Genet arrived back in Paris in September. In almost no time at all,he made a considerable impression on the salon of Mme Roland,who spoke of his ‘solid’ and ‘enlightened mind’, and of the‘sweetness, justice, grace, and reason’ of his conversation, whichcontained no ‘affectation or pedantry’. Jacques Pierre Brissot, whohad recently visited the USA and written a book about it, used hisinfluence as a journalist and politician to advance the cause of‘democrat Genet’ as he chose to call him. Having written a reporton the reorganisation of the diplomatic service, arguing for itscomparability to the civil service, Genet found himself thebeneficiary of one of his own proposals, the substitution of‘Minister’ for ‘Ambassador’ as the highest appointment, as he wasappointed representative of the French government in the USAearly in November The instructions for Minister, or as he was to become known,Citizen Genet, were ready by the middle of December, and werein two parts, the first more rhetorical, the second more practical.They began with a misunderstanding of the Americanconstitution which was to lead to later complications: addressednot to the President, but to Congress, the instructions were basedon the erroneous belief that the American Congress, like theFrench National Convention, possessed all power since itembodied the sovereign will of the people. Genet seems to havebeen unable to eradicate this misconception during the monthsof his mission.Indeed Genet’s high-handed policies soon after his arrival inmid-May 1793 attracted much disquiet, and the Americangovernment decided to ask for his recall, complaining that theFrench Minister was acting in the USA as if he were a ‘co-sovereign’. Just one sentence in a long letter written by Jeffersonin mid-August aroused debate in the cabinet: the Secretary ofState feared that Genet’s activities might lead towards hostilitybetween the USA and France and bring upon both of them ‘areproach, which it is hoped will never stain the history of either,that of liberty warring on herself’. Alexander Hamilton, theleading member of the pro-British element in the Americanadministration, objected to the last four words, unable to acceptthat the course taken by the French Revolution made it possibleany longer to accept that it promoted liberty. Washington and asufficient number of members of the cabinet were persuaded thatthe four words should be deleted.36Soon after Genet learned of the request for his recall, in asituation deteriorating even further, he wrote in early October 1793an angry response giving emphasis to his own view of theAmerican constitution:Persuaded that the sovereignty of the United States residesessentially in the People and its representatives inCongress; persuaded that the Executive power is the onlyone which has been confided to the President of the UnitedStates; persuaded that this magistrate has not the right todecide questions... [which] the Constitution reservesparticularly to Congress; persuaded that he has not thepower to bend existing treaties to circumstances...per-suaded that the league formed by the tyrants to annihilate republican principles founded on the rights of man, willbe the object of the most serious deliberations of Congress;I had deferred in the sole view of maintaining goodharmony between the free people of America and France,communicating to my Government, before the epoch atwhich the representatives of the People were to assemble,the original correspondence which has taken place...between you and myself.37Less than six months after his arrival in the American capital,then, Genet had reached the point of no return in his relations withthe American administration. He had alienated himself from thegovernment in the USA even more quickly than he had previouslydone from that in Russia. However, on this occasion, unlike before,Genet did not go home, but married and settled down as a farmer,writing to his future wife early in 1794 that his ‘sole desire was tosettle in a country where virtue was honoured and liberty respected;where a man who obeyed the law had nothing to fear from despots,aristocrats, or ambitious men.’38 Red Indians and black slaves, toname but two groups, would not have agreed, but Genet’s decisionsas well as his letter to his future wife were a clear reflection on thetriangular relationship of constitutional developments in the USA,France and Russia in the 1790s.Of course, in that decade, the international situation as well asthe relative internal situation in each country were changing veryquickly, and, even in the USA, life was far from tranquil for politicalleaders. In the summer of 1793, which Jefferson consideredimportant for mankind all over the earth, President Washingtonlost his temper after a satirical attack in which it was suggestedthat he would suffer the same fate as Louis XVI. As Jeffersondescribed the ensuing spectacle:The President was much inflamed, got into one of thosepassions when he cannot command himself, ran on muchon the personal abuse which had been bestowed on him,defied any man on earth to produce one act of