John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Randolph, Edmund" AND Author="Randolph, Edmund"
sorted by: recipient
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-06-02-0082

To John Jay from Edmund Randolph, 12 November 1794

From Edmund Randolph (private)

Philadelphia November 12th. 1794

Sir,

In my public Letter of this date,1 you will find every thing of an official Nature, which we are able to communicate at present.

Your private favor of the 13th. of September2 last brings with it the satisfactory conviction, that I have not misplaced my confidence in your candor. You may be assured, that, as in the whole of our diplomatic connection hitherto, I have arrived at every demonstration of sincerity; so shall I not depart from it in what remains.

In one sense I learn with regret that my letter to the Committee of public Safety in France3 should create any uneasy emotions in the Breast of the British Ministry. I should regret, that I have been made the instrument of weakening the good disposition, which the majority of them appear to bear towards us. For I was among the first, who expressed a solicitude for the appointment of an Envoy to Great Britain;4 I am second to no man, in believing that harmony with that Country is of immense value to the United States; in my small sphere I have laboured to avert a war with it; my efforts in the Line of my Department have been directed to the maintenance of perfect neutrality; and you will therefore credit me, when I say, that I shall rejoice in your Success.5 The British Minister here, and some other British Agents have taught their correspondents on your side of the water to expect from me acts, not consistent with the impartiality, which we profess6 But surely I may appeal to the intercourse between us, for a refutation of such a suspicion.

And yet, under the influence of even these Sentiments, my tranquillity is in no manner disturbed by an apprehension that the British Government, if pure in their views, would be checked in their spirit of Amity; when they have before them the most striking example of amity on our part, in your mission, which was instituted in the moment of the most aggravating injury and insult.

But, Sir, notwithstanding these considerations, I should hold myself to blame, if in my letter I had overleaped the degree of strength, intended by the House of Representatives. For it is not enough, that a public Officer should merely suppress the vehemence of any predilection or prejudice, which he may entertain; but he ought also to be watchful lest they should steal from his Pen. Conscious as I am, that I restrained my affections, and was upon my guard against their impulse, when that letter was written; I have this morning compared it with the Resolution, on which it was founded; with that calm attention, arising from the persuasion, that, if an error has been committed, it was no more.7 But I frankly own, that I discover no error. The House did not mean, that the resolution only should be transmitted. They gave it as the Text of the Letter. This text required the draft, to contain terms expressive of sensibility for the friendly and affectionate manner, in which the Committee had addressed Congress; and an unequivocal assurance, that the House have much interest in the happiness and prosperity of the French Republic. The address of the Committee was naturally adverted to, and it became my duty to make a response to the matter of it. The word unequivocal imposed the necessity of a pointed development of Sensation. The happiness and prosperity of the French Republic implied a defeat of the allied powers; and that the happiness and prosperity of the French people was connected with the Republic, in contradistinction to monarchy. If a scope was not presented here for much more than was said; censure would have been liberally bestowed (and probably not without cause) if less had been said. I could, indeed, have reduced the Language to the coldness of death. But this would have been hardly expressive of Sensibility. I could have made it lukewarm; but this would not have amounted to an unequivocal assurance. In short, it is after all not easy, to form a scale for graduating one set of words to the precise fervor of another. All, which can be undertaken with certainty, is, not to transgress wilfully the Standard, which is proposed. My conclusion therefore, is, that if a fault has existed any where, it belongs to the House of Representatives.8 With best wishes for your Health and Happiness, and with true respect and esteem, I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient Servant

Edm: Randolph

Since my public letter of the 8th. instant we have received no intelligence of consequence from the Army. But it is impossible that Things should be otherwise than right.

The Honble John Jay Esqr. &c. &c.

LS, NHi: Jay (EJ: 00618). Marked: “Duplicate (Private)”.

1ER to JJ, 12 Nov. 1794, ASP: FR, 1: 501–2, in which ER acknowledged receiving JJ to ER, 13 Sept. 1794, above, and JJ to ER, 14 Sept. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04320); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04452); and ASP: FR, 1: 496, a brief letter in which JJ indicated his hope that difficulties over the Lake of the Woods boundary issue could be managed.

3See ASP: FR, 1: 674.

4For ER’s claim, see the editorial note, “The Jay Treaty: Appointment and Instructions,” JJSP description begins Elizabeth M. Nuxoll et al., eds., The Selected Papers of John Jay (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 2010–) description ends , 5: 609–21.

5ER had previously expressed concern that the British believed it was an American violation of neutrality when the French violated an American passport given during the American embargo allowing its vessel L’Aimable Gentille to sail from the United States in ballast and instead shipped gunpowder aboard. He contended that his correspondence with British officials was well calculated to demonstrate the government’s sincerity, and stated that he would send all documents related to the incident to the British government. See ER to JJ, 9 July 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04276); and C, NHi: King (EJ: 04422); and JJ to ER, 21 Aug., ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04307); and C, NHi: King (EJ: 04440); and ASP: FR, 1: 478, 483.

6For his assertion that the hostility between ER and Hammond was the responsibility of the former, see Grenville to JJ (private), 21 Nov. 1794, below.

7The resolution of the House of Representatives of 25 Apr. 1794 read as follows: “Resolved, unanimously, That the letter of the Committee of Public Safety of the French Republic, addressed to Congress, be transmitted to the President of the United States, and that he be requested to cause the same to be answered on behalf of this House, in terms expressive of their sensibility for the friendly and affectionate manner in which they have addressed the Congress of the United States, with an unequivocal assurance that the Representatives of the People of the United States have much interest in the happiness and prosperity of the French Republic.” Journal of the House, 2: 132.

8ER had previously speculated that the British government would almost certainly attempt to separate the United States from France, and enjoined JJ to ensure that nothing in any treaty signed with Britain should derogate from American obligations to her. ER later resigned as Secretary of State on the suggestion that he had had improper relations with Fauchet, the French minister. See ER to JJ, 6 May 1794; and the editorial note “The Jay Treaty: Appointment and Instructions,” JJSP description begins Elizabeth M. Nuxoll et al., eds., The Selected Papers of John Jay (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 2010–) description ends , 5: 636–47, 609–21.

Index Entries