Sunday, March 22, 2026

ARP381 Citizen Genêt Affair

Back in Episode 363, we covered the beginning of the French Revolution, which began in 1789.  Over the next few years, the United States, and most of Europe, watched with interest as France became more and more radical.  

France Goes to War

The so-called reign of terror had not yet begun in France, although thousands had already died in street violence and executions.  In 1792, even Lafayette had been declared an enemy of France.  He tried to flee to America but was taken prisoner by the Austrians.

Citizen Genet
I cannot go though all the details here, but in December of 1792, French officials put King Louis on trial for treason.  They found him guilty, and on January 21, 1793, led the former monarch to the guillotine and separated his head from his body.

The French revolutionary government's execution of their sovereign was the final straw for Britain, which recalled its diplomats.  French leaders had announced their intention to spread the revolution to all of Europe.  France invaded Belgium, which at that time had been part of Austria.  Both Austria and Prussia had gone to war with France in early 1792. The British Navy blockaded French ports.  On February 1, France declared war on both Britain and the Netherlands.  A few weeks later, France also went to war with Spain.

The French Republic was at war with most of the rest of Europe.  Meanwhile the US simply watched events unfold.  The 1778 treaty that the US signed with France obligated either party to help the other in time of war.  But everyone knew that really meant France was helping the US.  President Washington maintained a neutral stance, but as the European war was building, there would be increased pressure for the US to assist its ally.  There was some debate in America as to whether the treaty even applied any more.  After all, the treaty had been made with King Louis, the guy the current government had  just killed.  But the real debate was over whether to support this revolution against monarchy, just as the US had done, or whether to stay out of European wars altogether.

Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson, who had been the ambassador to France when the Revolution began, saw France’s fight with Europe as an effort to spread liberty, opposed by the old-world forces of monarchy.  The Federalists, led by men such as Hamilton, saw the French Revolution bringing anarchy and violence that the US needed to avoid.

Even before France went to war with most of Europe, there were Americans who were willing to get involved. George Rogers Clark was corresponding with French officials in the fall of 1792, discussing plans to cooperate in an effort to seize the Mississippi Valley from Spain. French officials saw this as a way to recover their Louisiana Territory.  Clark and his fellow frontiersmen saw it as an opportunity to open up the Mississippi River for trade.  French leaders also made plans to raise American volunteers to help them recover Quebec from the British and the Floridas from Spain.  Even if none of these efforts succeeded, they would at least force France’s enemies to send resources to America that could not be used in the European war against France.

American Relations

The American Minister in France was no fan of the Revolution. Gouverneur Morris had gone to France in 1789 as a private citizen.  He mostly spent his time trying to make commercial deals that would make him rich by helping wealthy Europeans buy land in America.  

In 1790, President Washington asked him, as long as he was there, if he could go to Britain to try to push the government on its compliance with the peace treaty that ended the war.  Specifically, Americans wanted to be paid for the slaves and other property that the British Army took with them at the end of the war.  They also wanted Britain to abandon its outposts in the Northwest Territory, outposts that were being used to stir up Indians against western settlements.  Morris found British officials completely uninterested in doing anything and eventually returned to France.  He bounced back and forth between Britain and France until 1792, when Washington asked him to serve as Ambassador to France.  At the time, the revolution had been going on for several years.  The king was essentially a prisoner, but still the titular leader of the country. The Girondins were running the government. They believed in a republic. They were more radical than folks like Lafayette, who supported a constitutional monarchy, but were relatively moderate compared to other factions in the convention.

After the king’s execution at the beginning of 1793, the Girondins were replaced by the more radical Jacobins. This was when most of Europe went to war with France.  Despite all that, Morris presented his credentials to the new government, indicating that the United States would recognize the French Republic.  This was not Morris’ idea.  Washington, urged by Jefferson and overruling Hamilton’s objections, had sent orders that Morris must present his credentials to the new French government. 

Morris complied, but personally, he was increasingly horrified by the radicalism of the French Revolution.  Many American supporters of the revolution called him a monarchist.  Jefferson, who still supported the revolution, grew increasingly frustrated with Morris’ reports, which evinced an increasing hostility toward the revolution. Despite this division, Morris remained as Ambassador.  The US didn’t seem interested in replacing him with anyone else.

