George Washington Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Hamilton, Alexander" AND Period="Washington Presidency"
sorted by: date (descending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-21-02-0268

To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, c. January 1797

From Alexander Hamilton

[New York, c. January 1797]1

Sir

The sitting of the Court and an uncommon pressure of business have unavoidably delayed an answer to your last favour.2 I have read with attention Mr Pickerings letter.3 It is in the main a substantial and satisfactory paper, will in all probability do considerable good in enlightening public opinion at home—and I do not know that it contains any thing which will do harm elsewhere. It wants however in various parts that management of expression & suaviter in modo4 which a man more used to dispolatic5 communication could have given it and which would have been happy, if united with its other merits.

I have reflected as maturely as time has permitted on the idea of an extraordinary mission to France, and notwithstanding the objections, I rather incline to it under some shape or other.6 As an imitation of what was done in the case of Great Britain, it will argue to the people equal solicitude. To France it will have a similar aspect (for Pinckney will be considered there as a mere substitute in ordinary course to Mr Monroe) and will in some degree soothe her pride7—The influence on party, if a man in whom the opposition has confidence is sent, will be considerable in the event of non success. And it will be to France a bridge over which she may more easily retreat.

The best form of the thing in my view is a commission including three persons who may be called “Commissioners Plenipotentiary & extraordinary[.]” Two of the three should be Mr Madison and Mr Pinckney—A third may be taken from the Northern states and I know none better than Mr Cabot—who or any two of whom may be empowered to act.

Mr Madison will have the confidence of the French & of the opposition—Mr Pinkney will have something of the same advantage in an inferior degree. Mr Cabot without being able to prevent their doing what is right will be a salutary check upon too much Gallicism, and his real Commercial knowlege will supply their want of it. Besides that he will enjoy the confidence of all the friends of the Administration: His disposition to preserve peace is ardent and unqualified.

This plan too, I think will consist with all reasonable attention to Mr Pinkneys feelings.

Or (which however I think less eligible) Mr Madison & Mr Pinkney only may be joint Commissioners—without a third person.

Mr Cabot (if appointed without being consulted) will I think certainly go. If not the other two may act without him.8

The power to the Commissioners will be to adjust amicably mutual compensations and the compensations which may be due by either party and to revise and remodify the political and commercial relations of the two Countries.

In the exercise of their power they must be restrained by precise instructions to do nothing inconsistent with our other existing Treaties or with the principles of construction of those with France adopted by our Executive Government and declared in its public acts and communications & nothing to extend our political relations, in respect to alliance—but to endeavour to get rid of the mutual guarantee in the Treaty9 or if that shall be impracticable to stipulate specific succours in lieu of it, as so many troops, so many ships, so much money &c., strictly confining the casus fœderis10 to future defensive Wars after a general and complete pacification terminating the present War, and defining offensive war to be where there is either a first declaration of War against the ally, or full commission of actual hostility—on the territory or property of the ally by invasion or capture11—As to Commerce with the above restrictions there may be full discretion. These are merely inaccurate outlines.

Unless Mr Madison will go there is scarcely another character that will afford advantage.

Cogent motives of public utility must prevail over personal considerations. Mr Pinckney may be told in a private letter from you that this is an unavoidab⟨le⟩ concession to the pressure of public exigency & the state of internal parties.12 With true respect & Affect. Attachm. I have the honor to be Sir Yr Very obed. servt

A. Hamilton

ALS, DLC:GW. GW docketed the letter: “From Colonel Hamilton without date.” Though this letter is evidently the recipient’s copy, it contains several interlineations, strikethroughs, and text in the margins marked for insertion. No reply to this letter from GW has been found, and GW’s next extant letter to Hamilton is dated 21 Aug. 1797 (see Papers, Retirement Series description begins W. W. Abbot et al., eds. The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series. 4 vols. Charlottesville, Va., 1998–99. description ends 1:313).

1This document is Hamilton’s reply to GW’s letter to him of 22 January. Hamilton probably received that letter around 24 Jan. since mail delivery between New York and Philadelphia took approximately two days. Thus, Hamilton must have penned the present document on or after that date. Hamilton’s reference to a delayed reply suggests that he probably wrote this letter at least a few days after the 24th.

2The New York Supreme Court began its January term on 17 Jan. (see Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 20:482). Hamilton undoubtedly was occupied with his work as “counsellor at law” at 26 Broadway in New York (Longworth’s American Almanack, New-York Register, and City Directory [New York, 1797], 195).

