The Scientist Turned Spy: André Michaux, Thomas Jefferson, and the Conspiracy of 1793

On September 17th, Constitution Day,

the historian Patrick Spiro will release a new book,

The Scientist Turns Spy,

on Dray Michaud, Thomas Jefferson,

and the Conspiracy of 1793.

It explores a plot orchestrated by the French government

to exploit tensions between American settlers

and Spanish authorities in Louisiana

by establishing an independent republic.

Hello, friends.

I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO

of the National Constitution Center,

and welcome to We the People,

a weekly show of constitutional debate.

The National Constitution Center

is a nonpartisan nonprofit

chartered by Congress to increase awareness

and understanding of the Constitution

among the American people.

In this episode of We the People,

we'll discuss the history of the Michaud conspiracy

and explore new evidence that Patrick Spiro

has unearthed in the archives

of the American Philosophical Society

that implicate Thomas Jefferson in the plot.

We'll also hear from Patrick

about the American Philosophical Society

and Jefferson's role in leading it.

Patrick Spiro joins me now.

He is incoming CEO

of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.

He's a scholar of early American history

and he specializes in the American Revolution.

Patrick, it's wonderful to welcome you to We the People.

Great to be here, Jeff.

The National Constitution Center

is one of my favorite places to visit.

It's where I got my first job.

It is an inspiring place

and it's great to be here

with a great friend and neighbor.

Well, the American Philosophical Society

is one of my favorite places to visit

and I'm always so excited

when I get to walk across Independence Mall

and have lunch with you

because you have this cabin of treasures,

Jefferson's original draft of the Constitution

and much more.

And one of those treasures

led you to write this book.

So tell us the story

of how Jefferson's subscription list,

which you found at the American Philosophical Society,

led you to write this book.

So the Michaud subscription list

was one of my favorite documents to show people

because it tells so many different stories.

It is truly a national treasure.

If you were to look at the subscription list

and you can Google it and see it online,

it's a document that's written in Thomas Jefferson's hand

in 1793 when he's Secretary of State

but also Vice President

of the American Philosophical Society,

which was the nation's first learned society.

And really, Jefferson's scholarly and intellectual home

for a good number of years.

And it's a document that's written in Thomas Jefferson's hand

in 1793 when he's Secretary of State,

but also Vice President of the American Philosophical Society,

a good part of his adult life.

The opening of the document is,

whereas André Michaud, a native of France

but inhabited in the United States,

has undertaken a voyage down the Mississippi River,

down the Missouri,

and westwardly to the Pacific Ocean.

So what the subscription list is trying to do

is raise money to pay for André Michaud

to take a transcontinental trek

across the North American continent,

really to do Lewis and Clark

10 years before Lewis and Clark happened.

And what makes this a really good document

and what makes this a remarkable document

is that beneath Jefferson's writing

are the signatures of all the people

who supported this expedition.

It's a who's who of the founding era,

including George Washington, who's president,

John Adams as vice president,

Jefferson, of course,

Hamilton, James Madison, Henry Knox.

It really is showing the weight of the government officials,

of founding figures behind this expedition.

And it is believed to be the only document

to contain the first four president's signatures

on it.

And it's a really good document.

And what makes the story just so much fun to tell

is this document was really rediscovered

by the Philosophical Society in 1979

when a high school intern was going through

an old vault in Philosophical Hall

and came across this cache of documents

and realized that it was probably above his pay grade

to go through these.

He brought them to the librarian at the time

who unfurled this document

and realized he had a national treasure on his hands.

And so for me, during the pandemic,

I had been interested in this document.

And I thought, well, maybe this is my chance

to really understand the full story behind this document.

And as you mentioned, I was taken on this trip

across time and space and directions

I had no idea I was going to go in.

So exciting to take the reader along with you.

Well, Jefferson is president

of the American Philosophical Society.

He says it's the greatest honor of his life.

You described Jefferson's presidency

and the ways that the Philosophical Society

is surprisingly political.

Politicized in that era,

pitting Jeffersonian Republicans

against Hamiltonian Federalists

and how that division contributes to Jefferson's desire

to have a private subscription for the expedition.

Tell us more about Jefferson and his motives

in supporting the Michaud expedition.

Yeah, so the American Philosophical Society

was really founded,

it was founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1743.

And the idea was to bring the leading thinkers together

to share what they were learning in their own communities

and then bring them together to talk about the world.

And to bring this new knowledge back to their homes

so they can improve life in their hometowns.

And the basic idea is

that the more you can understand the world in which you live,

the better you can shape the world in which you live,

but also the future.

And for Jefferson and others,

the Philosophical Society became really a means

to understand the natural world.

And Jefferson had some very particular interest

in the natural world.

He was interested in opportunities

to develop new plants, crops, to discover crops

that might be able to transform American agriculture.

And of course, this is all feeding into his vision

that the future of America has to be a republic

founded on agriculture and small farmers.

And so the Philosophical Society's scientific agenda

often follows Jefferson's own scientific interest

that is of course feeding into his vision

for the national government.

And one of the things I point out

is with the subscription list,

and this is a little bit of a small detail,

but Jefferson writes this subscription list

that raises almost a million dollars

to support this expedition in today's dollars.

But he had never really gotten the Philosophical Society

to sign onto it.

