Notes
Abbreviations
| ASP | American State Papers: Foreign Relations, vol. 1 |
| PAH | Harold C. Syrett and Jacob E. Cooke, eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 29 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961–87) |
| PGW | -CS W. W. Abbot et al., eds., The Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series, 6 vols. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992–[97]) |
| PGW-PS | Dorothy Twohig, ed., The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, 20 vols. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1987–[2019]) |
| PTJ | Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 44 vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950–[2017]) |
Introduction
1. PGW-PS, 12:396n1.
2. Leibiger, Founding Friendship, 153–154.
3. Throughout the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, presidents from Thomas Jefferson through Theodore Roosevelt issued neutrality statements or passed neutrality laws to discourage Americans from becoming embroiled in foreign wars. See Fenwick, Neutrality Laws of the United States, 31, 33, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58.
4. In the 1930s a series of neutrality acts were passed to prevent American involvement in what would become World War II. See Fenwick, American Neutrality, 34–35, 37, 40, 46–47. Reflecting scholarly and popular interest in the topic, a comprehensive four-volume examination of neutrality was also published around this time. See Jessup and Deak, Neutrality. On American isolation prior to World War II, see Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy.
5. Two recent books dedicate a chapter to the neutrality policy, both seeing it as one of the governing challenges of the early national period. Berkin, Sovereign People, identifies the neutrality proclamation as one of four “crises” in the 1790s but does not provide an in-depth examination of its formulation or implementation. Chervinsky’s The Cabinet, highlights the major issues Washington and his cabinet confronted in formulating the policy, along with some of the implementation challenges. Her primary concern, however, is with the cabinet’s dynamics in formulating this and other policies rather than offering a comprehensive examination of neutrality.
6. On early American diplomacy, see Bowman, Struggle for Neutrality; DeConde, Entangling Alliance; Gilbert, To the Farewell Address; Varg, Foreign Policies of the Founding Fathers; and Combs, Jay Treaty. On the War of 1812, see Hickey, War of 1812; and Stagg, Mr. Madison’s War. The volume in the series Oxford History of the United States dealing with foreign policy, George C. Herring’s From Colony to Superpower, gives little attention to the actual proclamation, focusing instead on the rivalry between Hamilton and Jefferson.
7. See Thomas, American Neutrality in 1793; and Hyneman, First American Neutrality.
8. For an introduction to a globalized approach to American history, see McMahon, “Toward a Pluralist Vision”; Manela, “United States in the World”; and Kupperman, “International at the Creation.”
9. Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 14, 17.
10. Kulsrud, “Armed Neutralities to 1780,” 423–447.
11. Madariaga, Britain, Russia, and the Armed Neutrality of 1780, 156, 157, 169, 171. See also Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800.
12. For British and American perspectives on eighteenth-century privateering, see Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise; and Swanson, Predators and Prizes.
13. On America’s early efforts to be viewed as “treaty worthy,” see Gould, Among the Powers of the Earth.
14. For an introduction to the “neglected” field of American institutional history, see Novak, “Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” 752–772. See also Edling, Revolution in Favor of Government; Edling, Hercules in the Cradle; Rao, National Duties; Chervinsky, The Cabinet; and Balogh, Government out of Sight. On the building and subsequent downsizing of the federal bureaucracy in the nation’s early decades, see White, The Federalists; and White, The Jeffersonians.
15. During the Revolution, the Americans embraced the Westphalian system of state sovereignty and territoriality in order to be considered “treaty-worthy” by potential allies. See Sadosky, Revolutionary Negotiations, 6; and Gould, Among the Powers of the Earth, 12.
16. Kaplan, Colonies into Nation, 187.
17. For an overview of the 1790s, see Wood, Empire of Liberty.
18. Wood, Empire of Liberty, 95, 140.
19. Gautham Rao’s recent article offers a valuable introduction to the literature in this field. See “New Historiography of the Early Federal Government,” 97–128.
20. See McCullough, John Adams; and Chernow, Alexander Hamilton.
21. See Edling, Revolution in Favor of Government; Edling, Hercules in the Cradle; and Rao, National Duties.
22. While discussions of Washington’s presidency have tended to emphasize the policy and partisan debates between Hamilton and Jefferson, recent historians have recognized Washington’s political acumen, his policy preferences, and his leadership skills as president, including his strong commitment to the success of republican government. On Washington’s reentry into public life, including his election as the nation’s first president, see Larson, Return of George Washington. On his efforts to establish a republican ceremonial culture, see Moats, Celebrating the Republic; Breen, George Washington’s Journey; and Kathleen Bartoloni-Tuazon, For Fear of an Elective King. For his presidential accomplishments, see Chervinsky, The Cabinet; and Leibiger, Founding Friendship.
23. On the formulation of the proclamation, most histories rely on Thomas, American Neutrality in 1793. His approach stresses the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson and overlooks Washington’s influential role.
