1. Pinckney, the new U.S. minister to France, arrived in Paris on 5 Dec. 1796 (see GW to Pinckney, that date, and n.3 to that document).

2. Pinckney’s letters to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering of 20 Dec. 1796, and 6, 15, and 24 Jan. 1797, are in DNA: RG 59, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to France. The letters of 20 Dec. 1796 and 6 Jan. 1797 also appear in ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Foreign Relations, 2:5–10. Pinckney’s letter to Pickering of 20 Dec., labeled dispatch No. 2 and written from Paris, describes his conversations with his predecessor, James Monroe, to whom he delivered letters of recall. Citing the French Directory’s refusal to receive him or any other U.S. minister until France’s grievances against the United States could be resolved, Pinckney discussed his imminent departure from France and ended the letter by advising Pickering that he would await his further instructions in Amsterdam.

Pinckney’s letter No. 3 of 6 Jan., also written from Paris, informed Pickering that the “cessation of Mr. Monroe’s functions, and the dormancy of mine in this country, have been attended with many inconveniences to our fellow citizens; among others, the difficulty of obtaining passports to come from the out-ports to Paris, and to go from Paris out of the republic.” According to Pinckney, U.S. citizens arriving at Paris from enemy nations of France “were put into confinement,” since they had no official diplomat to whom they could apply for a passport. Pinckney also informed Pickering of communications between his secretary Henry Rutledge and French foreign minister Charles Delacroix regarding the passport issue and Pinckney’s order to leave France. Rutledge evidently had been informed that the minister of the police was now responsible for U.S. petitions for passports. Regarding his directives to quit France, Pinckney explained that his “duty” required him to remain in Paris until he received either instructions from U.S. officials or “a written mandate” to take leave of the French government (quoted material is taken from ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Foreign Relations, 2:9–10).

In his letter No. 4 to Pickering, dated 15 Jan. from Paris, Pinckney wrote: “Since my last of the 6th instant (No. 3) nothing new has taken place, with regard to my removal from the territory of this Republic, I have not heard any thing more from the Directory or their Ministers and shall if I do not, of course remain where I am until I receive directions from you. Notwithstanding their promise to grant passports to such of our Countrymen as were confined at the out ports, to enable them to come to Paris, no passports were to be had and it was determined that no more passports should be given to the Americans, either to come to Paris or to travel into the interior of the Republic. However about two days ago the Minister of the Police said such determination was rescinded, and that he had now authority to grant the desired passports to those who were really Americans, and they have been accordingly issued.” Pinckney then turned to political and military events in Europe and reported the capture of U.S. vessels by the French. Because of the Directory’s refusal to recognize him as U.S. minister to France, Pinckney was unable to examine the authenticity of the papers of a captured “Brigantine called the Sisters, alledged to be of Philadelphia … and brought into Havre … loaded with provisions for the use of the Ships of his Britannic Majesty at Hallifax.” Pinckney alerted Pickering to “the forfeiture of the vessel,” hoping “that provision may be made in case of any similar occurrence.” Americans abroad faced difficulties because of the lack of a U.S. minister in Paris. Pinckney wrote: “In a British warehouse at Leghorn there appears to be a quantity of goods belonging to different Merchants in America, these the French have seized as British, and as they will not yet acknowledge me as the Minister, I am prevented from making those personal applications, which it would be incumbent on me to do in this business.” Pinckney planned to transmit to Pickering issues of the Gazette Nationale ou Le Moniteur Universel “by every good opportunity,” and noted that Monroe planned to depart for Holland and “to return in the Spring to America” (DNA: RG 59, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to France).

Pinckney’s dispatch No. 5 of 24 Jan., written at Paris, begins: “Among the inconveniences attending the awkward situation in which I am here placed by the refusal of the Directory to receive me, is the deprivation of the means of intelligence and information which I should otherwise possess with regard to the internal politics of this Country, and with respect to its affairs as connected with or subject to the operation of the other States of Europe.” Pinckney complained about the interception and mishandling of correspondence, warning that the tendency of shipmasters to throw letters “overboard” made “Triplicates and quadruplicates of each letter” necessary. Pinckney’s dispatch next touched on French politics. Though he called the Jacobins “the most active of all the parties,” Pinckney predicted that their dominance would end as a result of the French people’s “recollection of the times of terror.” Pinckney speculated that “The adherents to the present Constitution” composed the largest political party in France and consisted “of those who conscienciously wish to see a Republican Government established in France” (DNA: RG 59, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to France).

With his letter of 14 May 1797, Secretary of War James McHenry sent GW an undated abstract, headed “A Statement of facts relative to General Pinckney’s mission to France,” which summarized a portion of Pinckney’s above-mentioned letters to Pickering (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 1:139–40). The abstract is in DLC:GW, under 5 Dec. 1796; a printed version appears in Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 20:560–67.