And this is part, I think, of Jefferson's own political beliefs

that change has to come in a democracy from the people,

and that they then get approval from an association.

So in other words, he's trying to show

that citizens want to do this, he mobilizes it.

And then it's a technicality,

they then go to the APS.

Will you actually support this thing

we just raised money for?

And in some ways, this reflects Jefferson's idea

of how democracy should work,

that they're led by citizens first,

and then they go to institutions for support.

So interesting.

And you also describe how Jefferson at this period

is recoiling at Washington's centralizing economic plans.

He sees Hamilton's creation of the bank

as betraying the democratizing principles

of the American Revolution.

And these are your words.

Instead of creating institutions that disperse power, wealth,

and influence to the people,

the banks seem to be focusing these hands

in the hands of the federal government,

and among the few.

And for that reason, he sees privately funded

scientific research as an alternative

to the federal supports for internal improvement.

Championed by Hamilton, maybe another word

about Jefferson's desire to prove

that American natural history is better than that of Europe,

and respond to...

Buffon and other critics who are less nationalistic.

Yeah, so the story behind André Michaud

is that he was this botanist sent over by the king of France

with the idea that, you know,

you can discover all these new crops

in what was British North America,

which had largely been sealed off to French science,

and find new crops that can be used

in the French agricultural system

and really improve society for France.

And...

Yeah.

Michaud, you know,

unexpectedly gets caught into this plot

with Edmund Genet.

Genet has these secret orders

to invade Spanish New Orleans.

And Jefferson, and I'm sure we'll go down this,

gets sucked into this plot inadvertently.

And I have to try and explain

how Jefferson in some ways tacitly supports

the potential invasion of Spanish New Orleans.

And this goes against, of course,

Washington's own foreign policy.

policy. And what this gets at is, I think, the conundrum that Thomas Jefferson found himself in

that first administration. When Jefferson and others created a new nation in 1776,

they all believed that political parties were signs of corruption. They were the embodiments

of self-interest. The reason parties existed was to serve a specific interest, not the public good.

And so the idea of parties was really an anathema to their idea of how a political

body should function, especially a republic. And so here's Jefferson now in the Washington

administration, where he realizes Washington's policies on the economy, which, as you mentioned,

was about centralizing the economy, creating a national bank. Hamilton wants to fund economic

projects directly, what were called internal improvements, which today we might call

infrastructure. And Jefferson just sees this as going,

against all the principles of the American Revolution. And so he has to try and navigate

in this first administration, where the idea of parties is not supposed to exist. And yet he sees

that he's opposed to these policies. He's an outsider, even though he's inside the administration.

And this creates an enormous amount of angst for Jefferson. But also in this incident, where he is

trying to raise private funds, I think he's also trying to show how he believes society should work.

And so how should you

fund a scientific expedition? Well, he raised money from all these people who were in the

government, but it wasn't from the government itself. And in some ways, this does embody

Jefferson's idea about the role of federal government and also the role of civil institutions

like the American Philosophical Society. And so if you were to think about how Jefferson saw

the relationship between civil society and civic institutions and the federal government,

the path he chooses to take with this expedition follows a Jeffersonian path,

where through a

voluntary association, not the federal government.

So interesting. And you really cast significant light on the Jeunet affair,

which we, the people listeners, have explored before we had Carol Birkin on last year. And she

describes the extraordinary significance of Jeunet coming over from France, having contempt for

Washington, appealing over the heads of Washington. And I think that's a really interesting

example of how Jefferson was trying to bring Washington to the people themselves,

misunderstanding the Constitution, and trying to drum up recruits for his attempted

invasion of Spanish New Orleans by disgruntled people on the Kentucky frontier. And what you

reveal is that Jefferson, who eventually had to turn away from Jeunet because he lost political

support, is behind the scenes secretly supporting his mission. And you even show him revising a

letter in response to Jeunet's importunations. You call Jefferson's,

perhaps, inexplicable. But tell us about the, first of all, what exactly was the Jeunet plot?

How did he enlist Jefferson? And what did Jefferson do?

Yeah, so Edmond Jeunet is the first diplomatic official sent from the French revolutionary

government. At the time, the French saw the Americans as a natural ally. The French had,

of course, supported the Americans during their revolution. And they expected the Americans to

continue to support the French during their revolution. The French saw this as a continuation,

the French Revolution as a continuation of the American Revolution. Now, Washington, as an

idealist, but also a realist, recognized that the United States could not support the French

Revolution because Great Britain and Spain and the other European monarchies saw the French

Revolution as a great threat. And in fact, Great Britain and Spain were at war with France, trying

to contain the spread of this revolution. And they were at war with the French Revolution. And they

were at war with the French Revolution. And so if the United States engaged and allied with the

French to give them military support during this conflict, Washington feared that the British very

easily, with forts in the Northwest and the strongest navy in the world, could easily just

take back the United States. It was a real foreign policy crisis for them. And Washington declares

the neutrality proclamation, the idea that the United States is going to be neutral in this

conflict. It is not going to take sides. Now, Jeunet arrives, and he's not going to take sides.

