with Washington in his view of the work of his administration, and has set it down as essential to the right and successful foundation of the government.  It is not to be wondered at that at the moment Washington should regard a party swayed by the French minister and seeking to involve us in war as unpatriotic and dangerous.  He even thought that one probable solution of Genet’s conduct was that he was the tool and not the leader of the party which sustained him.  In fact, his general view of the opposition was marked by that perfect clearness which was characteristic of all his opinions when he had fully formed them.  In July, 1793, he wrote to Henry Lee:—­

“That there are in this as well as in all other countries, discontented characters, I well know; as also that these characters are actuated by very different views:  some good, from an opinion that the general measures of the government are impure; some bad, and, if I might be allowed to use so harsh an expression, diabolical, inasmuch as they are not only meant to impede the measures of that government generally, but more especially, as a great means toward the accomplishment of it, to destroy the confidence which it is necessary for the people to place, until they have unequivocal proof of demerit, in their public servants.  In this light I consider myself whilst I am an occupant of office; and if they were to go further and call me their slave during this period, I would not dispute the point.

“But in what will this abuse terminate?  For the result, as it respects myself, I care not; for I have a consolation within that no earthly efforts can deprive me of, and that is, that neither ambition nor interested motives have influenced my conduct.  The arrows of malevolence, therefore, however barbed and well pointed, never can reach the most vulnerable part of me; though, whilst I am up as a mark, they will be continually aimed.  The publications in Freneau’s and Bache’s papers are outrages on common decency, and they progress in that style in proportion as their pieces are treated with contempt, and are passed by in silence by those at whom they are aimed.  The tendency of them, however, is too obvious to be mistaken by men of cool and dispassionate minds, and, in my opinion, ought to alarm them, because it is difficult to prescribe bounds to the effect.”

He was not much given, however, to talking about his assailants.  If he said anything, it was usually only in the way of contemptuous sarcasm, as when he wrote to Morris:  “The affairs of this country cannot go amiss.  There are so many watchful guardians of them, and such infallible guides, that one is at no loss for a director at every turn.  But of these matters I shall say little.”  If these attacks had any effect on him, it was only to make him more determined in carrying out his purposes.  In the first skirmish, which ended in the recall of Genet, he not only prevailed, but the French minister’s audacity especially in venturing to appeal to the people against their President, demoralized the opposition and brought public opinion round to the side of the administration with an overwhelming force.