Morris had gotten the job originally because America had not had an Ambassador to France since Thomas Jefferson had left in 1789.  That's when he returned to America and received appointment as Secretary of State.  The French Ambassador to the US had also been recalled in 1789 since he was a holdover from King Louis’ ministry.  

France sent a new ambassador to the US in 1791.  Jean Baptiste, chevalier de Ternant, was considered a moderate choice.  Ternant had served as a volunteer officer in the Continental Army and was already well acquainted with many of the American leaders.  But he was also an appointment of a much more moderate French Government.  In 1793, France recalled Ternant.

America was still unsure how to react to all of this. Jefferson still believed it was critical to the world that the French Revolution succeed, but even he realized that the United States did not have the resources to enter a European War with its old ally.  On April 19, 1793, cabinet members discussed the issue. Hamilton insisted that the United States remain neutral and that Americans not take any action that would interfere with the war between France and Britain.  Jefferson agreed with a formally neutral stance, but still thought there were things they could do to benefit France. Just as a "neutral" France had given a wink and a not to American activities in France, even before France went to war with Britain. 

Both Jefferson and Hamilton represented their parties and regions in these matters.  New England and New York had profitable trade with Britain.  Siding with France would cost them dearly as trade would end, and the British navy would capture their merchant vessels.  As a result, most northern representatives, which tended to band together under Hamilton’s Federalists, wanted to keep out of this war entirely and keep trading with Britain. Southern states tended to support the idea of a free French Republic and were willing to provide support to their old ally.  These Democratic-Republicans would not be harmed as much by the loss of British trade and were more amenable to the alliance with France.

In April, Washington agreed with Hamilton that the US needed to issue a proclamation of neutrality.  Jefferson objected for several reasons, not the least of which was that Congress should make this decision.  But Congress was not in session and the country needed an announced policy now.  

Citizen Genêt

Around the same time that Washington issued his proclamation of neutrality in April of 1793, a new Ambassador from France landed in America.  Edmund Charles Genêt arrived in Charleston, South Carolina.

Genêt was only thirty years old.  Although he had received his appointment under the Girondin government, he was a radical republican.  His father had worked as an interpreter in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under King Louis.  While that was the official position, the elder Genêt spent a great deal of time collecting intelligence for agents of the king, including Vergennes.  This made him a valuable official with access to the highest positions of power.

As a young man, Genêt, a commoner, was able to mix with nobility and had visited the royal court at Versailles.  His sister had become lady-in-waiting to Queen Marie Antoinette.  

When his father died in 1781, eighteen year old Edmund took over his position in the ministry.  He was not as impressive as his father had been in collecting intelligence.  After he managed to miss the secret treaty that the Americans worked out with Britain in 1782 to end the war, he got pushed aside.

Thanks to his connections at court, particularly his sister who had the ear of the Queen, he obtained a new position at Court of Catherine the Great in Russia, where he regularly butted heads with the monarchist French Ambassador. His radical views got him thrown out of Russia.  He returned to Paris as a hero of the revolution.  His foreign policy experience combined with his revolutionary fervor allowed him a choice of diplomatic posts.  He chose America.

Genêt’s instructions included establishing a new commercial treaty with America to provide much needed supplies.  He was also supposed to try to secure advance repayment of America’s war debt to France.  Also, France wanted the US to comply with the 1778 treaty of amity and commerce, which gave France the right to fit out privateers in American ports and bring captured prizes into port for condemnation and sale.

These should not have been controversial.  After all, France had granted the Americans the same privileges in French ports during the Revolutionary War, and openly after France had gone to war with Britain. 

Genêt also received secret orders.  Officials hoped that he could enlist an army of both American citizens and Native Americans to build up an army that would launch invasions into British Canada as well as Spanish Louisiana and Florida.  If the US government failed to go along with these plans, he was authorized to foment revolution in America, topple the Washington administration, and install a French puppet state. Genêt brought with him 250 blank letters of marque, with plans to unleash a privateers army from US ports against British shipping.

