In the turbulent spring of 1793, the young United States confronted its first profound foreign policy crisis. Revolutionary France, having declared war on a coalition including Great Britain, looked to its 1778 treaty ally for support. The alliance had been crucial during America’s War of Independence, providing naval power under admirals such as de Grasse, troops at Yorktown, and loans that kept the Continental Army afloat. Thomas Jefferson, as secretary of state, passionately advocated honoring the treaty, viewing it as a debt of gratitude to a nation that shared republican ideals and had sacrificed much for American liberty. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton argued forcefully against entanglement: The treaty bound America to the French monarchy, now guillotined amid the Reign of Terror. The radical republic that replaced it bore little resemblance to the partner of 1778, having descended into chaos, executions, and ideological extremism that threatened neighboring states.

After weeks of heated Cabinet debates, immortalized in part by the Broadway musical Hamilton, which wryly captures one resolution with the line, “It must be nice, it must be nice, To have Washington on your side,” President George Washington sided with Hamilton. On April 22, 1793, he issued the Proclamation of Neutrality, affirming that the U.S. would pursue “a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers” and warning Americans against aiding either side. The decision shielded the fragile republic from a war it could ill afford, preserving sovereignty and allowing it to focus on internal growth. It also established a precedent for unilateral executive action in foreign affairs, sparking the Pacificus-Helvidius debates between Hamilton, writing as Pacificus, and James Madison, as Helvidius, which probed the boundaries of presidential power, the nature of treaty obligations, and the limits of congressional authority in foreign policy.

Washington’s choice prioritized American independence over European quarrels. Entanglement risked destruction by stronger powers or internal division along pro-French and pro-British lines. Neutrality allowed the nation to build strength, expand westward, and avoid the ideological contagions sweeping the continent. The young republic’s survival hinged on distancing itself from a Europe convulsed by revolution and war. Today, similar prudence animates concerns about NATO and broader trans-Atlantic ties in an era when Europe has undergone profound transformations through mass migration, supranational governance, demographic decline, and shifting cultural priorities.

The 1793 crisis laid bare fundamental tensions in American foreign policy: gratitude versus prudence, idealism versus realism, and perpetual obligation versus conditional alliance. Jefferson, who saw the French Revolution as an extension of America’s own struggle for liberty, urged active support of France to repay our revolutionary debts and to align with a kindred spirit fighting monarchy across Europe. Hamilton, wary of France’s descent into chaos and its aggressive wars, contended that treaties are contracts with specific regimes, not eternal bonds irrespective of change. The radical shifts in France — regicide, the Committee of Public Safety’s terror, and expansionist campaigns — dissolved the moral and practical basis for the alliance.

This historical episode offers timeless guidance. Treaties assume shared values, stable circumstances, and mutual benefit. When a partner transforms fundamentally, obligations may lapse without dishonor. Washington’s neutrality preserved the republic’s future, enabling economic expansion under the funding system Hamilton designed, territorial growth........

© Washington Examiner