To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, 11 November 1796
From Alexander Hamilton
[New York] Nov. 11. 1796
Sir
My anxiety for such a cou[r]se of things as will most promise a continuance of peace to the country, & in the contrary event a full justification of the President; has kept my mind dwelling on the late Reply to Mr Adet & though it is a thing that cannot be undone, yet if my ideas are right the communication of them may not be wholly useless for the future. The more I have considered that paper the less I like it.1
I think it is to be regretted that answers were not given to the preceding communications of Mr Adet2—For silence commonly carries with it the appearance of hauteur and contempt—And even if the paper to be answered is offensive tis better & less hazardous to harmony to say so with calmness & moderation, than to say nothing. Silence is only then to be adopted when things have come to such a state with a Minister that it is the intention to break with him—And even in this case, if there is still a disposition to maintain harmony with his Government a Reply ought to go through our own Organ to it so as to distinguish between the Minister & the Government.
The reason given for not having answered the inquiry respecting the impressment of our seamen is too broad.3 When two nations have relations to each other, & one is at war, the other at peace, if the one at peace suffers liberties to be taken with it by the enemy of the one at war which turns to the detriment of the latter, it is a fair subject of inquiry & discussion—The questions may be asked—how does this happen, what measures are taking to prevent a repetition or continuance? There is always possibility of connivance & this possibility gives a right to inquire, and imposes an obligation to enter into friendly explanation—Tis not a matter of indifference to our friend, what conduct of its enemy we permit towards ourselves—Much indeed in all these cases depends on the manner of the Inquiry—But I am satisfied the principle is as I state it & the ground assumed by Mr Pickering in the latitude of the expression untenable.
These opinions are not confined to me—Though most people like the air of what is called Spirit in Mr Pickerings letter, but some of the best friends of the cause whisper cautiously remarks similar to the above.
It is a question, now, well worth considering whether if a handsome opportunity of rectifying should not occur with Mr Adet, it may not be expedient specially to instruct Mr Pinckney to make the explanations;4 putting our backwardness here to the score of the manner of the inquiry & qualifying the generality of our principle—without giving up our right of judging of the measure of our compliance in similar cases.
I know you will so well appreciate the motives to these observations that I run no risk in being thought officious55—& I therefore freely transmit this being always with true respect & attachment Sir Yr very obed. ser.
A. Hamilton
ALS, DLC:GW.
1. On 1 Nov., Secretary of State Timothy Pickering wrote a reply to French minister Pierre-Auguste Adet’s letter to him of 27 Oct. (see GW to Hamilton, 2 Nov., and n.2 to that document, and 3 Nov., and n.1).
2. For the letters that Adet had written Pickering in the fall of 1795 and spring of 1796 to which Pickering made no reply, see GW to Hamilton, 2 Nov., and n.4 to that document.
3. In Pickering’s letter to Adet of 1 Nov., he wrote in part: “You are also pleased to refer to your letters of March and April last, relative to impresses of American seamen by British ships; and complain that the Government of the United States had not made known to you the steps they had taken to obtain satisfaction. This, sir, was a matter which concerned only that Government. As an independent nation, we were not bound to render an account to any other, of the measures we deemed proper for the protection of our own citizens, so long as there was not the slightest ground to suspect that the Government ever acquiesced in any aggression” (, Foreign Relations, 1:578).
4. Hamilton elsewhere suggested that a rebuttal of Adet’s charges be directed to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the newly appointed U.S. minister to France. On GW’s and Hamilton’s advice, Pickering, in early 1797, sent Pinckney a lengthy letter refuting Adet’s charges. Pickering’s rebuttal, intended for transmission to the French Directory, specifically addressed the claims made in Adet’s 15 Nov. letter to him, but it also reaffirmed the administration’s wish to repair relations with France. Hamilton also published his own “Answer” to Adet’s accusations (see Hamilton to GW, 4 and 19 Nov. 1796; and GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 19 Jan. 1797, and n.4).
5. GW acknowledged receipt of this document when he wrote Hamilton on 12 November.