These secret instructions made clear that French officials had no respect for Americans.  Part of the instructions read “Americans are like children. They are especially childish in politics, indeed very much like spoiled children—always rather difficult to manage. . . . The man who succeeds in managing them will be able to exercise that mastery for a long time.”  They were aware that President Washington would not go along with the French plans They did, however, believe that most of Congress would get on board with invasions of Canada, Louisiana, and Florida

Arrival in America

Genêt’s decision to land in Charleston was intentional.  He knew that the United States was divided, but that support for France was strongest in the south.  After his landing on April 8, he remained there for at least ten days, mingling with Charleston society and encouraging American support for French liberty.  As Ambassador, he should have landed in Philadelphia first and presented his credentials.  But Genêt believed he needed to get the support of the people before the government would support him.  Charleston was the largest city in the south, where support for the French Revolution was the strongest. 

The Revolutionary leaders in France had banned the use of titles.  Even Monsieur was considered counter-revolutionary.  Everyone greeted one another as “citizen.”  Genêt carried that tradition to America, and asked to be called simply “Citizen Genêt.”

In Charleston, Genêt commissioned four American ships to act as privateers. These ships had American crews, but would sail forth and attack British shipping.  If they brought back prizes, they were to ignore American officials and apply to the French Consul in Charleston for disposal of the prizes.  Genêt also began trying to recruit American volunteers in Charleston to arrange for a military invasion of East Florida.

Having set things in motion, Genêt began to travel north.  When he did leave Charleston, he did not take a ship, as would have been the normal mode of travel.  Instead, he purchased horses and coaches, and rode overland, stopping at every town and village along the way to drum up support for France.  He was celebrated along the way.  South Carolina Governor William Moultrie, who supported Genêt’s mission, personally escorted Genêt as far as Camden.  When Genêt entered any town, he would have his agents precede him.  They would ring church bells and fire cannons to bring crowds out into the streets.  They would provide barrels of free rum to keep the locals happy.  By the time Genêt arrived, there would be cheering crowds to greet him.  These receptions convinced Genêt that the people were on his side.

Genêt received some words of warning.  He stopped at the plantation of Ralph Izard in South Carolina. Izard warned him that the Administration was not likely going to enter a war on behalf of France, and that it likely would not honor the terms of the 1778 treaty.  Genêt also met with the Governor Henry Lee when he arrived in Virginia.  The man known as Light Horse Harry from the Revolution, provided a great reception.  Lee, a southern Federalist, made clear to Genêt that the US was determined to remain neutral.  Genêt pushed back, arguing that the two countries were tied in a fight for liberty, and that if the forces of monarchy defeated France, they would come for the US next.

It took nearly a month for Genêt to reach the nation’s capital, as had been the case in smaller towns, the people of Philadelphia turned out as if they were greeting a conquering hero.  In order to emphasize his republican credentials, Genêt exited his coach before arriving in Philadelphia, and caught a public coach into town.  By doing this, he bypassed a reception committee that consisted of about five hundred carriages.  When locals discovered his arrival he was once again celebrated with the ringing of church bells and the firing of cannons.  Some estimates say that as many as 10,000 people turned out in the streets to cheer the new representative of France.

The crowd serenaded him at his hotel by singing La Marseillaise and other songs of the French Revolution.  A welcome committee threw him a lavish dinner which included Governor Mifflin and one hundred other prominent citizens from the city.  Notably though, neither President Washington nor any of his cabinet attended the banquet.  

Genêt enjoyed the celebrations in town for two days before arranging a meeting with the president. The public celebrations had been enthusiastic. His meeting with the president was not.  The meeting took place at the executive mansion.  Members of the cabinet were also present.  Jefferson had escorted Genêt to the office.  Hamilton and Knox were already there. Historians have described the meeting as having an air of hostility and unmistakable iciness.  

Washington received Genêt’s credentials, officially recognizing the French Republic as the sovereign government of France.  Genêt could not help but notice the two large portraits of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette that hung in the president’s house.  He took offense at the honored display of these enemies of the French Revolution.  Washington offered no apology for honoring the king who made the American Revolution a success.

Washington assured Genêt that the 1778 treaty remained in force and would be honored, but that the US would not involve itself in offensive wars that France had started.  Genêt requested that the US provide him payment of the outstanding debt of nearly $2.5 million that the US still owed France.  He also requested the loan of canons from the US Department of War.  Hamilton and Knox knew that he planned to use these resources for organized armies in America to invade Canada, Louisiana, and Florida.  They absolutely refused to cooperate.

