Sunday, January 11, 2026

ARP374 Haitian Revolution Begins

The summer of 1791 saw the first colonial revolt inspired by the American Revolution.  Slaves in the French colony of Haiti rose up and overthrew their masters, demanding liberty and equality.  This week, we look at the beginning of the Haitian Revolution and the American reaction.

San Domingue Colony

I want to start by giving a little background.  Haiti was not called Haiti at the time.  That was the name used by the indigenous people before colonization.  The Spanish under Christopher Columbus arrived there in 1492 and named it Hispaniola, which essentially means “Spanish Island.”  A few years later, the Spanish created a settlement called Santo Domingo.  Although the Spanish claimed the island, they didn’t make much use of it.  More than 100 years later, French pirates began using the western coast of the island as a base of operations.  Spanish officials pulled back Spanish colonists to the east for their safety.  This withdrawal essentially handed the western part of the island to the French pirates in the early 1600s.  Because the pirates to took over that area were French, the French government claimed possession of the western part of the island by the late 1600s.

Slave uprising in Haiti
Over the course of the 1700s the French colony of Saint Domingue grew into the wealthiest colony in the western hemisphere.  The island produced massive amounts of sugar and coffee, which were valuable cash crops.  It produced 40% of the world’s sugar and 50% of the world’s coffee.

That level of production took a great deal of work.  That work was done by slaves.  The number of slaves ramped up considerably in the 1760s and 1770s as more demand for sugar and coffee caused the land owners to push for more production.  By 1789, the slave population on the small island was close to 500,000, nearly 90% of the population.  The free islanders were split pretty evenly between free blacks and mixed race colonists, who owned a considerable amount of land and large numbers of slaves themselves, and white colonists, mostly French, who controlled about two-thirds of the land and three-quarters of the slaves.

The work that the slaves performed was particularly brutal.  That, combined with the weather, poor sanitation, malnutrition, and disease meant that the death rate among slaves was extremely high.  Many slaves killed themselves, either because they could not take the conditions, or simply to deny their enslavers the benefit of their labor.

The island had to import tens of thousands of slaves each year, just to keep up the numbers for work.  About one-third of new slave arrivals died in their first year.  The average life span for slaves on the island was seven to ten years. More than two thirds of the slaves on the island had been born in Africa.  This meant they were not born into this life, but had grown up free, only to be enslaved as adults.

Escape was nearly impossible. There were a few thousand maroons who had fled plantations and had formed communities up in the mountains.  Slave owners made regular attempts to exterminate these small communities since they represented a threat.  Other slaves would be tempted to flee there, or these communities might become the center of a slave rebellion.

A rebellion was always a concern.  Given that 90% of the population was enslaved, the owners were in a precarious position, that had to keep that majority population of slaves divided, docile, and without hope.

In the 1750’s the maroons had attempted to start a slave revolt, planning for more than six years to develop an organization among the slaves within the plantation system so that they could rise up and execute their plan. The leader, François Mackandal, was an escaped slave himself, who had been brought to the island to work on a sugar plantation at the age of twelve.  During his time as a slave, he lost an arm while working at a sugar mill.  He escaped  and joined the maroon communities, where he began planning a rebellion.  Using his knowledge of plants Mackandal taught his followers, including slaves still on the plantations, how to produce poisons to kill their enslavers

In 1758, some of his followers betrayed him, leading to his capture.  To make an example of him, a court sentenced him to be burned alive.  During the burning, Mackandal managed to break free and escape the fire.  But he was immediately subdued, bound again, and tossed back into the fire.  This made Mackandal a folk hero among the maroons and the slaves.

This had been one of the largest rebellions on the island, but as you might guess, there were constant efforts to resist, most of which were isolated killings where slaves managed to find a way to kill their masters.  Whenever this happened, punishment came quickly and brutally to deter future attempts.

Revolutionary France

France tolerated slavery in its colonies as the most efficient way to get that cheap sugar and coffee.  As was the case in Britain, France had abolished slavery during the middle ages.  In 1685 Louis the XIV released an edict called the Code Noir, formalizing the law for holding slaves in the colonies.  

Having decided that slavery was acceptable overseas, the king ensured that France would receive the benefits of cheap produce from the West Indies by requiring all French colonies to trade exclusively within the French Empire.  Again, this was what all European powers did to make sure that there was no competition that would allow colonies to raise their prices.

French ministers also had to keep the colonial leaders divided, to make sure they did not unite and overthrow French rule and seek independence.  They put in place systems that attempted to keep the colonial leaders financially dependent on France.  They also made efforts to keep the white population and the free black population at odds with one another, as well as setting up conflicts between large and small land owners, all to make sure that the people would not unite against France.  The result of this policy of division was that French control was maintained with only two regiments of soldiers, about 500 men, on the island to control 60,000 free colonists and 500,000 slaves.

There were some protest movements in 1722 and again in 1769, mostly protesting trade restrictions, but these were brought under control before they got out of hand.  All of this began to change after the American Revolution.

