From George Washington to Thomas Pinckney, 22 May 1796
To Thomas Pinckney
(Private)
Philadelphia 22d May 1796
Dear Sir
To my letters of the 20th of February and 5th of March, I beg leave to refer you for the disclosure of my sentiments on the subjects then mentioned to you.
Very soon afterwards, a long, and animated discussion in the House of Representatives relative to the Treaty of Amity, Commerce & Navigation with Great Britain, took place; and continued—in one shape or another—until the last of April; suspending, in a manner, all other business; and agitating the public mind in a higher degree than it has been at any period since the Revolution. And nothing, I believe, but the torrent of Petitions, and remonstrances which were pouring in from all the Eastern and middle States, and were beginning to come pretty strongly from that of Virginia, requiring the necessary provisions for carrying the Treaty into effect, would have produced a decision (51 to 48) in favor of the appropriation.1
But as the debates (which I presume will be sent to you from the Department of State) will give you a view of this business, more in detail than I am able to do, I shall refer you to them. The enclosed Speech, however, made by Mr Aimes at the close of the discussion, I send you; because, in the opinion of most that heard it delivered, or have read it since, his reasoning is unanswerable.2
The doubtful issue of the dispute, added to the real difficulty in finding a character to supply your place, at the Court of London, has occasioned a longer delay than may have been convenient or agreeable to you. But as Mr King of the Senate (who it seems had resolved to quit his Seat at that board) has accepted the appointment, and will embark as soon as matters can be arranged, you will soon be relieved.3
In my letter of the 20th of Feby, I expressed, in pretty strong terms, my sensibility on acct of the situation of the Marquis De la Fayette. This is increased by the visible distress of his Son, who is now with me, & grieving for the unhappy fate of his parents. This circumstance, giving a poignancy to my own feelings, on this occasion, has induced me to go a step further than I did on the letter above mentioned; as you will perceive by the enclosed Address (copy of which is also transmitted for your information) to the Emperor of Germany: to be forwarded by you in such a manner, and under such auspices as, in your judgment, shall be deemed best: or to arrest it, if from the evidence before you (derived from former attempts) it shall appear clear, that it would be of no avail to send it.4
Before I close this letter, permit me to request the favor of you to embrace some favorable occasion, to thank Lord Grenville, in my behalf, for his politeness in causing a special permit to be sent to Liverpool for the shipment of two sacks of the field Peas, and the like quantity of Winter Vetches, which I had requested our Consul at that place to send me, for Seed; but which it seems could not be done without an Order from government.5 A circumstance which did not occur to me, or I certainly should not have given it the trouble of issuing one, for such a trifle. With very great esteem & regard I am—Dear Sir Your obedt Servant
Go: Washington
ALS, DLC: Pinckney Family Papers; ALS (duplicate), NNPM; LB, DLC:GW. Pinckney replied to GW on 31 July.
1. The U.S. House of Representatives initially debated the Jay Treaty with Great Britain from 7 March to 7 April (see 4th Cong., 1st sess., 426–783). Debate commenced on 13 April over a resolution for carrying into effect the treaties with Algiers, Great Britain, Spain, and the Northwest Territory Indians. The House quickly disposed of the other three treaties but debated the Jay Treaty until 30 April, when the indicated vote took place (see 4th Cong., 1st sess., 939–1292). During April, the House received supportive petitions from several places in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland; New Castle and Kent counties, Del.; New York City, Albany, Lansingburg, and Kings County, N.Y.; Boston, Newburyport, and Salem, Mass.; Providence, R.I.; and Washington, D.C. (see 8:302, 321, 338, 343, 352–54, 358, 359–60 363, 365–66, 368–70, 373–78). For petitions from Virginia, see the notes with Edward Carrington to GW, 9 May.
2. Massachusetts congressman Fisher Ames had delivered a speech in the House on 28 April advocating Jay Treaty implementation. Ames argued that House refusal to execute a binding treaty negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate would be a breach of national faith justifiable only if the treaty was “bad, not merely in the petty details, but in its character, principle, and mass” and “the enlightened public” concurred with the determination. Ames found both conditions lacking. As “auxiliary arguments” to fulfill the treaty, he advanced the benefits of the spoliations clause, the protection given frontier settlers by the return of military posts, and the avoidance of war with Great Britain ( 4th Cong., 1st sess., 1239–63; quotes on 1244 and 1257; see also 2:37–71).
3. For Rufus King’s nomination as minister to Great Britain, see GW’s first message to the U.S. Senate, 19 May, and n.1 to that document.
4. See GW to Francis II, 15 May.
5. About this shipment, see GW to James Maury, 20 Oct. 1795, and Maury to GW, 26 Dec. 1795.