Starting a War

Genêt saw this not as neutrality but as the United States effectively working to further the British war against France.  British ships regularly stopped American merchant vessels at sea and confiscated French goods, yet the US would not allow French ships to confiscate British goods.

Genêt realized the administration would not be any help.  He opted to bypass the government and simply continue efforts on his own to bring the war against Britain and Spain to America.

He continued to outfit privateers, including one ship in Philadelphia, in direct defiance of the President.  Ultimately, he would commission twelve privateers which would go on to capture eighty British ships.  French consuls in US ports condemned and sold these prizes, raising money for Genêt.

The Ambassador used that money, and also drawing on credit against US debt to France, to begin raising his armies.  He granted George Rogers Clark a commission as a major general in his Legion of Revolution.  Clark was tasked with raising an army that would capture New Orleans and open the Mississippi River.  This was something the western settlements had been demanding from the US government for years, and this opportunity to do so would attract many volunteers for an army.

Genêt also granted a commission to Elijah Clarke, who had served under Andrew Pickens in Georgia during the Revolutionary War.  Clarke was tasked with invading East Florida. Genêt believed he could recruit an army of 5000 volunteers to take the Spanish colony. There were few Spanish forces in that region, only a few hundred at St. Augustine.  Many of the other non-Indians in Florida at that time were settlers from Georgia. Genêt also made plans to recruit agents and arm volunteers in French-speaking Canada in order to provoke a revolution there against British rule.

It quickly became clear that Genêt was bent on bringing the European war to America.  Conducting acts of war against British and Spanish territories in America would inevitably force those countries to declare war against the United States.

Genêt openly defied the Washington Administration, taking out newspaper ads to recruit volunteers for his privateers.  He used the democratic societies around the country to spread pro-French propaganda and identify potential military recruits.  He even hired defense attorneys for men who were being prosecuted for serving on his privateer ships.

When administration officials confronted Genêt about his actions, he simply refused to back down. Genêt believed that he had to rekindle the flame of liberty in America and that they would overcome their fears of Britain.  Genêt also reported to officials in France that he thought Hamilton was acting as a British agent, but that he could probably be bought off.

Next week, the Washington Administration must end this push toward a new war, while also dealing with a deadly epidemic that strikes Philadelphia.


 - - -

Next Episode 380 Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 (coming soon)

Previous Episode 378 Kentucky Joins the Union

 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

The Citizen Genêt Affair, 1793–1794 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/citizen-Genêt

Genêt Affair https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/Genêt-affair

“John Jay and the Genêt Affair [Editorial Note],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-05-02-0271

SHERIDAN, EUGENE R. “The Recall of Edmond Charles Genêt: A Study in Transatlantic Politics and Diplomacy.” Diplomatic History, vol. 18, no. 4, 1994, pp. 463–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24912307

Ammon, Harry. “The Genêt Mission and the Development of American Political Parties.” The Journal of American History, vol. 52, no. 4, 1966, pp. 725–41. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1894343 

Ammon, Harry. “Agricola versus Aristides: James Monroe, John Marshall, and the Genêt Affair in Virginia.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 74, no. 3, 1966, pp. 312–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4247222

Henderson, Archibald. “Isaac Shelby and the Genet Mission.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 6, no. 4, 1920, pp. 451–69. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1886469

Neutrality Proclamation of 1793 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/neutrality-proclamation-of-1793

“Edmond Charles Genêt to Alexander Hamilton, 19 July 1793,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-15-02-0089

“Henry Lee to George Washington, 14 June 1793,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-13-02-0059

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

A message of the President of the United States to Congress relative to France and Great Britain, Philadelphia: Childs and Swaine, 1793. 

The Mangourit Correspondence in Respect to Genet's Projected Attack Upon the Floridas, 1793-94 [Google Books]. 

Bassett, John Spenser The Federalist System, 1789-1801, New York: Harper & Bros, 1906. 

Genêt, George Clinton Washington, Jefferson, and "Citizen" Genêt, 1793, New York: 1899. 

Michaux, André Journal of André Michaux, 1793-1796, Cleveland: A.H. Clark Co. 1904. 