24. See “The Farewell Address,” September 19, 1796, Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 35:231–237.
25. Jefferson’s reasons are explained in greater detail in chapter 4 below. See also Chervinsky, The Cabinet, 199–200.
26. On western-boundary disputes between the British Empire and the American republic as well as Native Americans, see Taylor, Divided Ground. On Indian warfare in Ohio during the 1790s, see Calloway, Victory with No Name; and Sleeper-Smith, Indigenous Prosperity and American Conquest.
27. On the vital connection between interior agriculture and transatlantic shipping, see McCoy, Elusive Republic, 84, 85, 132, 238. On the global ramifications of slavery and cotton, including in the Atlantic, see Beckert, Empire of Cotton, 110, 121, 213, 467.
28. The Atlantic world has attracted a vast literature. A good place to start is Bailyn, Atlantic History. See also Edling, Hercules in the Cradle, 8, 13; and Gilje, “Commerce and Conquest in Early American Foreign Relations,” 735–770. For a contrasting opinion that stresses westward territorial expansion as the more important factor, see Shankman, “Toward a Social History of Federalism,” 615–653.
29. On Genet, see Ammon, The Genet Mission. On the widespread practice of colonial American privateering, see Carp, Rebels Rising; Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront; Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors; and Vickers, Young Men and the Sea.
30. Wood, Empire of Liberty, 89.
31. Prince, Federalists and the Origins of the U.S. Civil Service; White, The Federalists.
32. On the revival of diplomatic history and the long overdue inclusion of the early republic in discussions of globalization, see Dierks, “Americans Overseas in the Early American Republic,” 18–35.
33. On sailors abroad, see Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors; and Rouleau, With Sails Whitening Every Sea.
34. See Conroy-Krutz, Christian Imperialism; and Van, “Cents and Sensibilities,” 72–89.
35. Chervinsky, The Cabinet, 4, 5, 6.
36. On the masculine world of letters, see Bushman, Refinement of America 90; and Shields, Civil Tongues and Polite Letters, 203, 310, 326.
37. Washington Catherine Macaulay Graham, January 9, 1790, PGW-PS, 4:551–554.
Chapter 1
1 Beckert, Empire of Cotton, 110.
2 On this transatlantic exchange of goods, ideas, technologies, and information, see Hancock, Citizens of the World, 29–36.
3 Carp, Rebels Rising, 7; Nash, Urban Crucible, 3, 54; Vickers, Young Men and the Sea, 7, 41.
4 Hancock, Citizens of the World, 132.
5 Carp, Rebels Rising, 27; Vickers, Young Men and the Sea, 79, 120, 132, 145; Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 28.
6 Carp, Rebels Rising, 19, 67.
7 Even George Washington was drawn to the sea, but his mother refused to let him join the Royal Navy, so he pursued a career in the army instead. See Flexner, George Washington: The Forge of Experience, 30; Vickers, Young Men and the Sea, 106, 112, 123, 145, 159; and Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 68.
8 Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 20, 71; Lemisch, Jack Tar vs. John Bull, 3–5.
9 Lemisch, Jack Tar vs. John Bull, 4. For a comprehensive overview of the rich cultural life of sailors, see Gilje, To Swear like a Sailor.
10 For frequent examples of weather-related challenges, see Preble and Green, Diary of Ezra Green, 17–28.
11 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 21, 22, 24, 25.
12 Brunsman, Evil Necessity, 2, 48, 241, 245.
13 Vickers, Young Men and the Sea, 156, 157.
14 Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 74, 83; Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 26.
15 Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 69, 74. On the common vessels used in the American transatlantic trade, see Jarvis, In the Eye of All Trade, 122–125.
16 Colley, Britons, 62, 65, 71.
17 On Dutch dominance of the seventeenth-century Atlantic, see Koot, Empire at the Periphery. On Britain’s expanding role in the eighteenth century, see Brewer, Sinews of Power, 168; and Colley, Britons, 79, 99.
18 See Rediker, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, 285; and Gilje, To Swear like a Sailor, 18–19.
19 Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise, 24–26.
20 In addition to diplomats, maritime nations posted consuls in port cities to promote their commerce and protect their merchant ships and sailors. Treaties with the host country determined the conduct of these foreign consuls. In 1784, for example, France had a consul general, four consuls, and five vice consuls in American ports. As the United States became an independent nation, it slowly formalized this practice, first through a consular convention with France and then in a 1792 law defining the rules and responsibilities of the American consular service. In the 1790s, the United States had twelve consuls and six vice consuls appointed in different European ports. See Patterson, “Department of State,” 317, 318, 324, 325. See also Crowhurst, French War on Trade, 67.
21 On Britain’s increased reliance on privateering and its growing legitimacy, see Hanna, Pirate Nests and the Rise of the British Empire, 200, 357–358, 366, 412, 420.
22 Jessup and Deak, Neutrality, 1:14–15.
23 Swanson, Predators and Prizes, 20.
24 Hancock, Citizens of the World, 244–245.
25 Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 107; Nash, Urban Crucible, 170.
