From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 2 November 1796
To Alexander Hamilton
Philadelphia 2d Novr 1796.
My dear Sir,
On monday Afternoon I arrived in this City,1 and among the first things which presented themselves to my view, was Mr Adets letter to the Secretary of State, published by his order, in the moment it was presented.2
The object in doing this is not difficult of solution; but whether the publication in the manner it appears, is by order of the Directory, or an act of his own, is yet to be learnt. If the first, he has executed a duty only; if the latter, he has exceeded it, and is himself responsible for the indignity offered to this Government by such publication, without allowing it time to reply—or to take its own mode of announcing the intentions of his country towards the Commerce of these United States.
In either case, should there be in your opinion, any difference in my reception & treatment of that Minister, in his visits at the public Rooms (I have not seen him yet, nor do not expect to do it before tuesday next)—and what difference should be made if any?3
He complains in his letter, that he had received no answers to the remonstrances in former communications (the dates of which are given).4 The fact is, that one at least of those remonstrances, were accompanied by as indecent charges; and as offensive expressions as the letters of Genet were ever marked with; and besides, the same things on former occasions, had been replied to (as the Secretary of State informs me) over & over again.5
That the letter which he has now given to the public will be answered, and (to a candid mind) I hope satisfactorily, is certain; but ought it to be published immediately, or not?6 This question has two sides to it; both of which are important. If the answer does not accompany the letter, the antidote will not keep pace with the poison—and it may, & undoubtedly would be said, it is because the charges are just, and the consequences had been predicted. On the other hand—may not the dignity of the Government be committed by a News paper dispute with the Minister of a foreign Nation, and an apparent appeal to the People? And would it not be said also that we can bear every thing from one of the Belligerent Powers, but nothing from another of them? I could enlarge on this subject, but add nothing, I am certain, that your own reflections thereon will not furnish. Whether the answer is published now, or not, would it be proper do you conceive, at the ensuing Session, which will close the political Scene with me, to bring the French Affairs, since the controversy with Genet fully before Congress?7 In doing this it is to be noticed, that there is such a connexion between them and our transactions with Great Britain as to render either imperfect without the other; and so much of the latter as relates to the Treaty with that country has already been refused to that body: not because there was any thing contained therein that all the world might not have seen, but because it was claimed as a matter of right, and the compliance therewith would have established a dangerous precedent.8
Since I wrote to you from Mount Vernon, on the eve of my departure from that place,9 and on my way hither, I received a letter from Sir John Sinclair—an extract of which I enclose you— on the subject of an Agricultural establishment.10 Though not such an enthusiast as he is, I am nevertheless deeply impressed with the benefits which would result from such an institution, and if you see no impropriety in the measure, I would leave it as a recommendatory one in the Speech at the opening of the Session; which, probably, will be the last I shall ever address to that, or any other public body.
It must be obvious to every man who considers the Agriculture of this country, (even in the best improved parts of it) and compares the produce of our lands with those of other countries, no ways superior to them in natural fertility, how miserably defective we are in the management of them; and that if we do not fall on a better mode of treating them, how ruinous it will prove to the landed interest. Ages will not produce a Systematic change without public attention & encouragement; but a few years more of increased Sterility will drive the Inhabitants of the Atlantic States Westwardly for support; whereas if they were taught how to improve the old, instead of going in pursuit of new & productive Soils, they would make those acres which now scarcely yield them any thing, turn out beneficial to themselves—to the Mechanics, by supplying them with the staff of life on much cheaper terms—to the Merchants, by encreasing their Commerce & exportation—and to the Community generally, by the influx of Wealth resulting therefrom. In a word, it is in my estimation, a great national object, and if stated as fully as the occasion & circumstances will admit, I think it must appear so. But whatever may be the reception, or fate of the recommendation, I shall have discharged my duty in submitting it to the consideration of the Legislature.11
As I have a very high opinion of Mr Jay’s judgment, candour, honor and discretion (tho’ I am not in the habit of writing so freely to him as to you) it would be very pleasing to me if you would shew him this letter (although it is a hurried one, my time having been much occupied since my arrival by the heads of the Departments, & with the Papers which have been laid before me) and let me have, for consideration, your joint opinions on the several matters herein Stated.12
You will recollect that the conduct to be observed towards Mr Adet must be decided on before tuesday next; that is, if he comes to the public room, whether he is to be received with the same cordiality as usual, or with coolness; and you will do me the justice to beli⟨eve⟩ that in this instance, and every other, I wis⟨h⟩ it to be such as will promote the true policy ⟨and⟩ interest of the country, at the sametime th⟨at⟩ a proper respect for its dignity is preserve⟨d.⟩ My own feelings I put out of the question.