First off, with the objective to try and force Washington to break the neutrality

proclamation. And that's how he was appealing to the American people directly. He was really,

this is a clear example of a foreign interference in American politics. And Washington sees this as

a, as really a betrayal of norms, international norms of diplomatic behavior. The other thing

that Jeunet has are secret orders to mobilize an invasion of Spanish-Louisiana

by these disgruntled Kentucky frontiersmen. And they're disgruntled on the West because they see

this Eastern federal government as ignoring their needs. They see the National Bank as serving

Eastern elites. And their real concern is the Mississippi River, which they don't have access

to because the Spanish have blocked the port of New Orleans for American trade. And so they see

this Eastern government as ignoring their central concern and serving their own interests. And so

Jeunet realizes that he might be able to do that. And so he's going to have to do that. And so he's

going to mobilize these angry frontiersmen to invade and seize New Orleans so they can have

access to the Mississippi River. And he's even received some notices from former generals in

the American Revolution, veterans who are willing to renounce their allegiance to the United States

and swear allegiance to French in this cause to seize New Orleans. Now, Jeunet arrives in

Philadelphia with these orders, and he quickly meets this botanist, André Michaud, who had

been working with the APS on this transcontinental expedition. And he

realizes that he's going to have to do this. And so he's going to have to do this. And so he's

realizes, oh, I have the perfect person to enact this plot. This French botanist is working with

this American institution. He can travel out to Kentucky to meet these angry Kentucky frontiersmen

under the guise of science. And he'll tell everybody he's conducting research, but he'll

secretly be implementing this plot. Now, to do this, he has to create that cover. And so Jeunet,

who had become very quick friends with Jefferson, because, of course, Jefferson, again, the outsider

in the Washington administration, is very supportive of the French Revolution. He agrees

that the French Revolution is a continuation of the American Revolution. He's a he's a Francophile.

And really, he and Jeunet have this quick friendship, this great correspondence. And so

finally, on July 5th, 1793, Jeunet calls on Jefferson privately, and he tells Jefferson of

this secret plot. And Jefferson, as Secretary of State, you would think that he would inform his

administration, but he doesn't. And so he calls on Jefferson, and he tells Jefferson, and he tells

Jefferson, but in fact, decides not to tell anybody in the administration of this plot.

And as you said, Jeunet also asked Jefferson to write a letter of introduction for Michaud

so he could travel out there with the approval of the Secretary of State, who also knows he's

mobilizing this potential plot to invade New Orleans. I compare this to potentially the

Secretary of State of the United States today, knowing when Russia was going to invade Ukraine

and not telling anybody about it.

It's extraordinary. And it's really cast new light on the Jeunet affair, which ended after

the volunteers failed to materialize. Jeunet is recalled to France, and Jefferson writes to

Madison, we've decided unanimously, he's speaking of the Washington cabinet, to require the recall

of Jeunet. He'll sink the Republican interest if they do not abandon him. But what you reveal is

that before that happened, Jefferson was actually a friend of Jeunet, encouraging him in every way.

Say more about...

What Jefferson's motives could have been, what can explain his conduct, and how unusual was it

at this point in American history for foreign governments to attempt to provoke citizens to

cast off their governments and to declare new allegiances?

Yeah, so there's a lot packed into that. So I think I try and explain Jefferson's

decisions here in a number of different ways.

I take a sympathetic approach. I think some folks who have looked at this have taken a harsher

approach, in large part because I want to understand Jefferson within the context in

which he was operating. And if you go back to the idea that he is in an administration where

the idea of partisanship didn't exist, and yet he finds himself as the chief leader of the

opposition, inadvertently. He didn't expect that when he got into this seat. He's trying to figure

out what this new political environment is. And he's trying to figure out what this new political

environment is. And he's trying to figure out what this new political environment is. And he's

trying to figure out what this new political environment is going to be like, just like

everybody else. And so I think some of his decisions in this period are trying to figure

out what is acceptable within this republic. It wasn't supposed to have parties, but now they're

forming. And in fact, he's the leader of one. And obviously, you know, if he's the leader of a party,

he doesn't think he's serving self-interest. He thinks he's serving the national good. So he's

trying to figure out how to behave in this new environment, what's appropriate. Eventually,

he decides to resign as Secretary of State. And I think this episode, in some ways, makes Jefferson

realize how untenable his situation is. And the right path is to resign so that Washington can

appoint somebody that he knows would be serving his administration, not the opposition. So I think

in some ways, Jefferson is trying to navigate this. And it's understandable if you realize

that he's in uncharted waters. Now, your question about, you know, how common is something like

this? Washington, in this period, you know, he really has to think almost four-dimensionally.

He's got this crisis with the European powers. He also is facing a crisis with Native American

groups in the West, most of whom are resisting the encroachments of the United States,

often violently. And Washington had just suffered one of the greatest defeats in United States

history, St. Clair's defeat. And so his army is battered at the same time. And he's also facing

a number of internal rebellions among citizens, often in the West. And so those in Kentucky

are threatening to...

They're threatening to secede from the Union. They're threatening to create in a republic,

an independent republic, west of the Mississippi River. There are people in western Pennsylvania

who are opposed violently to the whiskey tax. So Washington is really facing this incredible

crisis where he's trying to accommodate everybody so he can maintain the stability

of the United States, because his foundations in this period are so fragile. And a misstep

in any one of these directions could really have them crumble. And he feels that intimately.