Minnigerode, Meade Jefferson Friend of France 1793: The Career of Edmond Charles Genêt 1763-1834, GP Putnam’s Sons, 1928.

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Ammon, Harry The Genet Mission, W.W. Norton & Co. 1973. 

Burstein, Andrew and Nancy Isenberg Madison and Jefferson, Random House, 2010

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. 

Dillon, Mark. C. The First Chief Justice: John Jay and the Struggle of a New Nation, State Univ. of New York Press, 2022.

Dugatkin, Lee A. The Botanist and Citizen Genêt: André Michaux’s 1793 Expedition to the Pacific and America’s First Diplomatic Crisis, Butler Books, 2025. 

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. 

McCullough, David John Adams, Simon & Schuster, 2001. 

McDonald, Forrest, The Presidency of George Washington, Univ of Kansas Press, 1974.

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

O'Brien, Coner C. The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996.

Sears, Louis M. George Washington and the French Revolution, Wayne State Univ. Press, 1960.

Spero, Patrick The Scientist Turned Spy: André Michaux, Thomas Jefferson, and the Conspiracy of 1793, Univ of Va Press, 2024.

Staloff, Darren Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson: The Politics of Enlightenment and the American Founding, Hill and Wang, 2005.

Unger, Harlow G. "Mr. President": George Washington and the Making of the Nation's Highest Office, Da Capo Press, 2013.

Vaughan, Harold C. The Citizen Genêt affair, 1793; a chapter in the formation of American foreign policy, New York: F. Watts, 1970 (borrow on Achive.org

Winik, Jay The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800, Harper Collins, 2007.

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sunday, March 15, 2026

ARP380 The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

Last week we covered the elections of 1792, which gave us the Senators and Representatives for the third Congress, and also the reelection of George Washington.

The new Congress could have begun its session in March of 1793. In fact, the new Congress did not meet until December of that year.  Following the December 1792 elections, the second congress continued to meet and pass legislation.

Fugitive Slave Act

In February, it took up the Fugitive Slave Act.  Before we get into the substance, I need to make clear that the law was not called the Fugitive Slave Act.  That is what everyone called it later.  In fact, the text of the statute does not even use the word slavery.  

Escaping Slaves
The statute was entitled, An Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters.  The first part of the law dealt with returning fugitives who were facing criminal charges.  The second party referred to “a person held to labour in any of the United States, or … territories”  This included both slaves and indentured servants.

The Constitution had already authorized this power.  The Constitutional Convention had added a clause:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

In other words, if a person was a slave or under an indenture in one state, and they escaped to another state where they were free, that state would still be obligated to return them to the state where they were being held to service.  In other words, they had to be returned to slavery or to complete their indenture, depending on the status of the person.  The Constitution did not explain all the details, like how the process would work, what proof would be required to take the accused into slavery, or who would pay for all of this.

The incident that brought this to the attention of federal officials actually predated the ratification of the Constitution.  In 1780, Pennsylvania passed its gradual abolition act, something we discussed back in Episode 241.

The law permitted slave owners to retain any slaves that they owned prior to the law’s passage. To comply, owners had to register their slaves with the state, and pay a $2 fee. The point of registration was to prevent slave owners from claiming that children of slaves born later were actually born before the date of the legislation, and also to prevent new slaves from being imported into the state.  Any slave who was brought into Pennsylvania after the law’s passage, and remained there for at least six months, was automatically emancipated under the law.

A Maryland slave owner named Davis moved to the northern tip of Virginia, in what is today the northern panhandle of West Virginia, near Pittsburg.  The border between Virginia and Pennsylvania was unclear at the time.  It eventually was determined that Davis’ farm was over the line in Pennsylvania.  Because of the confusion, Pennsylvania extended the deadline for registering slaves in that area for people in that area, who had thought they were living in Virginia. Davis still failed to register his slaves, and instead continued to keep his slaves working on his farm in Pennsylvania.  Under Pennsylvania law, they were free.  I guess no one told the slaves there at the time.

It did not become an issue until 1788. It’s not clear what happened, but there was a local chapter of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society becoming active in the area, so Davis might have become concerned that his enslavement was illegal at this point.  He took his slave John back over the line a few miles to the west into Virginia and rented him to a neighboring farm.

