Showing posts with label 1797. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1797. Show all posts

Sunday, October 11, 2026

403 The XYZ Affair

For the last few weeks, we’ve been covering the growing divide in the US over a possible war with France.  This week, that possibility grows exponentially following what has become known as the XYZ Affair.

Property protected à la françoise
When John Adams became president, the biggest issue of his presidency was the diplomatic dispute with France.  President Washington had recalled James Monroe as Minister to France because he seemed more interested in keeping a bond between revolutionary France and the Democratic Republicans in America rather than in representing Washington’s policies.

Washington sent Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to replace Monroe.  When Pinckney arrived in December 1796, French officials refused to accept his credentials.  A few months later, they threatened him with arrest if he remained in France.  France also had begun seizing US merchant vessels at sea.  All of this really just came to light in America as Washington was leaving office, meaning President Adams would have to resolve it.

Adams called an emergency session of Congress where he made clear that relations with France had fallen apart and that the US needed to build up its army and navy to deal with this threat. At the same time, he also formed a three member commission, to send to France to work out a diplomatic solution.  The commissioners were John Marshall of Virginia, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, the same man that French officials had rejected as the new American Minister.

The Directory

Before we get into the Commission’s actions, it might be helpful to understand what was going on in France at this time.  The French Revolution began in 1789, but took several years before it abolished the monarchy, executed the king, and fundamentally changed the government.  

By 1792, the convention ran the country.  It consisted of nearly 800 elected representatives, making governing virtually impossible, with no executive branch.  Eventually it evolved that the Committee of Public Safety within the convention ran things, but that led to the Reign of Terror.  Politicians were always trying to out-radical each other and vying for power in this rather unstructured environment. 

To provide more organization, the Convention adopted a constitution in 1793, but it never really went into effect.  The Convention suspended it, arguing that wartime emergencies made implementation impossible.  In 1795, France finally implemented a constitution.  This one maintained a popularly elected Council of 500.  It created a second legislative body called the Council of Ancients.  Voting for the Council of Ancients had stiff property requirements, and voters had to be at least 30 years old.  Those elected had to be at least 40 years old.  This body consisted of 250 elected officials.

French Directory
The new constitution also created an executive branch.  But rather than a single chief executive, leadership was created in a five member group called the Directory.  The Council of 500 proposed a list of Directory members, and the Council of Ancients then selected the five members from that list. All members of the directory had to be at least 40 years old, have government experience, and could serve only a single five year term.  Each year, one member of the Directory would be replaced.

The idea behind all this was to create more structure and separation of powers and to prevent governments from swinging wildly in any single election.  It was designed to restore stability following the chaos of the Reign of Terror that it replaced.

Despite this supposedly well-ordered system, the fact that France was still at war with most of Europe, and that the economy was in shambles, led to repeated shake-ups, attempted coups, assassinations, and crack downs on civil rights.  In short, French leaders had much more on their minds than their relations with the United States.

Talleyrand

One French leader who was giving some thought to the US was Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, the Directory’s new foreign minister.

Talleyrand came from a minor noble family in France.  Due to a clubbed foot, he could not pursue a career in the army.  Instead, he entered seminary. After being expelled for a sexual affair, he was nevertheless ordained thanks to family connections, in 1779.  A decade later, he received an appointment as a bishop.  

Talleyrand
When the revolution began the following year, he went to the National Convention as a representative of the clergy.  His pro-revolutionary attitude got him excommunicated around the same time that the Convention confiscated all church property, thus depriving him of an income.

Talleyrand turned to diplomacy, getting an appointment to serve as a negotiator in London, trying to keep Britain out of a war with France.  His 1792 meetings with Prime Minister William Pitt secured neutrality, but the execution of King Louis and the invasion of Belgium the following year made war with Britain inevitable.  Talleyrand had to leave Britain, but going back to France would probably result in his arrest and execution.  

Instead, he moved to America.  On his way to America, he reported having diner with British General Benedict Arnold in Falmouth.  In America, Talleyrand settled in Philadelphia, where he lived privately for about two years. He made contacts, getting involved in land deals and other financial schemes, helping Americans secure European investments..

He formed social contacts and financial arrangements with men like Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris, and Henry Knox.  He even took an oath of allegiance to the US in 1794.  After the formation of the Directory in France, Talleyrand was no longer under fear of arrest in France.  He returned in the fall of 1796, just as relations between the US and France were collapsing.  In July, 1797, the Directory appointed him Foreign Minister. This was not necessarily a safe job.  Of the fourteen men who had held the position since the Revolution began, five had been executed, four were in exile, and at least two others had been imprisoned.

Talleyrand relied on his time living in America, and also consulted with others, including former ministers Fauchet and Adet who were both back in France by this time.  If Americans thought they were on the brink of war with France, no one in France seemed to agree.  They saw no benefit in going to war.  Doing so would only push the US further into the arms of Britain, which is exactly the opposite of what they wanted.  

The Directory seemed to have been betting on a friendly government in America winning the 1796 elections. When that did not happen, France simply wanted to do whatever it could to keep the US from deepening its relationship with Britain.

Talleyrand had no real power to make foreign policy, but he did advise the Directory on the subject.  In October 1797, he recommended that France drag out negotiations with the US.  This would prevent them from having to give into any US demands, while at the same time stringing them along so that they did not move closer to Britain.

To delay discussions, Talleyrand suggested they demand an explanation of President Adams’ speech to Congress since they understood that as a threat of war.  It would make clear to the Americans that the French were not negotiating under any such threats.

The Commissioners

Around the same time that Talleyrand was proposing delayed negotiations with the Americans, the delegation from America arrived in Paris.

Charles C, Pinckney
Pinckney had remained in Europe since the Directory’s refusal to accept his credentials a year earlier.  He moved to Amsterdam.  Marshall arrived in Europe on September 1.  They waited for several weeks for Gerry to arrive.  In the meantime, they got to know each other, and discussed their strategy.

After a couple of weeks, Marshall and Pinckney headed to Paris on their own.  They arrived on September 27.  Finally, a week later on October 4, Gerry arrived.

The Commission’s options were pretty limited.  They had instructions not to approve any grants or loans to France.  They could not agree to anything that would violate US obligations under the Jay Treaty with Britain, and could not accept any French restrictions on the rights of American commerce.  In short, they could use nice words but were not authorized to concede anything of substance.

Negotiation Attempts

The three Commissioners went to Talleyrand’s office, but he refused to see them.  The French minister started playing games with them.  First, he had Thomas Paine send them a letter suggesting the Americans accepted a role of an unarmed neutral.  Pinckney wrote back a non-committal reply, but that told Talleyrand that he could communicate via unofficial back channels without giving the commission any official recognition.