And the fact that citizens are willing to renounce their allegiance and swear allegiance to the French

government, that is perhaps one of the gravest threats he faces, because they could really

undermine the entire government itself from within.

It's a great threat, and it's based on an idea, as you say. The idea that Genet proposed

a body of men forming voluntarily to attack a monarchical power to establish a republic

seemed to Jefferson's mind an entirely natural occurrence in a global movement to expand

a republic.

Republican principles. Congress responds to this episode by passing a law in 1795

forbidding citizens of the United States from engaging in these kind of

foreign adventures. Tell us about the law and its effects.

Yeah, I think this is what makes doing the work of history so exciting. I started this project

based on this subscription list that we're talking about. This was a subscription list to

fund Andre Michaud and the Transcontinental Expedition. And I approached the project

by asking, who was Andre Michaud? And he's probably one of the greatest scientific explorers

you've never heard of. And I talk about that in the book. What's the story behind the subscription

list? And there I talk about all the scientific agendas of the young nation. And then I say,

what happened? And we've talked a lot about this. There's a near insurrection

that Washington is able to eventually stamp down. And then there's the final question,

did it happen? Did it happen? Did it happen? Did it happen? Did it happen? Did it happen? Did it happen?

Did it matter? Now, when I started this question with the subscription list, I had no idea that it

was going to lead to this insurrection, and even less of an idea that it was going to lead to

what I found a fundamental question, which is, what is the meaning of citizenship

in the United States? And that's what the episode in Kentucky raised. So all these Kentuckians had

to justify their behavior. And what they said when they were approached by people,

and they say, how can you pretend to have the right to invade Spanish New Orleans? The United

States is not going to do that. It's not going to do that. It's not going to do that. It's not going

to do that. It's not going to do that. It's not going to do that. It's not going to do that.

And so the United States is at peace with Spain, and you're threatening the United States' very

foundations. Because if Spain sees a group of Kentuckians invade New Orleans, they're going

to think that's an act of the United States. And what many of the people in Kentucky argued,

and we see this in various accounts, that if they renounce their allegiance to the United States,

if they leave the borders of the country, and they haven't renounced their allegiance,

but they're just outside the borders of the United States, they no longer are bound by,

the policies or laws of the United States. And Washington realizes this creates a huge

crisis, because that means that a group of Americans could, is what they're proposing to do,

go across the Mississippi River, 2,000 Kentuckians, and decide to launch an invasion

on a nation with which the United States was at peace. And so Washington approaches Congress,

and this is a divided Congress. This is a Congress in which the parties are beginning to cohere and

conform. But he asked them, he says, we need to clarify the meaning of citizenship. What are its

limits? What are its bounds? What are citizens' duty bound to adhere to? And what they clarify

is that citizens don't have the right, it seems obvious today, to mobilize an invasion of a

foreign country. However, in the 1790s, that wasn't clear. And so this is a very significant act

that does help define what citizenship means in this new republic.

So interesting. I'm going to read from the text of the law and then ask you,

what, if any, light it can cast on the Burr conspiracy? The law, an act in addition to

the Act for Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, says, if any person shall within

the territory or jurisdiction of the United States enlist or enter himself in the service of any

foreign prince or state as a soldier or letter of mark or privateer, every person so offending

shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor. And then Section 5,

the law, an act in addition to the Act for Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United

States, says in the text of the law and then asks you, what, if any, light it can cast on

the murder of any military or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or

dominions of any foreign prince or state with whom the United States are at peace? The Burr episode

is not one you discuss in the book, but it's the obvious question. When Jefferson attempted to

whether or not Burr was guilty.

To the best of my knowledge,

and I looked into this,

I do not believe this was the law

that was cited in Burr's trial.

However, it was renewed annually

and then made perpetual.

So it is on the Code of the United States.

And it has been cited in several cases,

often having to do actually with,

as I understand it,

letters of marque and other actions.

What the Michaud conspiracy,

the Kentucky conspiracy of 1793,

shows is a pattern that was a part

of the American political DNA.

This is not the first episode

in which they're a group of frustrated,

often on the West,

often feeling like their Eastern government

is ignoring them.

It is not the first episode

of people mobilizing

and threatening to secede from the Union

or threatening to join Spain.

The whiskey rebels

threatened to do the same thing.

In the years that followed,

there were a number of,

of attempts to create independent republics.

And I'd argue that there's a phenomenon

in the middle 19th century

that really also draws on this pattern

that was very prominent in the 19th century.

And it just seems so distant to us today.

And that was the idea of filibustering

in which a group of Americans would mobilize

and then trying to set up a colony

in another country under presumably

what they defined as American principles.

But there were these filibusters

often coming out of California

and into Latin America,

and Mexico,

who were trying to do very similar things

as what those in Kentucky were trying to do.

So what I see is,

is this is a very early part of a,

of a pattern in America's cultural

and political DNA

that continued all the way through

really until the late 19th century.

And what's interesting is that this episode,

the Michaud conspiracy,

is not well studied in the,

in the really the 20th century,

but it's fairly prominent

in histories of the 19th century.

And the reason I think that's the case,

is because this story resonated

with the world in which they were living.

