From Alexander Hamilton to Timothy Pickering, [7 June 1798]
To Timothy Pickering
[New York, June 7, 1798]
My Dear Sir
As McHenry will probably have left Philadelphia,1 before this reaches that place, I take the liberty to address the subject of it to you.
I have received a letter from Capt Van Rensselaer,2 in which he informs me that he is a candidate for a Commission on board of our navy, and requests my recommendation of it. As a connexion of our family3—I cannot refuse it as far as truth & propriety will warrant. When he first began his carreer the young man did things which were not pretty; but he has since that retrieved his character by a conduct which has rapidly raised him to the command of a Ship which he has had of several.4 I have particularly inquired concerning him; & my inquiries have been satisfactorily answered—so that I really conclude he is a deserving man. But of this you can be better ascertained from persons in Philadelphia in whose employ I believe he has sailed.
My only intention is to request attention to his pretensions as far as they may appear to be good & in the proportion which they bear to those of other candidates. I owe this to him as a family connection and I may add that he is of a brave blood.
What do the British mean? What are these stories of the Thetis5 &c? In my opinion our Country is now to act in every direction with spirit. Will it not be well to order one of our frigates to Charlestown to protect effectually our Commerce in that quarter & if necessary controul the Thetis? This Conduct will unite & animate.
Yrs. truly
A Hamilton
PS If an alien Bill passes I should like to know what policy in execution is likely to govern the Executive6 My opinion is that while the mass ought to be obliged to leave the Country—the provisions in our Treaties in favour of Merchants ought to be observed & there ought to be guarded exceptions of characters whose situations would expose them too much if sent away & whose demeanour among us has been unexceptionable. There are a few such. Let us not be cruel or violent.
A H
T Pickering Esq
ALS, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.
2. Letter not found. Killian Henry Van Rensselaer was commissioned a lieutenant in the Navy on January 7, 1799 ( , 302–03, where his first name is misspelled “Killeair”).
3. Killian Henry Van Rensselaer was the son of Henry K. Van Rensselaer, who was the cousin of Hamilton’s mother-in-law, Catherine Schuyler.
4. In 1794 Killian Henry Van Rensselaer sailed to Holland, where he visited the Dutch branch of the Van Rensselaer family. He returned to New York in 1795 aboard the ship Minerva. He then purchased part of the brig Peggy and sailed as master for France and Amsterdam. On February 15, 1797, he sailed from Wilmington, North Carolina, on the schooner Two Friends, which was owned by Thomas White, a merchant in Lexington, Kentucky. On March 6 the French privateer La Voitisseur captured the schooner Two Friends. Van Rensselaer returned to the United States on April 23 in the schooner Betsey (James Cuyler to Captain Solomon Van Rensselaer, Killian’s brother, March 9, 1795, and Solomon Van Rensselaer to Harriot (or Arriett), his wife, May 18, 1797, in Catharina V. R. Bonney, A Legacy of Historical Gleanings [Albany: J. Munsell, 1875] I, 116–17, 138–39; Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Killian Henry’s uncle, to J. C. and S. Van Rensselaar of Amsterdam, November 14, 1794, J. C. and S. Van Rensselaar to K. K. Van Rensselaer, April 17, 1795, K. K. Van Rensselaer to Jan Jacob Van Rensselaar, March 15, 1795, in Maunsell Van Rensselaer, Annals of the Van Rensselaers in the United States, especially as they relate to the family of Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Representative from Albany in the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Congresses [Albany, 1888], 61–64).
6. This is a reference to the debate in the Senate on the bill that eventually became “An Act concerning Aliens” ( 570–72 [June 25, 1798]). The bill originated in the Senate as a result of a motion introduced by James Hillhouse of Connecticut on April 25, 1798 ( , VII, 548). On the following day, Hillhouse’s resolution was referred to a committee which reported a bill on May 4 ( , VII, 549, 554–55). It was not until June 8 that the Senate passed the bill ( , VII, 575). The House passed the bill with amendments on June 21 ( , VIII, 2028), and the Senate concurred in the House amendments on June 22 ( , VII, 586). “An Act concerning Aliens” should not be confused with “An Act supplementary to and to amend the act, intituled ‘An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject’” ( 566–69 [June 18, 1798]) and “An Act respecting Alien Enemies” ( 577–78 [July 6, 1798]).
As early as July 1, 1797, David Brooks of New York, a member of the House of Representatives, unsuccessfully proposed a revision of the naturalization law (
, VII, 421). The law in question was “An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” ( 414–15 [January 29, 1795]). On April 17, 1798, Joshua Coit of Connecticut again proposed to the House the need to amend the current naturalization law ( , VIII, 1427). On May 15 Samuel Sewall of Massachusetts “reported a bill supplementary to, and to amend the act establishing an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed …” ( , VIII, 1707). The House passed the bill on May 22 and agreed to the Senate amendments on June 13 ( , VIII, 1783, 1925).On May 8, 1798, the House ordered the select committee on commerce and defence to report a bill on alien enemies, and on May 18 Sewall reported a bill (
, VIII, 1630–31, 1773). The House voted to recommit the bill on May 23, and on June 8 Sewall reported a modified bill ( , VIII, 1796, 1896). The House passed the bill on June 26 and the Senate passed it on July 3 with amendments ( , VII, 598; VIII, 2049). The House agreed to the Senate amendments on July 3 ( , VIII, 2088).