A few days after that, Jean Conrad Hottinguer stopped by Pinckney’s apartment in the evening.  Pinckney was having dinner with Marshall.  Hottinguer asked Marshall to leave so that he and Pinckney could have a private discussion.  Marshall agreed.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Marshall_(NPG).jpg
John Marshall
Hottinguer told Pinckney that the Directory was upset over Adams’ May 15 message to Congress and that they demanded an explanation.  He also said the US government needed to reimburse its own citizens for any debts that France owed them, and also pay for the commerce that the French had seized or destroyed, as well as lend an unspecified sum of money to the government.  They would also need to pay a bribe just to start any negotiations.

When Pinckney told his fellow commissioners about these unofficial demands, they all agreed that it was a non-starter.  Pinckney and Marshall were ready to be done, but Gerry said they should press for more details.  In another meeting with Hottinguer,  on October 19, Hottinguer set the bribe amount at 1.2 million livres, about $250,000.  Only Gerry wanted to continue.

Talleyrand believed that he and successfully divided the commissioners and that Gerry was the weakest link in the group.  He sent Lucien Hauteval, an old business acquaintance of Gerry to say that Talleyrand was ready to meet informally.  Again, Pinckney and Marshall refused.  They demanded only a formal meeting.  Gerry went by himself, believing that a social call with Hauteval and Talleyrand, both of whom he already knew, would not commit the US to anything.

The meeting itself did not discuss anything of substance.  Talleyrand had used it as a way of confirming that Gerry seemed willing to negotiate without his fellow commissioners.

The following day, October 20, a businessman named Bellamy visited Marshall at his apartment.  He noted that France had just signed a peace treaty with Austria a few days prior.  That meant the war in Europe was largely over.  The only belligerent still facing France was Britain.  France could now focus more on that, as well as making more demands on the US.

Hottinguer returned a few days after that, claiming the Directory was becoming impatient, expecting their bribe.  He also noted that France had defeated the great powers of Europe and that America needed to step up.  France would no longer accept neutrality.  The US could be a friend or an enemy, nothing in between.  Pinckney replied that the US was not ready to roll over and demanded free commerce.  Hottinguer again brought up the subject of the bribe, at which point Pinckney lost  his temper and screamed “No, no, not a sixpence!”

Seeing that these unofficial discussions were breaking down, Gerry went to see Talleyrand and Hauteval again.  He made clear the commissioners had no authority to offer any grants or loans and could not pay any bribes.  Talleyrand suggested the commissioners front the money out of their personal funds and that there would be additional hostile measures within a week if there were no concessions.  Later, Hauteval suggested that one commissioner return to America to get authority for a loan while the others continued to negotiate.

While the commissioners rejected this, they said they might agree to a smaller cash payment if France suspended the seizure of American vessels.  Talleyrand thought he was close to breaking the commissioners.  He sent Bellamy back to talk about the unfortunate fate of those countries that had opposed France, and that France might use its Republican contacts in America to stir up public opinion against the commission.

On November 3, Bellamy told them that the Directory was going to send a complaint to Philadelphia that Pinckney and Marshall were too uncooperative, saying that if Aaron Burr and James Madison had been sent, this whole thing could have been resolved by now.

After about five weeks of negotiations, the commissioners had had enough.  Marshall and Pinckney were disgusted by the way they were being treated, without any official recognition and the continuing demands for bribes just to start official discussions.  Both of them were ready to return home, declaring the attempted diplomatic solution a failure.

Elbridge Gerry
Gerry, however, wanted to keep the lines of communication open.  He didn’t think it was in France’s interest to go to war with America, and believed that Talleyrand was bluffing just to get more concessions.  Gerry convinced his fellow commissioners to hang around while he continued these backchannel discussions on his own through December.

The commissioners gave up their hotel rooms ,instead moving to a less expensive guest house run by a Madame de Villette.  She was a charming hostess to the commissioners.  Unknown to them, she was also working as an agent for Talleyrand.

At the end of the year, Gerry received word that the Directory wanted Marshal and him to remain in France, but wanted Pinckney gone.  The Directory also issued a new edict saying that they would seize any ship that was carrying any goods of English origin.

Marshall tried to draft a written summary of the American position for the Directory, but Gerry, got him to delay delivery as Gerry continued discussions on his own.  

By February, Talleyrand was still pushing for a promise of a loan, trying to convince Gerry that he could do so, but also told him not to discuss the plan with his colleagues.  He also announced that a refusal would mean the expulsion of all the commissioners.  Gerry still refused to agree.

Talleyrand did not follow through on his threat.  Instead February turned into March, when Talleyrand agreed to meet with all three commissioners again.  It was a final push for a loan.  When that wasn’t forthcoming, Talleyrand suggested that Marshall and Pinckney leave the country before they were forcibly expelled.

The commissioners met amongst themselves for the final time on April 3, 1798.  Both Marshal and Pinckney were fed up with Gerry.  They thought his willingness to accept Talleyrand’s continued indignities were embarrassing to the country and were making him into a French puppet.  Gerry thought they were just jealous and were letting personal grudges get in the way of negotiations.  Marshall left for Bordeaux to catch a shop home.  

Pinckney, who had his family with him, got permission to travel to Lyon so that his sick daughter had time to recover before a trans-Atlantic voyage.  By the time she was healthy enough to travel, France had closed all of its ports to American shipping.  Pinckney remained in the country until August.  He spent some of that time trying to document the American sailors being held in French prisons.  Gerry ended up leaving France around the same time, after receiving orders from Secretary of State Pickering to do so.

Reception in America

Back in America, word of progress was sketchy.  Not only did Congress leave Philadelphia in July, but so did most of the other branches.  Yellow fever struck the city again.  Unlike the 1793 epidemic, which killed 10% of the population, this one only killed about 2%.  Adams prudently moved back to Massachusetts, returning only in November when the new session of Congress began.

Congress was still battling over policy.  Federalists wanted even larger armies and navies.  The Democratic Republicans opposed this, even after a French privateer entered Charleston Harbor and burned a British ship there in violation of American neutrality.

It wasn’t until March 4, 1798 that dispatches from Europe, sent in January, finally arrived.  They reported that Talleyrand would not negotiate until he received an explanation for Adams’ address to congress the year prior.  Everyone saw this as an insult, treating the president like an underling.  It further identified three men who had demanded bribes for Talleyrand and the Directors as well as a loan for France.  The report did not identify the men by name but referred to Hottinguer as X, Bellamy as Y, and Hauteval as Z.

