1. For the initial draft of these instructions, see Pickering to GW, 14 September.

2. GW replied to Pickering on the same evening: “The enclosed Instructions for Mr Ellicot (as now amended) are approved—I was out when they came, or they would have been returned sooner” (ALS, MHi: Pickering Papers).

Pickering gave Andrew Ellicott and Thomas Freeman instructions on 14 Sept. “for running and marking the Southern boundary line, which divides their Territory from the Spanish Colonies of East and west Florida.” Pickering continued: “it has been considered that the Country through which the line is to be run, belongs, for the most part, to the native Indians, and is of course a wilderness. Hence many difficulties may attend an attempt to run and mark one continued boundary line from the Missis[s]ippi to the St Mary’s. Nevertheless, if the Indians will allow it to be done, and the nature of the Country admits of it, you are to run and mark such a continued boundary line. If the Indians are adverse to the measure, and oppose your proceeding, you must stop as soon as you find a further advance would hazard your safety, or a breach of our friendship with any tribe. But the Creeks have expressly stipulated a free passage of the Commissioners and their followers to run and mark the boundary line through their Territory; and the Choctaws probably may on the application of the Commissioners also give the like permission as it respects their Country. However, if either the opposition of the Indians or the impracticability of the Country itself through which you must pass, should render the running a continued line impossible or extremely tedious and difficult; then the next best thing must be attempted; that is, accurately to fix the latitude of the boundary line, at the Eastern Bank of the Mississippi, and to run and mark the line thence as far Eastward as the Indian title has been by any regular and lawful means extinguished either under the British or Spanish Governments. If the Indians and the nature of the Country permit you to proceed further, you will go on as far as it shall be practicable. And if from any cause you are obliged to leave any part of the line unsurveyed and unmarked, you will at least ascertain where it strikes the great rivers, from the Mississippi to the Apalachicola.

“From the junction of the Flint River with the Apalachicola, the boundary line ceasing to be a parrallel of latitude, must if possible be run and marked through its whole course, to the head of the River St Mary’s.

“So far as the boundary line is a parrallel of latitude, you will ascertain the same with all practicable accuracy, and erect permanent monuments, of Stone where attainable, and at other places, of earth. And in the latter case, it may be eligible to plant in the ground large posts of Cedar, or other durable wood, two or three at each monument, in the range of the line, and to bury them up with several feet of earth, so that by being concealed they may not be removed, and by an exclusion of the air, they may not be liable to rot.”

Ellicott and Freeman also needed to “make plats and keep journals of their proceedings … made with accuracy and precision, and the latitudes, longitudes, courses and distances expressed in words at length as well as figures.” Treaty stipulations required Ellicott and Freeman “to be at the Natches before the 25th of October next” (DNA: RG 59, Domestic Letters; another copy of these instructions is in MHi: Pickering Papers). Ellicott arrived at Natchez on 24 Feb. 1797 (see Journal of Ellicott description begins Robert D. Bush, ed. Surveying the Early Republic: The Journal of Andrew Ellicott, U.S. Boundary Commissioner in the Old Southwest, 1796–1800. Baton Rouge, 2016. description ends ).

3. The enclosed draft has not been identified, but Pickering provided elaborate instructions to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, new U.S. minister to France, dated 14 Sept., that outlined the complexities of his post because of political and diplomatic complications arising from the French Revolution and the challenge of maintaining U.S. neutrality: “Under such circumstances, the best interests of the two nations may be injured by mutual jealousies: for distrust on one side begets suspicion on the other. Unhappily, as was natural, the distrusts and jealousies of the [French] ministers have been communicated to their nation; or to the Government of their nation: and while they consider the people of the United States as the warm and invariable friends of France, they have been persuaded to believe that the Government is hostile to their interests, and perhaps even to the principles of the revolution. Nothing can be more unfounded than this opinion concerning the Government of the United States; and nothing is more important to the interests of the two Countries than its eradication; than the restoration of mutual confidence as the basis of mutual goodwill, and of the exercise of offices highly and reciprocally beneficial.

“Faithfully to represent the disposition of the Government and people of the United States (for their disposition is one); to remove jealousies and obviate complaints, by shewing that they are groundless; to restore that mutual confidence which has been so unfortunately and injuriously impaired; and to explain the relative interests of both Countries, and the real sentiments of your own; are the immediate objects of your mission.

“To enable you satisfactorily to perform this task, you will receive herewith, copies of all the important correspondencies with the French Ministers, from the commencement of Mr Genet’s agency to this day; together with copies of such parts of the communications between the Department of State and the Ministers of the United States at Paris, or between the latter and the French Government, as are pertinent to the objects in view. This being accomplished (and the liberal and upright views of the American Government authorize the hope of its accomplishment) a happy foundation will be laid for negociating those friendly and Commercial regulations which our mutual wants require, and which our reciprocal interests and prosperity will strongly enforce.”

The instructions urged Pinckney’s particular attention to the claims of “our merchants whose property to the probable amount of several millions, has been unlawfully captured or seized.” Complaints about Fulwar Skipwith, who had been supervising the merchant claims as U.S. consul general for France, caused GW to authorize Pinckney “to employ, for a reasonable compensation which you will fix, some American Citizen of competent skill and fair reputation, to make the necessary investigations, under your direction; and to report to you, from time to time, the result of his examinations.” Pinckney also was to give “constant information of all important occurrences” in Europe. It was deemed best that he communicate to the French government in English (DNA: RG 59, Diplomatic and Consular Instructions).