Several of John’s neighbors were upset by this.  They traveled into Virginia, found John, and brought him back to Pennsylvania where he was a free man under the law.  The Virginia farmer who had rented John then hired three Virginians to cross back into Pennsylvania and bring John back to his farm as a slave.  He then moved John to another part of the state where it would not be easy for the Pennsylvanians to get him back.

For Pennsylvania, this was a case of kidnapping.  John had lived in Pennsylvania for years, and under state law was a free man.  Officials indicted the three Virginians on charges of kidnapping.  Governor Mifflin of Pennsylvania sent a request to Virginia to extradite the accused men for trial.  The Abolitionist Society also hired an attorney to have John returned to freedom in Pennsylvania.

Virginia refused to act on the extradition requests.  The three alleged kidnappers remained free in Virginia.  John remained enslaved in the eastern part of the state.  Three years after the kidnapping, nothing had changed. Virginia refused to turn over anyone, while the case of a free black man who had been kidnapped and enslaved in Virginia was drawing more attention in Pennsylvania.

Virginia’s attorney general refused to take any action, writing that the kidnapping of a free black man was not a felony in Virginia and would not be considered for extradition.  The kidnappers had not violated Virginia law nor federal law.  Therefore, Virginia had no authority to arrest them or extradite them.

Both Pennsylvania and Virginia sent their legal arguments to President Washington, who turned them over to his Attorney General Edmund Randolph.  The attorney general found issues with the claims of both states.  The Pennsylvania faults were mostly technical, not providing an authenticated copy of the law that had been broken.  Randolph also rejected Virginia’s claim that it could not arrest someone who had broken a law in another state, even if the act would have been legal in Virginia.  Randolph recommended to Washington that he tell the Pennsylvania Governor to correct the technical errors with their extradition request and then resubmit their claim to Virginia.

Virginia still refused to turn over the kidnappers.  Local Virginians in the area accused the Pennsylvania Abolition Society of stealing other slaves and carrying them to freedom in Pennsylvania.  The case was becoming a politically charged issue in both states.

In the fall of 1791, Washington sent the whole mess to Congress, with a request that they come up with some laws that would cover the extradition of accused criminals as well as the return of fugitive slaves.

By this time all of New England, as well as Pennsylvania had either abolished slavery or passed a law that would gradually abolish it.  Among northern states only New York and New Jersey had not passed any abolition law.  While there was a growing abolition movement in many states, the overall consensus still favored slave ownership and the return of escaped slaves.

Still Congress had to come up with an acceptable law that detailed how extraditions would be handled.  Congress did what they always did: form a committee to study the matter.  The committee consisted of two members from Massachusetts, one of whom was Theodore Sedgwick, who years earlier had litigated the cases that ended slavery in Massachusetts.  Also on the committee was Virginia Slave owner, Alexander White.

The committee came up with a process for the return of either accused criminals or suspected runaway slaves.  Someone would have to file a valid application for an arrest warrant to the governor of the state.  The governor would then issue warrants to law enforcement to have them arrest the fugitive.  If arrested, the accused would be turned over to the purported owner of the slave, or to state authorities in the case of accused criminals.  There was no right of due process for the accused before extradition, and those making the claim that a person was enslaved did not even have to submit a claim under oath.  The bill also imposed heavy fines on anyone who interfered with the return of a slave or for officials who refused to act on warrants. The House ended up never considering the committee recommendation and instead waited for the Senate to propose its own bill.

Congress adjourned for the year, and returned in March of 1792.  The Senate appointed its own committee, but that committee never reported back before the session ended in May.  The Senate reappointed the committee in November, after its return.  

By this time it was more than a year since Congress began considering the matter.  The first Senate bill, offered on December 20, 1792, was even more in favor of the slave owners.  It required all citizens to participate in the capture of fugitives, and imposed fines and jail time for anyone who refused to help.  It permitted the return of slaves based on the deposition of just one credible person, without even requiring it to be under oath.  It also proposed a daily fine for anyone who harbored or concealed a fugitive.  That fine would be paid to the slave owner.

