To John Jay from “Aristides”, 4 April 1792
From “Aristides”
[New York, 4 April 1792]
For the NEW-YORK JOURNAL, &c
To Timothy Tickler, Esq. C— J— of the U— S—.1
It would have been prudent, sir, when you disguised your name, in order to shoot your invenomed arrows in safety, to have concealed, also, those prominent features which render it impossible for the most superficial observer to mistake you. Suspicion in lieu of proof, blind, intemperate revenge, mortified ambition, scurrility, and nasty expressions have written your name in indelible characters in the body of your letter. In memory of your past services I wish (by correcting your errors) to contribute to your future utility. In doing this I shall probably give you pain. To cure you of suspicion wilt be to pluck out your right eye, since it is with this that you view every object. To cure you of revenge, will be to cut off your right hand, since it is with this alone that you grasp friends, brothers, relatives: every near and dear connection, that winds itself about the hearts of other men, is torn by this haggard passion from your bosom. I would begin, sir, in imitation of your example, by telling you what your friends say of you.2 But where, sir, shall I find those that are entitled to that endearing appellation? Among the companions of your youth? These you have sacrificed to a mere jealousy of their superior abilities, to an overweening ambition, which made you dread them as your rivals. Among those to whom, with a view to popular applause, you have rendered services? These, sir, by presuming too much upon your favors, have converted into enemies. With whatever endearments the first act of your drama might have opened, it closed as regularly with wrath and invective, as the deepest tragedies with death and murders.3 Shall I look for them among those that composed your own family in a foreign land, where every motive strengthens the ties of friendship, and the claims to protection? With these, alas! you hold no commerce; and not one out of three gentlemen selected by yourself for the companions of your Spanish mission, see you in any other light than that of a most implacable enemy.4 Shall I come still nearer home, and enquire for your friends among those with whom you are connected by marriage, or the ties of blood? From the hearts of these, too, your gloomy suspicions, your deadly and implacable resentments, have forever expelled you: nay, so unfortunate is your situation, that your cold heart graduated like a thermometer finds the freezing point nearest to the bulb and its enmities measured by the degree of connection in which your acquaintances stand.5 Since then, sir, I cannot tell you the sentiments of your friends from the difficulty in finding them, I might still plead your example for speaking the language of enmity and malevolence,6 but as this would lead to exaggerations, when facts alone are sufficiently disgusting, I shall simply delineate them without heightening their horrors by the splendor of the coloring: I shall, therefore, neither address you as your friend, or as you enemy, I shall speak to you in the plain language of truth.
Imprisoned in your gloomy castle, secluded from the cheerful haunts of men,7 and brooding over schemes of ambition and revenge, it is seldom that her divine voice can reach your ear; though it startle and astonish you, yet attend to it with patience. It will be more beneficial than the servile adulation of the few weak wretches, that are content to be your flatterers, that they be thought to be your friends. Your charges may be reduced to a few heads, which I shall consider in their order, passing by those that have no other foundation than your suspicions, and leaving you to plume yourself upon a discovery, which a child in composition could falsify, that Aristogiton and Oldcastle, were written by the same pen, and that the answer to the circular letter, is the production of a different author, from either.8 You must not, however, suppose that I mean to enter into a defense of the C—r, or of the respectable family, you have thought fit to make the subject of your indiscriminate abuse. Your having married into it, sufficiently accounts from your enmity, to those who know, that you travel through life, as fretful men do in a stage coach, disgusted with and disgusting those that you are compelled to be near, and seeking, from remote objects,9 enjoyments, which your disposition forbids you to find. Whatever contempt you may feel, for the parentage of the amiable mother of your own children, it is to be presumed that Mr. V—— R——r’s filial piety, will not permit him to be very grateful for the interest, that his has in your reflections.10 This letter, sir, being totally, devoted to your improvement, I shall take up your censure, only as the means of inducing you to look into your own heart, and to examine the ground on which you stand. You allege that a family, which has been dissevered by an unfortunate dispute, have accommodated their differences and again united in bonds of friendship, whether this is true or false, I am not authorized to say, but giving credit for the present, to your assertion, it will not certainly appear criminal in the eyes of any man, that possesses the feelings of humanity or regards the precepts of religion, to bury enmities, which have separated those whom ties of blood have united.
