From George Washington to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 7 December 1796
To the United States Senate and House of Representatives
Decemr 7th 1796
Fellow Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives
In recurring to the internal situation of our country since I had last the pleasure to address you, I find ample reason for a renewed expression of that gratitude to the Ruler of the Universe, which a continued series of prosperity has so often and so justly called forth.1
The acts of the last session, which required special arrangements, have been, as far as circumstances would admit, carried into operation.2
Measures calculated to ensure a continuance of the friendship of the Indians, and to preserve peace along the extent of our interior frontier, have been digested and adopted. In the framing of these, care has been taken to guard, on the one hand, our advanced settlements from the predatory incursions of those unruly individuals, who cannot be restrained by their Tribes; and on the other hand, to protect the rights secured to the Indians by treaty; to draw them nearer to the civilised state; and inspire them with correct conceptions of the power, as well as justice of the Government.3
The meeting of the deputies from the Creek nation at Colerain, in the State of Georgia, which had for a principal object the purchase of a parcel of their land by that State, broke up without it’s being accomplished; the nation having previous to their departure instructed them against making any sale: the occasion however has been improved, to confirm by a new treaty with the Creeks, their pre-existing engagements with the United States; and to obtain their consent to the establishment of trading houses, and military posts within their boundary; by means of which, their friendship and the general peace may be more effectually secured.4
The period during the late session at which the appropriation was passed, for carrying into effect the treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and his Britannic Majesty,5 necessarily procrastinated the reception of the posts stipulated to be delivered, beyond the date assigned for that event. As soon however as the Governor General of Canada could be addressed with propriety on the subject, arrangements were cordially and promptly concluded for their evacuation, and the United States took possession of the principal of them, comprehending Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, Michelimakinac and Fort Miami, where such repairs and additions have been ordered to be made as appeared indispensible.6
The Commissioners appointed on the part of the United States and of Great Britain, to determine which is the river St Croix, mentioned in the treaty of peace of 1783, agreed in the choice of Egbert Benson Esqr. of New York, for the third Commissioner. The whole met at St Andrews, in Passamaquoddy bay, in the beginning of October, and directed surveys to be made of the rivers in dispute; but deeming it impracticable to have these surveys completed before the next year, they adjourned, to meet at Boston in August 1797, for the final decision of the question.7
Other Commissioners appointed on the part of the United States, agreeably to the seventh article of the treaty with Great Britain, relative to captures and condemnation of vessels and other property, met the Commissioners of his britannic Majesty in London, in August last, when John Trumbull Esqr. was chosen by lot, for the fifth Commissioner. In October following the board were to proceed to business.8 As yet, there has been no communication of Commissioners on the part of Great Britain, to unite with those who have been appointed on the part of the United States, for carrying into effect the sixth article of the Treaty.9
The Treaty with Spain required that the Commissioners for running the boundary line between the territory of the United States and his Catholic Majesty’s Provinces of East and West Florida, should meet at the Natchez before the expiration of six months after the exchange of the ratifications, which was effected at Aranjuez on the 25th day of April; and the troops of his catholic Majesty occupying any posts within the limits of the United States, were within the same period to be withdrawn.10 The Commissioner of the United States, therefore, commenced his journey for the Natchez in September, and troops were ordered to occupy the posts from which the Spanish garrisons should be withdrawn. Information has been recently received of the appointment of a Commissioner on the part of his catholic Majesty for running the boundary line;11 but none of any appointment for the adjustment of the claims of our citizens whose vessels were captured by the armed vessels of Spain.12
In pursuance of the act of Congress passed in the last session, for the protection and relief of American seamen, agents were appointed, one to reside in Great Britain, and the other in the West Indies. The effects of the agency in the West Indies are not yet fully ascertained; but those which have been communicated afford grounds to believe the measure will be beneficial. The agent destined to reside in Great Britain declining to accept the appointment, the business has consequently devolved on the Minister of the United States in London, and will command his attention, until a new agent shall be appointed.13
After many delays and disappointments, arising out of the European war, the final arrangements for fulfilling the engagements made to the Dey and Regency of Algiers, will, in all present appearance, be crowned with success; but under great, though inevitable disadvantages in the pecuniary transactions, occasioned by that war; which will render a further provision necessary.14 The actual liberation of all our citizens who were prisoners in Algiers, while it gratifies every feeling heart, is itself an earnest, of a satisfactory termination of the whole negotiation.15 Measures are in operation for effecting Treaties with the Regencies of Tunis and Tripoli.16
To an active external commerce, the protection of a naval force is indispensible. This is manifest with regard to wars in which a State is itself a party. But besides this, it is in our own experience, that the most sincere neutrality is not a sufficient guard against the depredations of nations at war.17 To secure respect to a neutral flag, requires a naval force, organized and ready to vindicate it from insult or aggression. This may even prevent the necessity of going to war, by discouraging belligerent powers from committing such violations of the rights of the neutral party as may first or last, leave no other option. From the best information I have been able to obtain, it would seem as if our trade to the Mediterranean without a protecting force will always be insecure, and our citizens exposed to the calamities from which numbers of them have but just been relieved.18
