the parameters of we want to be neutral. We don't want to get involved in this war. Let's draft a document. All of you guys give me your thoughts on the matter. And so these guys are like over eager graduate students.

You know, Hamilton writes like a 20 page report. Jefferson's like 15 Randolph's like 10 pages. But this is really smart because what Washington does is every idea you've ever had about neutrality. I want to hear about it. Get it on the table and we'll come up with a compromise document on neutrality. And so that's how they go about doing it, which is really, really smart.

Jefferson doesn't want the word neutrality in the neutrality proclamation. So it's actually just called the proclamation of 1793.

NARRATOR: The cabinet arrived at a consensus. Washington would announce a policy of neutrality in the European war, but that Washington would receive Genet as a minister of France on April 22nd, 1793.

The proclamation was issued.

GEORGE WASHINGTON: The duty and interests of the United States require. That they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers. I have therefore thought fit by these presence to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid towards those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever Which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition.[5]

SANDRA MOATS: Neutrality means that during wartime, we don't get involved in a war in this case, between Britain and France, even though we have connections to both of them, and then instead we say, we'll remain friendly with both of you. We'll have free trade with both of you. We'll be friendly, but our ships. Are not going to be participating.

Our citizens, our government's not going to formally ally. We're not going to give you any material support or political support for your war. We're going to be friendly and we hope you respect our ships on the seas. And that they enjoy free trade. This comes out of a larger concept, which I won't get too far in the weeds here, but the idea that free ships make for free goods.

So if American ship is a neutral ship, it shouldn't be fair game to be attacked. Whereas if France and Britain are at war, they're going to be attacking each other's ships, whether they're cargo or military ships. So the whole idea behind neutrality is to allow America to stay in business while France and Britain are at war without us getting politically entangled in the war.

It's not passivity. It's not isolationism. It means we stay neutral in wartime. We're friendly with everyone.

NARRATOR: Genet finally arrived in Philadelphia just a few weeks later, in some respects. His mission had just taken a catastrophic turn, despite his success in charming Americans. The Washington administration nipped his recruitment efforts before he even had a chance to meet formally with the President.

But Genet was not yet done in the United States. On May 17th, 1793, his arrival in the city was celebrated by a crowd of supporters outside his hotel. There was some debate about how large the crowd was. Hamilton said 600 people. Jefferson said a thousand. Genet would later recall, 6, 000 supporters in the streets.

And Adams, with some exaggeration, would claim in 1813 that

JOHN ADAMS: You certainly never felt the terrorism excited by Genet in 1793 when 10, 000 people in the streets of Philadelphia Day after day, threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government, or compel it to declare war in favor of the French Revolution and against England.[6]

NARRATOR: The crowds Never likely grew above a thousand, but regardless, Adam's account reveals the anxiety stirred up by Genet's powerful rhetoric. The neutrality proclamation had failed to stifle support for the French revolution, but Genet had grown bold. Genet believed that Washington was being led astray by the federalist anti French members of his cabinet, specifically.

Genet wrote letter after letter to Jefferson in French, claiming that treaties between France and the United States entitled him to commission privateers in American ports. Jefferson was initially sympathetic to Genet, but over time, He grew frustrated with Genet's refusal to comply with his directions.

He warned him to stay put for the time being, and forbid him from continuing to use American ports to outfit new privateers. Here is Lindsay Trevensky again.

LINDSAY CHERVINSKY: And initially Jefferson had been very supportive of Genet, he had wanted to give Genet the benefit of the doubt. He had warned Genet repeatedly about the Neutrality Proclamation and asked him to stop with privateers and asked him to cease that behavior.

Hamilton was very distrustful of the situation. He was quick to want to request Genet's recall from France, and they battled over these issues constantly in cabinet meetings. There was a final sort of throwdown, for lack of a better word, in July of 1793, when it became clear that Genet was going to continue Churning out these privateers, regardless of what they said.