There is in the conduct of the Fr⟨ench⟩ government relative to this business, an i⟨ncon⟩sistency, a duplicity, a delay or a someth⟨ing⟩ else, which is unaccountable upon honor⟨able⟩ ground. It appears that the order und⟨er which⟩ Mr Adet has acted is dated in July (early) ⟨and⟩ yet Mr Monroe has been led to believe (tho⟨ugh⟩ much dissatisfaction he says has appeare⟨d)⟩ that no such order had, or would be issue⟨d un⟩less Great Britain set the example; and in ⟨a letter⟩ of August the 28th he writes Mr King to that e⟨ffect⟩ as the latter officially informs the Secretary of State:13 But I am fatiegued with this and other matters which croud upon me, and shal⟨l⟩ only add that I am Very Affectionately Yo⟨urs⟩
Go: Washing⟨ton⟩
P.S. I find I have not time before the hour for closing the Mail arrives, to take the promised extract from Sir John Sinclairs letter, I therefore send the original, with a request that it may soon be returned as I have given it no acknowledgment yet. the Articles which he requests my acceptance of are not yet come to hand.14
G.W.
ALS, DLC: Hamilton Papers. Hamilton replied to GW on 4 November.
1. The previous Monday was 31 October. The Philadelphia (Gazette & Universal Daily Advertiser for 1 Nov. 1796 announced GW’s arrival in Philadelphia “from Mount Vernon” the previous day.
2. Pierre-Auguste Adet, the French minister to the United States, had written Secretary of State Timothy Pickering in a public letter of 27 October. That letter enclosed a copy of the French Directory’s decree of 2 July on neutral navigation, declaring France’s intent to treat neutral vessels “in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them.” The decree threatened the French capture of U.S. vessels bound to British ports. In his missive, Adet defended the decree, claiming that during the ongoing war between France and Great Britain, the United States had not “put a stop to the vexations practised against their commerce” by the British, which had “caused neutral vessels, and in particular American vessels, to be detained; taken them into their ports, and dragged from them Frenchmen and French property.” Adet maintained that the British assault on American shipping proved disadvantageous to the French; while the 1778 Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce “caused to be respected as American property, English property found on board American vessels,” the British continued to impress American seamen and “to stop and carry into their ports all American vessels bound to French ports, or returning from them.” The French minister ended his letter by assuring Pickering that “neutral Governments … have nothing to fear as to the treatment of their flag by the French” as long as “they cause the rights of that neutrality to be respected by the English.” On the contrary, advantages “not stipulated by treaties” that are afforded by a neutral power to one belligerent nation will cause “the other belligerent Power” to seek “to enjoy advantages which its enemy enjoys” (, Foreign Relations, 1:576–77). Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia) for 1 Nov. published Adet’s letter, which was the first in a series of heated exchanges between Adet and Pickering that led to a newspaper war through mid-November, when Adet’s ministerial duties ceased (see Hamilton to GW, 19 Nov., and n.5 to that document). The correspondence between the two men is reprinted in , Foreign Relations, 1:576–88. On 5 Nov., Pickering sent Adet’s letter to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the U.S. minister to France (DNA: RG 59, Diplomatic and Consular Instructions, 1791–1801).