And to us, in the 20th century,

the idea that a group of Kentuckians

were going to invade New Orleans

and create an independent republic,

it seems so distant and unlikely

that historians haven't focused a lot on it.

But those in the 19th century

in which this is a real phenomenon

really saw this as one of the early instances

that they could look back upon.

Does this broader pattern you've identified

that's in the American political DNA

of disgruntledness,

disgruntled settlers often in the West

threatening to secede,

isn't it one in which Jefferson, Burr, and Hamilton

all participated?

Jefferson with Michaud,

as you show so powerfully,

Burr in his conspiracy,

and Hamilton in trying to get Congress

to fund an army with him at the head

to provoke a secession from Mexico.

And to that degree,

does that suggest that

neither Burr, nor Jefferson, nor Hamilton

had clean hands in those conspiracies?

But all were thinking of versions of the same thing.

I actually hadn't thought about

putting Hamilton into that mix

because my own perspective

has often been focusing on

those on the frontier who are disgruntled.

And I talk about a distinctive political culture

in the West that kind of emerges

as a result of this.

But the Hamilton episode

really does kind of cast a different light on it

because here are some of the people

who are coming from a very different view

on politics, on governance.

But it is revealing.

One of the things that I do talk about

in the book and that was really revealing

when I studied that subscription list

as its own standalone document

is that the supporters of

the Michaud expedition,

so this transcontinental trip to the Pacific Ocean,

it was completely bipartisan.

It was Federalist

and it was Republicans.

And I think one of the things that emerges,

in the founding eras,

is there wasn't a lot of agreement on policies.

But one of the things that they all agreed on

was that the United States

was going to be an expanding country.

They didn't know how it was going to happen.

They didn't know who was going to do it.

They might have had different ideas

on how to have that happen.

But there was absolute agreement

that West of the Mississippi

was eventually going to be

United States territory.

And that's why they saw Michaud.

And there's these instructions

that Jefferson wrote for Michaud

that really were the first draft

for the instructions.

He wrote for Lewis and Clark

in which they outline their priorities.

And the first one is

we need to find the fastest route to the Pacific.

And they did so for commercial reasons.

They realized that could be a great trade route.

Then they wanted Michaud

to conduct reconnaissance

to understand the number of Native peoples

that were there.

Again, this is reconnaissance.

And then, strangely,

they also asked Michaud

that two of their priorities

are to find a living example

of a mammoth and a llama.

Just incredible.

And, of course,

the mammoth is so central to Buffon.

And the fact that he's looking for one

is just amazing.

Just one more question

about the relationship

between the Michaud episode

and the Whiskey Rebellion.

You say that Washington decides

to maintain the nation's security.

He has to wield federal authority

in a previously unwielded way.

And therefore,

when protests against the Whiskey Tax Rebellion

turned violent and deadly,

he was quick to take decisive action.

The Kentucky episode

surely played a role

in Washington's decision

to act so forcefully

against the Whiskey Rebels.

Tie those together

and suggest the ways

that the response to Michaud

established a pattern

of strong federal responses

to insurrections.

Yeah, so the way in which

the Kentucky conspiracy

kind of dissipates

is because of the federal government's

decision to assert itself.

They have been trying

to mobilize this invasion

in secret.

Eventually, over 2,000 men

in Kentucky and along

the Mississippi subscribe.

They form their own army.

They have their own uniforms.

They build a small flotilla of boats

with the idea that they're going

to go down the Mississippi River.

They commission the smelting

of a number of cannons.

There are accounts that the iron forges

in Kentucky were burning brighter

than ever before

because all the cannons

they're providing for this invasion.

So this was, you know,

on the cusp,

on the cusp of happening

in the spring of 1794.

And Washington gets word of this.

And there's a debate in the cabinet.

Well, what does Washington

as president have the authority to do?

And one of the questions was,

can the executive officer

have the U.S. Army,

the military,

intercede to stop this invasion?

And there is a debate.

And there's somebody

that's a little bit more

in the Jeffersonian camp

that says, yeah,

I don't know if you have that authority.

Maybe you should come to the governor.

Maybe there's a process

in which the governor

or the state legislature

should ask for your,

uh, intercession,

but you don't have

the independent authority to do so.

And Washington says, no,

in order to preserve the Constitution,

this potential invasion

is such a threat to the Republic.

If I don't do anything about it,

the entire Republic may collapse.

This constitutional order may collapse.

So I have the authority

to empower the Army

if they need to,

to intercede,

to prevent this invasion.

It doesn't come to that,

but he makes that decision.

And the fact that he made that decision,

I think is really important

to understanding his decision

with the risky,

whiskey rebellion

that follows quick

on the heels of this.

Because the truth is

the whiskey, uh, uh, rebellion,

the, uh, protests,

the controversy

had been happening long

before the Kentucky conspiracy,

really since in the seven,

early 1790s, 1791,

there's a protest

rejecting the whiskey tax.

So they're not accepting the tax.

They're not paying it.

They're, uh, uh, violently opposing it.

Washington does not take a forceful hand.

I think he's afraid to, um,

use too much force,

uh, against the, uh,

again, out of fear

that it might escalate the situation.

Well, after the,

after he makes that decision in Kentucky

and after the violence itself

in Pennsylvania escalates,

Washington then makes

probably the most decisive action,

the firmest assertion

of federal authority

that he, that he ever does,

where he mobilizes a militia

to head out West

to assert federal authority.

