From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 22 January 1797
To Alexander Hamilton
Philadelphia 22d Jany 1797.
My dear Sir
Your letter of the 19th instant was received yesterday.
From the general impression on my mind, relative to Mr De Neuvilles claim on the justice of this country, a delay, or a refusal to administer it, would be hard; but I must add, that I am too little acquainted with the particulars to form a correct opinion, and were it otherwise, I do not see how I could, with propriety, appear directly or indirectly in the business, as I do not recollect having had any agency therein.1 The numberless applications of this sort which are made to me (often in the dernier resort2) without the means of relief, are very distressing to my feelings.
The conduct of France towards the United States, is, according to my ideas of it, outrageous beyond conception: not to be warranted by her treaties with us; by the Law of Nations; by any principle of justice; or even by a regard to decent appearances. From considerations such as these something might have been expected; but on her profession⟨s⟩ of friendship and loving kindness towards us I built no hope; but rather supposed they would last as long, and no longer, than it would accord with their interest to bestow them; or found it would not divert us from the observance of that strict neutrality which we had adopted, & was persevering in.3
In a few days, there will be published a statement of facts, in a letter with references, to General Pi[n]ckney; containing full answers to all the charges exhibited in Mr Adets notes, against the conduct of this government. After reading them with attention, I would thank you for your sentiments thereon, fully, and frankly communicated; and what you think ought further to be attempted, to preserve this country in Peace, consistently with the respect which is due to ourselves?4
In some of the Gazettes, and in conversation also, it is suggested that an Envoy extraordinary ought to be sent to France; But is not General Pinckney gone there already for the express purpose of explaining matters, and removing inquietudes?5 With what more could another be charged? What would that Gentlemen think of having a person treading on his heels by ⟨the time⟩ he had arrived in Paris, when ⟨the argu⟩ments used to induce him to go there ⟨are all⟩ that could be urged to influence ⟨that other⟩—and where is the character to be ⟨had, ad⟩mitting the necessity, in all respec⟨ts accep⟩table and qualified for such a tru⟨st? The⟩ sooner you can give me your sen⟨timents⟩ on these queries the more pleasi⟨ng⟩ ⟨they⟩ will be to Dear Sir Your sincere f⟨rd &⟩ Affectiona⟨te Servant⟩
Go: W⟨ashington⟩
ALS, DLC: Hamilton Papers; ADfS, DLC:GW. Mutilated portions of the ALS have been supplied in angle brackets from the ADfS.
1. Anna-Margaretha de Neufville traveled to Philadelphia to petition Congress for compensation for the Revolutionary War debts incurred by her deceased husband, Jean de Neufville, and his firm (see Hamilton to GW, 19 Jan., n.2). Despite GW’s reluctance to become involved in the matter, Anna apparently met with him in Philadelphia, and the two discussed her husband’s past applications to the Continental Congress. Congress took action by early February (see Anna-Margaretha de Neufville to GW, 2 Feb., and n.2 to that document).
2. Taken from the French phrase “dernier ressort,” this locution refers to a “last or final resource or refuge.” In the area of legal jurisdiction, “dernier resort” is defined as “the last tribunal … to which appeal can be made, that which has the power of final decision” ().
3. The French Directory had passed a 2 July 1796 decree that called for the capture of neutral ships bound to British ports (see GW to Hamilton, 2 Nov. 1796, and n.2 to that document).
4. In a lengthy statement, dated 16 Jan., to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, U.S. minister to France, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering refuted charges made by former French minister Pierre-Auguste Adet in his 15 Nov. 1796 letter to Pickering. Adet had claimed that the United States breached its 1778 Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France and that it surrendered its rights as a neutral power to Britain. GW submitted Pickering’s statement to Congress on 19 Jan., and it was published in Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia) for 23 Jan. 1797 and then in pamphlet form (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 19 Jan., and notes 3 and 4). For Hamilton’s earlier advice that such a statement be addressed to Pinckney for transmission to the Directory, see Hamilton to GW, 4, 11, and 19 Nov. 1796; and GW to Hamilton, 21 Nov. 1796. Hamilton gave his reaction to Pickering’s statement later in January (see Hamilton to GW, c.January 1797).
5. GW had appointed Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as U.S. minister to France, where he arrived in late 1796. The French Directory, however, soon refused to accept his credentials (see GW to Pinckney, 5 Dec., and n.3 to that document; see also GW to the U.S. Senate, 21 Dec., and n.17).
The Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser (New York) for 19 Jan. 1797 announced a “letter from Philadelphia dated yesterday,” that circulated the rumor that Virginia congressman James Madison was “appointed Envoy Extraordinary to France and is soon to depart.” The Aurora Genral Advertiser (Philadelphia) for 23 Jan. 1797 commented that an “appointment of this kind has been looked for with anxious expectation,” and considered Madison a good choice for the post. Abigail Adams wrote her husband, John Adams, about the supposed appointment in a letter of 29 Jan. 1797: “The news paper announces Mr Madison appointed Ambassador extraordinary to France. if true I rejoice in the appointment. I have confidence in the honour and integrity of Mr Madison, that he would not … Prostrate the Dignity & independance of his Country to any foreign Nation” (, 11:524–26). Madison denied the rumor in a letter to Thomas Jefferson written on 22 Jan. from Philadelphia, which reads in part: “It has got into the Newspapers that an Envoy Extraordy. was to go to France, and that I was to be the person. I have no reason to suppose a shadow of truth in the former part of the story; and the latter is pure fiction” (, 16:471–72). For proposals for an extraordinary commission, see Hamilton to GW, c.January 1797, notes 7 and 8.