When Jefferson finally confronted the French minister about these issues, Genet threatened to look in people to go above Washington's head and to appeal directly to American citizens. And this was a huge insult. It was a grave insult to American sovereignty, to American diplomacy, to the president's authority over diplomacy.

NARRATOR: One last act of defiance sealed Genet's fate. In July, Genet captured a British ship called the Little Sarah, even after Jefferson wrote Genet forbidding him from continuing to use American ports to outfit new privateers. Genet. relaunched the ship as La Petite Democrat. Washington was outraged. He immediately wrote to Jefferson demanding a solution.

GEORGE WASHINGTON: What is to be done in the case of little Sarah now at Chester is the minister of the French Republic to set the acts of this government to defiance with impunity and then threaten the executive with an appeal to the people. Oh, what the world must think of such conduct, and of the government of the U. States in submitting to it. These are serious questions, circumstances press for decision, and as you have had time to consider them, upon me they have come unexpected. I wish to receive your opinion upon them, even before tomorrow, for the vessel may then be gone.[7]

NARRATOR: Washington called his cabinet together once more.

Washington wanted Genet gone. Even Jefferson, who had sympathized with Genet's cause, was losing his cool. In a letter to James Madison, he wrote,

THOMAS JEFFERSON: Never, in my opinion, was so calamitous an appointment made as that of the present minister of France here. Hot headed, all imagination, no judgment, passionate, disrespectful, and even indecent towards the president in his written as well as verbal communications.

Talking of appeals from him to Congress, from them to the people, urging the most unreasonable and groundless propositions, and in the most dictatorial style. If ever it should be necessary to lay his communications before Congress or the public, they will incite a universal indignation. He renders my position Immensely difficult.[8]

NARRATOR: Jefferson worried that Genet's actions would harm the French cause amongst Americans and ultimately increase support for Washington's Federalist policies. It was not that Jefferson disagreed with Genet's politics. On the contrary, Jefferson remained critical of the Neutrality Proclamation. He believed that it should have been the Senate's authority.

Not the presidents to issue such a verdict. And he privately wanted the United States to support the French revolution. Although he did not want open war with Britain, the Genet affair was now causing open conflict within Washington's cabinet, Jefferson and Hamilton, who had always been at odds.

Escalated their fighting by some accounts. They were openly arguing in every cabinet meeting. Their opposition would soon spill out into the public sphere. Hamilton. Sought to defend what he saw as the only thing protecting American trade and peace. Writing for newspapers, he wrote,

ALEXANDER HAMILTON: The inquiry then is, What department of the government of the United States is the proper one to make a declaration of neutrality in the cases in which the engagements of the nation permit and its interests require such a declaration.

A correct and well informed mind will discern at once that it can belong neither to the legislature nor judicial department, and of course must belong to the executive.[9]

NARRATOR: Hamilton would go on to write seven total essays under the name Pacificus. Fearing that Hamilton's well written essays would become public opinion if left unchallenged, Jefferson

THOMAS JEFFERSON: For God's sake, my dear sir, take up your pen. Select the most striking heresies and cut him to pieces in the face of the public. There is nobody else who can and will enter the list with him.[10]

NARRATOR: And take up the pen, Madison did. Beginning in August 1793, Madison wrote a series of five essays

JAMES MADISON: If we consult for a moment the nature and operation of the two powers to declare war and make treaties. It will be impossible not to see that they can never fall within a proper definition of executive powers. The natural province of the executive magistrate is to execute laws, as that of the legislature to make laws.

All of his acts, therefore, properly executive, must presuppose the existence of the laws to be executed.[11]

NARRATOR: This debate swirled around what would become an important precedent for the presidency. Would the executive branch be responsible for dictating the nation's foreign affairs? Or did that power belong exclusively to the legislative branch?

With his cabinet divided. Washington proceeded with caution. He knew that for the United States to survive, they needed to proceed on a policy of neutrality. But not even he could predict what would happen next. For in August, 1793, doctors declared the grim and frightening truth that for the first time in 30 years, yellow fever had returned to Philadelphia.