And I really, you know,

when I looked at these

in chronological order,

I realized, well,

this Kentucky event,

which is not usually put

in the context of Pennsylvania,

really had to have an influence

on Washington coming

to that ultimate decision

that he had to make.

That he has to take forceful action.

It was kind of the,

the freedom to make

this big decision.

It's, uh,

so significant

in establishing that tradition

of a forceful federal response.

And I, uh,

checked out

what happened next.

Uh, Jefferson,

as you said,

had scruples about the use

of federal authority,

but he's alarmed enough

by reports of the Burr plot

that he asked whether

the president has the legal authority

to put down insurrections.

Madison says probably not

under the Insurrection Act

of 1793.

And that's why

Congress passes a bill

authorizing, uh,

the use of land or naval forces

in cases of insurrection.

That 1807 Insurrection Act,

which Jefferson signs as president,

becomes the Insurrection Act

that's invoked for the rest

of American history

from the Civil War

to the Civil Rights Movement

to today.

So Jefferson, in other words,

overcomes his scruples

and eventually embraces

broad use of force.

Although that's fascinating

because, um,

it was the 1793,

the act that they were,

um, I believe,

referring back to.

And it was Edmund Randolph,

um, who had been

the Attorney General,

uh, and then became

Secretary of State

to replace Jefferson.

And Randolph was,

if, you know,

he was, you'd say

he leaned towards Jefferson,

but he was very,

very loyal to Washington.

He didn't have

the same issues that,

um, necessarily

that Jefferson had,

uh, being in the,

in the Cabinet.

But Randolph was the voice

for saying,

I don't know that you have

the authority

under the current law.

You might need a stronger law.

And that actually is

what kind of leads

to the 1795 Act.

But, so it's interesting

that this,

that Randolph had

a similar interpretation

as Madison would have

in 1807.

And, and it,

and they decided

to create a much clearer law

that gave the,

the authority they needed.

And, and yet not so clear

that it's ended the debates.

The debate about

distinguishing between

riots and insurrections,

of course,

continues,

uh, up,

up till today.

Well, let me ask you

to take a beat

on your earlier book,

Frontier Revels,

The Fight for Independence

of the American West,

1765.

You begin with the

rebellion of the so-called

black boys

in, uh,

western Pennsylvania

who are upset

at the Brits

for not helping them

repel, uh,

the invasions

by Native Americans

and trace that story

up until the Revolution.

Any parallels

between those, uh,

revolutionary or separatist

movements and the ones

you discuss

connected with the Michaud

conspiracy?

Yes.

So this is exactly, uh,

the frontier political culture,

um, that I was talking about.

My, my earlier work

was about the coming

of the American Revolution

and, uh, I, I've written

two books on it.

Uh, one of them focused

on this rebellion in 1765,

the, the same year

as the Stamp Act.

So the same year

that the Sons of Liberty

are, are forming

on the eastern seaport,

there's a rebellion

in western Pennsylvania,

which at the time

was, was the frontier.

And, um, a group

of frontiersmen, uh,

attacked a trade,

uh, uh,

a cargo of trade goods

that were intended

to establish peace

with, uh, native, uh,

people who were then

at war with Great Britain,

uh, during what was called

Pontiac's War.

Um, and these, uh,

individuals created

really an ad hoc government

in western Pennsylvania.

There were hundreds

of, uh, rebels.

They lined, um,

all this, uh,

the, the roads.

Um, they handed out

passports.

They, they created

an inspection regime.

And what I talk about

is this was creating

a real, uh,

political culture.

It was very similar

to what was in Kentucky.

Their complaints

were almost identical.

We are in the west.

We faced unique concerns.

Those in the east

who govern us,

we don't have

proper representation.

They are not paying

attention to our needs.

Um, and so we have

to take government

into our own hands.

And this creates

a real conundrum

for the British Empire.

It is kind of

alighted over

during the American Revolution

when everybody's

kind of united

in a common enemy,

but then emerges

soon thereafter.

And I think a big part

of, uh,

America's political DNA

all the way up

to the present

is this divide

between urban and rural.

Um, I think that has been

a defining part

of our politics.

We maybe don't pay

as much attention to it

as, as possible.

And you can see

this, uh,

same political culture

in 1765

as many of these individuals

move further west

and south,

um, that they bring

with them

these same perceptions

of government,

um, and of their

responsibilities

to really,

when necessary,

govern themselves.

And so I do see

a direct connection

between the Kentucky plot

and, uh,

that in 1765.

Wow.

And is that

connection between

urban and rural

reflected in the initial

party divisions

between Hamilton

and Jefferson,

between the Federalists

and the Democratic-Republicans,

between the party

of the financiers

and the merchants

and the party

of the agrarians

south and west?

Absolutely.

And that's where,

um, bringing it back

to the idea

of this expedition,

um, Jefferson really

sees the future

of America

as he sees America

in the west

because he had to create,

he, it's called

the safety valve,

that if you didn't expand,

population would be,

you know,

hemmed in

on the eastern seaport

and there'd be

greater population,

there'd be growth

of more cities,

growth of more industry,

and Jefferson saw that

as corrupting.