26 Several other European countries did not agree to this ban either. See Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise, 245, 251n3. See also Stark, “Abolition of Privateering.”
27 The Consolato del mare first appeared as a published document in Spain in 1494, although its tenets had been governing trade on the Mediterranean for at least a century before. See Jessup and Deak, Neutrality, 4:1, 124–125; and Neff, Rights and Duties of Neutrals, 12, 18–19.
28 In the English translation, the specific rule stated, “If an armed ship or cruiser meet with a merchant vessel, belonging to an enemy and carrying a cargo, the property of an enemy, common sense will sufficiently point out what is to be done: it is, therefore, unnecessary to lay down any rules for such a case.” Jessup and Deak, Neutrality, 1:124.
29 Three Anglo-French treaties included some variation of the phrase “free ships make free goods”: the Treaty of Westminster (1655), the Treaty of St. Germaine-en-Laye (1677), and the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). See Neff, Rights and Duties of Neutrals, 29–32; and Jessup and Deak, Neutrality, 1:126.
30 Holland’s treaties with Portugal and France in 1661 and 1662, respectively, also contained this phrase. See Fenwick, American Neutrality, 10; and Jessup and Deak, Neutrality, 1:40, 131.
31 Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 29. Eliga H. Gould cites the Treaty of Utrecht and the earlier Treaty of Westphalia (1648) as so influential as to be considered “public law” across Europe. The Westphalia accords created the rules that established the international community of diplomacy. Gould, Among the Powers of the Earth, 17; and Herring, From Colony to Superpower, 12–13.
32 Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 30.
33 The phrase “letter of marque and reprisal” originally referred to a license a sovereign would give to a subject to recover property losses incurred because of the actions of an enemy’s army or navy. With the dropping of the term “reprisal,” the “letter of marque” assumed a more aggressive role, serving as the commission sovereigns issued to authorize wartime privateering. See Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise, 20–22.
34 Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise, 21; Andrews, Elizabethan Privateering during the Spanish War.
35 Colley, Britons, 70.
36 Brewer, Sinews of Power, 197. On the Anglo-French wars that dominated the eighteenth century, see Colley, Britons, 79, 99.
37 Swanson, Predators and Prizes, 3, 5. For a detail discussion of seventeenth-century American privateering, see Chapin, Privateer Ships and Sailors, 20, 22, 24, 28, 33; and Jameson, Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period.
38 The North American counterparts of these two European conflicts were King William’s War (1689–97) and Queen Anne’s War (1702–13), respectively. See Brunsman, Evil Necessity, 28.
39 Swanson, Predators and Prizes, 6.
40 This war eventually merged into Europe’s War of Austrian Succession, with King George’s War serving as its North American counterpart. See Brunsman, Evil Necessity, 28.
41 Swanson, Predators and Prizes, 6; Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 34. See also Chapin, Privateering in King George’s War.
42 Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise, 22, 23, 24; Ubbelohde, Vice-Admiralty Courts, 5, 6, 9, 15, 17.
43 Swanson, Predators and Prizes, 38.
44 Carp, Rebels Rising, 67.
45 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 36, 37. During the nineteenth century, American privateering continued to be an important component of war, particularly during the War of 1812. During the Civil War, the Confederate States of America relied on privateers to weaken both the U.S. Navy and its coastal blockade. See Kert, Privateering, and Head, Privateers of the Americas. See also Scharf, History of the Confederate States Navy.
46 While many books have dealt with privateering over the centuries in different wars and among a range of countries, this discussion seeks to connect privateering to the U.S. government’s desire for free trade and neutrality.
47 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 37; Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 76.
48 Nash, Urban Crucible, 165.
49 Nash, Urban Crucible, 167.
50 Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 20.
51 Nash, Urban Crucible, 166, 177.
52 Carp, Rebels Rising, 67.
53 Nash, Urban Crucible, 165, 166, 167–168, 169.
54 Garitee, Republic’s Private Navy, 9; Anderson, Crucible of War, xxvii, 11.
55 See Cohen, Commodore Abraham Whipple, 12, 13; Truxes, Defying Empire, 4, 5, 157; and Ubbelohde, Vice-Admiralty Courts, 23.
56 On the “Rule of 1756,” see Neff, Rights and Duties of Neutrals, 65–68.
57 In the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), France and Britain had affirmed the right of free trade. See Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 29, 30.
58 Nash, Urban Crucible, 240–241.
59 Nash, Urban Crucible, 239.
60 Nash, Urban Crucible, 237.
61 Garitee, Republic’s Private Navy, 7, 8.
62 Account of the Voyages and Cruizes of Captain Walker, 1–3. See also Swanson, Predators and Prizes, 67–68, 88, 133–134.
63 Nash, Urban Crucible, 182, 240–41, 246.
64 Nash, Urban Crucible, 177; Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 110; Truxes, Defying Empire, 80, 81, 86, 157.
