A Wilderness So Immense (67 page)

38.
Foner,
Democratic-Republican Societies,
127, 361, 365.

39.
Clark to Genet, October 3, 1793, Turner, “Correspondence of Clark and Genet,” 1008; Gardner, “Projected Attack of Clark and Genet,” 61–62; Link,
Democratic-Republican Societies,
140.

40.
Lowitt, “Activities of Citizen Genet in Kentucky,” 259.

41.
Jefferson to Morris, August 16, 1793,
Jefferson Papers,
26: 697–711, quoted at 710.

42.
Viar and Jaudenes to Jefferson, August 27, 1793, with enclosure, ibid., 26: 771–74; Carondelet to Godoy, October 25, 1793, Turner, “Correspondence of Clark and Genet,” 1017.

43.
Viar and Jaudenes to Carondelet, August 21, 1793, Turner, “Correspondence of Clark and Genet,” 999–1000.

44.
Jefferson to Viar and Jaudenes, August 29, 1793,
Jefferson Papers,
26: 785–86.

45.
Jefferson to Shelby, August 29, 1793, with enclosure, ibid., 26: 785–86.

46.
Watlington,
Partisan Spirit,
59–60, 223.

47.
Patricia Watlington, “John Brown and the Spanish Conspiracy,”
VMHB
75 (1967): 52–68; Foner,
Democratic-Republican Societies,
358–59, 363.

48.
Shelby to Jefferson, October 5, 1793,
Jefferson Papers,
27: 196; Shelby to Charles Depauw, November 28, 1793, Turner, “Correspondence of Clark and Genet,” 1023.

49.
Morris to Jefferson, February 13, 1793,
Jefferson Papers,
25: 192; Clark to Michaux, October 3, 1793, Turner, “Correspondence of Clark and Genet,” 1009.

50.
Carondelet to Godoy, January 1, 1794, and enclosed extract of a letter from Gayoso to Carondelet, n.d.; Turner, “Correspondence of Clark and Genet,” 1028–29.

51.
Ibid.

52.
Clark to Genet, February 5, October 3, 1793; Clark to Charles Depauw, January 5, 1794; Turner, “Correspondence of Clark and Genet,” 970, 1008.

53.
Jefferson’s November 6, 1793, letter to Shelby was accompanied by a supporting letter from Knox dated November 9, ibid., 27: 312–13; Archibald Henderson, “Isaac Shelby and the Genet Mission,”
MVHR
6 (1920): 454–57.

54.
Jefferson to Shelby, November 6, 1793,
Jefferson Papers,
27: 312–13 (emphasis added); Henderson, “Shelby and the Genet Mission,” 455–56.

55.
Quoted in ibid., 463; Maude Howlett Woodfin, “Citizen Genet and His Mission” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1928), 453–54.

56.
Henderson, “Shelby and the Genet Mission,” 466; Edward Cody Burnett, ed., “George Rogers Clark to Genet, [April 28], 1794,”
AHR
18 (1912–1913): 781.

57.
Ibid.

58.
Ibid.

59.
Ibid.

1.
Short to Secretary of State, January 16, 1795, in Samuel Flagg Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty: America’s Advantage from Europe’s Distress, 1783–1800
(Baltimore, 1926; rev. ed., New Haven, 1960), 248–49n

2.
José Luis Sancho,
Royal Seat of La Granja de San Ildefonso and Riofrío
(Madrid, 1996), 13–15, 69–79; Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
204–6; Harry Ammon,
The Genet Mission
(New York, 1973), 171–72; Carondelet to Godoy, July 9, 1794, Frederick Jackson Turner, ed., “Correspondence of George Rogers Clark and Edmond Genet,”
Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1896
(Washington, D.C., 1897), 1066; James Alton James,
The Life of
George Rogers Clark
(Chicago, 1928), 427; James Ripley Jacobs,
Tarnished Warrior: Major-General James Wilkinson
(New York, 1938), 272; Thomas Rob-son Hay and M. R. Werner,
The Admirable Trumpeter: A Biography of General James Wilkinson
(Garden City, N.Y., 1941), 141; Georges Lefebvre,
The French Revolution: From 1793 to 1799
(New York, 1964), 131–36; Schama,
Citizens,
840–47; Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick,
The Age of Federalism
(New York, 1993), 375–449.

