To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 20 October 1796
From Timothy Pickering
Department of State Octr 20. 1796.
Sir,
Doctor Edwards delivered to me to-day letters from Mr Monroe and Mr King. The Doctor arrived in the ship which had but nineteen days passage.1 Mr King’s letter of the 10th of September authenticates the one of the same date published in the newspapers, shewing, from Mr Monroe’s letter to him of August 28, that on the appearance of the letter from the minister of foreign affairs to M. Barthelemy, he applied for information whether orders for seizing neutral vessels had been issued, and was answered, “that no such order had been issued, and that none would be issued, in case the British did not seize our vessels.”2
The letters from Mr Monroe are dated Augt 4. & 6th the latter referring to his accounts of some expenditures. In that of the 4th he mentions that within a few days Mr Mangourit, formerly consul at Charleston, and now secretary of embassy in Spain, had been appointed with the rank of Chargé des Affaires, to succeed Mr Adet, in the U. States. On the morning of the 4th he visited the minister of foreign affairs, “and remonstrated earnestly against the mission of Mr Mangourit to the U.S. as a person who having given offence to our government upon a former occasion, could not be well received by it on the present one.” The minister replied in terms sufficiently respectful, but in a manner that showed, if any change were made, it would not be with his consent. He observed however, that if Mr Monroe would write him a short note on the subject, he would lay it before the Directory.3 Mr Monroe promised to write accordingly.4
In this same letter of the 4th of August, Mr Monroe mentions the minister’s letter to Barthelemi as authentic; and that on his speaking to him upon it, the minister’s answer corresponded much in sentiment with the note to Barthelemi. I suppose therefore that when Mr Monroe wrote to Mr King on the 28th of August, he had received further & more explicit information from the French government.
He also mentions the report of a treaty of alliance offensive & defensive between France & Spain as in great forwardness, whereby the latter cedes to the former, Louisiana & perhaps the Floridas: but adds, that he had no authentic information of this; altho’ the source from whence it came, was of a nature to merit attention.5
I have the honor to inclose two letters which were received this day;6 and to be with the highest respect, sir, your most obt servant
Timothy Pickering.
ALS, DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters; LB, DNA: RG 59, Domestic Letters. No reply to Pickering from GW has been found.
1. Dr. Enoch Edwards must have sailed in the ship James, Capt. Joseph Conklin (Conkling), which arrived in New York after a passage of nineteen days from London (Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser [New York], 17 Oct.). On 27 Dec. 1796, Edwards informed Thomas Jefferson that he had “arrived in Octr: last at N. York from France” (, 29:230–31). Edwards carried various letters and gifts on his return from Paris, where he had lived from around July 1795 until early August 1796 (see James Monroe to Edwards, 12 Feb. 1798, in , 4:247; see also John Sinclair to GW, 10 Sept. 1796; Robert Fulton to GW, 12 Sept.; and GW to Tobias Lear, 14 Dec.).
2. In his letter to Pickering of 10 Sept., Rufus King, U.S. minister to Great Britain, quoted an extract from Monroe’s letter to him (King) of 28 August. The extract concerned a rumored order of the French Directory to seize neutral vessels bound to British ports. King included the extract from Monroe’s letter in order “to multiply the chances of its arrival” (DNA: RG 59: Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Great Britain).
For Monroe’s letter to King of 28 Aug., which Pickering accurately summarizes in the present document, see , 4:84–85.
King’s 10 Sept. letter to Pickering conveyed similar information to the letter of the same date that King wrote Joshua Johnson, the U.S. consul at London (see Pickering to GW, 19 Oct., and n.1 to that document). The above letters pertained to an official note from French foreign minister Charles Delacroix to François, marquis de Barthélemy, the French Ambassador to Switzerland, regarding the French decree of July 1796 about neutral shipping (see Pickering to GW, 11–12 Oct., and n.12).
3. This quoted extract from Monroe’s 4 Aug. 1796 letter to Pickering pertains to Michel Ange Bernard de Mangourit, the French consul at Charleston, S.C., from 1792 to 1794, and former first secretary of the Spanish legation, who on 26 July 1796 had been named French chargé d’affaires to the United States. Monroe’s opposition to Mangourit’s appointment as chargé d’affaires prevented him from assuming that post. Mangourit’s attempts in 1793 and 1794 to mobilize American support for an invasion of Spanish-held East Florida apparently gave rise to Monroe’s concerns (see , 564–65). For the eventual recall of Pierre-Auguste Adet as French minister to the United States, see Alexander Hamilton to GW, 19 Nov., and notes 5 and 6 to that document.
After discussing Mangourit, Monroe continued his 4 Aug. letter to Pickering: “I heard that the Directoire had passed an Arrêté authorizing the seizure of neutral vessels destined for England, to take effect when the English likewise seize them. … I have the pleasure to transmit to you herewith, some communications respecting our affairs in Algiers, by which it appears that Mr [Joel] Barlow had the good fortune to succeed with the Dey in prolonging the term allotted for the payment of the sum due him by our late [1795] treaty for the ransom of our prisoners, and for peace. … I commit this letter … to the care of Dr Edwards … to whom I beg to refer you for other details upon the subject of our affairs here. … He has been more than a year in Europe, and the greater part of that time here; has had opportunities of correct information and which he has improved to advantage” (, 4:73–74).
Monroe’s letter to Pickering of 6 Aug. has not been identified.
4. The “short note” that Monroe promised to write Delacroix has not been identified.
5. The Franco-Spanish Treaty of Offensive and Defensive Alliance, signed at San Ildefonso, Spain, on 19 Aug., effectively created an alliance between Spain and France and paved the way for Spain’s declaration of war against Britain on 5 October. The treaty, however, makes no mention of Spain’s cession of Louisiana or the Floridas to France (see , 53:257–64; and King to GW, 12 Nov.).
Rumors of a Spanish cession of Louisiana and the Floridas to France had appeared in print since the late spring. Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia) for 8 July 1796 printed a report dated 30 June from Boston that reads in part: “we can mention, on the authority of Paris accounts, … that a negociation was going on between the directory and the Spanish minister, for restoring to Spain its territory in St. Domingo, and giving Louisiana in exchange.” The Chelsea Courier (Norwich, Conn.) for 7 Dec. 1796 printed an extract of a letter dated 2 Sept. from Paris, which reads in part: “’Tis thought Spain has ceded to France part of Louisiana—that France intends there to form an army for the invasion of Canada.”
Spain ceded Louisiana to France in 1800 and East and West Florida to the United States in 1819.
6. The enclosures have not been identified, but they may have included the letters from King and Monroe mentioned in this document. They may also have included King’s letters to Pickering of 10, 16, or 25 Aug., or that of 7 Sept., all of which Pickering received between 12 and 20 Oct. (see Pickering to King, 26 Oct. 1796, in DNA: RG 59, Diplomatic and Consular Instructions, 1791–1801).