65 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 34, 38, 55, 59.
66 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 41, 52; Ubbelohde, Vice-Admiralty Courts, 24.
67 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 38, 67.
68 Between 1651 and 1673, the British government enacted several trade and navigation acts intended to regulate how colonists shipped certain raw materials. First, valuable items such as tobacco and sugar could only be traded through England. Second, they established a system of duties, along with the appointment of royal customs-house officers to enforce and collect them. Third, these restrictions limited colonial trade to nations that were at peace with Britain. Skirting these laws within American port cities became standard practice. Truxes, Defying Empire, 225.
69 Brunsman, Evil Necessity, 2, 172, 173.
70 Brunsman, Evil Necessity, 228–229; Carp, Rebels Rising, 37.
71 Brunsman, Evil Necessity, 230–231, 237–238.
72 Truxes, Defying Empire, 225; Carp, Rebels Rising, 38–39.
73 Carp, Rebels Rising, 44, 45, 55.
74 Carp, Rebels Rising, 53.
75 McManemin, Captains of the Privateers, i.
76 Crawford, Autobiography of a Yankee Mariner, 140, 191.
77 Winslow, “Wealth and Honor,” 16.
78 Not surprisingly, Massachusetts employed the most privateers, 626, followed by Pennsylvania with 500, and Maryland with 225. See Coggins, Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution, 74; McManemin, Captains of the Privateers, ii, 535–556; and Morgan, “American Privateering,” 82, 83.
79 For a comprehensive overview of America’s naval presence during the Revolution, see Volo, Blue Water Patriots. On these naval estimates, see Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 106.
80 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 48; Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 534–535.
81 McManemin, Captains of the Privateers, iv; Morgan, “American Privateering,” 84.
82 Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 99, 102.
83 Broadside, Beverly, MA, September 17, 1776, Library Company of Philadelphia.
84 Gilje, Liberty on the Waterfront, 107, 110, 112, 114.
85 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 99.
86 Perl-Rosenthal, Citizen Sailors, 4–5, 11; Brunsman, Evil Necessity, 182.
87 Crawford, Autobiography of a Yankee Mariner, 233–235.
88 Fanning, Narrative of the Adventures of an American Navy Officer, 13, 177.
89 Painter, Autobiography, 16, 21, 25, 47. For additional anecdotal accounts of privateering, see Maclay, History of American Privateers, and Petrie, Prize Game.
90 Clark, George Washington’s Navy, 2, 4, 6, 229, 236.
91 John Parke Custis (1754–81) was one of Martha Washington’s two surviving adult children. George Washington became his guardian and the administrator of the substantial Custis estate when he married Martha in 1759. See Chase, Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, 1:15–16n. On the vessel’s name, see Custis to Washington, October 1777, ibid., 12:73–74n. On the privateer’s joint ownership, see Washington to Custis, November 14, 1777, ibid., 249–250.
92 Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 27, 28, 31; Gould, Among the Powers of the Earth, 1, 2.
Chapter 2
1. In 1494 this code of laws and practices appeared as a published document in Spain, although its rules had been in use since the thirteenth century. See Jessup and Deak, Neutrality, 1:124n3. See also Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 15, 29.
2. Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 15, 16, 17.
3. Fenwick, American Neutrality, 9; and Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 18.
4. On transatlantic exchanges of information, see Knott, Sensibility and the American Revolution, 16, 17; and Rosenfeld, Common Sense, 10. On the economic exchanges, see also Hancock, Citizens of the World, 29–36.
5. For an introduction to the American Revolution’s philosophical origins, see Wood, Radicalism of the American Revolution, and Pocock, Machiavellian Moment.
6. For an overview of Vattel’s life (1714–67), see Béla Kapossy and Richard Whatmore, introduction to Vattel, Law of Nations (2008).
7. Vattel, Law of Nations (1872), lxiii.
8. Vattel, Law of Nations (1872), 125.
9. Vattel, Law of Nations (1872), 144.
10. Vattel, Law of Nations (1872), 332. For a further examination of the ideas of Grotius, Vattel, and others, see Tuck, Rights of War and Peace, 90, 91, 107, 191–195.
11. William Bradford to Madison, October 17, 1774, Hutchinson and Rachal, Papers of James Madison, 1:125–128.
12. “Reports on Books for Congress,” January 23, 1783, Hutchinson and Rachal, Papers of James Madison, 6:62–115; Franklin to Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, December 9, 1775, Labaree and Bell, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 22:287–291.
13. At a cabinet meeting on April 18, 1793, Hamilton cited Vattel to support his argument that the 1778 treaty with France was not valid, an interpretation Jefferson disputed. See “Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on a Cabinet Meeting,” May 6, 1793, PGW-PS, 12:529–530.
14. Fenwick, American Neutrality, 11.
15. Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 46.
16. Franklin to James Bowdoin, March 24, 1776, Labaree and Bell, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 22:389–390.