Adams was upset that the commissioners did not leave immediately, but there was little that could be done about that now.  He called together the cabinet and discussed the possibility of war.  The Cabinet was mixed.  They corresponded with Hamilton who thought that war or a British alliance was inadvisable as it would divide the country.

Adams drafted a message outlining France’s attacks on America’s national honor and its refusal to stop attacking American shipping.  He called for a declaration of war.  After a few days, Adams thought better of it.  He shelved the message, as well as the dispatches, keeping all of them secret.

Instead, on March 19, he sent a mild and vague message, drafted by Secretary of Treasury Wolcott, simply reporting that the commissioners’ reports gave little hope of success.  He called on Congress to do more to protect American shipping, and lifted an order that prevented American vessels from arming themselves.

The Republicans in Congress, that is, the pro-French faction, as well as Vice President Jefferson, thought Adams was being vague and refusing to release the reports because France was really on the verge of a successful diplomatic solution and that Adams wanted to prevent that and go to war.  Demonstrations around the country condemned the president’s efforts to drive the US into a war with France.

Congress demanded the release of the original reports from the commissioners. Adams refused at first.  In April, the House passed a resolution demanding the release of the documents.  President Adams released them.  Congress was stunned when it learned the truth.  The Federalists in the Senate immediately voted to release the papers to the public. 

The reports shocked the nation.  Republicans were stunned by the abusive and insulting treatment of the  American commissioners.  As Americans became aware of the truth, the public calls went from attacking Adams for pushing the country toward war, to calling for war with France.

War with France seemed inevitable.

Next Week: The Quasi-War with France begins.

 - - -

Next Episode 404 The Quasi-War with France (coming soon)

Previous Episode 402 A Brawl in Congress

 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.



Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

The XYZ Affair https://www.thoughtco.com/the-xyz-affair-4175006

Adams Address to Congress, May 16, 1797: https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/john-adams/the-xyz-affair-1797.php

The French Directory: https://www.worldhistory.org/French_Directory

BAUER, JEAN. “With Friends Like These: John Adams and the Comte de Vergennes on Franco-American Relations.” Diplomatic History, vol. 37, no. 4, 2013, pp. 664–92. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44254324

Kramer, Eugene F. “Some New Light on the XYZ Affair: Elbridge Gerry’s Reasons for Opposing War with France.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 4, 1956, pp. 509–13. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/362143

Ray, Thomas M. “‘Not One Cent for Tribute’: The Public Addresses and American Popular Reaction to the XYZ Affair, 1798-1799.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 3, no. 4, 1983, pp. 389–412. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3122881

Stinchcombe, William. “Talleyrand and the American Negotiations of 1797-1798.” The Journal of American History, vol. 62, no. 3, 1975, pp. 575–90. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2936215

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

America and France. The intire [sic] message of the president of the United States, to both houses of Congress: covering the full powers to, and dispatches from, the envoys extraordinary of the United States, to the French Republic, Boston: B. Russell, 1798. 

Adams, Charles F. The Life of John Adams, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1871.

Bowers, Claude G. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America, London: Constable and Co. 1925.

Morse, Jr. John T. John Adams, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co. 1884. 

Wood, John The History of the Administration of John Adams, Esq., Late President of the United States, New York: Barlas and Ward, 1802. 

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

Brown, Ralph A. The Presidency of John Adams, Univ. of Kansas Press, 1975. 

Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004. 

Chervinsky, Lindsay M. Making the Presidency John Adams and the Precedents That Forged the Republic, Oxford Univ. Press, 2024.

DeConde, Alexander The Quasi War: The Politics and Diplomacy of the Undeclared war with France, 1797-1801, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966.

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

Kurtz, Stephen G. The Presidency of John Adams: The Collapse of Federalism, 1795-1800, Literary Licensing,  LLC, 2011.

Malone, Dumas Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty, Little Brown & Co. 1962 (borrow on archive.org).

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

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

Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation (or Portrait in Paradox), Harper & Brothers, 1959 (borrow on archive.org) 

Nester, William The Hamiltonian Vision, 1789-1800, Potomac Books, 2012 (Chapter 19 on XYZ available at JSTOR)

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

Shaw Peter The Character of John Adams, Univ. of NC Press, 1976. 

Smith, Jean E. John Marshall: Definer of a Nation, Henry Holt & Co. 1996. 

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

Stinchcombe, William The XYZ Affair, Praeger, 1980. 

Vaughn, Harold C. The XYZ Affair, 1797-1798, Franklin Watts, 1972.

Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.

 * As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.


Sunday, October 4, 2026

ARP402 Brawl in Congress


Partisan tensions had been growing in Congress for several years, primarily over the issue of whether the US should maintain neutrality and a good trading relationship with Britain, or whether it should deepen its ties with Revolutionary France and join the effort to rid Europe of monarchy.

On January 30, 1798, these tensions turned physical when Congressman Roger Griswold of Connecticut used his cane to beat Vermont Congressman Matthew Lyon on the House floor. This week, we will look at how things got that bad.

Responding to France

Back in Episode 398, we left off with newly inaugurated President John Adams calling a special session of Congress in May, 1797 to resolve the diplomatic crisis with France. After President Washington had recalled James Monroe and sent Federalist Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to serve as the new French Ambassador, France rejected his credentials, threatened Pinckney with arrest, and began attacking US shipping. This was clearly an act of war. But the US was in no position to go to war. 

Congressmen Lyon and Griswold
Britain had been doing the same thing to US shipping a few years earlier, resulting in the Jay Treaty. The Democratic Republicans saw that treaty as a sellout, making the US subservient to British interests like it was back in the colonial era again. France had helped America win independence. The US was turning its back on France as the people of France struggled to remain free from monarchy.

The Federalists just liked Britain more than France. They certainly wanted to remain independent, but America had always had a good trading relationship with Britain. Working as equals to maintain that relationship was not returning to colonial status. France had killed the king who had supported America, and was involved in brutal internal wars, and attacks on the rest of Europe. This did not involve American interests and the US should simply stay out of it.

President Adams gave his address to Congress in May 1797, very clearly outlining the French insults and aggression against the US, and called on Congress to decide how to respond. Adams clearly sided with the Federalist position, calling for a larger army and navy to protect American interests.

For the next two weeks. Congress debated how to respond to the President’s address which called France’s actions “derogatory to the honor and aggressions so dangerous to the Constitution, union, and even independence of the nation” and that the response should be a massive buildup of the military to confront these threats.

Federalists wanted the congressional response to thank the President and tell him that Congress would respond as he wanted. Democratic Republicans objected to the presidential suggestions to build up the military and wanted to say so in the congressional response. 