Adet’s letter appeared in the press just days before polls were scheduled to open in Pennsylvania for the election of presidential electors. The letter’s publication was timed perfectly to successfully influence the election in favor of the Republican candidates; fourteen of Pennsylvania’s fifteen electors cast votes for Thomas Jefferson, and Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr, a U.S. senator from New York, secured thirteen of that state’s electoral votes. Federalists believed that Adet sought to embarrass GW’s administration just as Edmond Charles Genet, the former French minister, had undermined GW’s authority (see n.7 below). Benjamin Goodhue, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, wrote Rufus King, the U.S. minister to Britain, on 15 Dec. from Philadelphia: “You must, I presume, have seen Adet’s Notes to our Secretary calculated to degrade the character and measures of the Executive, and to influence in the choice of another” (, 2:124–25). Hamilton wrote King on 16 Dec. in part: “We conjecture, as to the timing of them [Adet’s notes of 27 Oct. and 15 Nov. to Pickering], that they were intended to influence the election of President by the apprehension of war with France” (, 2:125–27). Adet confirmed his intent to influence the election in an undated letter to Charles Delacroix, the French minister for foreign affairs. In that letter, Adet contended that his publication of the Directory’s 2 July decree served to awaken the “attention publique” at a time when “on allait choisir les Electeurs qui doivent choisir le président” (electors were going to be chosen for the selection of the president). Adet added that American support for the 2 July decree was especially due to “la haine” (the hatred) that many felt for GW (, 968–72). In a letter of 11 Nov. to her son John Quincy Adams, Abigail Adams discussed Adet’s 27 Oct. missive and wrote that “the Arts of the Jacobins are in practise at the approaching Election, united with the Pride of the old Dominion and foreign influence” (, 11:398–401). The Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser (New York) for 30 Nov. 1796 printed a piece signed Americanus, taken from the Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia). That piece, also alleging Adet’s efforts to manipulate the U.S. election in Thomas Jefferson’s favor, reads: “therefore on the 27th of October, eight days prior to the day of election throughout the state, when the President was not in the city, when there was time enough to distribute the note at all the places of election but unaccompanied with any reply … the minister [Adet] sent his alarming note of that date to secretary Pickering.” In a private letter to Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott, Jr., written from Providence on 10 Nov., Jabez Bowen, commissioner of loans for Rhode Island, also weighed in on the motives behind Adet’s 27 Oct. letter: “We have been favourd with Mr Adets Communication to the Secretary of State … he appears to be full of Genets principals. and it also appears … that even the Directory … does not Treat us Honourably. … I have no Doubt but this whole Business has been concerted under the Direction of some of our owne Citizens from beginning to the end; on purpose to be Revenged for the Ratification of the British [Jay] Treaty.” Bowen proposed an embargo as the only possible remedy against a continuation of French captures of U.S. vessels and other misconduct (CtHi: Oliver Wolcott, Jr., Papers). For more on the correspondence between Adet and Pickering and its effect upon the presidential election, see GW to David Stuart, 8 Jan. 1797; see also , 174–79; , 60–69; and , 7:412–19.
3. For Hamilton’s advice on the appropriate reception of Adet at the presidential levee scheduled for the following Tuesday, 8 Nov., see Hamilton to GW, 4 November. GW did not see Adet in the period between his return to Philadelphia on 31 Oct. and late November, suggesting that Adet may not have attended the November levees (see GW to Hamilton, 21 Nov.). From the beginning of his presidency, GW commonly referred to the spaces used for levees and dinners as “public rooms.” The presidential levees were normally held on Tuesdays (, 6:26; see also GW to John Adams, 10 May 1789, and the source note to that document.)
