Editorial Note

In August 1793 relations dramatically deteriorated between the Washington administration and the French minister to the United States, Edmond Charles Genet. Federalists circulated a report that he had threatened to appeal to the American people against Washington’s neutrality policy. His denial of this report only made matters worse since Genet wrote directly to Washington, thereby drawing a sharp rebuke from the secretary of state. Federalists were first off the mark in organizing public meetings—a characteristic of American politics ever since the Stamp Act crisis—as vehicles for marshaling public opinion. In Virginia and many other states, these Federalist-sponsored meetings passed resolutions denouncing Genet and supporting the president’s Neutrality Proclamation. Hamilton probably urged John Marshall and excise supervisor Edward Carrington to hold such a meeting in Richmond. Under the chairmanship of Jefferson’s former law tutor, George Wythe, the 17 August meeting passed resolutions that in effect hurled a gauntlet into the heartland of republicanism (Jefferson to JM, second letter of 11 Aug., 25 Aug. 1793, and n. 1; JM to Jefferson, 27 Aug. 1793; Wythe to Jefferson and Edmund Randolph, 17 Aug. 1793, Jefferson to Wythe, 1 Sept. 1793 [DLC: Jefferson Papers]).

JM quickly took up the challenge. From 20 August to 1 September he visited at Monroe’s house near Charlottesville, where the two Republicans planned “an early & well digested effort for calling out the real sense of the people … particularly by setting on foot expressions of the public mind in important Counties, and under the auspices of respectable names.” JM was trying to educate the public and influence opinion in favor of Republican principles: “The Country is too much uninformed, and too inert to speak for itself; and the language of the towns which are generally directed by an adverse interest will insidiously inflame the evil” (JM to Jefferson, 27 Aug. and second letter of 2 Sept. 1793). He and Monroe drafted resolutions with an eye toward the same political constraints that had governed the arguments of the “Helvidius” essays. They advocated solidarity with republicanism and revolution in France, while affirming loyalty to Washington and avoiding a discussion of neutrality’s merits.

Monroe attended the district court at Staunton and carried a draft of the resolutions to Archibald Stuart. As secretary of the 3 September public meeting, Stuart presented the resolutions. John Marshall had encouraged Federalist Gabriel Jones to bring forward resolutions similar to those passed at Richmond. The Staunton meeting, however, paraphrased resolutions from the draft by JM and Monroe. The draft avoided any mention of Genet, but the Staunton meeting added a resolution that dissociated Republicans from the French minister: “We most sincerely desire that the imprudence and indiscretion of a servant of France on the one hand, or of the ill judged interference of our own citizens (not in the executive department) on the other, may not disunite two nations, who have embraced the same principles of freedom, and who we believe esteem each other most ardently” (Richmond Va. Gazette, and General Advertiser, 2 Oct. 1793; the Staunton resolutions were also published as a broadside [Evans description begins Charles Evans, ed., American Bibliography … 1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). Roger P. Bristol, ed., Supplement to Charles Evans’ American Bibliography (Charlottesville, Va., 1970). description ends 26204]; see also JM to Stuart, 1 Sept. 1793). The reference to “the ill judged interference of our own citizens (not in the executive department)” struck at Chief Justice John Jay and Senator Rufus King, New York Federalists who had published the report of Genet’s threat to appeal to the people against the president.

JM also urged John Taylor to organize a public meeting in Caroline County. On 10 September Taylor’s cousin Edmund Pendleton presided at the meeting, which adopted resolutions that followed closely those drafted by JM and Monroe. As had happened at Staunton, the Caroline County meeting added a resolution obliquely criticizing Genet, Jay, and King: “That … all Applications of a Minister … to the people … are highly improper, & tend to create parties & dissensions amongst Us…. We therefore declare our disapprobation of certain Attempts in late News-paper publications, to make some alledged behaviour of that kind in the Minister of the French Nation, if any such really existed, the means of withdrawing our affection, either from the beloved President, or our Respectable Allies.” Pendleton then sent a copy of the resolutions to Washington, and Jefferson drafted the president’s reply to Pendleton (DLC: Washington Papers; printed in Richmond Va. Gazette, and General Advertiser, 25 Sept. 1793; see also JM to Jefferson, 27 Aug. 1793; Pendleton to Washington, 11 Sept. 1793, Mays, Papers of Edmund Pendleton, 2:613–15; Jefferson, “Heads of answer to the Caroline resolns.,” 22 Sept. 1793 [DLC: Jefferson Papers]; Washington to Pendleton, public letter of 23 Sept. 1793, Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington description begins John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745–1799 (39 vols.; Washington, 1931–44). description ends , 33:91–92; Taylor to JM, 25 Sept. 1793).

When the district court met at Charlottesville on 15 September, the opposition of John Nicholas, Jr. (Federalist clerk of Albemarle County), was sufficient to thwart the disorganized Republicans. At the next meeting of the county court, however, Albemarle citizens approved resolutions that generally paraphrased those drafted by JM and Monroe (Monroe to JM, 25 Sept. 1793, and n. 5; Nicholas Lewis to Washington, 24 Oct. 1793 [DLC: Washington Papers]).

Elsewhere in Virginia, the resolutions drafted by JM and Monroe met with less success. After the district court at Fredericksburg adjourned, Republicans convened a 7 October meeting of citizens from the several counties in the judicial district. With James Mercer in the chair, the meeting deliberated resolutions similar to those drafted by JM and Monroe. Unexpectedly, Federalists invaded the meeting, referred the resolutions to a committee charged with expressing the sense of the meeting, and obtained a postponement until the following day. When the meeting reconvened, Federalist excise inspector Edward Stevens maneuvered the proceedings into a bland session where the committee, fearful that any resolutions might be “overexpressive of their own sentiments,” merely urged citizens to hold other meetings in their own counties and act independently. According to Monroe’s account of the incident, the Republicans “awed the sects, tories, & their assistants into silence” so the meeting could pass no resolutions. Thus the Fredericksburg Republicans were stalemated but obtained a victory of sorts when their resolutions were printed in a Richmond newspaper (Va. Herald, and Fredericksburg Advertiser, 3 Oct. 1793; Richmond Va. Gazette, and General Advertiser, 16 and 23 Oct. 1793; Monroe to Jefferson, 14 Oct. 1793, Hamilton, Writings of Monroe, 1:278–79).

Stevens convened a meeting at Culpeper Court House on 21 October. Despite Federalist influence, the meeting endorsed the French alliance. While JM was satisfied with the Culpeper resolutions, he considered those approved by another Federalist-sponsored meeting in Fauquier County “to be a servile eccho of those in Richmond.” Thus, as a vehicle for mobilizing public opinion, the model resolutions that he and Monroe drafted were a qualified success. Their approval in Caroline County, Staunton, and Charlottesville and their mixed reception elsewhere reflected the strengths and weaknesses of the fledgling Republican political organization in Virginia (Va. Herald, and Fredericksburg Advertiser, 3 Oct. and 14 Nov. 1793; Stevens to Washington, 25 Oct. 1793 [DLC: Washington Papers]; JM to Monroe, 29 Oct. 1793; see also Harry Ammon, “The Genet Mission and the Development of American Political Parties,” Journal of American History, 52 [1965–66]: 730–37).