3.
Minutes of the Spanish Council of State, July 7, 1794, in Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
204n.

4.
Short to Thomas Pinckney October 12, 1793, ibid., 191–92n

5.
Minutes of the Spanish Council of State, July 7, 1794, in Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
204n.

6.
Douglas Hilt,
The Troubled Trinity: Godoy and the Spanish Monarchs
(Tuscaloosa, 1987), 40–43.

7.
Minutes of the Spanish Council of State, July 7, 1794, in Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
205n.

8.
Ibid., 205–6n.

9.
Ibid., 207. Between July 1794 and the signing of Pinckney’s Treaty in October 1795, Godoy regarded the prospect of Kentucky separatism as an alternative policy in the event of an alliance between Great Britain and the United States, instructing Jaudenes and Carondelet in February “to continue to assure [the inhabitants of Kentucky] of the good faith with which we proceed; and … [to] set up with the greatest secrecy direct negotiations with them, to hold them off until we can settle the question of the important points on which we are now treating with the [United] States. This will serve to keep them devoted to us in case the States do not accept the just propositions which we are making to them”; minutes of Godoy’s reply ca. February 15, 1795, to Jaudenes’s despatch no. 250; Godoy to Carondelet, February 21, 1795, ibid., 233.

10.
Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
208–17. Bemis examined the document as it was deciphered in Jaudenes’s office and found “a few uncertainties about certain minor parts of the instructions, but nothing that [one] cannot puzzle out easily and clearly”; ibid., 213n.

11.
Ibid., 213–17.

12.
Ibid., 212–13.

13.
Jaudenes to Randolph, March 25, 1795, ibid., 212–13n.

14.
Randolph to Short, April 5, 1795, ibid., 270n.

15.
Jaudenes to Randolph, March 25, 1795, ibid., 212–13n; for the implications of the title, see ibid., 253–54.

16.
Godoy to Jaudenes, May 9, 1794, and Jaudenes to Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, August 15, 1794, ibid., 208–9. Carmichael died in Madrid on February 9, 1795, ibid., 235.

17.
Randolph to Pinckney, November 28, 1794, ibid., 252.

18.
Short to Nicolaas and Jacob Van Staphorst and Nicholas Hubbard, October 1, 1794; Short to Secretary of State, January 16, 1795; Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
236n, 248–49n

19.
Pinckney to Randolph, June 23, 1794; Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
247–48n.

20.
Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
251, 267; Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, July 6, 1796, quoted in Harry Ammon,
James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity
(New York, 1971), 114.

21.
Reasonable people can disagree about the extent of Godoy’s knowledge of Jay’s Treaty. In the first edition of
Pinckney’s Treaty: America’s Advantage from Europe’s Distress, 1783–1800
(Baltimore, 1926), Samuel Flagg Bemis asserted that Godoy did not see the full text of Jay’s Treaty until after the signing of Pinckney’s Treaty. Soon thereafter, Arthur P. Whitaker contended that Godoy
was
familiar with the terms of Jay’s Treaty in his
Spanish-American Frontier, 1783–1795: The Westward Movement and the Spanish Retreat in the Mississippi Valley
(Boston, 1927), 203–7, and in two supplementary journal articles (“New light on the Treaty of San Lorenzo: An Essay in Historical Criticism,”
MVHR
15 [1929]: 435–54, and “Godoy’s Knowledge of the Terms of Jay’s Treaty,”
AHR
35 [1929–1930]: 804–10). Bemis answered Whitaker’s objection persuasively in the second edition of
Pinckney’s Treaty
(New Haven, 1960), 284–93. Their contention is not over what Godoy did, but whether his fears of British retaliation and an Anglo-American alliance were reasonable. If Godoy did not have the text of Jay’s Treaty prior to signing with Pinckney (Bemis’s view), Spain’s virtual capitulation to American demands is more explicable. If Godoy knew that Jay’s Treaty did not create an Anglo-American alliance (Whitaker’s view), Spain’s action was more foolhardy. Even if he had the full text of Jay’s Treaty, however, Godoy could not have precluded the possibility of secret provisions hostile to Spain’s interests. Godoy seems to have underestimated the American commitment to neutrality, but surely the fear of a future alliance between the United States and Great Britain came reasonably to a man who contemplated an alliance with France in connection with the Treaty of Basle and then in 1796 entered a fateful Franco-Spanish alliance by the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso.

