John Jay Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Pickering, Timothy" AND Period="Adams Presidency"
sorted by: editorial placement
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jay/01-06-02-0334

To John Jay from Timothy Pickering, 20 July 1798

From Timothy Pickering

Philadelphia July 20. 1798.

Dr. Sir,

I have this moment received your letter of the 18th.1 By the newspapers which go hence this morning, you will see your wishes respecting Colo. Hamilton gratified.2 At the head of the appointments, he is Inspector General with the rank of Major General. This was intended to place him next in command to Genl. Washington:3 yet I feel some solicitude about the effect. Under circumstances not dissimilar, in the American War, I believe some staff officers, not taken from the line, were resisted in their claims to command officers of inferior rank in the line. I wish therefore that the act of Congress authorizing the appointment of an “Inspector General with the rank of major general,” had been explicit— that the Inspector General might be appointed from among those who should be major generals; or that some mode had been devised to remove all doubt of Colo. Hamilton’s right to command all the major generals; under the law as it stands.

I take very kindly the communication of your sentiments in this matter; & shall feel my obligations increase with the future communication of your ideas and opinions on every subject involving the safety, the interest & the happiness of our country. But altho’ I deem so lowly of my own discernment in such weighty concerns as to render such communications from you and other eminent citizens peculiarly grateful, yet on the present occasion I cannot withhold the pleasure of showing you the perfect coincidence of our thoughts, by presenting you with a copy of my letter of the 6th instant to General Washington.4 Colo. Hamilton arrived here the next morning, and in the freedom and confidence with which we conversed I handed ^it^ to him to peruse.— General Washington’s answer of the 11th.5 I received the 16th. and sent to Colo. Hamilton extracts6 to show the current of the General’s reasoning; concluding with an expression of my hopes, that as he (Colo. Hamilton) had, in the war for our independence, had devoted his talents to enhance another’s glory, so he would not withhold them now that the preservation of that independence demanded their fullest exertion. After that, Mr. Mc.Henry returned, and informed me that Genl. W. was some time balancing between the priority of Colo. Hamilton and General Pinckney; weighing the high respectability and importance of the latter in the three southern states, against the superior talents of the former: the latter finally preponderating. Perhaps the observations in my letter of the 6th (which I perceive Genl. Washington did not communicate to Mc.Henry) might have turned the scale. I send you herein the General’s answer, which I will thank you to return.7

I was rejoiced that the Senate had the fortitude to put a decided negative on the President’s nomination of his son-in-law William S. Smith to be adjutant general, with the rank of brigadier.8 When I saw that the President was invincibly bent on the nomination, I did not hesitate to inform a number of senators of it, and to urge their negative, for the honor and even for the safety of the army. The President did not know, that Colo. S. was as bankrupt in fame as well as fortune;9 and that he had totally mistaken his military talents.— I spoke to so many, and with so little reserve, that I thought it not improbable that my interference would eventually be known to the President: but I chose to hazard his displeasure rather than the approbation of that nomination. Unfortunately General Washington had arranged the name of Colo. Smith among the candidates for the office of a brigadier.— I am aware the step I took was a delicate one; and even its propriety may perhaps be questioned:— if the candidate in question had not been so nearly connected with the President—and if the latter had not so peremptorily pronounced the eulogium of the former as a great military character, and in a tone to forbid any reply—10 it would have become me to have frankly stated my opinion of his true character, and total unworthiness and unfitness to fill that important place. If in taking the other course I have done wrong, my motives I hope will make my apology with you and some others whose good opinions are peculiarly dear to me. With true respect, I am, Dr. Sir, your obt. servant

Timothy Pickering

John Jay Esqr.

ALS, NNC (EJ: 09508). Endorsed: “… ansd. 26 Do”. C, MHi: Pickering (EJ: 04854); C, DLC: Hamilton (EJ: 10779).

1JJ to TP, 18 July 1798, ALS, MHi: Pickering (EJ: 04790).

2AH’s appointment as Inspector General with the rank of major general was announced in the New-York Gazette, 21 July, and the Albany Gazette, 23 July 1798.

3For more on AH’s promotion, see the editorial note “Hamilton Takes Command,” above.

4TP to GW, 6 July 1798, PGW: RS description begins W. W. Abbot et al., eds., The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series (4 vols.; Charlottesville, Va., 1998–99) description ends , 2: 386–87.

5GW to TP, 11 July 1798, PGW: RS description begins W. W. Abbot et al., eds., The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series (4 vols.; Charlottesville, Va., 1998–99) description ends , 2: 397–400.

6TP to AH, 16 July 1798, PAH description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (27 vols.; New York, 1961–87) description ends , 22: 22–24.

7JJ obliged, returning GW’s letter in his reply to TP. See JJ to TP, 26 July 1798, below.

8Annals description begins Annals of the Congress of the United States (42 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1834–56) description ends , 5: 624.

9The phrase “as bankrupt in fame” has been crossed out in the Library of Congress copy. TP used a variation of this phrase and leveled a barrage of criticism against Smith in a later letter, remarking that “The President did not know that he was a bankrupt in fame as well as fortune. He had effectually concealed his swindling transactions from his father-in-law, who believes him sound in morals and a great military character the two opinions are alike incorrect.” TP to GW, 1 Sept. 1798, PGW: RS description begins W. W. Abbot et al., eds., The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series (4 vols.; Charlottesville, Va., 1998–99) description ends , 2: 576–77.

10TP might be referring here to an episode that occurred a few days earlier. According to Abigail Smith Adams, three Federalist senators—Benjamin Goodhue (1748–1814) of Massachusetts, and James Hillhouse, and Uriah Tracy (1755–1807), both of Connecticut—visited the president on 18 July and asked that he withdraw his nomination of Smith as adjutant general. JA refused their request, remarking that his son-in-law was “universally allowd to be a Brave officer, [and] that he had fought & bled in the Service of his County.” Abigail Adams to William Smith, 23 July 1798, ALS, MHi: Smith-Townsend. For more on this meeting, see TP to AH, 18 July 1798, note 4, PAH description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (27 vols.; New York, 1961–87) description ends , 22: 25–26.

While serving as minister to Great Britain, JA had written to JJ and described Smith’s military accomplishments in glowing terms, noting, “Colonel Smith did me much honour in becoming my aid De Camp, after having been General Washington’s, has behaived so Well since he has been here & has so many scars & tokens of gallant service to Country in the War, that to reward him as far as lay in my power, I have given him a Girl who is worthy of him.” JA to JJ, 16 June 1786, LbC, MHi: Adams. The editors would like to thank Rhonda Barlow for providing the above information.

Index Entries