4. Adet’s 27 Oct. letter listed his letters to Pickering of 29 Sept. 1795 and 29 March, 8 April, and 20 April 1796, all of which “remained without an answer” (, Foreign Relations, 1:577). Those letters concerned the British capture of U.S. vessels bound for French ports, the impressment of American seamen, and America’s failure to justify its inaction in the face of supposed violations of its neutrality. For the text of those letters, see , Foreign Relations, 1:643–45, which dates two of the letters as 28 Sept. 1795 and 21 April 1796. No replies from Pickering to Adet’s missives have been identified.
5. For examples of the heated correspondence between Edmond Charles Genet, the former French minister to the United States, and former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, see Memorandum from Jefferson, c.11–13 July 1793. Soon after assuming the duties of the State Department in late summer 1795, Pickering responded to Adet’s complaints concerning British violations of U.S. neutrality and the treatment of French shipping (see Pickering to GW, 26 Aug. 1795, and n.1 to that document; see also Pickering to Bartholomew Dandridge, Jr., 22 Jan. 1796, and n.1 to that document).
6. For Pickering’s response to Adet’s 27 Oct. letter, a draft of which was laid before GW on this date, see GW to Hamilton, 3 Nov., and n.1 to that document.
Maryland congressman William Vans Murray had hoped that Adet’s 27 Oct. letter would elicit no reply. In a letter of 9 Nov., he wrote Secretary of War James McHenry: “Adet’s letter to Col. Pickering is a curious circumstance in diplomatic business … in Genet’s way of appeal. I hope no answer will be given to it—public or private” (, 201).
7. In his annual message to Congress, GW succinctly referenced France’s involvement in the disruption of U.S. trade (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 7 Dec.). In January 1797, GW again addressed Congress about the correspondence between Adet and Pickering and on other matters pertaining to Franco-American affairs. Pickering wrote Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the U.S. minister to France, with a lengthy rebuttal of the charges made by Adet in his 27 Oct. and 15 Nov. letters to Pickering, and a detailed background of U.S. relations with France since Genet’s tenure as French minister to the United States in 1793 (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 19 Jan. 1797, and n.4 to that document; see also Hamilton to GW, 19 Nov. 1796).
The controversy involving Genet alludes to his attempts in 1793 to assert, based on the 1778 Franco-American treaties, France’s right to outfit its privateers and sell their prizes in U.S. ports. This, however, ran counter to U.S. neutrality policy. He also had plotted to enlist the support of U.S. citizens in helping France to seize Louisiana and Florida from Spain (see Memorandum from Jefferson, 26 July 1793; see also Hamilton’s Proposed Presidential Message to Congress, 6–13 Jan. 1794).
8. A motion of 2 March 1796 made in the U.S. House of Representatives by New York congressman Edward Livingston, and the House’s resolution of 24 March, had asked GW to submit to the House a copy of all documents relating to the Jay Treaty, including the treaty negotiation instructions to John Jay. GW, however, did not comply with the request (see GW to Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 3 March 1796; Hamilton to GW, 7 March; and GW to the U.S. House of Representatives, 30 March).
9. No recent letter from GW to Hamilton written from Mount Vernon has been found, but Hamilton acknowledged its receipt when he wrote GW on 4 November. GW had left Mount Vernon on 25 October.
10. GW refers to the letter to him of 10 Sept. from John Sinclair, the president of Britain’s board of agriculture. In that letter, Sinclair recommended that GW promote a national agricultural board within the United States, with corresponding societies in each state. As he indicates in the postscript to the present document, GW sent Hamilton the full text of Sinclair’s letter instead of an extract.
11. GW expressed support for the establishment of agricultural boards in his annual message to Congress of 7 December.
12. For Hamilton’s consultation with New York governor John Jay about this document, see Hamilton to GW, 4 November.
13. For James Monroe’s letter of 28 Aug. to King, and for King’s letter to Pickering of 10 Sept., which quoted an extract of Monroe’s 28 Aug. missive, see Pickering to GW, 20 Oct., and n.2 to that document.
14. In his letter to GW of 10 Sept., Sinclair announced that he was sending Egyptian wheat, several publications, and other items. GW acknowledged Sinclair’s letter when he wrote him on 10 December.