This part of your letter, sir, should have been suppressed, since it adds double force to the stigma with which the world has already branded your character, as the oppressor of those you should protect and the implacable enemy of your nearest connections. They allege, that no one could have censured that union of families which the gospel recommends; but the man who in habitual defiance of its precepts carries his gift to the altar without being reconciled to his brother.11 If judging by your own heart, you are really disposed to consider the reconciliation of friends, and the forgiveness of injuries, as a more extraordinary offering on the altar of politics; than the sacrifice of the earliest friendships of your youth to the cause of avarice and ambition (a sacrifice familiarized by your practice) it should induce you to reflect on the odious point of view in which your pretentions must appear to those who are both acquainted with your character and principles. This leads me to another reflection, from which, after having submitted it to your consideration, you will draw your own conclusion.
Your advocates admit, that in the southern district, in which you were born and bred, where, of course, your character is best known, you will have the least support; that even the love of change, and enmity to Clinton, cannot ensure you a majority of votes, unless it be in those distant counties where the people are compelled to receive your character upon trust, from those who are interested in deceiving them.12 How humiliating it must be to receive from your advocates, in several of the largest counties, the most unequivocal proof of aversion in the moment they support your election, to be owned even by the enemies of Clinton, not as a good in yourself but as the lesser of two evils? to be swallowed (to speak in your own stile) not as wholesome and palatable food, but as the pill that nauseated as it cleanses the stomach?13 Your account of the terms upon which the L—— family united should have been suppressed, not indeed merely on account of your own knowledge of its falsity since this would have militated equally against every part of your letter, and the world would thereby have lost a precious specimen of your taste and of your talents; but you could have reflected that a falsehood which all the world can detect, destroys their faith in others which you would wish to gain credit, and perhaps too, as it is well known, that there are some members of that family that openly support your interest, it would have been prudent to have excepted them from your indiscriminate charge of knavery and folly. The 20l. article14 might do some credit to your invention, if it did not unfortunately revive the memory of those oppressive suits, that were brought under your direction against your rural neighbours, and the companions of your youth.15
Your idea that an union of the worst and weakest of men was worthy of St. John and St. Andrew was certainly an ill-timed reflection on the eve of an election, for though you had long since declared your enmity to the sons of St. Andrew, yet your hatred of that antient and respectable fraternity, which have united under the banners of St. John, was not before so generally known; and I am yet at a loss to determine whether it sprung from the attention that they have paid to C——r, by placing him at their head, or from their adoption of a precept that is a standing reproach to your practice— “that brethren should love one another.”16
It might not have been improper sir, to have past over the C——r’s talents in silence, since the numerous testimonials, not only that others, but that you yourself have given of them, must start up in judgment against you, if ever he should think your charges of sufficient moment to induce him to reply. You may perhaps be at a loss for an answer, if any person should be ill natured enough to ask, whether you did not give your voice, for placing him in the highest law department of the state, when he was many years younger than he now is, and probably, when his imagination was warmer and his judgment less matured by time, and a continued habit of business. You will not, I presume, plead ignorance of the extent of his capacity, since this would be to reflect upon your own discernment, for I am told, sir, that you was educated with him, and that he had served with you in Congress, in those critical times, when real, and not specious talents were requisite; and that even after he held the seals, you have repeatedly advocated on every important and special occasion, the sending him to congress in preference to a number of gentlemen, of whose judgment, you at present entertain no doubts. But sir, you of all men should have been cautious, of provoking an investigation into the extent of your talents. You, who in every walk of science and polite literature, are far, very far behind your compeers: You, who daily cover by dogmatic assertions and sarcastic ridicule, your ignorance, of what every gentleman should know, but which you have not the industry or genius to comprehend: abstracted from logic, in which you have studiously learned to make the wrong appear the better part, and a superficial knowledge of the law, let the most partial of your friends step forward and declare the solitary art or science in which you have made the smallest proficiency. It is sir, to the caution with which you tread on scientific ground, but more to your awkward form, that you owe the reputation you have acquired— expecting little, from your appearance, we are surprised to find our expectations exceeded, and after denying you, what you may justly claim, we are hurried into the contrary extreme, and give you credit for more than you possess. This propensity in human nature, was early noticed by the immortal Shakespeare, it is for this cause, that he frequently utters his witticisms from the mouth of a clown. Like Scriblerus’s shield,17 you owe your value, to the rust that covers you; were it possible to scour and polish you, we should be astonished at our misplaced estimation.