3Secretary of State Timothy Pickering had composed a lengthy letter, dated 16 Jan. 1797, to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, U.S. minister to France. That letter rebutted charges made by former French minister Pierre-Auguste Adet in his 15 Nov. 1796 letter to Pickering, concerning U.S. neutrality policies and alleged violations of Franco-American treaties. Pickering presumably enclosed a copy of the letter when he wrote Hamilton on 23 Jan. (see Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 20:508–9; see also Hamilton to GW, 19 Nov., and n.5 to that document; and GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 19 Jan., and n.4 to that document).

4The Latin phrase “suaviter in modo” translates as “gently in manner” (Jon R. Stone, The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations … [New York, 2005], 209).

5Hamilton probably meant “diplomatic.”

6For the false rumor circulating at this time about the appointment of Virginia congressman James Madison as an American envoy extraordinary to France, see GW to Hamilton, 22 Jan., and n.5 to that document.

7John Jay’s appointment in 1794 as envoy extraordinary to Great Britain resulted in the Jay Treaty (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 16 April 1794 [first letter]; see also Notice of John Jay’s Powers as Envoy Extraordinary to Great Britain, 6 May 1794).

In a letter dated 27 March 1797 from Philadelphia, Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott, Jr., wrote George Cabot, a former U.S. senator from Massachusetts: “In point of rank, General Pinckney was invested with a character equal to that enjoyed by Mr. Jay, and was moreover designated … as the messenger of conciliation. I have stated these facts, because the Jacobins will endeavor to prevent any defensive measures until an envoy extraordinary can be sent, and the issue of his mission known. … The truth is, General Pinckney is in fact an envoy extraordinary, special objects being designated in his letters of credence” (Lodge, George Cabot description begins Henry Cabot Lodge. Life and Letters of George Cabot. 1878. Reprint. New York, 1974. description ends , 117–18).

8When Hamilton learned of the French Directory’s refusal to recognize Pinckney’s credentials as U.S. minister, he again proposed the formation of a U.S. commission to France, which would revise treaties between the two nations. In a letter to Pickering of 22 March 1797, Hamilton wrote in part: “When [Congress is] assembled I would appoint a Commission extraordinary to consist of Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson, or Mr. Madison, together with Mr [George] Cabot & Mr. Pinckney. To be useful it is important that a man agreeable to the French should go. But neither Madison nor Jefferson ought to go alone. The three will give security. It will flatter the French Pride. It will engage American confidence & recommend the people to what shall be eventually necessary. The Commission should be instructed to explain, to ask a rescinding of the order [of 2 July 1796] under which we suffer & reparation for the past—to remodify our Treaties under proper guards. On the last idea I will trouble you hereafter” (Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 20:545–47). Hamilton’s proposal was never realized. Neither Madison nor George Cabot served on a commission to France at this time. After the French Directory refused to recognize him as minister, Pinckney later served with Elbridge Gerry and John Marshall on a special commission to France under the Adams administration (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 21 Dec. 1796, and n.17; see also Pinckney to GW, 25–28 Jan. 1797).

9Article I of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France stipulated that in case of war between France and Great Britain, the United States and France would “make it a common cause, and aid each other mutually with their good Offices, their Counsels, and their forces. …” According to Article XI of the same treaty, the two nations also promised to guarantee each other’s possessions and sovereignty (Miller, Treaties description begins Hunter Miller, ed. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Vol. 2, 1776-1818. Washington, D.C., 1931. description ends , 36, 39).

10When used in the context of international law, “casus fœderis” means “The case of the treaty,” or the “particular event or situation contemplated by the treaty, or stipulated for” (Black’s Law Dictionary description begins Henry Campbell Black. Black’s Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern. Rev. 4th ed. St. Paul, 1968. description ends , 275).

11Article XII of the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Alliance had specified that in case of “rupture between france and England,” the reciprocal guarantee of each nation’s possessions, independence, etc., “shall have its full force and effect the moment such War shall break out” (Miller, Treaties description begins Hunter Miller, ed. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Vol. 2, 1776-1818. Washington, D.C., 1931. description ends , 40).

12GW did not write to Pinckney again until June (see GW to Pinckney, 24 June 1797, in Papers, Retirement Series description begins W. W. Abbot et al., eds. The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series. 4 vols. Charlottesville, Va., 1998–99. description ends 1:206–8).

Index Entries