He saw that as Europe.

He saw Europe

as this decadent area

of luxury and corruption

and Jefferson saw that

to avoid that,

you needed to create

an agrarian republic.

You needed to expand

westwardly

and you needed

limited government

and you needed individuals

to really govern

and rule themselves.

Um,

every individual human,

the idea behind

a human farmer

is that they own

their own piece of property.

They were bound

to nobody but themselves.

And so this absolutely

is feeding into

the very early

partisan divides.

You see Jefferson's

strongest base of support

in rural areas,

uh, predominantly.

Um,

he has

allies.

There's something

called democratic societies

that actually form

alongside this

Jenea conspiracy

and the Kentucky conspiracy.

These democratic societies

are very often

in rural areas

like Kentucky,

western Pennsylvania,

and they're essentially

creating the infrastructure

for the first party system

and they're supporting

the Jeffersonian ideas.

Um, they,

many of these

democratic societies

will, um,

when they form,

they do so

with a proclamation

outlining their

political philosophy

and it's directly aligned

with the Jeffersonian

vision.

And so there is

absolutely an urban-rural

divide that is defining

the very first party system

and I think this

continue all the way,

uh, really to the present

day, I'd argue.

Absolutely fascinating.

So much of, uh,

American history

dates back to

that initial

Hamilton-Jefferson divide

and in particular

this year,

or these years

that you're focusing on,

1790 to 93,

all the battle lines

are drawn.

Well,

we'll take us

back to the

expedition

and the

after effect.

Um,

after the plot

collapses,

uh,

what happens next?

Yes.

So, uh,

the, the,

the plot,

um,

just kind of

fades away,

but this political culture

continues in Kentucky.

We've talked a lot

about that.

Um,

but there are some

really interesting

legacies,

um,

sometimes hidden.

Uh,

so Michaud himself,

uh,

I, I argue

is probably the,

the greatest

natural history

explorer,

explorer of his

generation.

Um,

when he returns

to France in 1796,

he has covered

almost all of

Eastern North America.

He traveled as far

north as Hudson Bay,

as far south as Florida

and all the way west

to the Mississippi River.

Uh,

he identifies a thousand

new species of,

of,

of plants.

He ships back

50 to 60,000

specimens

to France.

Um,

he also imports

for the first time

a number of,

uh,

plants and flowers

that we see every day

in our,

our gardens.

Uh,

the Momoko,

the Mimosa tree

is often credited

to Michaud.

Michaud is really

part of this

international exchange

of,

of seeds,

all driven

by this idea

that,

that if we exchange

plants and crops,

we can actually

improve humanity.

We can eradicate

the famine

because we'll be able

to find more

productive crops

that we can introduce

into our own

communities.

So Michaud's legacy

is very much

around us,

surrounding us

sometimes,

certainly hidden,

um,

every day here

in America.

Um,

Michaud ends up

going off to

Madagascar

where,

where he dies.

Um,

Jefferson,

of course,

never gives up

this dream

of a transcontinental

expedition.

And in 1803,

he realizes that

with,

um,

Meriwether Lewis

and William Clark.

William Clark

is the younger

brother of

George Rogers Clark,

who was actually

at the center

of the Kentucky

conspiracy himself.

He was one

of those generals

willing to

renounce his

allegiance

and invade

New Orleans.

And then Jefferson

sends Meriwether Lewis

to the American

Philosophical Society

before he left

to get trained

and,

uh,

by the greatest

scientists in America

and also to get

instruments.

So the society

played a central

role in the

start up of

the Lewis and Clark

expedition.

And then when

Jefferson receives

the journals,

uh,

afterwards,

he sends them

off to the

American Philosophical

Society.

So we are

the stewards

of the official

journals of

Lewis and Clark

today here

at the

Philosophical Society.

And in many ways,

the,

the spirit

that animated

the society

is still present

at the APS

today.

The APS

is driven

by this idea

that the better

we understand

our world,

the past

and the present,

the better

we can make

our communities

today and also

shape our future.

And just like

the society

funded the Michaud

expedition

for eventually

over a million

dollars of

today's dollars

it raised,

they never

spent it

because Michaud

obviously was

redirected

by the

Genet

conspiracy,

but still

the society

has funded

research for

almost 300

years.

Today we

spend over

$2 million

a year

in small

grants to

young scholars

conducting

research across

the globe.

We have

funded researchers

in every

corner of

earth except

for Antarctica.

But we

want to find

somebody we

can fund

in Antarctica.

So if you're

listening to

this and you

are a

researcher and

you do

research in

Antarctica,

chuck out

our funds,

but we

continue in

that same

spirit almost

300 years

later.

It is so

moving to

hear you

describe the

significant

grants you

make to

young

researchers

across the

globe in

the spirit

of that

Jeffersonian

grant to

Michaud.

And you

end the

book with

a galvanizing

pay-in to

the value of

historical research.

You say,

I hope this

book might

show how

historical research

can be its

own type of

expedition in

the past,

one that can

only happen

with the

existence of

archives that

conserve the

documents to

tell these

stories.

Tell us why

those archives

are so

crucially

important in

keeping the

flame alive.

Yes, I

mean, I

can't tell

you how

important it

was for me

to write

this book.

It was

during the

pandemic.