Come forth, sir, and shew a single act of yours, even in politics, which has long been your only study, that betrays the smallest mark of genius.— You have been called upon to produce the draught of our constitution, as first reported by you, in support of your claim to eminence as a statesman: neither you nor your advocates will dare to bring it forward: lay your finger upon the part of it on which you will build you fame; the man you have dared to arraign can shew his council of revision, his qualified negative, which, though a perfect novelty in government, has been imitated by the most enlightened state, by the federal government, and by the most powerful kingdom in Europe. What, sir, will you oppose this? That wretched blot in our constitution, the council of appointment? A council calculated to destroy the responsibility of the executive:18 or will you bring forward your illiberal arguments for narrowing the grounds of religious tolerance, and for excluding from this land of liberty, a numerous band of fellow men and fellow christians?19 Happily the good sense of the convention outweighed your prejudices, or rather compounded with them for that narrow naturalization act which still tarnishes our Constitution.
Had you, sir, advised with J——s20 before you published your letter (and I am told, that on all knotty law points you receive his instructions), he would have struck out the words treason and traitor, as applied to those that oppose your election; he would have informed you, that we owe no allegiance to the C—— J—— of the U—— S——, and that is not yet treason, for benefit men to let themselves in array against you; that the term traitor is only applicable to those that oppose the sovereign power, and that the schemes of your cabinet council are not yet sufficiently ripened to avow, that this is the object of your pursuit.
Notwithstanding the alarm that this sentiment has excited, I feel myself disposed to make every apology for you: you have lived abroad, you have seen the courts of princes where every object bowed before the crown; it was natural, that you should first admire, and then sigh for the bauble, not indeed on account of the splendor of a court, or the means of enjoyment that kings possess (for these, indeed, the use you make of your own great income shews you have no relish) but from the opportunities they derive from their elevation of gratifying their resentments, and filling their coffers. But, sir, be cautious least your dereliction of republican sentiments, since your advancement to federal honors, has not passed without observation; the splendid crown that dazzles your eyes, and haunts your midnight dreams, like Macbeath’s dagger, is still hovering in a false creation, proceeding from the heat oppressed brain: it may lead you on to crimes, but never to the quiet possession of the object of your wishes.21
As I find, sir, that it will not be in my power, in a single letter, to do full justice to your merits, either as a statesman or as a writer: the subject growing under my hands, I shall break off for the present, trusting, that what I have written will serve as a matter for serious reflection, until I again have the honor of addressing you.22
I have the honor to be, &c.
ARISTIDES
PrD, New-York Journal, 4 Apr. 1792; Daily Advertiser (New York), 4 Apr. Dft, NHI: Livingston. The Dft contains numerous interlineations and excisions, many of them illegible, that have not been noted. Significant revisions are indicated below.
1. “Aristides” is responding to a polemic related to the 1792 gubernatorial race that attacked New York Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, JJ’s longtime friend and fellow Federalist, who had, along with much of the Livingston family, recently allied himself to the Antifederalist Clintonian faction in New York. “Aristides” alleges that the piece, signed with the pseudonym “Timothy Tickler” and appearing in the Daily Advertiser (New York) on 31 Mar., was written by JJ. See also the more temperate reply to “Timothy Tickler” by “Z.A.” that appeared in the Daily Advertiser on 3 Apr., a draft of which can also be found in the Livingston papers, NHi; it did not attribute “Tickler”’s writing to JJ. On 4 Apr., JJ denied having written or sponsored any of the published attacks on Clinton or his supporters (below).