17. Washington to Robert Cary & Company, October 6, 1773, Abbot et al., Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series, 9:343–345.
18. Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 52; Allen et al., Diary of John Quincy Adams, 2:287 (September 12, 1787).
19. Jefferson to John Garland Jefferson, June 11, 1790, PTJ, 16:480–482.
20. Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, published in January 1776, pioneered the idea that diplomacy offered the pathway to American independence. See Kaplan, Colonies into Nation, 90. On the “Secret Committee,” see Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 396, 398; and Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 59.
21. Lee’s complete resolution of June 7, 1776, stated: “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought, to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together.” See “Notes of Proceedings in the Continental Congress, June 7, 1776,” PTJ, 1:299.
22. Richard Henry Lee regarded the Declaration of Independence as a foreign-policy statement because only with diplomatic recognition would America become an independent nation. See Gould, Among the Powers of the Earth, 113, 114; and Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 52, 53.
23. Kaplan, Colonies into Nation, 90–91.
24. See Ferling, John Adams, 15, 155–156, 176–177, 186.
25. “Notes on Relations with France, March–April 1776,” Butterfield, Gaber, and Garrett, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, 2:236.
26. Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 399; Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 53, 54. On the American desire for commercial independence, see Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 27, 28, 31.
27. “In Congress, June–July, 1776,” Butterfield, Gaber, and Garrett, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, 3:337–338.
28. Adams, along with Franklin, concurrently served on the committee writing the Declaration of Independence, with Jefferson charged with drafting that document. The committee of treaties also consisted of John Dickinson, Benjamin Harrison, and Robert Morris. See “Editorial Note on the Plan of Treaties,” Labaree and Bell, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 22:473–474; and Ferling, John Adams, 188.
29. The three Anglo-French treaties that Adams used for Articles XIV–XXX of the Model Treaty were the Treaty of Peace, Westminster, 1655; the Whitehall Treaty of 1686, also known as the American Treaty of Peace, Good Correspondence, and Neutrality; and the Treaty of Navigation and Commerce, accompanying the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. See Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 4:278n11. On the Acadian–New England neutrality referred to in the Whitehall Treaty, see Faragher, Great and Noble Scheme, 79–80, 86.
30. See Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 4:263.
31. Stinchcombe, “John Adams and the Model Treaty,” 69–84; “Editorial Note on the Plan of Treaties,” Labaree and Bell, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 22:473–474.
32. Stourzh, Benjamin Franklin and American Foreign Policy, 125.
33. For the final version of the Plan of Treaties, adopted by the Continental Congress on September 17, 1776, see Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 4:290–300.
34. Stourzh, Benjamin Franklin and American Foreign Policy, 126.
35. “In Congress,” March 23, 1776, Library Company of Philadelphia. Evans Microcard 15135.
36. Ferling, John Adams, 189, 190, 197.
37. Article XXII of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce had unexpected long-term ramifications when the United States declared its neutrality in 1793 and France wanted to be able to privateer in American ports. This article reads, “It shall not be lawful for any foreign Privateers, not belonging to Subjects of the most Christian King nor Citizens of the said United States, who have Commissions from any other Prince or State in enmity with either Nation to fit their Ships in the Ports of either the one or the other of the aforesaid Parties, to sell what they have taken or in any other manner whatsoever to exchange their Ships, Merchandizes or any other lading; neither shall they be allowed even to purchase victuals except such as shall be necessary for their going to the next Port of that Prince or State from which they have Commissions.” Revolutionary France interpreted this prohibition as a right to privateer, even in the 1790s. For both the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and the Treaty of Alliance, see Bevans, Treaties and Other International Agreements, 7:763–780.
38. Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 408, 409–410, 411; Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 93, 94.
39. Spain established a unilateral treaty with France in 1779. See Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 69.
40. Madariaga, Britain, Russia, and the Armed Neutrality, 151, 156, 157; Madariaga, Catherine the Great, 81, 82.
41. Bolkhovitinov, Beginnings of Russian-American Relations, 14; Montefiore, Prince of Princes, 210.
42. Madariaga, Catherine the Great, 81.
43. Madariaga, Catherine the Great, 82, 83; Madariaga, Britain, Russia, and the Armed Neutrality, 178.
44. Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800, 273–274.
45. The Declaration of Armed Neutrality of 1780 was not the first such agreement. Russia modeled their efforts on earlier armed-neutrality agreements from 1613, 1689, 1691, 1693, and 1756, with smaller countries such as Sweden, Holland, and Denmark participating in them. See Kulsrud, “Armed Neutralities to 1780,” 3, 423, 428, 431, 433, 436.
46. Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800, 280, 285.
47. Madariaga, Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great, 483; Bolkhovitinov, Beginnings of Russian-American Relations, 14; Madariaga, Catherine the Great, 83.
48. Bolkhovitinov, Beginnings of Russian-American Relations, 13; Morris, Peacemakers, 166.
49. Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800, 406, 419, 420, 430, 433.
50. Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800, 282.
51. Madariaga, Catherine the Great, 83.
52. Washington to Rochambeau, March 21, 1781, Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 21:350; Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 81.
53. Madariaga, Catherine the Great, 84; Madariaga, Britain, Russia, and the Armed Neutrality, 193; Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 87.
54. Griffiths, “American Contribution to the Armed Neutrality of 1780,” 2, 165.
55. Ferling, John Adams, 216.
56. Adams to the President of Congress, April 26, 1780. Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 9:238–240.
57. Morris, Peacemakers, 199.
58. In late 1776 Congress authorized missions to Prussia, Austria, and Tuscany. Historians coined the phrase based on a letter Adams wrote to Robert Livingston on February 21, 1782: “militia sometimes gain victories over regular troops even by departing from the rules.” See Stourzh, Benjamin Franklin and American Foreign Policy, 126; and Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 87.
59. Adams to the President of Congress, September 16, 1780, Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 10:156–158. See also Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 81.
60. Adams to C. W. F. Dumas, October 4, 1780, Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 10:252–254.
61. See Ferling, John Adams, 227; and Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 81.
62. Prior to 1776, Franklin had amassed significant experience as a pro-British colonial agent and businessman in Great Britain. He first went there as a young man in 1726. He later returned for two long stints, first representing Pennsylvania from 1757 to 1762, then from 1764 to 1775 he added New Jersey, Georgia, and Massachusetts to his portfolio. The later period, of course, coincided with the American revenue crisis, and Franklin believed his strong connections to the British government would be sufficient to negotiate a political solution. His failure to do so profoundly altered his sympathetic view of the royal authorities, and he returned to America in 1775 with a profoundly different political outlook. His experiences abroad and his celebrity in Europe made him the obvious choice to lead America’s diplomatic delegation to Paris in 1776. See Wood, Americanization of Benjamin Franklin, 29, 82, 93, 97, 104, 126, 136, 150, 151, 158, 169.
63. Franklin to the President of Congress, May 31, 1780, Labaree and Bell, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 32:448–453.
64. Franklin to the President of Congress, August 9, 1780, Labaree and Bell, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 33:160–166.
65. Stourzh, Benjamin Franklin, 160. For example, in 1782 Sweden asked to enter into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the United States. See “Instructions in Re: Treaty with Sweden,” September 28, 1782, Hutchinson and Rachal, Papers of James Madison, 5:167–168.
66. Washington to the President of Congress, December 15, 1780, Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 20:478.
67. Bolkhovitinov, Beginnings of Russian-American Relations, 18.
68. Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800, 324.
69. Morris, Peacemakers, 167, 187, 355.
70. Ferling, John Adams, 218, 239, 241–242.
71. President of Congress to Adams, December 29, 1780, Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 10:447–448.
72. President of Congress to Franklin, December 20, 1780, Labaree and Bell, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 34:188–189.
73. Adams to the President of Congress, December 25, 1780, Taylor, Kline, and Lint, Papers of John Adams, 10:435–436.
74. Stourzh, Benjamin Franklin and American Foreign Policy, 160, 161.
75. Like his diplomatic colleague Adams, Francis Dana (1745–1811) hailed from Massachusetts, attended Harvard, and was a lawyer by profession. He briefly served as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress in 1776 before traveling to Paris as Adams’s secretary. Both men also shared a distrust of what they perceived as Franklin’s excessive fealty to France. Adams demonstrated his trust in Dana by allowing his fourteen-year-old son to serve as his secretary. John Quincy Adams proved to be an asset in the Russian court because of his ability to speak French, the language of diplomacy, something Dana lacked. See Cresson, Francis Dana, 3, 11, 33, 65, 306, 385; and Nagel, John Quincy Adams, 25–26.
76. Cresson, Francis Dana, 140, 155, 167, 183, 202.
77. On Spain’s seizure of a Russian ship, see Madariaga, Catherine the Great, 83. On Russia’s unwillingness to antagonize Great Britain, see Bolkhovitinov, Beginnings of Russian-American Relations, 27. On Catherine’s reluctance to recognize the United States, see Morris, Peacemakers, 160, 166.
78. Cresson, Francis Dana, 247, 301, 305, 319.
79. Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 81, 88, 97.
80. Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 98, 100.
81. These events occurred in April and June 1782, respectively. See Hutson, John Adams and the Diplomacy of the American Revolution, 102, 107, 111, 114. For the full text of the Dutch Treaty of Amity and Commerce, see Bevans, Treaties and Other International Agreements, 10:6–18.
82. Although less commonly known than the French and Dutch agreements, the United States also entered into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with Sweden during the Revolution. In contrast to the arduous negotiations associated with its counterparts, the Swedish treaty came about rather easily. For starters, King Gustavus III and his diplomats in Versailles approached Franklin about a possible agreement. In response, the Continental Congress appointed him to handle the negotiations. On April 3, 1783, Sweden and Franklin signed the final Treaty of Amity and Commerce, modeled after France’s. See “Instructions in Re: Treaty with Sweden,” September 28, 1782, Hutchinson and Rachal, Papers of James Madison, 5:167–168. For the full text of this treaty, see Bevans, Treaties and Other International Agreements, 11:710–722.