his since hehad been in the govmt. which had not been done on thepurest motives, that...by god he had rather be in his gravethan in his present situation. That he had rather be on hisfarm than to be made emperor of the world and yet they werecharging him with wanting to be a KingBy this time, early August, an outbreak of yellow fever hadbegun, and was to become an epidemic by the end of the month.Thus, climate interfered with the business of government as wellas affecting the tempers of its leaders, a vindication of some ofMontesquieu’s arguments in The Spirit of the Laws.However, rather than developing that point, looking further atpopular disaffection in 1793 and 1794 or examining the manner inwhich the great debates on the French Revolution continued inthe USA in the later 1790s, we will look at the comparative calm ofWashington’s famous Farewell Address of 19 September 1796,seeking out in particular the retiring Presi-dent’s views on theconstitutional order. Thanking his fellow-countrymen for theirsupport and expressing the wish that ‘the free constitution, whichis the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained’,Washington went on to declare:Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, thatcountry has a right to concentrate your affections. Thename of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in yournational capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patri-otism, more than any appellation derived from local dis-criminations. With slight shades of difference, you havethe same Religion, Manners, Habits, and politicalPrinciples. You have in a common cause fought andtriumphed together. The Independence and Liberty youpossess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts—or common dangers, sufferings and successes.Here is a blend of constitutional order with its antithesis,revolutionary order.However, the strong emphasis is on the preservation of whathad been won in the past rather than on what might be gained inthe future. And so, although ‘the right of the people to make andalter their Constitutions of Government’ is the basis of ourpolitical systems, change can only come about through ‘an explicitact of the whole people’. Until such a step has been taken,Washington stresses, the constitution which exists at any time ‘issacredly obligatory upon all’. To take another example, ‘thecontinuance of the UNION’ should be ‘a primary object ofPatriotic desire’. The President asked an almost rhetoricalquestion, possibly reflecting some of the reservations of Montesquieu as well as more recent debates: ‘Is there a doubt,whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere?’But his answer in fact left little room for doubt. Immediately, itwas: ‘Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in sucha case were criminal.’ A longer response, arguing for the necessityof co-operation between North, South, East and West, took up anot insignificant proportion of the Farewell Address.The spirit of the American laws was expressed further through‘reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power’, obtained ‘bydividing and distributing it into different deposi-tories, andconstituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal againstinvasions by the others’. The necessity for such checks had beenevinced ‘by experiments ancient and modern; some of them inour country and under our own eyes’. Here again was a mixtureof old and not so old precept with more recent practice. Furtherprops for justice and efficiency (all of them noted by Montesquieuin his time) were the promotion of institutions for the generaldiffusion of knowledge, and the preservation through restraintof the public credit, not to mention religion and morality. Domesticdespotism would thus be avoided.Internally, apart from threats to the Union, there were ‘thebaneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally’. Unfortunately,this spirit was natural and deep-rooted, and was sharpened byanother spirit, that of revenge. In different ages and countries,there had thus arisen a frightful despotism, which could leadthrough an inclination ‘to seek security and repose in theabsolute power of an Individual’ to ‘a more formal andpermanent despotism’. Party might serve as a useful check ongovernment and protection of liberty in monarchies, but wasnot a spirit to be encouraged in those which were purely electiveand of a popular character.Externally, peace and harmony should be cultivated with allnations, while ‘inveterate antipathies against particular nationsand passionate attachments for others should be excluded’. Inparticular, Washington observed that ‘Europe has a primary setof interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causesof which are essentially foreign to our concerns.’ At the same time:‘Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us topursue a different course.’ And so: ‘Why, by interweaving ourdestiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity, in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest,humour, or caprice?
No comments:
Post a Comment