Senators threw out that bill and began consideration of a second bill. This second bill did not require people in the free state to participate in the capture of an alleged fugitive.  Slave owners or their agents were free to seize someone themselves, without obtaining a warrant. However, they would be required to bring the captured person before a judge or magistrate before trying to leave the state and to prove to the satisfaction of the judge that this person was still bound to service.  This would require sworn testimony or affidavits.  The bill also proposed a statute of limitations.  If a black person had lived in a free state as a free person for a certain number of years, the exact number was not added, removal would not be permitted.

Senators from slave states were unhappy with his bill after more than a week of debate.  So they submitted a third bill for consideration.  This bill removed the statute of limitations restriction.  While it did not require locals to help capture the alleged fugitive, it did restore fines for anyone who actively tried to obstruct or hinder the capture.  It allowed slave owners to sue for damages in federal courts for anyone who tried to prevent the capture of their slaves.  In addition to civil damages, those who hindered a capture could be fined $500.

Local law enforcement could not be forced to help capture fugitives, but it gave private slave catchers a pretty free hand in capturing anyone they wanted without hindrance.

The Senate passed the bill and sent it to the House, which made a few minor technical changes.  Both the House and Senate approved the bill overwhelmingly.  After both houses passed the final bill, it went to President Washington, who signed the bill on February 12, 1793.

As for the incident that started this whole matter - none of the kidnappers from Virginia were ever extradited for trial, and John remained enslaved for the rest of his life in Virginia.

Other business

With the fugitive slave act complete, Congress turned to other business. One bill that they took up just days after completing  the fugitive slave act was an amendment to the patent process.  Under the law passed in 1790, Thomas Jefferson had to make a determination about whether a patent application was sufficiently important or useful to justify receiving a patent.  

Jefferson hated this work.  He did not have enough time to evaluate each application properly and was essentially forced to make a decision without really knowing enough to make an informed decision.  Jefferson wanted the process changed so that he did not have to spend so much time on this.

The patent act signed into law on February 21, 1793 granted patents pretty much automatically.  It became a clerical function that did not require much research or deliberation.  If someone wanted to challenge a patent, they could take it to court and let a judge decide.

Another issue before Congress was the fact that states, and even private individuals, were buying Indian land to open up more lands for settlers.  Congress approved a new law requiring that no sale of lands would be valid unless it was conducted through public treaty by the federal government.  Since land sales made under questionable authority could lead to more war with the Indians, Congress wanted to control this process.  President Washington signed the bill into law on March 1.

Congress also took up amendments to the Judiciary Act.  I mentioned last week Chief Justice John Jay was considering quitting because of the miserable experience of having to ride around the country on circuit to hear appeals.  Jay and other justices petition both President Washington and members of congress to eliminate what one justice called “exile from our families” for half of each year.  In January, 1793, Justice Thomas Johnson resigned, citing the hardship of riding circuit.

At the end of 1792, Washington gave another State of the Union Address calling for judicial reform.  What the justices wanted was more judges to hear cases.  They wanted appellate judges, who could hear appeals, then the Supreme court could be a secondary appeal.  Under the current system, circuit justices would hear appeals and rule on them, then if the case got appealed to the Supreme Court, they would have to rule on it again.  Having the same person rule on the same case twice was something that many justices considered unconstitutional.

Congress considered the idea of adding appellate judges, and rejected it.  Members of Congress thought circuit riding was important so that the justices were forced to have more of a connection to the localities across the country.  They also did not want to pay for a whole new level of judges.  Instead, they reduced the circuit riding a little by no longer requiring that three justices ride together on each circuit.  Rather, one Justice would hear cases, thus the work could be spread out a little more.

Congress did take one thing off their plate.  Justices were also expected to review and rule on pension claims for Revolutionary War veterans.  They had to evaluate whether a veteran was destitute and disabled enough to qualify for a pension.  A fight over this took place during 1792 when a circuit court held that the Pension Act was unconstitutional and refused to consider any applications. Attorney General Randolph argued this point to the Supreme Court, but the Court then had a problem with half the justices arguing that the Attorney General could not seek a writ of Mandamus unless the president explicitly authorized him to do so.  Randolph got around that problem by leaving the court, and coming back a few hours later saying he had received authorization to argue this case, not as attorney general, but as the personal attorney for one of the pension applicants.  The Court refused to rule on the case and held it over to the next session.