“Aristides” has been attributed to Robert R. Livingston (, 292–93; , 260), and a draft appears in the Livingston papers. However, some accounts allege it was in fact written by his brother-in-law John Armstrong Jr. (then still a Federalist), who was assigned the task after a meeting of members of the Livingston clan that included RRL’s brother Edward Livingston and Brockholst Livingston, JJ’s estranged brother-in-law. These accounts further assert that Armstrong later also admitted to composing “Timothy Tickler,” and thus composed both sides of the nastiest, most personal, polemical exchange in what was already a bitter and divisive election campaign. The polemics widened and made permanent the political and personal break between JJ and RRL. For the reports on Armstrong’s role, see the American Citizen, 16 Aug. 1803; New-York Herald, 8 Feb. 1804; New Hampshire Sentinel, 25 Feb. 1804; Ulster Gazette, 25 Feb. 1804. See also Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of his Diary from 1795 to 1848, edited by Charles Francis Adams (Philadelphia, 1875), 4: 218–21, entry for 15 Jan. 1819, in which William H. Crawford reportedly asserted that Armstrong was the author of both the anti-Livingston piece and the anti-Jay piece. In the New-York Herald of 8 Feb. 1804, “Timothy Tickler”’s piece is described as “a parody on a passage in one of Junius’s letters directed against Lord Mansfield” that exhibited “the inconsistences, the weaknesses, the foibles, nay, the political vices of the Chancellor’s life.”
For the suggestion that Armstrong may have originally written “Timothy Tickler” as a favor to Baron Steuben who was offended by a reference to him as a “pensioner” in a piece attributed to RRL, see C. Edward Skeen, John Armstrong, Jr., 1758–1843: A Biography (Syracuse, N.Y., 1981), 39–40. Steuben was attacked because his was the first signature on the circular letter of Jay supporters to the “Independent Citizens of New York,” published in the New-York Journal of 24 Mar., and subsequently in many other papers. A response published in the same paper under the title “To —— M——. Esq. Representative of —— County” expressed surprise that “a pensioner (though a worthy one) of the United States should be at the head of the list.” A draft of this piece also can be found in the Livingston Papers, NHi. The purported addressee may have been another signatory of the circular letter, Michael Myers, an assemblyman from Herkimer County. “Timothy Tickler” asserted RRL should take every precaution to prevent it being known that Armstrong had written the answer to the circular letter.
The only other candidate suggested for author of “Timothy Tickler” was John Cozine (1738–98), a New York City attorney and a member of JJ’s New York City election committee. In a piece signed “D” printed in the New-York Journal of 23 June 1792 that asserted JJ would, if elected, replace all Clintonian public officials with his supporters, “D” suggested Cozine would be appointed state attorney general as a reward for writing “Timothy Tickler” and other pieces abusive of the Chancellor. Cozine denied authorship of “Timothy Ticker” or any other personal attacks on RRL in “A Card to Mr. D—— author of the dream which appeared in Mr. Greenleaf’s paper, Saturday last”, in the New-York Journal, 27 June 1792.
2. “Timothy Tickler” had quoted RRL’s “friends” as “condemning his inconsistencies by contrasting the statements he made in 1788 in support of the new Constitution and strengthening the central government with his current pro-Clintonian, anti-aristocratic, Antifederalist stances. He reported that they disparaged his abilities, asserting “That you have some imagination, but no judgement; that of course you are always to be found on the surface of things, never the bottom, and in general, that you are to be likened to some coins, which are current for more than they are worth.” Others allegedly claimed RRL had never given any evidence of genius, disparaged his oration to the Society of the Cincinnati, and remarked regarding his reported eloquence during the Hoffman case, that “an Ass spoke at the sight of an Angel” and that with RRL “Interest could always work the same miracle.” Finally, “Timothy Tickler” alleged that the fact that RRL had not been offered a federal position precipitated him “into the arms of a man and a party who while they approve the treason, despise the traitor.” On the Hoffman case, see RRL to JJ, 25 Jan., 30 July, and 26 Aug. 1784, and JJ to RRL, 18 Aug. 1784, , 3: 547, 549n8, 591, 591–92n2, 598, 607.
3. The draft version of this section was placed in the margin and marked for inclusion here. The issue of whether JJ was “ambitious” was a topic that recurred in JJ’s correspondence with RRL. See, for example, , 1: 38, 112; 2: 125, 226; 3: 591, 598.
4. This section primarily reflects Brockholst Livingston’s interpretation of JJ’s behavior during his Spanish mission. On JJ’s conflicts with Brockholst, William Carmichael, and Lewis Littlepage during and after his mission, see , 2: 362, 480–85, 525, 601n31; and “Lewis Littlepage Redivivus” (editorial note), , 4: 235–42. The draft text of this passage includes a remark about Jay’s “seduction of unwary youth” that ends in “writs, bonds and imprisonments” that is omitted in the printed text.