The House formed a committee of five members to hash out a unified response for this divided body. The committee consisted of three federalists, Roger Griswold of Connecticut, John Rutledge, Jr. the son of the former Governor of South Carolina, and Jonathan Freeman of New Hampshire. The two Democratic Republicans on the committee were Abraham Venable, of Virginia and John Kittera of Pennsylvania.

The Federalist majority on the committee simply pushed through a response that thanked the president, but did not push back on anything the president had said. Even other federalists in the House thought it was too complaisant.

Congressman John Nicholas, a Democratic Republican from Virginia, proposed an amendment to the committee report. He said that the country was moving toward a terrible war with France that would only bring difficulties. He wanted a response that used temperate and conciliatory language that would hopefully heal the breach with France, rather than using provocative rhetoric that would only worsen the existing situation. The government’s words would likely reach France before any envoy that the US sent. Angry language would only push the situation further toward war. There was no question that the US was weaker than France. Why would they want to provoke a war with a more powerful country? Instead of endorsing the president’s rhetoric, the congressional response should attempt to dampen its potential harm.

The Nicholas Amendment led to hours of debate on the House floor as to what sort of message Congress should send, and what would be the consequences of that message. While these debates went on for days, Federalists essentially argued that France was already engaged in hostile actions against America and regardless of what Congress did, might soon bring their war on Europe to America as well. The US needed to prepare. The president’s proposals to increase the army and navy were sensible preparations, even if war did not come.

The Democratic Republicans argued that, even if the US built up its military, it was in no condition to fight a full scale war with France. Pursuing a diplomatic goal that would sooth over whatever differences existed, and prevent war entirely, should be Congress’ primary goal.

Lengthy debate and multiple amendments, Congress finally came up with a response. That was a mish mash of conflicting ideas. We want peace with France, but we still have to maintain our national honor. We want more peace negotiations, but will also prepare for the possibility of war. The response ended by saying they would have to consider the details of any policy response to the situation - in other words, committing to nothing.

Preparing for War

Congress agreed to make preparations for war. It allocated funds to fortify US ports and harbors. It also approved completing three frigates for the Navy, the USS United States, the Constitution, and the Constellation. Construction of these ships were started years earlier, with slow progress due to lack of funds. Congress was now providing the necessary funds. It also approved the purchase of three additional frigates and six sloops of war.

Congress authorized the president to use this naval force to accompany convoys of merchant vessels. It also approved regulations to arm merchant vessels.

Congress also authorized some minor expansions of the standing army, including one additional regiment. In addition, the president could raise a provisional army if needed. Congress empowered the president to borrow money if needed for the defense and security of the country, and declared that it would raise taxes to cover any loans that the president borrowed. Finally, Congress restricted the exports of any arms and ammunition to make sure the US had a sufficient supply on hand.  These compromise measures neither satisfied the Federalist desire for a stronger defense, nor the Democratic Republican desire to focus solely on diplomacy.

Peace Commission to France

President Adams, still focused on the diplomatic crisis with France, did not even wait for Congress’ response to his message in May before he acted. On May 31, Adams nominated a commission of three officials to go to France on a diplomatic mission. 

Originally, Adams had considered sending one Federalist and two Democratic Republicans. The reasoning was that French officials had a better relationship with the Democratic Republicans and that might help negotiations. He had originally considered Elbridge Gerry and James Madison for the commission. But after learning that Madison’s appointment would cause all the Federalists to object, he gave up on that idea.

Instead, Adams proposed they send Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the designated French Ambassador who Washington had selected and who the French Directory had rejected, along with John Marshall and Francis Dana. Marshall was a moderate Federalist who had recently served as Virginia’s attorney general. Dana was also a moderate Federalist, who was at the time Chief Justice of Massachusetts. Dana had also been Adams’ secretary for many years while Adams was serving as a diplomat in Europe.

Congress approved the commission, but Dana declined to serve. In his place, Adams appointed Elbridge Gerry. Many Federalists in Congress balked at this nomination. Gerry wasn’t a Federalist. Like Adams, he didn’t really claim allegiance with either party. He had served in Congress for four years, but that was before the partisan break really defined itself. Gerry had refused to sign the Constitution at the Convention and had fought against it. He also articulated a strong sympathy for the French Revolution and for Thomas Jefferson, although he voted for Adams as an elector in 1796. In short, he seemed like a loose cannon. But Adams trusted him, and since there was already a Federalist majority on the Commission, Congress went along.

The Senate confirmed the nominees, although Gerry received quite a few dissenting votes.

Enforcing the Treaty with Spain

In mid-June, about a month after Adams called Congress into session, the president reported a new wrinkle. Remember that treaty with Spain that we signed that gave the US more land along its southern border? Well, Spain seemed to be rethinking that. Spain had suspended the efforts to draw the new border and announced that it was not withdrawing its troops from the forts in that territory.

Spanish officials delayed their treaty obligations by requesting a decision on whether to leave their forts standing, or to demolish them, and also to get an assurance from the US that it could keep the local natives pacified. Clearly Spain was having second thoughts about how much of a threat the US was, and whether it had given away too much in the treaty.

The Administration managed to complete the transition by taking a hard line with the Spanish Ambassador that the Treaty would be executed as signed and that Spanish forces would withdraw or else. At the same time, Adams told Spanish officials they were free to leave the forts intact or destroy them as they wished, but the garrisons needed to leave. He also pushed official assurances that local Spanish settlers who had land claims to property would be protected.

Adams also asked Congress in June to enact legislation to create a territorial government for the region. He also sent US soldiers into the region after the date permitted by the treaty. Spanish soldiers would have to decide whether to fire on the US Army, or withdraw according to the treaty. They chose to withdraw.

Blount Conspiracy

This is also the same time that Congress became aware of the Blount Conspiracy. I’ve mentioned this in earlier episodes. William Blount had been the territorial governor of Tennessee, and became one of the first US Senators once Tennessee became a state in 1796.

Blount also had his personal fortune invested in western lands. In late 1796, he heard rumors that Spain planned to cede the Louisiana Territory, and the Floridas to France. Given the hostility between France and the US, this would make settlement of those western lands far less attractive, thus destroying their value.

Blount did not trust the Federal Government to handle this situation, so he turned to the British. Blount knew Captain John Chisholm, who owned a tavern in Tennessee, right down the street from Blount’s home. Chisholm’s background is a little sketchy. He was born and raised in Scotland, moving to America in 1777. By some accounts he had been a British regular for a time and was also a loyalist during the war. But he mostly stayed out of the war, living on the frontier and marrying a Cherokee woman.