And I

was trapped

in my

house, and

I had been

working on a

research project

in Europe.

And as the

world shut

down, my

access to

sources got

smaller and

smaller.

And as a

librarian in

the society,

I realized I

had at my

hands this

incredible library,

and I had a

question about

this one

document,

Michaud's

description list.

And that

document took

me down a

path that I

could never

have imagined,

a path that

led us to

this fundamental

question at

the founding,

which is,

what is the

meaning of

citizenship?

And as I

think about

the society's

library that

has 14

million pages

of manuscripts,

including the

papers of

seven noble

laureates,

we continue

to collect,

especially in

the history

of science,

we have

materials that

relate to

over 650

different Native

American

communities.

We have one

of the largest

collections of

endangered

languages.

Native

communities are

using our

resources to

reawaken

dormant

languages.

And so

it's these

sources,

you know,

how many

hidden stories

are buried in

our vaults,

how many

stories can

help us

better understand

who we

are, how

we've gotten

to where we

are, and

how can we

use these

sources to

improve our

future?

And without

archives, none

of this is

possible.

And I

have to say,

being in

this field

as a

librarian,

the support

for archives

is not as

strong as

it once

was.

And I

worry about

our ability

to sustain

archives because,

again, you

never know what

is hidden.

It takes a

researcher to

discover something

and follow

these paths

to reveal

these fundamental

things about

our past.

And so the

support for

archives, I

think, is a

vital national

interest.

It is

urgently

important.

And I

can't wait

to visit

you again

to have

one of our

periodic

lunches.

And I

want to

ask, so

you can

whet the

appetite of

We the

People

listeners,

what document

might you

show me if

I come over

from the

Treasurer's

Card or

elsewhere and

also talk

about how

much of

the

Philosophical

Society's

archives are

digitized?

Do you

think it's

important to

get them

online so

you can

share them

with the

world?

Yeah, right

now we're

supporting a

major

digitization

effort.

It's called

The Revolutionary

City.

You can

visit it

at

therevolutionarycity.org.

We're

collaborating with

a group of

Philadelphia-based

institutions for

the 250th

anniversary of

1776 to

digitize all

of the

manuscripts and

an enormous

amount of

the printed

material,

it's going

to have

hundreds of

thousands of

pages in

it.

It's going

to be a

one-stop

shop.

If you

want access

to the

American

Revolution,

this will

be the

place to

go.

We're

going to

have

curriculum

for

teachers,

but it's

also going

to be for

scholars and

genealogists.

We have

many different

access points.

This is the

future of

archives.

This is an

infrastructure

project.

Just like

in 1976

when there

were a

number of

museums

built,

we're

building a

digital

archive,

a digital

archive.

We want to

steward in

perpetuity.

This is a

major contribution

not just for

2026, but

for the

future.

If you

come to

visit me,

I'm not

going to

show you

something

digitized.

I will

show you

Benjamin

Franklin's

copy of

the

Constitution.

It's the

first

printing of

the

Constitution

that contains

his

annotations

on it.

Wow.

My jaw

just dropped

open and

I'm just

smiling with

excitement.

I cannot

wait to

see that.

It's also

so exciting

to hear

about your

digitization

project for

America's

250 and

so wonderful

that you're

going to

be sharing

all those

documents

with we

the people

listeners,

with people

across the

world to

learn and

grow on

their own.

And I'm

so excited

about working

with you

at the

Philosophical

Society and

at the

Constitution

Center to

create a

civic toolkit

of the

basic

principles of

the

Declaration

and the

Constitution

which we're

doing at

the NCC

and in

collaboration

with your

great documents

we're going

to inspire

the

we the

people

listeners

and folks

across the

country to

dig in

and learn

for themselves.

Patrick,

it has been

wonderful to

talk to you

and congratulations

again on

your new

book,

The Scientist

Turned

Spy.

Andre Michaud,

Thomas Jefferson

and the

Conspiracy

of 1793.

Thanks for

having me.

Today's

episode was

produced by

Lana Ulrich,

Samson Mastashari

and Bill Pollack.

It was

engineered by

Bill Pollack.

Research was

provided by

Samson Mastashari,

Cooper Smith

and Yara DeRese.

Friends,

there are so

many exciting

things coming

up at the

Constitution

Center in

September.

Please join

online,

the live

stream if

you can,

in person,

even better,

or check

out the

videos.

September 17th

is Constitution

Day.

We'll be

joined by

Justice Gorsuch,

our honorary

co-chair.

We'll be

launching our

new Khan

Academy course

with Saul

Khan,

a Constitution

101

course.

I can't

wait to

share it

with you.

And lots

of other

great events,

including our

Liberty Medal

to Ken Burns

on September

24th.

Check it

all out

on the

website.

And always

remember that

the National

Constitution

Center is a

private

nonprofit.

We rely

on the

generosity,

the passion,

the engagement

of people

across the

country who

are inspired

by our

nonpartisan

mission of

constitutional

education and

debate.

Support the

mission by

becoming a

member at

constitutioncenter.org

forward slash

membership or

give a donation

of any amount

to support our

work, including

the podcast,

at

constitutioncenter.org

forward slash

donate.

On behalf of

the National

Constitution

Center, I'm

Jeffrey Rosen.