Throughout 1793, while Genet rallied support and the Americans struggled to remain neutral, there were big changes going on in France, too. Genet was sent by a government known as the Girondins. But by the time Washington requested his recall in August, a new regime was in power, the Jacobins. And they were none too pleased with Genet's actions in the United States.

The Jacobins saw Genet's contempt for the American government as threatening future support. And Genet soon became the target of conspiracies in his native country. One French pamphlet writer accused Genet of being a British agent, bent on destroying American French unity. They even accused him of conspiring to help the British drive the French out of the West Indies.

This last accusation must have hit hard for the French. There was at this time another nation at war with France. In 1791, the outbreak of the Haitian Revolution would lead to a 13 year struggle for independence from France. Led by Toussaint Louverture, a keen military leader who had been enslaved himself, Haiti would become the first country to be founded by formerly enslaved people.

Haiti was, of course, much closer geographically to the United States than France. The planter class, primarily made up of white men, pleaded to the United States for assistance, and Hamilton advanced 40, 000 to the French minister for assistance to be paid out of the American debt to the French. Here is Ramin Ganeshram, journalist, food historian, and executive director of the Westport Museum for History and Culture.

RAMIN GANESHRAM: The revolution in Haiti was an uprising of enslaved people against the French planter class who enslaved them. And what's important about this is that it was a successful revolution. The revolution took place. The planter class was driven out of Haiti in favor of self rule by now free people of African descent.

What's important to understand about this is that this was an absolutely terrifying situation for men like Washington and other enslavers in the United States, uprisings, revolts among enslaved people in the Caribbean did happen from the 17th century. And they would have known about it, particularly in the West Indies.

There was revolt after revolt. They were always put down at great expense to the African community in terms of loss of life and punishment. And But they continued. So there was this constant fear amongst particularly the planter class in America of the same thing happening here. So when it happened in Haiti, and it succeeded.

This, like, struck terror into the hearts of Washington and men like him.

NARRATOR: Due to his revolutionary ideals and military genius, Louverture was hailed as the George Washington of the Haitian Revolution. But George Washington of the United States was not so supportive of the Haitian Revolution. Both Jefferson and Washington expressed concerns about the influence of the Haitian Revolution on American enslaved communities, fearing an uprising.

RAMIN GANESHRAM: Toussaint Louverture recognized the United States as a sovereign state, Washington did not return the courtesy to him. But what's interesting is that Washington really didn't comment publicly very much on events that revolved around enslavement. We have very little public comment about that.

Politically, he thought it was an illegitimate revolution. He thought that it was a terrible situation. Personally, he donated a small amount of money to a fund for white refugees of the Haitian revolution in Philadelphia.

NARRATOR: In 1793, about 2000 of these refugees, most of whom were French, arrived in Philadelphia.

There is no way to know for certain, but many in the ensuing years would blame this influx for what would soon become a crisis beyond the control of anyone in the United States. Dear Julia,

BENJAMIN RUSH: Since my letter to you of Friday, the fever has assumed a most alarming appearance. It not only mocks in most instances the the power of medicine, but it has spread through several parts of the city remote from the spot it originated.[12]

NARRATOR: This is a letter written by Benjamin Rush to his wife, Julia. Rush was already a well established and trusted doctor in Philadelphia when yellow fever hit the city. It would quickly become one of the worst epidemics to spread throughout 18th century America.

BENJAMIN RUSH: This morning I witnessed a scene there which reminded me of the histories of the plague.

In one house, I lost two patients last night. Five other persons died in the neighborhood yesterday afternoon, and four more last night at Kensington.

NARRATOR: Just a few days later, he wrote again to his wife, describing the nature of this yellow fever.

BENJAMIN RUSH: Sometimes it comes on with a chilly fit and a high fever, but more fever Frequently, it steals on with a headache, a languor, and a sick stomach.