The notions of liberty and equality began to spread all over the world after the United States overthrew royal authority and found a republic based on those ideals.  These notions found particularly fertile soil in France, leading to the French Revolution in 1789. The French Assembly approved the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that year, which proclaimed all men born free and equal.

When the Declaration reached Saint Domingue, the response of the slave owners in the colonies was something like: Wait! What? Certainly this doesn’t apply to us! The entire social and economic system on the island was completely incompatible with liberty and equality.

The initial reaction was to make sure the slaves on the island found out nothing about this declaration.  French newspapers were banned from the island.  Of course, word soon spread anyway, leading everyone to question how it would impact them.

One of the first responses cam from the free people of color, who had always been treated as second-class citizens, but still as citizens.  Now, however, they were demanding the same rights and privileges as the free whites.  Although they had property rights and other economic rights, they had been denied political rights, and were excluded from public office.  They demanded their right to have a say in government.

The National Assembly, seeing the can of worms they had opened with the Declaration, began to back track on how it might apply to the colonies.  In May of 1791, the Assembly clarified that not all free colonists were equal.  They passed a law which had very strict voting requirements, including that voters could not be the children of slaves.  Both father and mother had to be free before a person could qualify for voting.  Even if they met that qualification, there were also substantial property requirements for voting, meaning that only about 1% of the free blacks on the island would be eligible to vote.  Even that was too much for the white colonists.  When the new law reached Saint Domingue in July, they immediately demanded that the new law be repealed.  They protested the new law and threatened to seek protection from Britain or Spain if French officials tried to enforce it. When word of the response got back to France in September, the Assembly backed down and repealed the law.

The universal rights of man seemed not to be so universal after all.  Black colonists were not the equal of white colonists and were not going to be given equal rights.  And certainly, there were no plans to abolish slavery in the colonies.  Talk of freedom and equality were all well and good, but if that was going to increase the price of a cup of coffee, we need to slow down and think about this a little more.

Slave Revolt

Despite all efforts, the slaves began to learn about some of the ideas coming out of France.  Many slaves came to understand the French Revolution as white slaves in France having overthrown their masters.  That wasn't quite accurate, but that was the story goin around.  The hopelessness of slavery and brutal death gave way to a glimmer of hope for freedom, if only they could fight for it.

The French Revolution came to Haiti in 1791.  Its first casualty was a former Continental officer.  Colonel Thomas-Antoine, the Chevalier de Mauduit du Plessis had gone to fight as a French volunteer in the Continental Army in 1776.  He received a commission as a captain of artillery early 1777, in time to see combat at the Battle of Brandywine and at Germantown.  I mentioned Captain de Mauduit du Plessis back in Episode 168 when General Washington assigned him to defend Fort Mercer on the Delaware River during the end of the Philadelphia Campaign.  He spent the winter at Valley Forge, and fought at Monmouth.  His leadership was considered good, leading him to be promoted several times, serving as a lieutenant colonel by 1778.

That fall, de Mauduit resigned his commission in the Continental Army and returned to France.  Some sources indicate that he came back to America with the army under General Rochambeau, but there is some debate on whether that was the case.

In 1787 de Mauduit was serving as a major in the French Army.  He had command of the French regiment in Port au Prince.  If Mauduit had volunteered for the Continental Army for idealistic reasons, those reasons now appeared to be long gone.

Major de Mauduit seemed ideologically aligned with the royal governor in Saint Domingue and opposed the revolutionary assembly in France.  He supported the governor’s decision to defy decrees from the Revolutionary Assembly.  He disarmed the national guard and formed a separate militia made up of royalists.  He also arrested members of the revolutionary commission and dissolved the local assembly when they started sounding a bit too revolutionary.

In response, the government in France sent two more regiments to Port-au-Prince, whose commanders were much more politically aligned with the Revolutionaries.  These new troops told de Maduit’s soldiers that their commander was defying the revolution.  In response, his own troops killed the major with swords and bayonets.  A mob mutilated his body and dragged it down the street.  They cut off his head and posted it on a pike in front of his house, which they then demolished.

Through most of 1791 though the fighting was between free people, who were fighting over equal rights for slave owners, not any rights for slaves.  The fight for freedom, however, was not lost on the slaves.  In August, groups of slaves who were in supervisory positions on their plantations, began to coordinate plans for an uprising that would begin across the plantations at the same time.

On August 22 the slave insurrection began, across the colony, slaves invaded the homes of their masters, killing whole families.  They burned their homes, along with crops in the fields. Hundreds of white colonists died in this first attack. Those who survived the initial attack fled their plantations to take refuge in towns.  Some owners began massacring their own slaves who had not rebelled, fearing that they might soon join the rebellion.

A couple of weeks later, the white colonists signed an agreement ceding more power to the free blacks, hoping to bring them together so they could join forces and put down the slave rebellion.  The idea of giving political power to free blacks which was so abhorrent a month earlier, now seemed quite reasonable in the face of a full slave rebellion.

