From George Washington to Timothy Pickering, 18 July 1796
To Timothy Pickering
Private
Mount Vernon 18th July 1796.
Dear Sir,
If there be any thing yet to do, which can with propriety be done, towards fulfilling the several Treaties which the United States have entered into (without specifically naming them) it is my desire that there may be no delay in the execution: and if upon examining of them carefully, any matters should be found therein requiring the attention of either of the other Departments, that these sentiments may be conveyed to the Secretaries thereof, as proceeding immediately from myself.
The new requisition of the Dey of Algiers, which has been yielded, will require to be laid before the Senate for its ratification; together with such Papers as are necessary to explain, and account for the measure.1 It might be well therefore to revise, and to prepare them accordingly, in time.
The continual attacks which have been, and are still making on the Administration in Bache’s, and other Papers of that complexion (indecent as they are void of truth and fairness) under different signatures, and at present exhibited under that of Paulding; charging it not only with unfriendly, but even with unjust views towards France; and to prove it, resort to misrepresentation & mutilated authorities; and oftentimes to unfounded, but round assertions; or to assertions founded on principles which apply to all the Belligerent Powers, but which, by them are represented as aimed at France alone. Under these circumstances, it were to be wished that the enlightened public could have a clear & comprehensive view of facts2—But how to give it, lies the difficulty; and I see no method at present, however desirable the measure, that is not liable to objections; unless the predicted, & threatned conduct of France towds this country (under the pretext of our Treaty with G: Britain)—or its demand, that the Guarantee of their West India Islands, agreeably to the Treaty of Paris, should be fulfilled, presents the occasion.3
Whether either of these will, or will not happen; or whether any other mode may occur which, after mature consideration shall appear expedient or not, I wish that in your moments of leisure (if such you have) you would go most carefully & critically over the whole of the correspondence between the different Secretaries of State & the French Minister in this Country; & with our own Minister at Paris, from the Period matters began to change from the antient habits, & to assume their new form, in that country. If circumstances should render explanations of this sort expedient & necessary for Congress, a previous examination of the Papers with notes & remarks, will be essential. If they should not, the measure nevertheless will be satisfactory & useful. I would have the whole of the transactions, in all its direct, & collateral relations, examined with as critical an eye as Mr Bache, or any of his numerous correspondents or communicants would do; that if there is any thing in them (not recollected by me) that can be tortured into an unfriendly disposition towds France, & not required by the Neutral policy adopted by the Executive; approved by the People; and sanctioned by the Legislature: or which the Peace, honor & safety of this Country did not require, that I may be apprised of it, as my conviction of the contrary is strong.
I request also, that you would begin to note down all the subjects as they may occur, which may be proper to communicate to Congress at their next meeting; either at the opening of the Session, or by seperate messages in the course of it. Many things are forgot when the recollection of them are postponed until the period at which they are wanting. Minute details will not be amiss, because a selection will, at any time, be easier than a collection to make.
Your letter of the 8th instt did not reach my hands until the 13th—nor did that of the 11th until the 15th. I mention these facts that you may know whether the delay has been occasioned by their not getting to the Post Office in time, or were detained at it. Other letters from Philadelphia of the same dates, came to hand two days sooner in both instances. With very great esteem & regard—I am—Dear Sir Yours—always
Go: Washington
P.S. I am frequently receiving letters from Philp Wilson, similar to the one I now enclose. Let me request therefore, if his case admits of redress, that an attempt may be made to obtain it. If it does not, that he may be so informed, in explicit terms.4
ALS, MHi: Pickering Papers; LB, DLC:GW. For Pickering’s acknowledgement of this letter, see his first letter to GW dated 21 July.
1. GW is referring to the agreement to furnish the Dey of Algiers with a frigate (see GW to the Dey of Algiers, 13 June; see also James McHenry to GW, 7 July, and GW to McHenry, 13 July).
2. Between 21 May and 11 Aug., “PAULDING” addressed fourteen letters critical of GW’s administration to the printer of The Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia) and to the editor of the Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia). Both papers printed the letters, which appeared in the Aurora on 24 and 30 May; 9, 13, 15, 18, 22, and 30 June; 4, 11, 22, and 25 July; and 2 and 11 Aug. (two additional letters appeared in the Aurora for 24 Aug. and 2 Sept.).
PAULDING argued in “Letter I” that GW had “interpre[t]ed the same parts of the Constitution variously at different times, and that he has thereby converted the great charter of our country into a thing of chance, liable to the direction of whim, caprice or design.”
PAULDING argued in “Letter II” that GW had favored Great Britain over France: “We have heard much lately about public faith; but what kind of faith is it, which impelled the first Executive Magistrate to declare to the French Minister that the forms of the Constitution prohibited treating with him, and yet under the same forms negociated a Treaty with a British Commissioner?” (referring to the negotiation of the explanatory article to the Jay Treaty during a recess of Congress).