3. Pinckney’s nephew, Daniel Huger Horry, Jr., had gone to England for his schooling in the 1780s and embarked on a tour of Europe in the 1790s for educational purposes. He lived in England briefly in the mid–1790s before removing to France. Around the period of his residency in France, Daniel changed his name to Charles Lucas Pinckney Horry (see Edward Rutledge to GW, 24 Jan. 1790, and n.2 to that document). Horry informed Pinckney in early 1797 of his intention to return to the United States. When Pinckney took up residence in Amsterdam in early 1797, his nephew stayed with him for a period before briefly visiting America in 1798. Charles Lucas Pinckney Horry later returned to Europe and married the marquis de Lafayette’s relative, Eléanor (Eléonore)-Marie-Florimonde de Fay de Latour-Maubourg. Except for occasional visits to the United States, he and his wife remained abroad (see G. Melvin Herndon, “Pinckney Horry, 1769–1828: Rebel Without a Cause,” Georgia Historical Quarterly 70 [1986], 232–53; see also Daily Advertiser [New York], 27 April 1798; and Charles Lucas Pinckney Horry to GW, 23 April 1798, 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 , 2:245–46).

4. The “intercepted Letter” was GW’s of 22 Dec. 1795 to Gouverneur Morris, U.S. minister to France from 1792 to 1794. In March 1796, Monroe had informed GW that the letter to Morris had fallen into the hands of the French Directory. A few months later, Morris advised GW that the original copy of the 22 Dec. 1795 letter had not yet reached him (see Monroe to GW, 24 March 1796, and n.3 to that document; see also Morris to GW, 5 June 1796, and n.1 to that document).

5. By 24 Jan., Pinckney had read a version of GW’s annual message to Congress of 7 Dec. 1796, which he “perused” in an issue of the Gazette Nationale ou Le Moniteur Universel (Pinckney to Pickering, 24 Jan. 1797, in DNA: RG 59, Despatches from U.S. Ministers to France; see also GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 7 Dec. 1796, source note). By mid-January, the U.S. Senate’s response to the annual message appeared in British newspapers. With a letter of 20 Jan., Rufus King, the U.S. minister to Great Britain, sent Pinckney “the latest American Papers” that published both GW’s speech “and the address of the two Houses in answer” (King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King description begins Charles R. King, ed. The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. 6 vols. New York, 1894–1900. description ends , 2:134; see also Telegraph [London], 18 Jan. 1797). For the response of both houses of Congress to GW’s annual message, see U.S. Senate to GW, 12 Dec. 1796; and U.S. House of Representatives to GW, 16 Dec. 1796. As indicated below, Pinckney read the congressional responses to GW’s speech by 28 January.

6. In a letter to Pinckney of 4–5 April 1797, Pickering acknowledged his letters to him of 20 Dec. 1796 and 6 and 15 Jan. 1797. Pickering added that President John Adams had “determined to convene Congress” to present them with Pinckney’s letters “and other necessary information relative to the affairs of the United States with the French Republic.” Pickering continued: “Desirous of receiving justice, and willing to render it to others, we shall always be ready to enter on a fair discussion of every subject of complaint of France against the United States, and of the latter against France. In going to Amsterdam, you have chosen a convenient station from which prompt communications may be had with the French Government; and where it is desirable that you should remain, in readiness to enter on the business of your mission, whenever the Directory shall be disposed to receive you” (DNA: RG 59, Diplomatic and Consular Instructions, 1791–1801).

7. No written communication from Horry to GW on the subject of French politics has been found, but Horry may have discussed events in France during his 1798 visit to the United States (see n.3 above).

The Reign of Terror in France occurred between September 1793 and July 1794. That period saw the creation of numerous surveillance committees and sedition laws, which led to the imprisonment, deportation, and execution of thousands of counterrevolutionaries.

The “present constitution” of France, that of 1795, contained a Declaration of Rights and Duties, called for a bicameral legislature, and provided for a five-member Executive Directory. The constitution was replaced in 1799. Though the Directory accomplished some economic and educational reforms, it continued to deport many Catholic priests for their refusal to take an oath against the monarchy (see Scott and Rothaus, Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution description begins Samuel F. Scott and Barry Rothaus, eds. Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789–1799. 2 vols. Westport, Conn., 1985. description ends , 1:242–45, 317–22; 2:942–46).

8. Pinckney enclosed a letter to GW of 24 Jan. 1797 from Gabriel-Mathieu, comte Dumas, and an accompanying pamphlet “on the Military and Political situation of France.” The letter discussed Lafayette’s poor health and gave an update on Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau, the commander of the French expeditionary force during the Revolutionary War. For the full text of Dumas’s letter, see GW to Dumas, 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 1:204–6.