83. Oneida Nation to Governor Trumbull, 1777, Calloway, World Turned Upside Down, 162.
84. Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country, 30, 31, 65.
85. Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country, 38; and Sadosky, Revolutionary Negotiations, 129.
86. Calloway, American Revolution in Indian Country, 273, 278, 281, 290.
87. Robert Livingston, secretary of foreign affairs, wrote to Dana on October 22, 1781, “They consider the plan of the Armed Neutrality as the best proof of an enlarged and generous policy . . . granted by the wisdom of the Empress to the trade of the world.” Adams and Dana also shared this optimistic view of Empress Catherine’s neutrality policy. See Cresson, Francis Dana, 109, 270.
88. “Continental Congress Report on American Participation in a European Neutral Confederacy,” June 12, 1783, PAH, 3:377–378n1.
89. Cresson, Francis Dana, 321.
90. The United States remained steadfast in its refusal to join European alliances. In 1794, Washington resisted overtures to join an armed-neutrality league with Sweden and Denmark. See Combs, Jay Treaty, 145, 148, 157. In 1800, France’s revolutionary wars inspired Austria, Sweden, and Denmark to form a second League of Armed Neutrality. The British navy’s destruction of the Danish fleet immediately rendered this agreement meaningless, unlike its more effective 1780 predecessor. See Chamberlain, “Pax Britannica,” 33; Scott, Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800, 531, 537, 544; and Piggott and Omond, Documentary History of the Armed Neutralities, 379.
91. For the provisions in the Treaty of Paris, see Morris, Peacemakers, 461–465.
92. Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 592–595.
93. Three of America’s free-trade agreements were with members of the League of Armed Neutrality of 1780: the Netherlands, Sweden, and Prussia. On the limited benefits of these agreements, see Gilje, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights, 42, 48–51; and Edler, The Dutch Republic and the American Revolution, 232. On the Moroccan treaty, see Field, America and the Mediterranean World, 33.
94. Sears, George Washington and the French Revolution, 183, 284.
95. By 1785, with little diplomatic work to do in Europe, Franklin returned to America, Adams moved to London to assume his ministerial duties, and Jefferson remained the sole American diplomat in Paris. See Ellis, American Sphinx, 78; and Ferling, John Adams, 275.
96. Hamilton (1755–1804), having served as an aide-de-camp to General Washington during the war, began his career in national politics in 1782 as a delegate from New York to the Confederation Congress. See Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 152, 173.
97. Publius [Alexander Hamilton], “Federalist no. 11: The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy,” in Shapiro, Federalist Papers, 55, 56.
98. U.S. Constitution, in Shapiro, Federalist Papers, 460.
Chapter 3
1. See Flexner, George Washington: The Forge of Experience, 30.
2. These European conflicts in North America include King William’s War, Queen Anne’s War, and King George’s Wars. See Anderson, Crucible of War, 11.
3. Anderson, Crucible of War, xxi, 7, 11, 49; Flexner, George Washington: The Forge of Experience, 53; Lengel, General George Washington, 19, 34.
4. Lengel, General George Washington, 19.
5. Anderson, Crucible of War, 6, 7, 11, 53; Lengel, General George Washington, 25, 30, 32, 46, 49.
6. Anderson, Crucible of War, 289–290.
7. Anderson, Crucible of War, 292; Lengel, General George Washington, 51, 78.
8. Anderson, Crucible of War, 289, 371; Lengel, General George Washington, 77, 89.
9. Lengel, General George Washington, 77, 88, 89; Flexner, George Washington: The Forge of Experience, 227–228.
10. Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 410–411. On April 12, 1779, Spain formed an alliance with France that excluded the United States. This Franco-Spanish agreement underscored Europeans’ greater interest in Continental affairs than in American independence when choosing to participate in the American Revolution. See Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 109.
11. Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 59.
12. Ferling, Ascent of George Washington, 202–203.
13. Lengel, General George Washington, 306, 307, 308.
14. Washington to John Sullivan, September 1, 1778, Lengel, General George Washington, 308.
15. On Lafayette’s and La Rouerie’s entry into the American Revolution, see Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 426; and Hume, General Washington’s Correspondence Concerning the Society of Cincinnati, 431, respectively. See also Flexner, George Washington in the American Revolution, 215; and Freeman, George Washington, 4:450, 458.
16. Washington to Morris, July 24, 1778, Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 12:227–228.
17. On the French army coming to America, see Ferling, Ascent of George Washington, 202–203, 204; and Stinchcombe, American Revolution and the French Alliance, 134.