Toussaint L'Ouverture
Not all slaves jumped to rebellion.  A slave named Toussaint Bréda spent a month defending his master’s plantation from attack.  While his master had fled, Bréda was not confident that the slave revolt would succeed, so he was hedging his bets.  After about a month, he finally abandoned the plantation and joined the rebel camp.  He quickly took a leadership role.  It would be several more years before he changed his name to Toussaint L'Ouverture.

Despite the threat from the slave revolt and the agreement to work together, the free colonists never really united.  In November, a group of white conservatives lynched a free black man in Port-au-Prince.  The result was a riot that led to two-thirds of the town being burned.

The slaves were not really united either. In December, many of the former slaves were beginning to starve.  The island required food imports to feed its people, and those imports had stopped.  Some of the leaders of the rebellion agreed to return the slaves to their plantations in exchange for the freedom of a few hundred of the rebellion’s leaders.  They had received word that France was willing to institute reforms, but needed to have the colony working again.  The Colonial Assembly of slave owners, however, rejected the offer. They could not reward the leaders of a slave insurrection with freedom.

Over the winter, another option opened as several leaders of the rebellion received recognition, as well as supplies and weapons, from the King of Spain.  Spanish officials saw a colony run by revolutionary France as a threat, and hoped to use the slave rebellion to crush those revolutionaries.

Throughout the following year, 1792, the revolution, headed by former slaves, continued to spread and grow.  The colony would remain in chaos for years.

American Reaction

I’m going to leave the story there since the Haitian Revolution would continue for more than a decade.  In our story from the American Revolution Podcast, we are in the middle of 1792.  I want to turn to the reaction of Americans at the start of this rebellion.  They obviously had no idea where it was going in the future.

One might think that Americans, who had used rhetoric about liberty or death, and the need for violent resistance to prevent themselves from being reduced to slaves by the British government might cheer on the idea of the people of another country fighting for their liberty.  

There were some.  Connecticut Newspaper editor Abraham Bishop published a series of essays supporting the Haitian Revolution in late 1791 under the title “Rights of Black Men”.   In 1792, the Reverend David Rice gave a Fourth of July Oration which praised “the brave sons of Africa, engaged in a noble conflict” for “sacrificing their lives on the altar of liberty.”  Philadelphia editors Benjamin Franklin Bache and Philip Freneau both professed support for the uprising.  

There was little support, however, in the government.  Almost as soon as the slave revolt began in August, 1791, the General Assembly sent agents to neighboring colonies looking for help.  The Spaniards in Cuba rejected help out of hand.  The Spanish government was not going to help a government that supported the French Revolution.  The British government in Jamaica was surprisingly more helpful.  It sent naval ships, arms, and supplies to help the white colonists.  Since Jamaica also had a population of roughly 90% slaves, they greatly empathized with the white colonists.

The US government reaction was not quite as enthusiastic, but also seemed to side with the white colonists.  In September, 1791, about a month after the slave uprising began, President Washington agreed to provide arms and financial support at the request of French Minister to the US, Jean Baptiste Ternant.  The cost of the aid was deducted from the debts owed to France from the American Revolution.

Many US leaders were still slave owners themselves.  Whatever doubts some of them held regarding slavery as an institution, their concerns immediately went to the slave owners, not the rebelling slaves.  Jefferson referred to the white colonists as brethren in distress.  Although not a slave owner, Alexander Hamilton encouraged Washington to provide assistance to the white colonists.

The Pennsylvania Assembly, which had already begun the process of Abolition in that state, voted to raise funds for relief of white planters in Cap Francais.

Shortly after the first calls for assistance, Haitian refugees began to arrive in America.  Their primary destination at first was Philadelphia, where locals raised thousands of dollars to support the white planters who arrived in their town.  Some free blacks also fled the revolution and were welcomed.  Some refugees even brought some of their slaves with them.  Of course, they would have to leave Philadelphia within six months in order to keep their slaves.  But the slave owners were welcomed temporarily.  Philadelphians even postponed some fund raising to build African American Churches in the city in order to provide assistance to the white refugees.

Refugees went to other cities as well.  White refugees were welcomed in Charleston, although some free black slave owners who had to escape the slave rebellion as well, were not welcome there.

The US response made clear that the ideology of liberty and equality did not extend to ending slavery.  While half of the states were on the path toward ending slavery in their states.  No one was willing to support a slave rebellion.  The enslaved people of Haiti were largely on their own.

Next week: we will look at the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

- - -

Next Episode 375 Ratification of the Bill of Rights 

Previous Episode 373 State of the Union 1790-91 

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  https://merch.amrevpodcast.com


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to ad-free episodes, podcast extras, and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

François Makandal: https://slaveryandremembrance.org/people/person/?id=PP024

Code Noir: https://revolution.chnm.org/d/335

Eddins, Crystal Nicole. “Runaways, Repertoires, and Repression: Marronnage and the Haitian Revolution, 1766–1791.” Journal of Haitian Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, 2019, pp. 4–38. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26790801.