22.
Minutes of the Spanish Council of State, August 14, 1795, quoted in Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty,
274.

23.
Pinckney to Short, October 25, 1795, quoted in ibid., 281n.

24.
Ibid., 312.

25.
Ibid.; Arthur Preston Whitaker,
The Mississippi Question, 1795–1803: A Study in Trade, Politics, and Diplomacy
(New York, 1934), 24, 301. See Appendix A for the entire text of Pinckney’s Treaty.

26.
Kentucky Gazette,
March 26, 1796.

1.
Quoted in Spenser Wilkinson,
The Rise of General Bonaparte
(Oxford, 1930), 144.

2.
“Essai sur les avantages a retirer [sic] de colonies nouvelles dans circonstances présentes,” Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer,
Historical Characters: Talleyrand,
Cobbett, Mackintosh, Canning
(London, 1868), 1: 456. When published in Paris in 1799, Talleyrand’s lecture was entitled
Essai sur les Avantages a Tirer de Colonies Nouvelles dans Circonstances Presentes;
J. F Bernard,
Talleyrand: A Biography
(New York, 1973), 622.

3.
Robert B. Asprey,
The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte
(New York, 2000), 4–20.

4.
Ibid., 13–20; Alan Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte
(New York, 1997), 1–11; Wilkinson,
Rise of General Bonaparte,
3–7.

5.
Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte,
9–11.

6.
Ibid., 11; Asprey,
Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte,
27–28, 37, 40, 47.

7.
Ibid., 32, 47.

8.
Guillaume-Thomas, Abbé de Raynal,
Philosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of the Europeans in the East and West Indies,
trans. J. O. Justamond (London, 1783), 5: 309–10; C. L. R. James,
The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution
(2d ed., New York, 1963), 25; Martin Ros,
Night of Fire: The Black Napoleon and the Battle for Haiti,
trans. Karin Ford-Treep (New York, 1994), 63, 87.

9.
Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte,
12–22.

10.
Ibid., 22–27; Georges Lefebvre,
The French Revolution: From 1793 to 1799
(New York, 1964), 173.

11.
Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte,
27–28; Evangeline Bruce,
Napoleon and Josephine: An Improbable Marriage
(New York, 1995), 140–49, 162–63.

12.
Bruce,
Napoleon and Josephine,
163.

13.
Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte,
35.

14.
Ibid., 200.

15.
Ibid., 48; Asprey,
Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte,
253.

16.
The aptly named anarchist Gracchus Babeuf is quoted in Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte,
200.

17.
Asprey,
Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte,
325.

18.
Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte,
203–4.

19.
Asprey,
Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte,
343; Schom,
Napoleon Bonaparte,
235.

20.
Asprey,
Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte,
245, 247. Napoleon enjoyed the company of women in society and the boudoir, but avoided the influential salons that many politicians frequented.

21.
J. F Bernard,
Talleyrand: A Biography
(New York, 1973), 173; Lefebvre,
French Revolution: From 1793 to 1799,
291–92. The modern Institut de France comprises five learned societies: L’Académie Française (founded in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu to standardize the French language) with forty members; L’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (organized in 1663 for the study of antiquities, numismatics, and languages) with forty-five members; L’Académie des Sciences (created in 1666 to promote mathematics and physical sciences) with one hundred thirty members; L’Académie des Beaux-Arts (established in 1648 for the fine arts) with fifty members; and L’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques (founded with the Institut de France in 1795) with
fifty members in the fields of history and geography, law and jurisprudence, morals, philosophy, and political economy.

22.
Bernard,
Talleyrand,
173–77; Doina Harsanyi, “A Second Chance: Talleyrand’s Approach to Power During the Directory,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association, Birmingham, Ala., November 13, 1998. Talleyrand’s lectures—“Essai sur les avantages à retirer [sic] de colonies nouvelles dans circonstances présentes” and “Mémoires sur les relations commerciales des Etats-Unis avec l’Angleterre”—are printed in Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer,
Historical Characters: Talleyrand, Cobbett, Mackintosh, Canning
(London, 1868), 1: 451–81, from the manuscripts at the Institut de France; I am indebted to Doina Harsanyi for this information.

23.
Harsanyi, “A Second Chance,” 7; Talleyrand’s lectures in Bulwer,
Historical Characters,
453.