18. Lengel, General George Washington, 331–337; Stinchcombe, American Revolution and the French Alliance, 146.
19. Americans celebrated the victory and the Franco-American alliance with ringing church bells and toasts offered to the “United States,” “Congress,” “George Washington,” “Rochambeau,” and “Louis XVI.” See Middlekauff, Glorious Cause, 595; and Stinchcombe, American Revolution and the French Alliance, 149–152.
20. See Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 23:246.
21. Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, 142; Myers, Liberty without Anarchy, 1, 148.
22. Myers, Liberty without Anarchy, 17–19, 62, 145, 155. Writing to Washington on March 14, 1784, La Rouerie complained about applications “from persons who ought to be sensible that they have no right to be admitted.” Hume, General Washington’s Correspondence Concerning the Society of Cincinnati, 113.
23. All four of these men were career military officers and members of the French aristocracy: Charles-Hector, comte D’Estaing (1729–94); Marie-Jean-Paul-Yves-Roche-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette (1757–1834); Charles Armand Tuffin, marquis de La Rouerie (1750–93); and Jean-Baptiste-Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau (1725–1807). See Hume, General Washington’s Correspondence Concerning the Society of Cincinnati, 415, 428–429, 430–431, 444.
24. On the revolutionary officers’ world view based in exclusivity, honor, and status as gentlemen, see Royster, Revolutionary People at War, 88, 210, 317, 345, 353. On the aristocratic liberal ideology that defined their approach to the French Revolution, see Harsanyi, Lessons from America, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 21.
25. Rochambeau to Washington, January 19, 1784, PGW-CS, 1:59.
26. Washington to Rochambeau, August 20, 1784, PGW-CS, 2:48.
27. La Rouerie to Washington, February 4, 1784, PGW-CS, 1:103. La Rouerie may have visited Mount Vernon in April 1784. See ibid., 104n3.
28. On Lafayette’s original plans and his subsequent visit in August, see PGW-CS, 1:182, 2:28–29. Forty years later Lafayette embarked on a triumphant tour of the United States as a living symbol of the American Revolution. See Purcell, Sealed with Blood, 171–179.
29. PGW-CS, 2:28–29n3.
30. During his campaigns in Newport and elsewhere, Admiral D’Estaing had failed to apprise Washington of his movements. See Freeman, George Washington, 5:86, 503.
31. D’Estaing to Washington, December 25, 1783, Hume, General Washington’s Correspondence Concerning the Society of Cincinnati, 39; D’Estaing to Washington, February 26, 1784, PGW-CS, 1:158.
32. Washington to Rochambeau, February 1, 1784, PGW-CS, 1:102.
33. On aristocratic liberalism, see Harsanyi, Lessons from America, 18, 21. On Washington’s republican views, see Phelps, George Washington and American Constitutionalism, 29–30.
34. Along with official reports from the American ministers stationed in Paris, including Jefferson, William Short, and Gouverneur Morris, Washington received updates from the British historian Catherine Macaulay Graham and the Irish politician Edward Newenham. He also obtained translated versions of French newspapers and pamphlets. In 1793 Martha Washington purchased a six-volume history of the French Revolution. See Sears, George Washington and the French Revolution, 14, 68, 88; and Branson, Those Fiery Frenchified Dames, 65–66. John Adams also relied on private sources to make diplomatic decisions. See Perl-Rosenthal, “Private Letters and Public Diplomacy,” 283–311.
35. The connections between the American and French Revolutions are well established. The American Revolution helped bring about the French Revolution as the alliance’s high cost triggered a financial crisis for Louis XVI and the American example offered the economically distressed French people a new civic model based in natural rights and republican government. Some recent works that connect the two revolutionary struggles include Branson, Those Fiery Frenchified Dames; Cleves, Reign of Terror in America; Dunn, Sister Revolutions; Newman, Parades and Politics of the Street; Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes; and Ziesche, Cosmopolitan Patriots.
36. On the American ceremonial culture that developed around these revolutions, see Branson, Those Fiery Frenchified Dames, and Newman, Parades and Politics of the Street. On the Federalists’ initial support, see Elkins and McKittrick, Age of Federalism, 310. On the differences between the two revolutions, see Doyle, Oxford History of the French Revolution, 114–115; and Ziesche, Cosmopolitan Patriots, 11. For the increasingly partisan understandings of the French Revolution, see Newman, Parades and Politics of the Street, 120, 125, 127.
37. Palmer, Age of Democratic Revolution, 2:40; Harsanyi, Lessons from America, 18, 20, 21.
38. See Hume, General Washington’s Correspondence Concerning the Society of Cincinnati, 415, 430–431, 444; Whitridge, Rochambeau, 300; and Sears, George Washington and the French Revolution, 9, 31–32, 50. See also Kramer, Lafayette in Two Worlds, 147.
39. Palmer, Age of Democratic Revolution, 1:461, 464, 481; Rochambeau to Washington, January 31, 1789, PGW-PS, 1:268.