Teow, Jeremy. “Black Revolt in the White Mind: Violence, Race, and Slave Agency in the British Reception of the Haitian Revolution, 1791–1805.” Australasian Journal of American Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2018, pp. 87–102. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26532955.

Garrigus, John D. “Vincent Ogé ‘Jeune’ (1757-91): Social Class and Free Colored Mobilization on the Eve of the Haitian Revolution.” The Americas, vol. 68, no. 1, 2011, pp. 33–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41239138.

Matthewson, Tim. “Abraham Bishop, ‘The Rights of Black Men,’ and the American Reaction to the Haitian Revolution.” The Journal of Negro History, vol. 67, no. 2, 1982, pp. 148–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2717572.

“Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 22 September 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0384.

“Henry Knox to George Washington, 22 September 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0385.

“Ternant to George Washington, 22 September 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-08-02-0388.

“George Washington to Ternant, 24 September 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-09-02-0005.

“Ternant to George Washington, 24 September 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-09-02-0006.

“Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 24 November 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-22-02-0303.

Blackburn, Robin. “Haiti, Slavery, and the Age of the Democratic Revolution.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 4, 2006, pp. 643–74. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4491574.

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)


Beard, J.R. Toussaint L'Ouverture: A Biography and Autobiography, Boston, J. Redpath, 1863.  

Rainsford, Marcus An Historical Account of the Black Empire of Hayti, Duke Univ. Press, 2013 (first published 1805). 

Steward, T.G. The Haitian revolution, 1791 to 1804; or, Side lights on the French Revolution, New York, Russell & Russell, 1914. 


Books Worth Buying

(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Brown, Gordon S. Toussaint's Clause: The Founding Fathers and the Haitian Revolution, Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2005.

Caesaire, Aime (Author), Kate Nash (Translator) Toussaint Louverture: The French Revolution and the Colonial Problem, Polity Press, 2025. 

Dun, James Alexander Dangerous Neighbors: Making the Haitian Revolution in Early America, Univ. of Pa. Press, 2016

Faherty, Duncan The Haitian Revolution in the Early Republic of Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 2024.

Fick, Carolyn E. The Making of Haiti: The Saint Domingue Revolution from Below, Univ. of Tenn. Press, 1991.

Geggus, David (ed) The Haitian Revolution: A Documentary History, Hackett Publishing Co, 2014. 

Geggus, David P. (ed) The Impact of the Haitian Revolution in the Atlantic World, Univ of SC Press, 2001.

Hazareesingh, Sudhir Black Spartacus: The Epic Life of Toussaint Louverture, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020.

James, C.L.R. The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, Penguin Books, 1989. 

Wellman, Billy The Haitian Revolution: An Enthralling Tale of Resistance, Freedom, and the Birth of a Nation, (self-published), 2024.

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.



Sunday, January 4, 2026

AR-SP45 War Without Mercy, with Mark Lender

 Our American Revolution welcomed special guest, Mark Lender , author of War Without Mercy, which challenges the "benign" narrative of the American Revolution by highlighting the extreme brutality and localized violence that the war evoked.

The Concept of Existential Warfare

Lender and his co-author, James Kirby Martin, argue that the American Revolution was an "existential war". Drawing on definitions from military think tanks, they describe this as a struggle for existence itself—as a nation, a people, and as individuals—rather than just status or territory. Because the stakes were so high, the combat often devolved into unlimited ferocity with no room for negotiation or middle ground.

The Breakdown of the "Rules of War"

The sources explain that while European enlightenment philosophers like Emer de Vattel had established rules for "civilized warfare," these often failed during the Revolution.

  • Rebel Status: The British often viewed Americans as treasonous rebels rather than legitimate soldiers, justifying brutal suppression similar to their treatment of the Jacobite rebellion of 1745.
  • Blurring Lines: The distinction between soldier and civilian evaporated, especially in areas far from the oversight of senior military commanders.
  • Cycles of Retaliation: At the local level, particularly in "neutral grounds" like Bergen County, New Jersey, the war became a private cycle of revenge and hanging contests between neighbors.

Group and Regional Experiences

The conversation highlights that the war was not equally violent in all areas but was particularly fierce in "contested" zones like New Jersey and the South.

  • Native Americans: Tribal nations like the Iroquois and Cherokee fought their own existential wars for cultural survival. The Americans responded with "wars of annihilation," such as the Sullivan expedition, which sought to destroy the Indians' ability to sustain themselves by burning their villages and crops.
  • Loyalists: Following the Declaration of Independence, Patriots rebranded Loyalists as rebels, justifying the confiscation of their property and their exile. Lender notes that one in 40 Americans went into exile, a higher proportion than during the French Revolution.

Questions

Participants asked about whether civil wars were inherently more brutal than wars against a foreign country, about how widespread the violence was throughout the country, why prisoners of war were treated so harshly, and about the leadership abilities of Nathanael Greene and Benedict Arnold.

Resources

Get the book War Without Mercy, also available as an audio book or on Kindle.