These symptoms are followed by a stupor, delirium, vomiting, a dry skin, cool or cold hands and feet, and a feeble, slow pulse. The eyes are at first suffused with blood. They afterwards become yellow, and in most cases, the yellowness covers the whole skin on the third or fourth day. Livid spots on the body, a bleeding at the nose from the gums and from the bowels, vomiting Some instances closes the scene of life.[13]

NARRATOR: In just four months, 4, 000 people died in Philadelphia alone, at least 10 percent of the city's population; nearly half fled the city. The disease quickly spread to New York, Boston, and other major cities. The yellow fever hit Philadelphia just as the whiskey rebellion was at its height. Even the yellow fever became wrapped up in the partisan debates surrounding Genet.

Those who wanted to continue trading with England blamed the yellow fever on French refugees from Haiti and elsewhere. These were known as contagionists. Those who supported the French Revolution argued that the yellow fever Had a local origin. Genet was at this time in New York with his political future, uncertain, and with no way to return to the now quarantined capital.

Genet would wait out his days in suspense. Adams would later claim it was the yellow fever that cooled the revolutionary fervor, although other factors doubtless played a role as well. Nonetheless. The city came to a standstill as all efforts went to treating the ill and combating the spread of the illness.

The typical treatment for fevers at the time was a tonic made out of tree bar, specifically from various willow trees. It might sound old fashioned, but the chemical component found in willow bar, salicin, forms the basis for the treatment. For modern aspirin, but this primitive pharmaceutical failed to treat the yellow fever.

Other cures quickly popped up, cold baths, vinegar wraps, bleedings, even heavy doses of wine. The free African Society led efforts to treat the ill. Here is the account given by Absalom Jones.

ABSALOM JONES: Early in September, a solicitation appeared in the public papers to the people of color to come forward and assist distressed.

Perishing and neglected sick with a kind of assurance that people of our color were not liable to take the infection Upon which we and a few others met and consulted how to act on so truly alarming and melancholy Occasion after some conversation we found a freedom to go forth and It's sensible that it was our duty to do all the good we could to our suffering fellow mortals.

Here, it ought to be remarked that two thirds of the persons who rendered these essential services were people of color, who on the application of the elders of the African church were liberated on the condition of their doing the duty of nurses at the hospital at Bush Hill.[14]

NARRATOR: Despite the heroic efforts of Jones, William Gray, Sarah Bass, and others, Mary Scott and many other African Americans who put their lives in danger to care for the sick.

Many accuse them of profiting off of the ill.

ABSALOM JONES: We feel ourselves sensibly aggrieved by the censurous epitaphs of many who did not render the least assistance in the time of necessity, yet are liberal in their censure of us. For the prices paid for our services when no other knew how to make a proposal to anyone they wanted to assist them.[15]

NARRATOR: The belief that African Americans were immune to the yellow fever proved false. And soon it raged through their communities alongside the rest of Philadelphia. Even Alexander Hamilton fell ill. Although he and his wife would later recover. A difficult decision had to be made. Washington may not have liked the prospect of abandoning the capital of the United States, even as thousands were fleeing the city.

But on September 10th, 1793, Washington and his family evacuated to Germantown, Pennsylvania. The Washingtons would remain there for several months. By December of 1793, the Yellow Fever had left Philadelphia. Washington returned to the city. So did Genet. When Genet visited Congress to make his final appeal, he told his French superiors that he was ready to engage in mortal combat with his opponents.

Although in reality, his speech failed to excite any strong reactions. Genet blamed Washington's popularity for the lukewarm response. He believed congressmen were too scared of pushback if they went against the popular president. In reality, Genet had gone too far. After his outrageous disobedience of the Washington administration, few in Congress Wish to endorse the Defiant Frenchman.

Washington formally asked Congress to submit the recall on December 5th, 1793.

GEORGE WASHINGTON: It is with extreme concern. I have to inform you that the proceedings of the person whom they have unfortunately appointed their minister have here breathed nothing of the friendly spirit of the nation, which sent him. Their tendency has been to involve us in war abroad, discord and anarchy at home.[16]

NARRATOR: A month later The French government Agreed. The Jacobin government had turned against Genet completely. Not only was Genet still the target of incendiary pamphlets, but the French had already identified him as a convenient scapegoat. The French badly needed American food supplies to feed their army.