Before the next session met, Congress acted.  The new law moved responsibility for pension applications from the circuit courts to the federal district courts, and also authorized the appointment of several commissioners to assist with the processing of pension applications.

The bill also put some limits on federal courts, including preventing them from issuing injunctions related to state court activities.  The House and Senate both passed bills, which President Washington signed into law on March 2, 1793.

Washington’s Second Term Begins

On that same day, the Second Congress concluded its business and adjourned.  The new Congress could have started the next day, but instead would not meet for another nine months.  President Washington’s second term, however, began immediately.  The President took the oath of office to begin his second term on March 4.  

Unlike his first inauguration, which included ceremony, public celebration, and a parade, the second inaugural was a low key affair.  Washington rode in a coach to Congress Hall.  At noon, in the Senate chamber, Associate Justice William Cushing issued the oath of office as Vice President Adams, Thomas Jefferson and members of the House and Senate watched.

Washington then gave the shortest inaugural speech in history.  It is so short, I’ll read it in full here: 

Fellow-Citizens:

I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of United America.

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President, the Constitution requires an Oath of Office. This Oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly, or knowingly, the injunction thereof, I may (besides incurring Constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

That was it.  After that, Washington left the building.  A small crowd had gathered and gave the President three cheers as he climbed back in his carriage.  He was back home by 1:00.  With that, Washington’s second term as President began.

Next Week: we will begin discussion of the first crisis of Washington’s Second term: the Citizen Genêt Affair.

 - - -

Next Episode 380 Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 (coming soon)

Previous Episode 378 Kentucky Joins the Union

 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

Fugitive Slave Acts: https://www.history.com/articles/fugitive-slave-acts

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 [text of statute] https://docsteach.org/document/fugitive-slave-act-1793

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 [text of statute] https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/fugitive-slave-act-of-1793

First Fugitive Slave Law: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/first-fugitive-slave-law

“Enclosure: Statement of Conflict between Pennsylvania and Virginia, 20 December 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-22-02-0398.

“George Washington to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, 27 October 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-09-02-0068

David, C. W. A. “The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 and Its Antecedents.” The Journal of Negro History, vol. 9, no. 1, 1924, pp. 18–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2713433

Finkelman, Paul. “The Kidnapping of John Davis and the Adoption of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793.” The Journal of Southern History, vol. 56, no. 3, 1990, pp. 397–422. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2210284

Sebok, Anthony J. “Judging the Fugitive Slave Acts.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 100, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1835–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/796788

An Act to Regulate Trade and Intercourse With the Indian Tribes. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-1/pdf/STATUTE-1-Pg329.pdf

“Supreme Court Justices to George Washington, 9 August 1792,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-10-02-0425

Creating the Federal Judicial System: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/Creat3ed.pdf

The Judiciary Act of 1793 [text] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_22

Second Inaugural Address https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1793-second-inaugural-address

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

The Rendition of Fugitive Slaves: The Acts of 1793 and 1850, and the Decisions of the Supreme Court Sustaining Them, National Democratic Campaign Committee, 1860. 

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

Finkelman, Paul Slavery in the Courtroom: An Annotated Bibliography of American Cases, Washington: Library of Congress, 1985. 

McDougall, Marion G. Fugitive Slaves (1619-1865), Boston: Ginn & Co. 1891. 

Spencer, Ichabod S. Fugitive Slave Law. The Religious Duty of Obedience to Law; a sermon preached in the Second Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, Nov. 24, 1850, New York: M.W. Dodd, 1850. 

Spooner, Lysander. A Defence for Fugitive Slaves, Against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793, and September 18, 1850. Boston: Bela Marsh, 1850. 

Pellew, George John Jay, Houghton, Mifflin, and Co. 1890. 

Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*

Campbell, Stanley. The Slave Catchers: Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, 1850-1860. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970.

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. 

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. 

Finkelman, Paul Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson, Armonk, 2001.

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

Morris, Thomas D. Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North, 1780-1861. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

Newman, Richard S. The Transformation of American Abolition: Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2002.

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

Wilson, Carol Freedom at Risk: The Kidnapping of Free Blacks in America, 1780–1865, 

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.