Usurpation of power and subservience to Great Britain dominated PAULDING’s critique throughout his letters. PAULDING’s effort printed in the Aurora for 11 July (his tenth, although misnumbered as “Letter IX”) continued his analysis (begun in “LETTER III”) of queries that GW submitted to the cabinet in April 1793 (see GW to David Humphreys, 12 June, n.3). PAULDING quoted from a GW letter written on 18 April 1793 (misdated in the Aurora as 8 April) and claimed that it showed GW’s determination “that his fiat should be supreme, and that his own omniscience was commensurate to every object.” Not convening Congress “exhibited in the Chief Magistrate of a free people, an usurper, whose arrogance was not to be restrained by an overweening fondness for fame, or by the limits of our Constitution.” The opinions of the cabinet (which PAULDING argued in “Letter XI” was an unconstitutional body) “were the stepping stone to future measures which were to throw our country into the arms of Great Britain … and to alienate the freemen of America from their best friend, the Republic of France. The assumption of power in the Executive to act independently of Congress in things in which their decision was constitutionally essential, was the key stone in the arch, and bound together the system manifested in the queries.” GW apparently “imagined Congress” like the French parliament under the ancien regime, with “no right to deliberate but to act, and that according to the information he should think proper to give, and the promptitude he should conceive fit to direct.” Evidence of GW’s sense of “Royal as well as Papal importance” could be found in his many proclamations: “We have had a Proclamation of Neutrality, a Proclamation for a day of thanksgiving (as if we had a Vatican and a Tiara) and a Proclamation declaring a supreme law of the United States before it had passed through all the necessary forms!” PAULDING concluded that GW wanted “to assimilate our government to a Monarchy. Every measure seems to squint towards this darling object, and hence irredeemable debt, excise systems, National Banks, loans, federal cities, reports for raising revenue by an Officer unknown to the Constitution, and dependant upon the Executive—hence the plan to excite Western Insurrection, to increase the national debt, to furnish a pretext for a standing army, and to supply arguments against the cause of Republicanism—hence the pious wish of the most pious Secretary, in the presence of ‘the Benefactor of Mankind!’ that the Insurgents would burn Pittsburgh!”
3. GW is referring to Article XI of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France in which “from the present time and forever” the United States guaranteed “to his most Christian Majesty the present Possessions of the Crown of france in America as well as those which it may acquire by the future Treaty of peace” ( 39–40).
4. No letters from Philip Wilson to GW have been found, but Pickering wrote Rufus King, U.S. minister to Great Britain, on 20 Aug.: “I inclose a petition from Philip Wilson now living in Westminster Great Britain, to the President of the United States, exhibiting a statement of his losses while a merchant in Philadelphia, by Captures of his property by the British, particularly of the ship Mentor and Cargo captured and destroyed in time of peace, meaning after the close of the late American war. …
“Mr Wilson is frequently teasing the President with his claims, intimating that failing of obtaining indemnification from the British Government, it is due to him from that of the United States. You will see that he has consulted Sir William Scott, who can give you probably a history of the business. If Wilson has any just claims against either Government, he is entitled to the attention and patronage of his own. You will therefore render an acceptable service to the President by inquiring into this case and putting it in train for settlement or stopping Wilson’s claims and complaints if they are unfounded” (DNA: RG 59, Diplomatic and Consular Instructions).
King replied to Pickering from London on 10 Nov. that Wilson had accepted a “£2000 Sterling” settlement from the British government in 1793 and executed a release from further claims, “making at the same time a Protest before a Notary, in which he declares himself dissatisfied with the Terms, and that he had from his necessitous situation alone been induced to acceed to them—Since that time to the present he has been making applications without Effect to obtain a revision of his Case—This Short view of it, will shew the answer that I should receive, should I make a formal Application on the Subject—I will however in an informal manner and as a case of extreme hardship, represent the situation of Mr Wilson and his Family to Lord Grenville, and request his interference to obtain something more for this unfortunate & helpless family” (DNA: RG 59, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Great Britain).
Wilson subsequently wrote GW. In a postscript to a petition dated 14 Nov. and addressed “To the Honourable the President and Senate of the United States of America,” Wilson referenced three documents he had sent to GW (DNA: RG 46, Sen. 4A-G1). When Pickering wrote Wilson on 13 March 1797, he mentioned that Wilson’s petition dated 3 Dec. 1796 “addressed to the President, Senate and Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, was delivered to me, by the late President Washington, with a direction to inform you, that after what has actually taken place between you and the British Government respecting your claim for an indemnification for your Ship and cargo destroyed by her forces, the American Government cannot formally and officially interfere in your behalf” (MHi: Pickering Papers).