Learn more about author Mark Edward Lender at his website: markedwardlender.com

To see upcoming roundtable events, or listen to past recordings, go to AmRevRT.org

To participate live in future Zoom events, be sure to join as a member on Patreon, or sign up for my mailing list,


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.


Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required







Sunday, December 28, 2025

AR-SP44 Tom Paine's War, with Jack Kelly

Our round round table was joined by special guest, Jack Kelly, author of the new book, Tom Paine's War, which explores Thomas Paine's dual roles as both a foundational propagandist and a soldier during the American Revolution. Unlike a standard biography, the book focuses on the limited time period in 1775-75 when Paine was serving in the army after writing Common Sense and before writing The American Crisis.

Background and Radical Origins

Paine was a working-class immigrant from England with only an elementary education. Before coming to America, he worked as a corset maker and a tax collector, though he was fired twice from the latter position for attempting to organize for better pay. He arrived in Philadelphia with a recommendation from Benjamin Franklin and quickly became a magazine editor, establishing himself within the city's intellectual and political circles.

The Impact of "Common Sense"

Published in January 1776, Common Sense was a radical pamphlet that shifted public opinion toward independence. While many Americans initially sought reconciliation with Britain, Paine argued that monarchy was a "stupid idea" and that the colonies had the power to "make the world over again". The document’s success was bolstered by "fortuitous" timing, as its release coincided with news that King George III intended to use military force to crush the rebellion.

Military Service and "The American Crisis"

Paine famously "walked the walk" by joining the Pennsylvania militia as a private after the Declaration of Independence. He later served as an aide to General Nathanael Greene. During the desperate American retreat in late 1776, Paine wrote the first of The American Crisis essays, which began with the famous line, "These are the times that try men's souls".

  • Combat Correspondent: Kelly notes that Paine acted as one of America's first combat correspondents, sending dispatches from the front lines to newspapers.
  • Boosting Morale: The essays served as a vital rallying cry for the Continental Army, providing the momentum needed for George Washington’s successful counterattack at the Battle of Trenton.

Ideology and Later Life

Paine was noted for being "ahead of the curve" on several social issues, including the abolition of slavery and criticizing British imperialism in India and Ireland. However, his later life was marked by controversy. After participating in the French Revolution and narrowly escaping the guillotine, he returned to America to find his reputation tarnished. This was largely due to his radical views and a public letter he wrote criticizing George Washington, who was then considered a "demigod" by the nation.

Conclusion of the Discussion

The participants conclude that Paine was a "radicals' radical" and a persistent optimist who believed in the possibility of fundamental global change. Jack Kelly describes him as a "founder for our time" because of his congeniality and his conviction that society has the power to begin the world over again.


Order the book on Amazon . Also available as an Audio Book.

For a written summary of the discussion, go to ⁠https://blog.amrevpodcast.com

To see a list of upcoming Round Table events, where you can participate on Zoom, go to: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amrevrt.org/virtual-round-table-events⁠⁠⁠⁠

Join the podcast mail list to receive advance notice of future round tables: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Support this podcast on Patreon. Joining even as a free member will also provide advance notice of future episodes. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Sunday, December 21, 2025

ARP373 State of the Union 1790-91

When we left off last week, George Washington had returned to Philadelphia in July 1791, following his Grand Tour of the southern states.   The summer in Philadelphia was relatively uneventful.  

1790 Address

The First Congress had officially ended on March 3, 1791.  The second Congress could have begun meeting the next day, but they didn’t feel the need to do so.  Not all of the states had even completed their elections for the new congress.  Instead, Congress declared it would be adjourned until October.  When the second congress returned, Washington felt that it was time to give his third annual message to Congress.

I actually did not cover Washington’s second annual message, which he gave in December, 1790, at the beginning of the third session of the First Congress.  These addresses would later become known as state of the union addresses, but at this time were simply known as the President’s address to Congress or the annual address to Congress.

A common theme through all of these was the financial status of the government, and its ability to repay the war debt.  In his 1790 address, Washington noted that the government’s public credit had risen around the world, thanks to the early efforts to begin paying off the debt.  This led to lower interest rates as they could refinance debt, and the ability to get new loans on better terms, since investors had more confidence that they would be repaid.  Washington highlighted the successful completion of a large loan with Dutch bankers.

Even with the progress, the president urged congress to continue paying down the principal as aggressively as possible.  As part of this he encouraged the appropriation and development of more western lands and to use those profits to pay down more debt.

Western expansion was already well underway.  Washington announced that the Kentucky district of Virginia had taken steps, with the permission of Virginia, to become a distinct entity, with the goal of eventually entering the union as a separate state.  

The president also voiced concern over Indian attacks on settlements, originating from tribes along the Wabash River, near what is today the western border between Ohio and Indiana.  He had told Congress that he had called out the militia and sent a force under General Josiah Harmar to deal with the trouble.  We’ll get into the details of that action in an upcoming episode.  At the time of Washington’s 1790 address, he had no idea what the result of the expedition was.