Plus, there were some in the French government wishing to recall their own American minister. A terse, eccentric founding father by the name of Governor Morris. Morris was the only American diplomat to remain in Paris during the Reign of Terror and he was seen by many as being a pro British agent. The idea of a recall must have been terrifying for Genet.

Between September 1793 and July 1794, over 16, 000 people in France were executed in what is now known as the Reign of Terror. Marie Antoinette had lost her head in October. So did Genet's former mentor, Jacques Pierre Brisson. Washington's dear friend, the Marquis de Lafayette, once a hero of the French Revolution, was now imprisoned as an enemy of the same revolution.

Genet must have known. He would be next. Washington, too, understood Genet's fate should he return to France. The guillotine. At this point, Genet had openly flouted Washington's policy of neutrality. He ignored repeated warnings from Jefferson and others to cease his recruitment and privateering efforts.

He had given Washington nothing more than headache after headache in one of the most embattled years of his presidency. No one likely would have blamed Washington for sending Genet back to France. But, to do so, was to condemn Genet to death. Washington granted Genet mercy. Genet was granted political asylum and allowed to remain in the United States.

Edmund Genet, the young, idealistic man who had once been kicked out of Russia for his revolutionary fervor and who had successfully sparked new life into the American revolutionary spirit, never returned to France. He retired to a farm on the Hudson Bay River, where he married the daughter of the Governor of New York and never entered public life again.

Washington had averted another crisis. In March of the next year, Congress would finally pass the Neutrality Act of 1794, putting into law what Washington had proclaimed a year earlier. Vice President Adams had to cast the tie breaking vote for the Senate. But there were losses as well. In the summer of 1793, Thomas Jefferson announced his intention to retire from the cabinet.

He claimed that he wished to return to a private life back at his plantation, Monticello. Washington visited Monticello, convinced Jefferson to stay. But Jefferson maintained that his retirement was born out of nothing more than a desire for a quiet life.

LINDSAY CHERVINSKY: Jefferson had wanted to retire as early as 1792.

He didn't particularly like serving in the cabinet. He wanted to go home to Virginia. He started to disagree with some of the policies that Washington was selecting. He especially disagreed with Hamilton's strong stance against France. And Washington managed to keep him around for two additional years.

He begged, he pleaded, he used all sorts of guilt trips to get him to stay. He felt that it was really essential to have those multiple perspectives. But by the end of 1793, Jefferson had had enough and retired on December 31st and went home to Virginia to start an opposition party.

NARRATOR: Too much damage, perhaps, had been done during the Genet affair.

Jefferson had been strategically influencing popular newspapers to carry his Democratic Republican views for years now. Those views were beginning to create open conflict within the Washington administration. His departure temporarily cooled tensions within Washington's cabinet. Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail,

JOHN ADAMS: Jefferson went off yesterday and a good riddance of bad ware.

I hope his temper will be more cool and his principles more reasonable in retirement than they have been in office. He has talents I know, and integrity I believe, but his mind is now poisoned with passion, prejudice, and faction.[17]

NARRATOR: But Jefferson would not abstain from politics, and his retirement from the cabinet signaled his preparation for a much bigger role down the line, that of president.

But for now, the United States successfully pursued a policy of neutrality that kept the United States safe. Out of the European war, it allowed the American economy to continue to grow through trade with both Britain and France. Most importantly, the Genet Affair set a vital precedent for the American presidency.

SANDRA MOATS: One of the things that's going on with the whole neutrality proclamation, what they come to realize is that you're going to need institutional support from the government if this is going to work. And one of the first ways that you see that happening, of course, is that the executive branch will become the leader in foreign policy and in diplomacy because of the president being commander in chief, because of the secretary of state, all of that.

