From George Washington to Timothy Pickering, 9 January 1797
To Timothy Pickering
Monday 9th Jan: 1797.
Dear Sir,
Not having seen the conclusion of your Statement for Genl Pinckney (if completed); and not knowing in what manner you propose to sum it up; it has occurred to me that, closing with some such sentiments as the following, might not be improper.1
That the conduct of the United States towards France has been, as will appear by the aforegoing statement, regulated by the strictest principles of Neutrality.
That there has been no attempt in the government, to violate our Treaty with that country. To weaken our engagements therewith—or to withhold any acts of friendship we could render consistent with the Neutrality we had adopted.
That Peace has been our primary object; but so far has it been from inducing us to acquiesce in silence to the capturing of our vessels; impressing our Seamen; or to the misconduct of the Naval, or other Officers of the British government, that no instance can be produced of authenticated facts having passed unnoticed; and where occasion required it, without strong remonstrances.
That this government seeing no propriety in the measure, nor conceiving itself to be under any obligation to communicate to the Ministers of the French Republic all the unpleasant details of what had passed between it, and the British Minister here or with the Minister for foreign affairs at the Court of London on these accounts; conscious of its fair dealing towards all the Belligerent Powers; and wrapt up in its own integrity; it little expected (under the circumstances which have been ennumerated) the upbraidings it has met with. Notwithstanding, it now is, as it always has been, the earnest wish of the government (and you cannot too strongly enforce it) to be on the best & most friendly footing with the Republic of France; & that we have no doubt, after giving this candid exposition of facts, that the Directory will revoke the orders under which our Trade is suffering, & will pay the damages it has sustained thereby.2 Yours Sincerely
Go: Washington
ALS, MHi: Pickering Papers; ALS (letterpress copy), DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW.
1. Pickering was drafting a lengthy letter to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, U.S. minister to France, rebutting claims made by former French minister Pierre-Auguste Adet in his 15 Nov. 1796 letter to Pickering. The final version of Pickering’s 16 Jan. memorial to Pinckney was submitted to Congress on 19 Jan. (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 19 Jan., and n.4).
Many of the suggestions that GW makes in the present document address several of the charges made by Adet in his letters to Pickering of 27 Oct. and 15 Nov. 1796. Adet had alleged, among other things, that the United States had violated the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce and was complacent in the face of British captures of U.S. ships and impressment of American sailors (see GW to Hamilton, 2 Nov. 1796, and n.2 to that document; see also Hamilton to GW, 19 Nov. 1796, and n.5).
2. Pickering incorporated many of GW’s suggestions in his letter to Pinckney of 16 Jan., which reiterated the U.S. government’s efforts to preserve “peace with all nations;” denied any violations of U.S.-French treaties; detailed the 1793 communications with Lord Grenville, the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, about impressment; and anticipated “the repeal of the decrees and orders which expose our commerce to indefinite injuries” (, Foreign Relations, 1:559–76).
The French Directory’s “orders” included the decree of 2 July 1796, which threatened capture of U.S. vessels bound for British ports (see GW to Hamilton, 2 Nov. 1796, and n.2). A French decree of 9 May 1793 likewise had allowed the seizure of neutral vessels carrying provisions to an enemy port (see Hamilton to GW, 20 May 1796, and n.3; see also the Cabinet to GW, 2 July 1796, and n.2).