As always, Washington was concerned about European affairs.  He encouraged Congress to give more consideration to making the US economy less dependent on Europe, given that a new European war could make trade much more difficult, if not impossible.  

There was already a problem in the Barbary States in North Africa, in the Mediterranean.  Corsairs had captured several merchant ships and had captured and enslaved the American crews.  Most European powers paid off these states to leave their shipping alone.  The US had not.  It could not afford ransom, and did not have a navy to discourage this behavior.  Washington called on Congress to address this ongoing problem.

He also called on congress to make some changes to the judiciary and to establish more foreign consuls in other countries.  He also reminded Congress they needed to take action establishing a mint, standards of weights and measures, and post offices and postal roads.

1791 Address

Washington opened the Second Congress in October 1791 with his third annual address.  Once again his first issue was the economy.  The last Congress had adopted many of the proposals in Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s reports.  The Bank of the United States, proposals to improve infrastructure, agriculture, commerce, and navigation were all well underway.

Public credit continued to improve.  Washington noted the ability of the bank to sell out its subscriptions in a single day as evidence that public confidence in government finances had been resolved.  Debt repayment was proceeding nicely.  The president did not see any need to press for more taxes given the progress already made.  Additional Dutch loans finalized that year had further reduced the burden of interest on the national debt.

Washington had bad news to report regarding the ongoing fights with Indians on the frontier.  The force of about 1500 men under General Harmar had advanced into Indian territory and been defeated.  Again, I’m going to get into the details of this in an upcoming episode.  But the result was that Washington had to assemble a larger force under former General Arthur St. Clair, and including Kentucky militia, to confront the Indians a second time.  St. Clair had assembled the force over the summer of 1791 and was still out in the field when Washington gave this October address.

Washington called on Congress to find better ways to keep the Indians from going to war, suggesting fairer methods for land sales and encouraging the government to find new ways “for imparting to them the blessings of civilization, as may, from time to time suit their condition.”  Washington was saying that he was convinced that the native tribes could find a better life for themselves if they developed farms and agricultural systems like the settlers used.  It would be a more efficient use of land than living as hunter-gatherers and would help to pacify them.

The President noted that the tax on distilled spirits seemed to be generally accepted, but that there was discontent in some places.  He called on Congress to look for ways to reform the tax system to meet some objections, although the tax itself had to stay in place.

Washington also updated Congress on his progress in establishing the new federal district on the Potomac River.  The city had been laid out, and that the funds from land sales would allow the construction of public buildings as planned.

He also reported the results of the 1790 census, showing a population of 4 million Americans.

The President called on Congress to do more to establish magazines and arsenals to be used by the army in times of need.  He also reiterated his call for a mint, a standard for weights and measures, for more postal roads and offices, and for the sale of vacant lands to help bring down the debt.

As had been the case with his first annual address, James Madison played a key role in drafting both his second and third addresses, although Hamilton’s views were much more prominent in the third address.  Madison also helped to write the House replies to both addresses.  Both the House and Senate continued their policy of writing a response, then sending a delegation to the President to deliver it in person.  

I won’t go into the details of the replies. They essentially thank the President for his efforts, promise to work on the priorities that he laid out in his speech, and told him they would continue to work for the good of the country and the people.  There was no effort to challenge the President or debate his policies.  The responses were seen more as pro forma signs of respect, not a place to voice division.

Fenno vs Freneau

The first divisions within the government, however, were well underway.  The divisions were not just in Congress. Members of Washington’s small cabinet were growing increasingly divided.  Specifically, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson seemed to be moving in very different directions politically.

After Hamilton established the Bank of the United States, Jefferson and Madison grew far more skeptical of the direction of the administration.  From their perspective, Washington seemed to be in agreement with the general policies that Hamilton had proposed.

Neither man was ready to break openly with President Washington.  Their opening salvo was to sponsor a newspaper that would be friendlier to their views.

New newspapers were a trend at the time.  By 1790, there were about 100 newspapers across the United States, more than triple the number that had existed before the Revolution began.  The paper that seemed to get the most attention was the Gazette of the United States, which began publishing in New York in 1789.

John Fenno, the publisher, had come from Boston.  He had worked as a school teacher and ran several business ventures before starting his newspaper.  Fenno had no real experience as a printer before this venture.  The 39 year old hoped to build a newspaper based on the model of the London Gazette in Britain.  There, the Gazette served as the official record of the government.  It made much of its money printing documents for the government.  Fenno hoped his Gazette of the United States would do much the same thing for the new federal government.

His newspaper was in place by 1789, in time to cover Washington’s inaugural address.  Very quickly, Fenno identified with the Hamilton branch of the federalists.  The semi-weekly paper moved to Philadelphia with the government and continued its efforts to further the federalist cause.  Fenno hoped his Gazette would become a national paper of record, that would report on all federal debates and laws.

The paper soon found itself most closely aligned with the Hamiltonian view of government, actively supporting business, trade, and manufacturing, advocating for more infrastructure: roads and canals, and pushing for a more national identity and away from Americans thinking of themselves primarily in terms of their home state.

