Publicity, Diplomacy, and Neutrality in the Early American Republic, 1793-1801
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DIPLOMATIC SUBTLETIES AND FRANK OVERTURES: PUBLICITY, DIPLOMACY, AND NEUTRALITY IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC, 1793-1801 A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Wendy H. Wong May 2014 Examining Committee Members: Professor Richard H. Immerman, Advisory Chair, Department of History Professor David Waldstreicher, Department of History Professor Emeritus Susan E. Klepp, Department of History Professor Emeritus Peter S. Onuf, External Member, University of Virginia © Copyright 2014 by Wendy H. Wong All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT Americans view neutrality in the 1790s as the far-seeing wisdom of the Founders and a weak power’s common-sense approach to a transatlantic war in which it could not afford to get involved. Far from this benign image of prudence, however, neutrality in the Early Republic was controversial: it was a style and paradigm of foreign policy that grappled with the consequences of a democratic politics exacerbated by diplomatic crises. Far from promoting tranquility, neutrality provoked uproar from the very beginning. Intense print battles erupted over sensational exposés of foreign influence and conspiracy, reverberating through the international, national, and local levels simultaneously. Print exposés of foreign intrigue provoked partisan warfare that raised the larger, unsettled (and unsettling) issues of the national interest, the exercise of federal power, and the relationship between the people and their government. This dynamic reflected and exacerbated preexisting sectional fissures in the union, triggering recourse to the politics of slavery. As a result, the politics of slavery calibrated the competing national visions of the emerging Federalists and Republicans, defining the limits of American independence while challenging the ability of the United States to remain neutral. Drawing on the efforts of diplomatic historians, political historians and literary scholars, this work illustrates the mutually constitutive relationship between print politics, foreign relations, and the politics of slavery in the Early Republic. It argues that neutrality was a style of foreign policy that both political parties used to contain sectionalism and faction, and that print politics and the politics of slavery combined to create a dynamic that made that style malleable. iii For Hal. In memory of Scholastica Wong, John Wong, Law-Sohn Chen, Joan Yee-Chief, Hank Schirmer, Anita Schirmer, Verena Klose, Abraham Akselrad, and Msgr. John Wendrychowicz. In gratitude for J.R. and his own scholarly example. For all that I have been given, Deo gratias . iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many to whom I and this dissertation owe so much. Richard Immerman has been in my corner from before I even arrived at Temple. A patient and encouraging adviser and mentor in everything, he did his utmost to ensure that all ran smoothly from start to finish. He graciously (and with good humor) allowed me to follow my heart and “defect” from my initial research interests in Franco-American relations during the Cold War. He nonetheless remained on board as Advisory Chair while I studied the topic from the vantage point of the Early American Republic. David Waldstreicher and Susan Klepp have been generously supportive of my efforts from the beginning, acting as mentors in their own right. They have always given me a lot of freedom while thoughtfully prompting me to consider different ways of approaching things. Peter Onuf very kindly offered to act as outside reader, and his comments at the defense were lively, enthusiastic, and highly constructive. Fellowships from the John Carter Brown Library, the Massachusetts Historical Society, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, and the American Philosophical Society have helped me conduct the research for this project. I especially wish to thank Peter Drummey and Anna Clutterbuck-Cook at MHS, Tammy Kiter at NYHS, and Marty Levitt and Charles Greifenstein at APS. Val Andrews and the staff at the John Carter Brown Library helped make my time there a blast. The McNeil Center for Early American Studies provided the friendly and fun environment that ultimately attracted me to the study of Early America. Additional thanks must go to Gregory Urwin, for his kindness since my first semester at Temple, and to Petra Goedde for v allowing me to first float the topic that led to this dissertation in her International History seminar. My parents, Tony and Angie Wong, and my sister Vanessa Ezaki have supported me throughout, particularly in my move away from our hometown in Vancouver to Philadelphia. The friendship of David and Aviva Zierler, Bill King, Kelly Shannon, Kate Scott, Dolores Pfeuffer-Scherer, Kenneth Owen, Mike F. Rogers, Mike Cullen, Drew Brown, Pierre Suen, Maria Hamilton, Janice Matsumura, and Fr. Mark Fernandes has sustained me during my time in the Ph.D. program and the writing of this dissertation. Abe and Claire Akselrad and their family shared their faith, their hearts, and their home with me when I was undertaking research at the New York Historical Society. I am grateful for the encouragement and prayers of many, especially Ebby Schirmer, Jeff and Tobe Jacoby, Bill and Louise Smith, the Benner family, Fr. Gerald P. Carey, the late Msgr. John Wendrychowicz, Fr. Levente Balázs Martos, and Fr. Jeffrey Stecz. Dagnija Berzins and her women’s a capella choral group helped get me out of the house to learn new things about harmony, teamwork, and counterpoint. My husband, Hal Schirmer, has constantly emulated “love is patient, love is kind”— often with his calm intelligence, excellent dry humor, and his own interest in Early American history. Hal has contributed his enthusiasm for the colorful 1790s (from Genet to Benjamin Franklin Bache to Peter Porcupine), acted as an impromptu research assistant, and has cheerfully seen conferences and research fellowships as road-trip opportunities. For these reasons and countless others, this dissertation is dedicated to him. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. iii DEDICATION ...............................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................v CHAPTER 1. CANDID WORLDS AND ROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS.........................................1 2. PUBLICITY, NEUTRALITY, AND CITIZEN GENET...........................................38 3. “A BOLDER PARTY STROKE WAS NEVER STRUCK”......................................92 4. “DISINTERESTED WARNINGS OF A PARTING FRIEND” ..............................149 5. “A UNION OF SENTIMENTS”?...........................................................................203 6. THE DIPLOMATIC SUBTLETIES OF DOMESTIC SECURITY .........................261 7. U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND EARLY AMERICA’S REPUBLICAN GOTHIC.................................................................................321 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................334 APPENDICES A. INCLUSION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL...................................................357 B. INCLUSION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL...................................................360 C. INCLUSION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL...................................................362 vii CHAPTER 1 CANDID WORLDS AND ROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS From the beginning, the United States has had a troubled relationship with the rest of the world. The former colonies struggled to form independent states and then a nation in a turbulent Age of Revolution. Independence did not shield them from Old World politics, the globalizing effects of trade, and pressure from the great colonial powers. The French Revolution’s declared hostility to monarchy plunged Europe into war. Throughout the 1790s the rapid deterioration of the old international order affected the young republic. 1 When Thomas Jefferson submitted the case of American independence to “a candid world,” that world was a dangerous place and a rough neighborhood. 2 Americans often quote both George Washington's Farewell and Thomas Jefferson's Inaugural Addresses on the dangers of permanent and "entangling” alliances, foregrounding neutrality as a prime example of the Founders’ wisdom. From 21st-century hindsight, neutrality appears to be obvious common sense: a young and weak nation could not afford to fight a war if it wished to survive. 3 1Peter S. Onuf and Nicholas Onuf, Federal Union, Modern World: The Law of Nations in an Age of Revolution, 1776-1814 (Madison: Madison House, 1993), 185. 2In writing the Declaration of Independence as an exposure of grievances committed by the King of Great Britain, Jefferson set his sights—and that of the new nation—globally and publicly . He communicated these “injuries and usurpations” as facts to “a candid world” as “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.” See Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence , http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp [accessed April 4, 2011]. 3Samuel Flagg Bemis, Pinckney’s Treaty: A Study of America’s Advantage from Europe’s Distress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1926); Felix Gilbert, To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early American