In late 1796, Captain Chisholm escorted several Cherokee to Philadelphia, with the intent of obtaining US citizenship. While there, he met with John Lister, the British Ambassador to the United States. The men proposed to use British military resources to capture the Floridas from Spain. At the same time, frontier armies consisting of both settlers and Native Americans, would seize Spanish settlements along the Mississippi River, including the capture of New Orleans.

Ambassador Listor was not sure what to make of the proposal, but he took it seriously enough to provide Chisholm with funds to go to London and make the pitch directly to the ministry.

On April 21, 1797, Senator Blount wrote to James Carey, a US Indian Agent with the Cherokee, hoping that Carey would help get the Cherokee on-board with the plot. The letter outlined the entire conspiracy and Blount’s role in it. Blount told Carey to burn the letter after reading it. 

Carey did not burn the letter. Instead, he turned over the letter to federal officials who forwarded it to President Adams in June. Adams immediately turned over the documents to the Senate.

For Blount, the revelation of this conspiracy could not have happened at a worse time. Spain was threatening to break a treaty with the US, and France was threatening war, because both countries feared that the US was getting into bed with Britain and would become a threat to Spanish and French interests. Now came a revelation that a US Senator was involved in discussions to encourage Britain to help seize Spanish colonies in America. 

The Senate confronted Blount with the evidence against him on the House floor. Blount did not know how to respond and attempted to flee. After being brought back to the Senate by force, he took the 5th and remained silent. Senator James Ross of Pennsylvania with the evidence of the conspiracy in hand, recommended Blount’s immediate expulsion from the Senate Blount then lawyered up and demanded a hearing.

He managed to delay a vote for a couple of days, but on July 8, the Senate voted against a motion to postpone and then voted 26 to 1 to expel Blount from the Senate.

The matter also created a rift with Britain. Secretary of State Pickering met with Minister Liston to inquire into British involvement. Liston obviously downplayed Britain’s role, and could truthfully say by that time that Britain had already rejected the proposal and had documentation attesting to that fact.

Blount, however, remained the primary target of national wrath. A prosecutor in Pennsylvania brought criminal charges against Blount for “disturbing the peace of the United States”. There was also debate over whether to prosecute him for violating the Neutrality Act. Several other conspirators were arrested, although Chisholm escaped arrest by fleeing to Britain. Some sources indicate that the British Ambassador helped with his escape.

The House of Representatives impeached Blount, with legal opinions from the Attorney General and the US Attorney agreeing that impeachment was appropriate.

The Blount Conspiracy would occupy the attention of government officials for the next year and a half. Blount returned to Tennessee where he remained popular and was elected to the State House. Federal efforts to arrest Blount and return him to Philadelphia failed when no one in Tennessee would assist with the effort.

The Senate debated trying Blount in absentia, but kept deferring a final decision. The matter simply lingered for the rest of 1797, and all of 1798. Finally, in January of 1799, the Senate dropped the matter on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that Senators and Congressmen were not subject to impeachment. Expulsion by their respective bodies was the appropriate action, and Blount had already been expelled.

While there was bipartisan condemnation of Blount’s conspiracy, the whole matter raised the temperature in the capital and around the country over having a foreign policy that respected national dignity while avoiding war.

Griswold v. Lyon

It was in the context of all this heightened partisanship and anger that a fight broke out in Congress. Not a war of words, an actual fight.

Congress’s special session lasted from May 15 to July 10, 1797. It picked up again with its regular session on November 13th. On January 30, 1798, the House voted on the impeachment of Sen. Blount so tensions were running high. 

While everyone was standing around waiting for the votes to be tallied, Freshman Congressman Matthew Lyon, a Democratic Republican commented that the Connecticut Federalists here all hypocrites who voted against the views of 90% of their constituents, and that if he opened a press in Connecticut, he could start a revolution there and get all of the Federalists thrown out of office.

Lyon and Roger Griswold, a Federalist Representative from Connecticut, had been arguing for weeks over various issues related to the ongoing dispute with France. Griswold overheard Lyon’s comments, which witnesses later said were made in a loud voice for everyone to hear. Griswold then asked whether Lyon would be wearing his wooden sword when he marched into Connecticut.

This was a reference to a recent article that had reported that Lyon had been court martialed for cowardice during the Revolutionary war, and as a punishment General Hortio Gates ordered him to wear a wooden sword. Lyon either ignored the remark, or, as he later claimed, did not hear it. So Griswold walked over, grabbed his arm and repeated the remark. 

In response, Lyon spit in Griswold’s face. Griswold simply wiped away the spit and walked away, knowing that Lyon would be condemned for his actions. The Committee of Privileges called Lyon’s actions “a violent attack and gross indecency.” Lyon sent an apology to the Speaker, claiming that because the House was in a break the rules of decorum should not apply.

The incident became a matter of debate in the House, as well as across the nation as newspapers reported on it. Federalists wanted “Spitting Lyon” as they now called him, expelled from the House for his behavior. The Federalist press also resurrected stories about Lyon’s cowardice during the war. 

The Democratic Republicans did not defend the behavior, but they also opposed expelling Lyon from the House over the matter. Debate on the matter continued for two weeks. In the end, the vote for expulsion was 52 in favor to 44 against. This meant that Lyon remained since the vote failed the necessary two-thirds majority.

Upset at the outcome, Griswold plotted his revenge. He purchased a hickory walking stick, then a few days later walked onto the House floor on February 15. Lyon then described what happened next: 

As soon as I saw him [Lyon] in his seat I took my cane and walked across the floor in front of the speakers chair, which is more than forty feet in extent.—He saw me before I struck him, and was endeavoring to draw a sword cane when I gave him the first blow—I call’d him a scoundrel & struck him with my cane, and pursued him with more than twenty blows on his head and back until he got possession of a pair of tongues [tongs], when I threw him down and after giving him several blows with my fist, I was taken off by his friends—

The Federalists in the House considered the attack justified.  A new committee report condemning the behavior but refusing to consider expulsion of either man was upheld by a vote of 73 to 21.

Nothing more really came of the incident since a few weeks later, new information from France called attention to more serious matters.  We’ll cover that next week, when we face what became known as the XYZ Affair.

 - - -

Next Episode 403 The XYZ Affair (coming soon)

Previous Episode 401 War Comes to Puerto Rico

 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.



Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

President Adams Message to Congress, May 16, 1797: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/may-16-1797-special-session-message-congress-xyz-affair

The Impeachment of Senator William Blount—the First in American History https://allthingsliberty.com/2021/02/the-impeachment-of-senator-william-blount-the-first-in-american-history

Documents on the Blount Conspiracy, 1795‑1797 https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/AHR/10/3/Documents_on_the_Blount_Conspiracy*.html

Fracas in Congress: The Battle of Honor between Matthew Lyon and Roger Griswold  https://essaysinhistoryjournal.com/article/1339/galley/2535/download

Roger Griswold Starts a Brawl in Congress https://connecticuthistory.org/roger-griswold-starts-a-brawl-in-congress-today-in-history

Free eBooks

(from archive.org unless noted)

Adams, Charles F. The Life of John Adams, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1871.

Bowers, Claude G. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America, London: Constable and Co. 1925.

Campbell, Tom W. Two Fighters and Two Fines: Sketches of the lives of Matthew Lyon and Andrew Jackson, Little Rock: Pioneer Publishing Co. 1941 (borrow only). 

Mastereson, William H. William Blount, New York: Greenwood Press, 1954. 

McLaughlin, J. Fairfax Matthew Lyon, the Hampden of Congress, New York: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co. 1900. 

Morse, Jr. John T. John Adams, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co. 1884. 

Turner, Frederick J. “Documents on the Blount Conspiracy, 1795-1797” The American Historical Review, 1905. 

White, Pliny H. The Life & Services of Matthew Lyon. Burlington: Times Job Office, 1858. 

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

Austin, Aleine Mathew Lyon “New Man” of the Democratic Revolution, 1749-1822.  Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1981.

Brown, Ralph A. The Presidency of John Adams, Univ. of Kansas Press, 1975. 

Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004. 

Chervinsky, Lindsay M. Making the Presidency John Adams and the Precedents That Forged the Republic, Oxford Univ. Press, 2024.

Cunningham, Noble E.  The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, 1789-1801, Univ. of NC Press, 1957 (borrow on archive.org).

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

Kurtz, Stephen G. The Presidency of John Adams: The Collapse of Federalism, 1795-1800, Literary Licensing,  LLC, 2011.

Malone, Dumas Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty, Little Brown & Co. 1962 (borrow on archive.org).

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

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

Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation (or Portrait in Paradox), Harper & Brothers, 1959 (borrow on archive.org) 

Nester, William The Hamiltonian Vision, 1789-1800, Potomac Books, 2012. 

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

Sharp, James R. American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis, Yale Univ. Press, 1993.

Shaw Peter The Character of John Adams, Univ. of NC Press, 1976. 

Smith, Page John Adams, Vol. 2, Doubleday, 1962 (borrow on archive.org). 

Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.

Morgan, John C. Resist Tyranny: The Story of Matthew Lyon, Early American Patriot. Wipf and Stock, 2017 (borrow on archive.org). 

 * As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sunday, September 20, 2026

ARP401 War Comes to Puerto Rico

For a while now, I’ve been referencing the ongoing war in Europe, fighting that the US was desperately trying to avoid, but which continued to cause them problems. While this was a major focus in America, I’m really trying to ignore most of the details of the war, out of a fear that we stray too far off-topic and dive into the French Revolution and its related wars.  But in 1796 and 1797, those European conflicts strayed into the Americas.  This week, we will discuss how the war impacted folks in the western hemisphere

European War Rages

The conflict raging in 1797 had evolved from the war that Revolutionary France began with most of Europe, beginning back in 1792.  For one reason or another, France declared war on most of Europe.  The rest of Europe organized in an effort to crush France and put an end to the experiment of a French Republic.  They formed a coalition to defeat France.  Historians would later call this the War of the First Coalition, which gives away the fact that it was only the first of many wars with different coalitions fighting against France.  This would eventually be known more generally as the Napoleonic Wars. However, at this time, Napoleon was not in charge of France.  He was just a general.

Massacre of English at San Juan 1797
After France executed King Louis in 1793, Spain joined the war against France.  Spain and France had been traditional allies, but much of the reason was that the Spanish and French monarchies were related. King Louis of France and King Charles of Spain were both from the House of Bourbon and were second cousins.  When French revolutionaries severed King Louis’ head from his body, they also severed that traditional alliance with Spain.

The Spanish declared war, probably figuring that without a King, and with most of Europe at war with France, that Spain might gain some territorial concessions.  Instead France held its own against Spain and even captured some Spanish territory.

By 1796, Spain was sick of fighting with France.  As we discussed back in Episode 392, Spain signed a peace treaty with France, around the same time they signed the treaty with the US ceding land and access to the Mississippi River.  Spain knew that making peace with France probably meant war with Britain, and wanted to make sure the US did not ally itself with Britain.

Their concerns about Britain proved correct.  Spain signed the treaty of San Ildefonso allying with France.  In response, Britain began using its navy to attack Spanish shipping.  These attacks led to a Spanish declaration of war against Britain on October 5, 1796. As had been the case during the American Revolution, Britain had the largest naval fleet, but Spain and France’s navies combined outnumbered the British.

After going to war against both countries, Britain withdrew from several islands in the Mediterranean, but was determined to cut off Spain from her American colonies through naval control of the Atlantic.

Battle of Cape St. Vincent

Britain won an important naval victory against Spain on February 14, 1797 off the coast of Cape St. Vincent in Portugal.  Spain assembled a fleet of 25 ships of the line, and a dozen smaller ships to escort a convoy of Spanish merchant ships to the Americas.

British Admiral John Jervis commanded a fleet of 15 British ships of the line that had just withdrawn from the Mediterranean into the Atlantic.  Commodore Horatio Nelson, in command of the Minerve, was looking for Jervis when he spotted the Spanish fleet.  Nelson actually sailed through the enemy fleet in a heavy fog without being spotted.  He found Jervis and identified the enemy’s location, but was unsure how many ships the enemy had.

The British sailed to intercept, approaching at night, only to discover after dawn that they were outnumbered by about 2-1.  Admiral Jervis went ahead with the attack, knowing that things would only get worse if the Spanish fleet connected with the French fleet and grew even larger.  Despite the disadvantage in numbers, Jervis knew his ships were in top condition and his crews were highly disciplined and experienced.

By contrast, the Spanish commander, Vice-Admiral Don José de Cordova y Rosas, had only taken command of the fleet after his predecessor Admiral Don José de Langara brought the fleet into Cartagena for repairs.  Langara believed that the ships were unfit for service.  The ministry in Madrid disagreed and wanted the fleet out at sea fighting.  Another experienced commander, Rear-Admiral Don José de Massaredo, refused the offer to take command based on his concerns about the condition of the ships as well.  It is telling that two commanders refused to take command based on the condition of hte ships. Much of the crew was made up of soldiers with little to no sailing experience as well as men gathered from Spanish prisons.  So the Spanish fleet was larger, but the British fleet was in better condition and with better crews.