The Gazette of the United States became a vocal advocate of Hamilton’s debt assumption plan, as well as the Bank of the United States.  Hamilton, in turn, gave Fenno government printing jobs and other financial support to help keep the paper going.

The paper also published a series of essays called Discourses on Davila, which was critical of the excesses of the French Revolution.  It advocated for a government closer to the British model that included an aristocratic class that would keep the masses in line.  These essays were anonymous but the author turned out to be Vice President John Adams

Jefferson and Madison saw the Gazette of the United States as a danger to their view of the country.  Jefferson called the paper: “a paper of pure Toryism, disseminating the doctrine of monarchy, aristocracy, and the exclusion of the influence of the people.”

To counter these ideas, Jefferson and Madison sought to establish a newspaper that would articulate their view for the country.  They helped to set up a new newspaper called the National Gazette.

Phillip Freneau began working with Jefferson and Madison to create this new newspaper.  Freneau was born in New York City before the war.  He graduated from the college at Princeton in 1771, where his main focus was poetry.  He considered teaching and theology as careers, and also wrote a number of patriotic tracts before the Revolutionary War.  He was working in the West Indies for the first few years of the war.  After that, he took a job on a privateer ship. The British captured his ship and he spent a short time on a British prison ship.

When the war ended, Freneau worked as an assistant editor of the New York Daily Advertiser.  He was working there in 1791 when Jefferson and Madison discussed the idea of starting a new newspaper.  This became a real focus of discussion in early 1791. Freneau had a little newspaper experience under his belt, but none of the men had any money to start a newspaper.

Jefferson solved the problem by hiring Freneau as a translator for the State Department.  Freneau spoke French, but then, so did Jefferson. This government job seemed more focused on giving Freneau a salary for not doing much of anything, so that he could focus on establishing this new newspaper.

Like Fenno’s Gazette of the United States, the National Gazette hoped to be a national paper that would focus on government activities.  It would publish twice a week, and would be delivered to subscribers who paid $3 a year.

Freneau began publication in Philadelphia beginning October 31, 1791, only a few weeks after Washington’s address to Congress. His newspaper covered government debates and policies, but was immediately much more critical of the administration than other papers.  It criticized even little things like celebrating the president’s birthday as “a forerunner of other monarchical vices.”  The main theme of the paper was the new federal government had to move back toward protecting republican virtue and avoid the temptations of monarchy.

Although Jefferson effectively backed the publication though a government job, he did not write for the paper. Madison, however, contributed numerous anonymous essays that were critical of the Washington Administration.  It also voiced support for the French Revolution, which was growing more and more radical at the time.

This is not to say that the paper was anti-federalist, in the sense that it objected to a federal government.  Quite the contrary, editorials were strong supporters of the Union.  Its concern was that the federal government remain tied to the interest of the common people rather than the wealthy elites.

The concerns expressed were not without basis.  As I said, Fenno’s Gazette of the United States, which was channeling men like Hamilton and Adams, believed that monarchy was inevitable, and that there had to be a class division in America.  It declared “Take away thrones and crowns from among men and there will soon be an end of all dominion and justice.” It also noted “for the experience of past ages proved that whenever the people have exercised in themselves the three powers, the democracy is immediately changed into anarchy.”

Freneau targeted these ideas in the National Gazette, as well as their leading advocate, Alexander Hamilton.  The National Gazette railed against most of Hamilton’s initiatives, arguing that they violated the Constitution.

The two newspapers, Fenno’s Gazette of the United States and Freneau’s National Gazette.  Would become the two main mouthpieces of an increasingly divided government.

This rivalry would only grow over the next few years.  In late 1791, it was just getting started.

An Emerging Cabinet

Washington was already concerned about divisions among his advisors and in Congress.  He also saw more opposition when the Second Congress resumed business in late 1791.  There were no defined political parties yet, but the first Congress saw substantial majorities willing to support the administration.  At least two-thirds of the House and Senate went along with their initiatives.  Washington still enjoyed a majority of supporters in the Second Congress, but the dividing lines were closer to 55%-45% on many policy initiatives.

During the first two years in office, Washington had also struggled to find a way to discuss issues in developing policy.  He had made earlier efforts to consult the Senate and the Supreme Court, but found those bodies could not really suit his purposes for debate and discussion on policy issues.  He also consulted with his various secretaries on issues. 

Washington, however, did not like those one on one meetings.  He recalled his war councils during the Revolution when he could have his generals debate issues in front of him, without having to enter the debate himself.  These debates helped him to develop his policies.

Washington had been reluctant to have his department heads meet as a group to discuss issues.  One big reason for this was fear of being perceived as a monarch.  In Britain, the king met with his ministers in the Privy Council to discuss matters of state.  Washington feared that a meeting with his own ministers would be compared to the Privy Council and subject him to more criticisms of taking on monarchical forms.  

The British Privy Council was not only considered monarchical. It was considered a source of corruption: powerful men meeting in secret to discuss policy.  So, when Washington needed to consult with his department heads, he either met with them individually, or he asked them to speak among themselves and let him know their thoughts later.