The foreign policy will Tend to originate from the executive branch. And additionally, you're going to have to have branches within the government in the federal executive branch, like in the Treasury Department, US attorneys, people like that. You're gonna have to activate those folks to have them actively reporting neutrality violations, prosecuting them, all of that.

And so one, the executive branch becomes the leader in foreign policy. The act of requesting a recall of an ambassador, again, even today, it's a very, very sensitive issue. When you remove your ambassador from a country or you ask an ambassador to be removed, it's a really big deal. And so for the United States to exercise that kind of authority, it's a major precedence.

And it's also, again, the dominance of the executive branch in foreign affairs. And then eventually what you'll have happen is the Congress will come on board with the neutrality proclamation. They'll actually codify it into law and the courts will eventually. Come on board and start being a little more aggressive about prosecuting these cases.

NARRATOR: But while it was an important victory for the Washington administration. The debate was far from over. Washington's actions during the neutrality crisis inspired a new wave of confidence in his administration. But he also came under attack from one of the most vicious and persistent opponents he would face in the course of his presidency.

The press.

Next episode on Inventing the Presidency. Washington cultivates his public image, but he finds that the Jeffersonian supported newspapers are out for blood. And, in the wake of the Genet Affair, Washington becomes the target of political attacks on his foreign policy.

Inventing the Presidency is a production of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association and CD Squared Productions. This episode was written and directed by Dr. Anne Fertig. Audio production was done by Curt Dahl of CD Squared Productions. Production assistant was Jacob Cameron. Narration by Tom Plott. Additional voice acting by Dan Shippey, Matt Mattingly, James M. Ambuske, Nathaniel Kuhn, and Brett Pappas. Additional fact checking was performed by Dr. Alexandra Montgomery. We would like to thank our contributing scholars, Dr. Sandra Moats, Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky, and Ramin Ganeshram. To hear more great podcasts from Mount Vernon and the George Washington Presidential Library, visit George Washington podcast.com or go to www.mountvernon.org.

[1] “Enclosure: Questions on Neutrality and the Alliance with France, 18 April 1793,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-25-02-0529. 

[2] “DEATH of LOUIS XVIth!” Diary (New York, New York), no. 342, March 18, 1793: [3]. 

[3] “To Alexander Hamilton from John Steele, 30 April [1793],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-14-02-0255. 

[4] “From George Washington to Burgess Ball, 25 September 1794,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-16-02-0492.

[5] “Neutrality Proclamation, April 22, 1793,” The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold Syrett et al., vol. 14 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 308-309.

[6] “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 30 June 1813,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0216.

[7] From George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 11 July 1793,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-13-02-0140.

[8] “To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 7 July 1793,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0037.

[9] Hamilton, Alexander, “Pacificus, Number I,” in Morton J. Frisch, ed. The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794 : Toward the Completion of the American Founding. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2007:11

[10] “From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 7 July 1793,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-26-02-0391.

[11] Madison, James. “Helvidius Number I,” in Frisch, The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates, 59.

[12] Benjamin Rush, “To Mrs. Rush,” Philadelphia, August 25^th, 1793. Letters of Benjamin Rush. Vol. II. L.H. Butterfield, ed. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1951, p. 640.

[13] Rush, “To Mrs. Rush,” Philadelphia, August 29^th, 1793. Letters, 644.

[14] Jones, Absalom. A narrative of the proceedings of the black people, during the late awful calamity in Philadelphia, in the year 1793 :and a refutation of some censures, thrown upon them in some late publications. Philadelphia. Printed for the authors, by William W. Woodward, at Franklin's Head, no. 41, Chesnut-Street, 1794: 3-5.

[15] Ibid.

[16] U.S. Cong. House. A Message of the president of the United States, to Congress, relative to France and Great     Britain: delivered, December 5, 1793.: With the papers therein referred to.: Published by order of the House of Representatives. By George Washington. 3rd Cong. Doc. (Philadelphia: Childs & Swaine, 1793). iii-iv.

[17] “John Adams to Abigail Adams, 6 January 1794,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-10-02-0008.