When they made contact on Valentines Day, the two fleets formed into lines of battle and engage in the late morning.  British position and firing led to a very one-sided result.  The Spanish lost 430 killed and 860 wounded.  The British lost 73 killed and 229 wounded

Nelson boarding the San Josef
Commodore Nelson showed particular daring.  After his ship was nearly destroyed by enemy fire, he pulled against an enemy ship the San Nicolás.  Nelson’s crew took the ship in ferocious hand to hand combat.  Another Spanish ship, the San Josef, pulled alongside the San Nicolás for support, only to have the British crew cross over onto that second enemy ship and capture it as well.

The British captured two other Spanish ships of the line that day, for a total of four, with 3000 enemy prisoners.  The rest of the badly damaged enemy ships limped away.  The British landed their 3000 prisoners in Portugal on parole.  The Spanish ignored that parole and put the men back aboard other ships.  That aside, the victory was a stunning one. 

Admiral Jervis received the title of Earl St. Vincent and a lifetime pension of £3,000 per year.  Nelson’s conspicuous action gained him a knighthood in the Order of the Bath.  He also received a promotion to Rear Admiral shortly thereafter.

Back in Spain, Admiral de Cordóva suffered the ignominy of losing to a fleet half his size.  He faced a court martial and was dismissed from service.  He also received a lifetime ban from appearing at the royal court or from entering any of the major coastal towns.

The larger impact was that the British blockade against Spain remained in place, thus cutting off the Spanish colonies in America from any support.

Ralph Abercromby

With no Spanish fleet headed to the West Indies that year, the British looked around to see what island colonies might be susceptible to an invasion.

Ralph Abercromby
The British had already sent General Ralph Abercromby to command the British army in the West Indies.  You may recall General James Abercromby from our discussions of the French and Indian War.  Ralph and James both came from the same Scottish clan but were not closely related.

Ralph was the son of a lawyer and wealthy Scottish landowner.  This allowed him a top education, including several years at the University of Edinburgh as well as Leipzig University in what is today Germany. At 22 years old, at the beginning of the Seven Years War Abercromby joined the army, buying a commission as a cornet in the 3rd Dragoon Guards.  He rose through the ranks over time.  He was a lieutenant colonel by 1773 and a colonel by 1781.   Abercromby saw service in Europe, but never served in America during the Revolutionary War.  As a Whig, he sympathized with the American cause and chose to serve in Ireland instead of America.  During the Revolutionary War period, Abercromby also served as a member of Parliament.

When the Revolutionary War ended, Abercromby left active duty.  He returned to active duty in 1793 after France declared war on Britain.  He saw combat in France and Holland, where he was wounded in battle.

A short time later, Secretary of State for War Henry Dundas asked Abercromby to lead an expedition to the West Indies. In thanks for his agreement, Abercromby became a Knight of the Bath and an appointment as Lieutenant Governor for the Isle of Wight.

Second Carib War

After arriving in Barbados in early 1796, Abercromby had the command of 6000 British troops.  Before Abercromby arrived, more than half of his soldiers were deployed to St. Vincent and Grenada to put down a rebellion on those British colonies. 

Don’t confuse the island of St. Vincent in the West Indies with the naval battle that we just discussed, off of Cape St. Vincent, Portugal, the same year.  These are two different St. Vincents in different parts of the world.

Britain had taken control of the former French colony, St. Vincent, in 1763, as part of the treaty ending the Seven Years War.  France had tried to take it back in 1779 while Britain was focused on the American Revolution, but the British managed to hold it.  Britain also took over most of the land held by the native Caribs on the island.

In 1795, the Caribs on St. Vincent revolted. The French settlers who were still there supported the revolt Carib revolt against British control.  The rebels managed to take control of the entire island, except for the town of Kingstown.  

After his arrival in 1796, Abercromby reinforced the British defenses at Kingstown before moving across the island and stamping out the rebellion.  He ended up deporting more than 5000 black Caribs, first to another island and then to the coast of what is today Honduras.  More than half of them died in the process.  Abercromby lost another nearly 200 men in that campaign.  But it ended a rebellion that had been raging for over a year.  Deporting the natives meant that the threat would not return.

Following that success, the army moved on to the French colony of St. Lucia.  Britain had captured the island colony from France during the Revolutionary War, but was forced to return it as part of the treaty ending the war.  The British had recaptured the island in 1794, after going to war with France again, but a sustained guerilla movement kept the British from restoring order.  Led by the French revolutionary governor Victor Hugues, France retook control of the island in 1795.  Abercromby landed his army to reclaim St. Lucia for Britain once again.

After a one month siege, and at the cost of 566 British casualties, Abercromby restored British control over St. Lucia, leaving an army of 4000 men to ensure no more rebellion. 

Attacking Spanish Colonies

When Abercromby first came to the West Indies, Admiral Hugh Christian commanded the naval forces in the region, operating out of Martinique.  In early 1796, after it became clear that Britain would soon go to war with Spain, London decided that Christian was too junior for the command and ordered Admiral William Cornwallis to replace him.  Cornwallis refused, citing health reasons, and was court martialed for his refusal.  The West Indies was not a popular command since disease and hurricanes were continual problems.  Eventually, London sent Admiral Henry Harvey, who arrived in June 1796, just in time for the beginning of hurricane season.  

Official news that Britain and Spain were at war arrived around the end of the year.  Abercromby and Harvey knew this meant it was open season on whatever Spanish colonies seemed vulnerable.

In February, 1797, around the same time the British fleet was destroying the Spanish fleet off the coast of Cape. St. Vincent in Portugal, Abercromby invaded the Spanish island of Trinidad.  

Supporting him was a fleet of nine British ships of the line and nine smaller ships.  He had an assembled army of about 10,000 soldiers and marines.

Within days, the outnumbered Spanish forces surrendered, leading to 2500 enemy captured, along with one Spanish ship of the line.  The Spanish scuttled three other ships of the line and one frigate to avoid their capture.  The British lost only one man killed.

Siege of San Juan

Following the success in Trinidad, the British set their sights on Puerto Rico, the fourth largest island in the Caribbean.  British intelligence reported that the defenses on the island were weak and that the garrison on the island was very small.

Siege of San Juan
That attack began on April 17, 1797.  The British assembled an imposing fleet off the coast of San Juan. They carried an army of somewhere between 7000 and 10,000 soldiers.  Sources vary on the exact number.  

British General Abercromby sent an officer ashore under a flag of truce to demand the island’s surrender.   The governor rejected the demand.