Gabriel-Mathieu (Guillaume-Mathieu), comte Dumas (1753–1837) served as an aide-de-camp to Lieutenant General Rochambeau during the Revolutionary War. During the early part of the French Revolution, he helped to organize the Paris National Guard, commanded by the marquis de Lafayette. Named maréchal de camp (major general) in 1791, Dumas served in the Conseil des Anciens from 1795 until his banishment in the Directory’s coup of 18 Fructidor (4 Sept. 1797), when he took up exile in Hamburg. Dumas returned to France by 1800 and held several military and political offices, including minister of war to Joseph Bonaparte, King of Naples. Dumas was named a Peer of France in 1831.

9. Pinckney’s wife, Mary Stead Pinckney, had accompanied her husband to France in late fall 1796.

10. Napoleon Bonaparte, commander in chief of France’s Army of Italy, won a victory at the Battle of Rivoli on 14–15 Jan. 1797. French forces again were victorious during the sieges of the Austrian garrison at Mantua, which lasted from mid-January until the Austrian surrender on 2 February. The offensive operations around Mantua resulted in the French capture of approximately 39,000 prisoners (see also Henry Knox to GW, 15 Jan., and n.7 to that document).

The Chelsea Courier (Norwich, Conn.) for 5 April 1797 reported that the ship Ohio “brought official accounts by which it appears that victory still follows the fortunes of Buonaparte in Italy.” According to the report, “A late attempt was made to relieve Mantua by throwing in a reinforcement of 30,000 Austrians, together with a great supply of forage and provisions for that distressed garrison. … Buonaparte zealous to seize this great opportunity to defeat the last hopes of Mantua, fell on the Austrians, took 23,000 prisoners, killed and wounded 6000, bore off 24 standards in triumph, together with a large park of artillery … and captured 600 of the Mantua garrison.”

11. During their campaign against the Austrians in Germany, French forces under Jean-Victor Moreau, commander of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle, had taken and occupied Kehl, Germany in the summer of 1796 (see Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine [Portland], 7 Sept. 1796). However, a series of French defeats at the hands of the Austrians in the fall of 1796 led Moreau to cede both Kehl and Huningue, France, in a truce with Charles Louis, Archduke of Austria, in January 1797 (see Owen Connelly, The Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon, 1792–1815 [London and New York, 2006], 88–94).

The Hudson Gazette (Hudson, N.Y.) for 3 April 1797 printed an item dated 13 Jan. at Strasbourg, France, that reported the French evacuation of “Kehl … on the 20th and 21st [December] with as much dispatch as possible.” The report noted that on 9 Jan., the French “were obliged to capitulate, and propose the surrender of Kehl.” The proposed articles of capitulation called for a complete evacuation of Kehl on 9–10 Jan., and stipulated: “They [French] will give up possession to the Austrians troops to-morrow, 21 Nivose at four p.m. precisely. … The Austrian troops shall to-morrow, the 10th of January, take possession of the fort of Kehl, and of every thing which the troops shall have left there.”

12. For the unsuccessful French attempt to invade Ireland, see Edward Newenham to GW, 15 Feb., and n.6 to that document.

13. The words “Genl Washington” appear upside down at this point on the ALS.

Pinckney enclosed letterpress copies of both the letter to him of 25 Jan. from Delacroix and his reply of 26 January. Delacroix’s letter, written in French and dated at Paris on “6 pluviose an 5 [25 Jan. 1797]”, warned Pinckney that he was subject to the French law prohibiting foreigners from remaining in the “territoire de la Republique” without special papers or permission, and instructed him to leave France. Delacroix claimed to have notified Pinckney almost two months earlier of his government’s intentions (DLC:GW). An English translation of Delacroix’s letter is in ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Foreign Relations, 2:18.

Pinckney’s reply to Delacroix, dated “7th pluviose 1797 [26 Jan. 1797],” reads: “I did not receive untill three o’clock to day your Note in date of the 6th instant, informing me that the Directory had charged you to acquaint me that not having obtain’d particular permission to reside in Paris, I was subject to the law which obliged Strangers to quit the territories of the French Republic.

“I intimated to you, some time since … that I deemed a notification of this sort in writing from you necessary previous to my departure. Having now received it, I shall without delay prepare to go, & in the mean while will be obliged to you, for the necessary passports for my self & family, with my baggage, to quit the Republic in my way to Holland” (DLC:GW).

Pinckney and his family set out for Amsterdam on 5 Feb., and arrived twelve days later. They were forced to wait there for about five months before receiving definitive instructions from the U.S. government (see Zahniser, Pinckney description begins Marvin R. Zahniser. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney: Founding Father. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1967. description ends , 148–49).