Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2016 ‘Our Bonaparte?’: Republicanism, Religion, and Paranoia in New England and the Mid- Atlantic, 1789-1830 Tarah L. (Tarah Lorraine) Luke Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ‘OUR BONAPARTE?’: REPUBLICANISM, RELIGION, AND PARANOIA IN NEW ENGLAND AND THE MID-ATLANTIC, 1789-1830 By TARAH LORRAINE LUKE A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2016 Tarah Luke defended this dissertation on October 28, 2016. The members of the supervisory committee were: Rafe Blaufarb Professor Directing Dissertation Martin Munro University Representative Andrew Frank Committee Member Maxine Jones Committee Member G. Kurt Piehler Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii Dedicated to my wonderful parents and my extremely supportive and helpful husband, for always helping me above and beyond, especially when I thought I could not go any further. And to Max, for everything else. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Nobody writes a dissertation alone. Or at least they shouldn’t. I was fortunate to have my parents, Jim and Jodie Luke, behind me on every step and every page of this journey. My father in particular was instrumental in making sure that I worked, and when I didn’t, I heard about it from him. Now that this is finally finished, “Rudy” can nag me about something else. I was also lucky to have made incredible friends along the way who encouraged me and often led by example: Tim Best, for being my “mentor” and pseudo-big brother, along with his amazing wife Heather Tyndall-Best, for being my lawyer on retainer and partner in crime. Allyson Stanton Gates, who started off as my grader but ended up becoming my best friend. Erica Johnson, for being there when I needed her most, and for being a shining example of how a woman can survive and succeed in academia. Aaron Ducker, the most amazing Canadian debater and supportive friend imaginable. Tim Fitzpatrick, who went above and beyond as an assigned mentor and human being, and answered a myriad of questions regarding academia and the Institute. But this project would never have been completed without the love and constant support of my astonishingly amazing husband, Hendry Miller. He has been a rock to lean on in times of trouble, and a font of fun and jokes when I needed them most. Bear, I love you, and I could not have done this without you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... vi 1. INTRODUCTION AND AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION……………………………………………………………………………………1 2. NAPOLEON AND FRANCE AS SEEN THROUGH RELIGIOUS EYES: NEW ENGLAND’S MINISTERS WEIGH IN ON POLITICAL MATTERS FROM THE PULPIT ..32 3. “HE WAS NO WASHINGTON:” AMERICAN REPUBLICAN UNDERSTANDINGS OF BONAPARTE IN THE WAKE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON ................................................85 4. PARANOIA IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC: SECRET SOCIETIES ......................................126 5. PARANOIA IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC: INVASION FEARS—REAL AND IMAGINED…………………………………………………………………………………..176 6. THE REHABILITATION OF THE IMAGE OF NAPOLEON.............................................209 7. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................259 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................267 Biographical Sketch.....................................................................................................................302 v ABSTRACT My project, entitled, “‘Our Bonaparte’: Republicanism, Religion, and Paranoia in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, 1789-1830,” examines how American politicians used the idea of Napoleon Bonaparte to reflect (or distort) contemporary political issues in the New England and Mid-Atlantic areas of the United States. I show how Napoleon became a standard piece of political imagery to either support or attack specific political beliefs and opinions during the first three decades of the nineteenth century, depending on which political faction was discussing Bonaparte at the time. My introductory chapter explains how Americans viewed the French Revolution, which, in many ways, shows how these same Americans saw Napoleon—that he was the apogee of that revolution or he was its destroyer. My next chapter examines how Americans used the image of Napoleon as a potential mirror for their own government and society—while there was ample fear that Bonaparte’s example would be used by an American to usurp the political power in America, there was also great fear in New England and the Mid-Atlantic that Napoleon was also a portent of the end of days and that he himself was the Antichrist. In these chapters I show how millenarianism interacted with the commercial problems with the Continental System’s European blockade to influence an entirely negative view of Napoleon in those areas. I also look at how the idea of Napoleon is contrasted with the ideal republican—George Washington—and how this image haunts him, despite crucial differences in the understanding of the idea of republicanism in America and in France. I discuss in two chapters the effect of paranoia upon Americans’ understanding of Napoleon and France, specifically because of perceived “French influence” within the United States’ government and French sympathizers. My last t shows how vi the image of Napoleon was resurrected after his death from a negative one in which he was portrayed as an evil man who may or may not be the Antichrist to one who astutely saw the potential in America and sought to help the U.S. during his time in power through the sale of Louisiana in 1803, among other things. The importance of this project is that it is a new way of viewing both politics and politicians in the 19th century by asking what can Napoleon tell historians about nineteenth century political culture. Napoleon was a widely known figure whose life parallels how politics changed during the Early Republic period in American history. My project gives readers the opportunity to see how interconnected with the world America was becoming in the nineteenth century, with new political vocabulary and references to a well-known European figure. I believe that this study will provide many new insights into how nineteenth century Americans saw themselves, their place in the world, and their fears and understandings about that place. Despite growing American interest in the much larger world, the majority of the 19th century saw Americans almost completely ignoring foreign policy and foreign events, thanks to the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, two years after Napoleon died in exile. The peace after Napoleon’s final fall in 1815 meant that there were few foreign wars for America to avoid, as per George Washington’s farewell address warning Americans to steer away from foreign entanglements. It stands to reason that Americans should have no reason to bring up the specter of Napoleon, a quasi-military dictator who illegally came to power in a military coup d’état in 1799. Yet Americans do refer back to Napoleon, and often throughout the first decades of the century. Why might they want to do this? As a way of making common cause with the formerly glorious Emperor of the French? Or by comparing their enemies to Napoleon the ruthless warmonger with his ceaseless war-making? vii My research question asks what meaning might Americans find within Napoleon? I seek to understand why they chose him, a foreigner, to provide support or defense against American political debates during this time. Americans could have chosen another American (like George Washington) to use as an example, and yet they referred to Napoleon. Why would they do this? What meaning is there in their choice of him as opposed to one of their own countrymen? What does Napoleon stand for in their rhetoric? Are they interested in him as the model of a potential usurper or as a canny politician in his own right? Are they concerned with his use of the military, and thus sought to limit it? viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION “The greatest of national calamities has at length befallen us, and we are engaged, as the admirable proclamation of his Excellency (President James Madison) expresses it, ‘in war against the nation from which we are descended, and which for many generations has been the bulwark of the religion we profess,’” rector John Sylvester Gardiner told his Boston congregation in 1812. Continuing, Gardiner remarked that it was a singularly bad time for the United States to enter into a war, because “we have neither army, nor navy, nor money, nor inclination, to flatter us with the remotest possibility of success, and which must terminate in the disgrace of our arms, and possibly in the loss of our liberties.” But why was America declaring a war against Great Britain in 1812? Gardiner answered, “The first cause of our present alarming situation was the French revolution.” Gardiner believed,