FRA.NCE AND AMERICA.* IN the years which followed the foundation
of the American Republic, France and America were bound together by a tie of enthusiastic sympathy which may only be compared to the Franco-Russian frenzy of to-day. "Never-to-be-forgotten hours" were spent, according to the formula of the modern journalist, in Paris and in New York. The prim apparition of Franklin at Versailles afflicted the Court with a fit of wild excitement, and so gay a courtier as the Prince de Ligne fell a victim to the prevailing fashion. So for a season nothing was noble in the eyes of France that was not American, and in revenge America professed a profound admiration for all that was French except Voltaire and infidelity. And then came the Revolution, to knit still closer the unequal bonds which united the two Republics.
Indeed, the French Revolution was the first stirring episode in America's independent existence, and Professor Hazen in tracing the contemporary opinion of the Revolution has achieved a piece of research which, if it does not reflect much glory upon his countrymen, is still of abiding interest. It must be confessed at the outset that the Americans of the dying eighteenth century were neither moderate nor prudent. The most of those who came abroad were so blinded by fanaticism that they might as profitably have stayed at home, while those who stayed at home celebrated the most flagrant cruelties as masterpieces of political wisdom and unselfish citizenship. True, there were noble exceptions to the general obfuscation ; but Professor Hazen's book is not altogether pleasant reading, since it proves once more that ill-judged enthusiasm is as serious a danger to the State as panic fear. The politicians who believed that the worst Republic conceivable must be a thousandfold better than the most beneficent Monarchy were not likely to see events in their right relation. Thomas Jefferson, for in- stance, Professor Hazen's first traveller, was prevented by his doctrines from understanding the rudiments of European life and history. He set out for a journey through France only two months before Arthur Young, and he saw nothing because his habit of theory was stronger than his observation. He does not, like Young, denounce the con- dition of the peasantry ; being insensitive to impressions, he does not notice whether the farms are rich or poor. But he trembles when he sees a prisoner in the hands of a policeman, because to him a policeman is authority made concrete, and because he fears that "a dove is in the talons of a hawk." So, though he sojourned in Paris until the Revolution was inevitable, he did not foresee its coming. Not even bloodshed opened his eyes ; he merely refused, as Professor Hazen says, "to see its significance, be minimised its importance, and was reluctant to believe that a beautiful • Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution. By 0. D. Osseo.. Raltimore: The John Hopkins FLOSS.
dream might become a hideous, repulsive monstrosity." He only knew that a great nation "was struggling to be free," and he was certain that no infamy could spoil this vague ambition.
The doctrinaire, in fact, was incapable of sight or judgment. The English Red-book excited him to a fury, and not being gifted with prophecy, he bravely asserted that a Republican form of government was a universal safeguard against corruption. If be could revisit the world and note the progress of Tammany, or the disaster of Panama, would he revise his opinion? Probably not, since, like all men ridden by theories, he was proof against argument. Kings, priests, or nobles came to him in the guise of wild beasts, and be declares that "the comparison of our Government with those of Europe is like a comparison of Heaven and Hell." And he said all this despite the kindliness which he always cherished for Louis XVI., and despite his complete ignorance of France's real condition. When the King's head fell upon the scaffold, he forgot his earlier panegyric of the man, and merely congratulated the world that Louie's death would "render monarchs amenable to death like other criminals." But if Jefferson's doctrines perverted his judgment, they paralysed his action, and he left France without thinking or doing the smallest harm. Monroe, on the other hand, was no less determined, and far less discreet. He arrived in France soon after the fall of Robe- spierre, and saw in the National Convention nothing but patriotism and good government. In his eyes, also, the French Republic could do no wrong, and he was prepared not only to endorse its lightest resolution, but to commit his Govern- ment to the consequences of his partisanship. His reception by the Assembly was an excuse for as much eloquence and as many tears as the visit of the Russians to Toulon ; the speeches of the day were printed in the two languages, "French and American ;" and the flags of the two countries were intertwined in the hall of the Convention. The scene, no doubt, was attendrissante; but it was gravely compromising for America, and Monroe was recalled, though not before he had made many a moving address.
After these blind enthusiasms and dangerous theories it is pleasant to turn to the political wisdom and sound judgment of Gouverneur Morris, who was so little a doctrinaire that he came to France resolved to discover the truth, and remained there long enough to predict the necessity of a military tyrant. He, at least, never believed that one form of govern- ment was intrinsically the best for all nations. "Men," said he, with an obviousness which then was heretical, "men, like other animals, discover instinctively what is fit for them, and thus government becomes the result of character, manners, and conditions." He refused to discuss the rights of man ; be could not look beyond the rights of Frenchmen, Englishmen, or Americans. At home he was a staunch Republican; for France he advocated a Monarchy and class distinctions. But he was not rabid even in his own emancipation. "In adopting a Republican form of govern- ment," he wrote, "I not only took it as a man does his wife, for better, for worse, but what few men do with their wives, I took it knowing all its bad qualities." Such was the temper in whioh he contemplated the French Revolution, and it is small wonder that he was as bitterly hated in France as he was unpopular in America. But he has left an account of the Revolution until after the Terror which can hardly be bettered, and he is one of the few who kept their judgment throughout those terrible years. He even did what he could to save the King, and became at his request the depositary of his papers. Above all, he realised the horror of the mob. "Thank God," he wrote, "we have no populace in America." Yet even as he wrote the American populace was growing in power and influence, and, inspired by the example of France, was ready to outdo the French themselves in admiration of riot and carnage.
And this brings us to the second part of Professor Xf-aze:11's book, in which he depicts the wild excite- ment of stay-at-home Americana A few politicians preserved their balance. John Adams and his son were indefatigable in controversy. Noah Webster, converted by meeting with the infamous Genet, became a fearless champion of ouoity ; and Cobbett was there to wage vehe- ment war upon the Democrats. But for a while the partisans of bloodshed had their own way, and Professor
Hazen has culled from the newspapers of the day a remarkable nosegay of florid speech. We find the clergy preaching from the text He renwveth Kings ; we find one Lemuel Hopkins hymning the praise of "Guillotine, the Tenth Muse." The Reign of Terror was everywhere cele- brated by civic festivals, and decapitated pigs were carried triumphantly round the table to symbolise the righteous execution of Louis XVI. Edmund Burke became the worst enemy of mankind, and a thousand writers of doggerel de-. nounced his eloquence. Here is a fair specimen of poetio indignation :— "Oh, Burke, degenerate slave, with grief and shame
The Muse indignant must repeat thy name."
It will be seen that the literary influence of the couplet was still supreme; but the newest chants of death and bloodshed were sung to the old tune. Joel Barlow and Tom Paine appeared the supreme heroes of all time, and he who dared oppose the national sentiment was instantly condemned as an " Angloman " or Monarchist. This ferocity at three thousand miles distance is not agreeable to con- template. But the wise utterances of the Adams, both father and son, of Cobbett, and of Webster at last subdued the popular madness, which wore itself out by its. own violence. The miserable Genet, whose early progress through America was nothing less than a triumph, discredited himself by filibustering, and did more than any other to ruin his cause. The worst was over by 1796, but it was very bad while it lastakand Professor Hazen, without the set intention,. has drawn a powerful indictment against the politics of feeling. He has also written an interesting and valuable monograph,. and he has proved to what admirable purpose history may employ the files of forgotten newspapers.
Previous page