5. This phrase beginning with “and its enmities” was added in the margin in the draft text.
6. Here, in the draft text, was added in the margin the following passage: “Sir ^we^ may ^justly^ say of you in the words of scripture ‘that your hand is against every body & every bodies ^man & every mans^ hand against you’—” followed by an elaborately reworked, heavily excised, often illegible, section similar in substance to what appears in the printed text. The scriptural quotation is paraphrased from Genesis 16: 12 and is a reference to Ishmael.
7. On JJ’s relatively isolated new house, see , 4: 6–10.
8. “Timothy Tickler” had labeled pieces by “Aristogiton” and “Oldcastle,” among others, as written by RRL, and stated that, rather than supporting Clinton, they mostly praised RRL himself. “Aristogiton” appeared under the dateline 28 Feb. in the Daily Advertiser of 1 Mar. in response to a pro-Jay letter published on 27 Feb. that claimed JJ had substantial support, cited the benefits of rotation of office, and criticized RRL’s support of Clinton. “Aristogiton” in turn tallied the high salaries JJ had received, called attention to the effective governors, including William Livingston, who were reelected for long periods, and listed various Jay actions that adversely affected the various groups that allegedly supported him. Among the complaints “Aristogiton” included was a reference to JJ’s strict credentialing requirements for lawyers seeking admission to the federal bar. See , 1: 733, 734. For “John Old Castle,” who wrote that RRL had never been charged with a “single political error” during his long political career, see the Daily Advertiser, 23 Mar., and the New-York Journal, 24 Mar. 1792.
9. The equivalent section in the draft for this passage beginning with “life, as fretful men do” is added in the margin. The remainder of the paragraph and the following one differs significantly in wording but not in substance from the printed text.
10. The reference to Mr. Van Rensselaer and his family does not appear in the draft. “Timothy Tickler” had depicted the entire Livingston family as having overcome divisions and pledged to support each other politically in hopes of sharing future benefits. He asserted the Livingstons could not be considered a true aristocracy since they consisted of the worst and weakest men in the state (a possible variation on the expression “union of the wicked and the weak” that JJ occasionally used; see JJ to Benjamin Rush, 23 Jan. 1789, and note 3, above). “Aristides” appears to be saying the same criticisms could be applied to Stephen Van Rensselaer, the Federalist candidate for lieutenant governor, and his connections. Van Rensselaer, a 28-year-old state senator, was the eighth proprietor of Rensselaerwcyk, the largest estate in the Hudson Valley. He was the son-in-law of Philip Schuyler and the brother-in-law of AH. See , 282.
11. Here “Aristides” is paraphrasing Matthew 5: 24.
12. In the election JJ failed to carry the southern district, but did win in New York City and in Westchester County, the places where he had resided. His large majorities in the northern and western counties were disqualified by the canvassers. See PJM to JJ, 29 Apr.; SLJ to JJ, 2 June; Troup to JJ, 3 June 1792, all below; and the editorial note “The Disputed Election of 1792,” above.
13. The reference to JJ as a lesser evil apparently refers to statements that he was merely a better alternative to Clinton than Aaron Burr, and regarding his having been nominated only because Robert Yates and Stephen Van Rensselaer turned down the nomination. For references to JJ’s selection only as an alternative to Burr, and after the other candidates declined, see for example, the Poughkeepsie Journal, 16 Feb. 1792; the Albany Gazette, 23 Feb. 1792; “A Plain Farmer”, in the Daily Advertiser of 16 Feb., and the response by “A Citizen”, in the Daily Advertiser of 20 Feb.; and the circular letter of JJ’s supporters, cited in note 1, above.
The equivalent passage of this section beginning with “How humiliating” is entered in the margin in the draft.
14. In the draft this phrase reads “the Article about the £20 lawsuit”.
15. This apparently relates to suits JJ initiated as trustee for Peter Jay’s estate against those indebted to Peter Jay. See JJ to PJM, 20 June 1791, above; and the Newport Herald, 18 June 1791.