Ironically, the first cabinet meeting, which would not be called a cabinet meeting for several more years, took place with Vice President John Adams rather than with President Washington.  While he was on his southern tour in 1791, Washington had asked his department heads to get together and make a decision and let him know.

Shortly after Washington had left town, Hamilton got word from France that US agents had negotiated another Dutch loan on favorable terms, but needed quick approval.  Hamilton contacted the other department heads, and Vice President Adams, and asked for a meeting.  The only other Department heads were Secretary of State Jefferson and Secretary of War Henry Knox.  Because the Attorney General was simply an advisor without a department, he did not participate in this meeting.

The group met at Jefferson’s house in Philadelphia on April 11 to approve the loan.  Hamilton sent the decision on to Washington, but it took nearly a month to reach the President.

Perhaps in part due to the fact that no one seemed to raise a fuss about this meeting, Washington decided to hold his own cabinet meeting on November 26, 1791.  He had all three department heads, plus Attorney General Edmund Randolph.  Vice President Adams was not invited.

The purpose of the first meeting was primarily foreign policy.  The President wanted to develop better diplomatic relationships with France and Britain.  Specifically he wanted ideas on how to get American access to French and British ports in the West Indies, and also to take control of forts in the Northwest territories that Britain still occupied.

The main result of that first meeting was not any of the subject matter discussed.  It was the fact that Washington found the format useful and also found that he did not get a great deal of criticism for holding the meetings.  As a result, the President averaged more than one cabinet meeting per month for the rest of his time in office.

Next week: we will cover the American view on another major event of 1791 - the Haitian Revolution.

- - -

Next Episode 374 Haitian Revolution 

Previous Episode 372 Washington's Southern Tour, 1791 

 Contact me via email at mtroy.history@gmail.com

 Follow the podcast on X (formerly Twitter) @AmRevPodcast

 Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast 

 Join American Revolution Podcast on Quora 
 
Discuss the AmRev Podcast on Reddit

American Revolution Podcast Merch!

T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more.  Get your favorite American Revolution logo today.  Help support this podcast.  https://merch.amrevpodcast.com


American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give.  Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).


Click here to see my Patreon Page
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber.  This is an option making monthly pledges.  Patreon support will give you access to ad-free episodes, podcast extras, and help make the podcast a sustainable project.

An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar.  For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.

Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

Washington’s Second Annual Message to Congress and Congressional Responses https://washingtonpapers.org/documents/washingtons-second-annual-message-to-congress-and-congressional-responses

“George Washington to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, 8 December 1790,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-07-02-0024.

“George Washington to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, 25 October 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-09-02-0062

Third Annual Message to Congress: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-annual-address-congress-0

John Fenno’s Public Crusade for an American National Identity:  https://allthingsliberty.com/2025/04/one-great-people-john-fennos-public-crusade-for-an-american-national-identity

The National Gazette https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/national-gazette

Bowen, Edwin W. “Philip Freneau, the Poet of the American Revolution.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 11, no. 2, 1903, pp. 213–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27530558

Marsh, Philip M. “Philip Freneau and His Circle.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 63, no. 1, 1939, pp. 37–59. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20087161

Pasley, Jeffrey L. “The Two National ‘Gazettes’: Newspapers and the Embodiment of American Political Parties.” Early American Literature, vol. 35, no. 1, 2000, pp. 51–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25057179

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Adams, John Discourses on Davila, Boston: Russell and Cutler, 1805. 

Brant, Irving James Madison: Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800. Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1950 (borrow only). 

Forman, Samuel E. The Political Activities of Philip Freneau, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902. 

Books Worth Buying

(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Bordewich, Fergus M. The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government, Simon & Schuster, 2016. 

Bowden, Mary Philip Freneau ,Twain Publishers, 1976 (borrow on archive.org).

Burns, Eric (2006). Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism, Public Affairs, 2006. 

Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004. 

Chernow, Ron Washington, A Life, Penguin Press, 2010. 

Chervinsky, Lindsay M. The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution, Belknap Press, 2020. 

Cowen, David J. The Origins and Economic Impact of the First Bank of the United States, 1791-1797. Garland Publishing, 2000. 

Daniel, Marcus L. Scandal and Civility: Journalism and the Birth of American Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993 (borrow on archive.org). 

Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency. George Washington, Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. 

Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, Knopf, 2000.

Ferling, John Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation Hardcover, Bloomsbury Press, 2013. 

Heidler, David S. & Jeanne T. Washington's Circle: The Creation of the President, Random House, 2015. 

Hunger, Harlow Giles Mr. President: George Washington and the Making of the Nation's Highest Office, De Capo Press, 2013. 

Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012

Ostrom, Thomas P. The United States Coast Guard, 1790 to the Present, Red Anvil Press, 2004 (borrow on archive.org). 

Randall, Willard Sterne Thomas Jefferson: A Life, Henry Holt and Co. 1993.

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.