The Spanish, however, had been preparing for an attack.  The new governor of Puerto Rico, Field Marshal Don Ramón de Castro y Gutiérrez, was an experienced military officer.

The island had forts and other defenses that had been in place for more than a century, dealing with a long line of prior attacks. The Spanish had been focused on improving defenses for the last few years.  They were expecting just such an attack.  

British intelligence was correct that the garrison protecting San Juan was not very formidable, . only about 200 soldiers.  There were another 200 Spanish veterans living on the island who turned out to supplement the garrison.

As soon as they spotted the British fleet at dawn on the 17th, Gov. Castro called out the militia.  These made up the bulk of the defenders, about 4000 locals. 

Typically, professional armies discounted the effectiveness of militia.  But because the Spanish expected a British attack for some time, they had been drilling the militia more intensively for the past month, including special crews of militia trained in artillery to operate the many cannons deployed in the forts around the city.

The governor also called up another 2000 or so common laborers and peasants who were not part of the formal militia system, but who were collected for this emergency.  They even cleared out the prisons, putting prisoners on the defensive lines.  

The Spanish also had about 300 French fighters.  These were mostly men who served on privateers or commercial ships who had also opposed the British.  Many of these were used in Spanish gunboats in the waters around the island.

San Juan itself was a walled town with multiple forts surrounding it.  The largest fort, Castillo de San Felipe del Morro, guarded entry into San Juan Bay. 

Because San Juan itself was so well defended. Abercromby landed more than 3000 British soldiers on another part of the island so that they could assault the town by land.  This happened on April 18th, the day after the fleet’s arrival. The Spanish opposed the British landing with only a tiny force of about 80 men, inflicting some casualties before retreating.

This British force cut off San Juan from the rest of the island.  The British began entrenching lines for a siege of the town..  

For several days, the British used their artillery, mostly aboard the naval ships around San Juan, to bombard the town.  On Friday April 21, the British ambushed a detachment of Spanish cavalry and grenadiers near Martín Peña bridge, a possible entryway into San Juan.  The Spanish counterattacked, leading to the capture of 33 British prisoners.

Over the next week, the siege settled in, with artillery bombardments continuing and several skirmishes as both sides tried to probe the other for weaknesses.  On Friday April 28, Castro ordered a larger attack on the British near the Martín Peña bridge.  About 800 Spanish soldiers, including cavalry and supported by field cannon, attacked the British lines.  The Spanish soldiers marched directly at the British center.  The British regulars held and the Spanish had to withdraw.

Despite the British success on the field, Abercromby determined that his position was becoming untenable. He could not find the hoped-for weakness in the enemy’s defenses.  He also received word that an organized force of peasants was approaching from the interior.  This could mean his force would be under attack from both directions. The British landing force has been engaged for over two weeks if you include the time sailing to the island.  They are exhausted and unable to continue.

Abercromby ordered a night withdrawal, under cover of darkness while the British Navy continued its bombardment of the city to cover the withdrawal.  The army also set a massive fire on the island which prevented any Spanish forces from advancing on the British as they returned to their ships.  This process began at night, but took all weekend to get done.

By Monday morning, May 1, the guns went silent.  Castro sent scouts who reported that the British army was gone.  Spanish troops found abandoned camps, with tents, food rations, gunpowder, spiked cannons, all abandoned by the British.

In the end, the British reported 31 killed, 70 wounded, and 124 captured.  The Spanish claimed that the British suffered 2000 casualties.  While this is clearly an exaggerated number, British officers also tended to under-report casualties, so the real number is probably somewhere in-between.  Spanish officials report only 42 killed, 194 wounded, and 2 missing among their own casualties.

Aftermath

The Spanish celebrated the victory as a miraculous defense against overwhelming forces.  The British Navy was able to bring far more artillery fire on San Juan than the defenders could return, but that all proved relatively ineffective in deciding the contest. The Spanish forts took heavy damage, but managed to remain intact. 

From what I can tell, the two sides were pretty evenly matched in terms of the size of their armies. The Spanish had an impressive defense of walls and forts that gave them the edge.  Britain had expected to find weak defenses in poor condition.  When that hopeful intelligence proved incorrect, they determined that they could not prevail.

The British returned to Martinique.  Abercromby sent reports to Britain.  Before they arrived, London had been celebrating based on rumors of a British victory at San Juan.  Official reports of the truth of the contest, which arrived in early June, quickly quieted those celebrations.  

In the end, the ministry supported the decision to withdraw.  They had attacked based on intelligence that the Spanish defenses were much weaker than they proved to be.  The ministry supported the decision to abandon the siege rather than risk the loss of a British army against defenses that had proven quite formidable.

Next week: Partisanship in Congress reaches a new low, when one member of Congress physically attacks another on the House floor.

 - - -

Next Episode 402 Brawl in Congress, 1797 

Previous Episode 400 The Maria Reynolds Affair


 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.



Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List

* indicates required

Further Reading

Websites

Battle of Cape St. Vincent – 14 February 1797 https://morethannelson.com/battle-of-cape-st-vincent-14-february-1797

Battle of Cape St Vincent 1797 https://www.britishbattles.com/napoleonic-wars/battle-of-cape-st-vincent

Capture of St Lucia, 26th April 1796 - 24th May 1796: https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_battle&id=816

The Capture of Trinidad – 18 February 1797 https://morethannelson.com/the-capture-of-trinidad-18-february-1797

Sir Henry Harvey https://morethannelson.com/officer/sir-henry-harvey

Ramón de Castro https://historia-hispanica.rah.es/biografias/10021-ramon-de-castro

The Unsuccessful Invasion of Puerto Rico – April 1797 https://morethannelson.com/the-unsuccessful-invasion-of-puerto-rico-april-1797

When Puerto Rico Stopped the Empire: The victory of 1797 against the British https://webhispania.info/when-puerto-rico-stopped-the-empire-the-victory-of-1797-against-the-british

Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)

Van Middeldyk, Rudolph A. The History of Puerto Rico,: From the Spanish Discovery to the American Occupation, New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1903. 

Manucy, Albert Puerto Rico and the Forts of Old San Juan, Riverside, CT: The Chatham Press, 1973 (borrow only). Free download available at vdoc.pub. 

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

The Forts of Old San Juan, National Park Service, 1997 (Available for free download on HathiTrust). 

Alonso Maria and Milagros Flores Roman The Eighteenth Century Caribbean & British Attack on Puerto Rico in 1797, National Park Service, 1997.

Dival, Carole General Sir Ralph Abercromby and the French Revolutionary Wars, 1792-1801, Pen and Sword Military, 2019.

 * As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.