16. No evidence has been found of JJ’s opposition to the St. Andrew Society or to the New York Masons recently united in the St. John Lodge. RRL, Edward, and Brockholst Livingston, among other Livingston family members, were members of the St. Andrew Society, and RRL was its president. RRL was also Grand Master of the Masons in New York, the leading lodge of which was the St. John Lodge. JJ was not a member of either organization and tended to oppose such societies, including the Society of the Cincinnati, as divisive, although most of his friends and supporters were members of one or more of the societies. AH, PJM, and Robert Troup were among the members of the St. Andrew Society. See New York City Directory for 1786; and George Austin Morrison, History of the St. Andrew Society of the State of New York, 1758–1806 (New York, 1906), 185–88, 246–91. RRL was an honorary member of the Society of the Cincinnati, Brockholst was a member, as were many other members of the Livingston family, but so too were prominent Jay supporters like Philip Schuyler and AH. See, generally, John Schuyler, Institution of the Society of the Cincinnati: Formed by the Officers of the American Army of the Revolution, 1783, with Extracts, from the Proceedings of Its General Meetings and from the Transactions of the New York State Society (New York: 1886). For JJ’s early criticism of the Society of the Cincinnati, see , 3: 557, 559–60, 619–20n2.
17. This sentence does not appear in the draft text. Scriblerus’s shield refers to Memoirs of Martin Scriblerus, a satirical work published in 1741 by the literary group known as the Scriblerus Society, but largely attributed to John Arbuthnot. It recalls a scene in which Martin’s father presents him as a baby on a piece of metal in imitation of Hercules being presented on a shield, but the illusion was shattered when a conscientious maid cleaned the rusty metal and exposed its utilitarian, nonheroic nature.
18. On JJ’s role in composing the state constitution, and the draft text of the constitution in his hand, see the editorial note “John Jay and the New York State Constitution of 1777,” , 1: 399–406. This section seemingly argues JJ was given too much credit for various constitutional measures and RRL not enough, and responds to the praise of JJ’s achievements in his supporters’ circular letter.
19. See the editorial note “Religious Toleration and the New York State Constitution,” , 1: 372–75.
20. Given as Jones in the Daily Advertiser text, a reference to Samuel Jones, currently a Jay supporter. This paragraph seems to imply that JJ wanted to be president; at this time various Republican pieces referred to JJ as hoping to be selected as vice president or president after GW retired. See for example, “A Plain Farmer” in the Daily Advertiser, 16 Feb., and “A Citizen” in the Daily Advertiser of 20 Feb. 1792.
21. RRL, and especially the extravagant Brockholst Livingston, saw JJ as excessively frugal, and in this polemic seek to depict JJ as aristocratic and monarchical rather than republican, despite his relatively Spartan lifestyle. Brockholst, during their time in Spain, had shown no recognition of JJ’s often dire financial situation there due to the impact of the war on JJ’s family and his efforts to support them, and to the fact that Congress long neglected to remit him the salary his household needed for support. On expenses in Spain, see , 2: xxii, 125–26, 134–35, 482–83.
This passage is followed in the draft by a section referring to “Timothy Tickler”’s mockery of RRL’s address to the Society of the Cincinnati; it is omitted from the printed text.
I meant before I quited this to have taken some notice of the stile of your letter & to have shewn from your delicate choice of expressions how well qualified you were to judge of a composition which
met withreceived the thanks & met with the approbation of a societywho^which^ tho not so fortunate as to meet with your countenance has never been considered as ^more—^ deficient in taste &illegiblethan in virtue & patriotism—
22. Here, in the dft, “Aristides” stated he also had to postpone his intended comments on “Timothy Tickler”’s postscript (regarding John Armstrong’s alleged authorship of the response to the circular letter by JJ’s supporters, and his role in the Newburgh affair), but asserted “it may [not?] be amiss to inform you that you have wantonly shot an arrow in the air & wounded a friend when you meant to pierce an enemy—”.
“Timothy Tickler” had referred to Armstrong “as a man whose first act in life was an attempt to subvert a civil and establish a military government, and whose propositions on that occasion were of so factious a cast, that even the whole army (surrounded by want and calamity) received and rejected them with abhorrence. I say the sentiments of such a man whether pro or con can, have little weight with a people determined to be free and to be happy.”