1. Boston merchant Timothy Williams (1765–1846) and Salem attorney Samuel Putnam (1768–1853). Williams was the son of TP’s sister Lydia Pickering Williams (1735–1824). In 1795, Putnam married Sarah Gooll Putnam (1772–1864), the daughter of TP’s sister Lois Pickering Gooll (1742–1815).

Whereas it is unclear whether JJ met with Putnam and Williams in Albany, he did meet with Williams in New York City beforehand, where he learned of their travel plans. See JJ to TP, 19 June 1800, below.

Williams and Putnam were returning from a trip to Philadelphia where they had met with TP. TP had recently been dismissed by JA from his position of secretary of state, and intended to move his family to Easton, Pa., where he would live in retirement as a farmer. His nephews travelled to Philadelphia in an unsuccessful attempt to dissuade him from carrying out his plans. See Williams to TP, 25 May, and 20 June, MHi: Pickering; Charles W. Upham, Life of Timothy Pickering, vol. 4 (Boston, 1873), 2–14.

2. TP published an account of this affair two decades later. See JJ to Ephraim M. Cunningham, 19 Apr. 1824, below. See also JJ to TP, 8 June 1824, ALS, MHi: Pickering (EJ: 04819); and TP to JJ, 23 Sept. 1824, Dft, MHi: Pickering (EJ: 04838); 12 Oct. 1824, ALS, MHi: Pickering (EJ: 04820); Dft, NNC (EJ: 09533).

3. John Fries (1750–1818), Frederick Hainey, and John Gettman, leaders of an anti-tax uprising in southeastern Pennsylvania. The trio were convicted of treason and sentenced to death, but were granted pardons by JA in May 1800. See also PAJ to JJ, 16 Mar. 1799, note 7, above.

4. TP included the following extract taken from his letter to Christopher Gore:

I am not alone in being honoured with the President’s hatred. The whole class of respectable men whom the President denominates the “Essex Junto—” the leading Senators (politely called by the President “a damned faction”) who negatived Colo. Smith in 1798, and recently voted against the Presidents brother-in-law; Joshua Johnson—with General Hamilton, and many other good citizens, share in that honor. If I have any pride it is to be in such company. I suppose you dined at Faneuil Hall, with the “ancient and Honourable Artillery company;” and that you noticed some of the toasts. “The good ship Federal Constitution”—with what followed about subordinate officers, and that the first lieutenant should never leave log book to seize the helm:— and “The Clemency of the Executive” in pardoning the traitors Fries, Gettman & Hainey. The toast-maker, seemed, at the same time, to have some misgivings, that it would make work, for repentance. The proceedings preparatory to that act of “Clemency,” would freeze you with horror.

If the first magistrate of a nation, holding the great & responsible power of deciding ultimately the fate of state criminals, doubted, in any case, about the law or the facts— of whom should he seek correct information?— Every one will answer certainly of the Judges, who presided at the trials, and knew both the law and the facts; and who must be presumed to be impartial.—But if new plans, new connections, the favour (or forgiveness) of the strong political party who patronized the criminals urged the exercise of the sweet grace of “clemency”: If, at the same time, the enormity of the crime— the convictions on full evidence— the double conviction of one of the offenders (a very atrocious villain) and the clearness of the law, according to the known opinions of the district judge; and of all the judges of the Supreme court who had been call’d to attend these trials in 1799 & 1800; and the trials of similar offenders in 1794; with the mischiefs flowing from the former parsons,— now bade mercy stand aside: If conscience, too, sett some alarm, and required soothing: and if, notwithstanding, the Politician wished and resolved, to pardon: what course would he take? The judges, discerning and impartial, could not recommend the exercise of grace: Still less would the counsel, who, for the public, prosecuted the offenders, become their intercessors. Who, then, could give information and advice to correspond with his wishes and political views, and furnish a salvo for his conscience?— The criminals counsel.— Lewis & Dallas were consulted: “agreeably to the President’s request” they made their report to him: and the three traitors were pardoned!!!— My pen drops from my hand—

Extract of a letter dated June 9. 1800. from T. Pickering to C. Gore

Pickering to Gore, 9–10 June 1800, C, NNC (EJ: 13028). Endorsed; C, MHi: Pickering.

5. See Gore to TP, 27 May 1800, MHi: Pickering. Following a halt to his work with the commission for settling the losses of ship owners, Gore sailed to New York City, before returning to London.

6. TP included the following extract from a letter sent him by Benjamin Goodhue:

You ask me to give you the substance of the conversation which passed between the President of the U.S. and myself, on the 9th of May, when I waited on him to bid him adieu, previous to my leaving Philadelphia for home. The conversation, or rather his relation of injuries which he thought he had received, with his resentful observations relative thereto, took up a considerable time. It is impossible to recollect the words precisely made use of; the substance was as follows. Soon after being with him he introduced, by some previous observations, his very uneasy sensations in his public situation, resulting from some past measures of the Senate, which he, with much warmth and even vehemence, asserted were designed by a damn’d faction purposely to wound his feelings and character. Upon asking for an explanation, he said he alluded to the rejection of his Son-in-Law Col. Smith, when he nominated him Adjutant General with the rank of Brigadier: that we had killed his daughter by doing this: that the rejection originated with Hamilton, and from him to Pickering, who he said(with extreme agitation and anger) influenced me and others to reject him: that Col Smith was a man of the first military Knowledge in the U.S., and was recommendd to the appointment by Genl Washington, &c, and dwelt long on this subject with great irritation.

Another instance he observed with the same excessive anger, had just occurred in the Senate, purposely to wound him and his family, with respect to his late nomination of Mr Johnson to be at the head of the Stamps; which they had postponed, postponed, postponed, from day to day; and when at last they voted upon it, they were equally divided; and the V. President gave his casting vote in favour of the nomination: that this was done because his son happened to fall in love with Mr Johnson’s daughter, and married her. I endeavored to moderate his passion, by abstaining from any language that would irritate; but to no purpose; for his resentment appeared implacable towards the conduct of the Senate, in those instances, which resulted, as he said, with no other view than to wound his feelings and those of his family; and that Hamilton, Pickering, and some others whom he named in Massachusetts, were constantly endeavouring to ruin him: that Pickering wrote a Letter to Boston to S[tephen]. Higginson on the subject of his sending the last envoys to France, filled with expressions of hatred to the measure, and calculated to injure him in the view of the public, and that Higginson read the letter, with the same design at the Insurance-Office in Boston: that the measure of his sending the Envoys was one of the most glorious deeds he ever did; and that he would order it to be engraved on his coffin &c: that he was sensible he should not be re-elected, obliged to return to Quincy, and follow the plough for a living, &c.

In this strain of excessive anger on the subjects I have mentioned, and others that had an affinity to them, the conversation continued till I left him. In short, it was one continued theme of the most bitter complaint relative to the conduct of the Senate, in the cases I have mentioned, and of some others whose sole object, as he said, was to wound and ruin both him and his family; and thro’ the whole discovered a perfect rage of passion that I could not have expected from the Supreme Executive.

[Extract of a Letter from B.G. to T.P. dated June 2: 1800.]

Goodhue to TP, 2 June 1800, C, NNC (EJ: 13029); C, MHi: Pickering.

7. See McHenry to AH, 2 June 1800, with enclosures, including McHenry to JA, 31 May 1800; see also McHenry to AH, 20 May 1800, with enclosure; all PAH, 24: 550–65, 506–12.

8. In the Dft of his reply, JJ mentioned that he had not yet discussed the “Dialogue” with AH. See JJ to TP, 19 June 1800, note 2, below.