These considerations invite the United States to look to the means, and to set about the gradual creation of a navy. The increasing progress of their navigation promises them, at no distant period, the requisite supply of seamen; and their means in other respects favour the undertaking. It is an encouragement likewise, that their particular situation will give weight and influence to a moderate naval force in their hands. Will it not then be advisable to begin without delay, to provide and lay up the materials for the building and equipping of ships of war; and to proceed in the work by degrees, in proportion as our resources shall render it practicable without inconvenience; so that a future war of Europe may not find our commerce in the same unprotected state, in which it was found by the present?19
Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures.20 The object is of too much consequence not to ensure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible. As a general rule, manufactures on public account are inexpedient. But where the state of things in a country leaves little hope that certain branches of manufacture will, for a great length of time, obtain; when these are of a nature essential to the furnishing and equipping of the public force in time of war; are not establishments for procuring them on public account to the extent of the ordinary demand for the public service, recommended by strong considerations of national policy, as an exception to the general rule? Ought our country to remain in such cases dependant on foreign supply, precarious, because liable to be interrupted? If the necessary articles should in this mode cost more in time of peace, will not the security and independence thence arising, form an ample compensation? Establishments of this sort, commensurate only with the calls of the public service in time of peace, will, in time of war, easily be extended in proportion to the exigencies of the Government; and may even perhaps be made to yield a surplus for the supply of our citizens at large; so as to mitigate the privations from the interruption of their trade. If adopted, the plan ought to exclude all those branches which are already, or likely soon to be established in the country; in order that there may be no danger of interference with pursuits of individual industry.
It will not be doubted, that with reference either to individual or national welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance. In proportion as nations advance in population, and other circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes more apparent; and renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public patronage. Institutions for promoting it, grow up supported by the public purse: and to what object can it be dedicated with greater propriety? Among the means which have been employed to this end, none have been attended with greater success, than the establishment of Boards, composed of proper characters, charged with collecting and diffusing information, and enabled by premiums and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement. This species of establishment contributes doubly to the increase of improvement; by stimulating to enterprise and experiment; and by drawing to a common centre the results every where, of individual skill and observation, and spreading them thence over the whole nation. Experience accordingly has shewn, that they are very cheap instruments of immense national benefits.21
I have heretofore proposed to the consideration of Congress, the expediency of establishing a National University; and also a Military Academy. The desireableness of both these Institutions, has so constantly increased with every new view I have taken of the subject, that I cannot omit the opportunity of once for all, recalling your attention to them.22
The assembly, to which I address myself, is too enlightened not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to national prosperity and reputation. True it is, that our country, much to its honour, contains many seminaries of learning highly respectable and useful; but the funds upon which they rest, are too narrow to command the ablest professors in the different departments of liberal knowledge, for the Institution contemplated; though they would be excellent auxiliaries.
Amongst the motives to such an Institution, the assimilation of the principles, opinions and manners of our countrymen, by the common education of a portion of our Youth from every quarter, well deserves attention. The more homogeneous our citizens can be made in these particulars, the greater will be our prospect of permanent union; and a primary object of such a national institution should be, the education of our Youth in the science of Government. In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? and what duty more pressing on its Legislature, than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those, who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?
The institution of a Military Academy, is also recommended by cogent reasons. However pacific the general policy of a nation may be, it ought never to be without an adequate stock of military knowledge for emergencies. The first would impair the energy of its character, and both would hazard its safety, or expose it to greater evils when war could not be avoided. Besides, that war might often not depend upon its own choice. In proportion as the observance of pacific maxims might exempt a nation from the necessity of practicing the rules of the military art, ought to be its care in preserving and transmitting by proper establishments, the knowledge of that art. Whatever argument may be drawn from particular examples, superficially viewed; a thorough examination of the subject will evince, that the art of war is at once comprehensive and complicated; that it demands much previous study; and that, the possession of it, in its most improved and perfect state, is always of great moment to the security of a nation. This, therefore, ought to be a serious care of every Government; and for this purpose, an academy, where a regular course of instruction is given, is an obvious expedient, which different nations have successfully employed.
The compensations to the officers of the United States, in various instances, and in none more than in respect to the most important stations, appear to call for Legislative revision. The consequences of a defective provision are of serious import to the Government. If private wealth is to supply the defect of public retribution, it will greatly contract the sphere within which the selection of character for office is to be made; and will proportionally diminish the probability of a choice of men able as well as upright. Besides that it would be repugnant to the vital principles of our Government, virtually to exclude from public trusts talents and virtue, unless accompanied by wealth.23
While in our external relations, some serious inconveniencies and embarrassments have been overcome, and others lessened, it is with much pain, and deep regret I mention, that circumstances of a very unwelcome nature, have lately occurred. Our trade has suffered, and is suffering extensive injuries in the West-Indies, from the Cruisers, and agents of the French Republic; and communications have been received from its Minister here, which indicate the danger of a further disturbance of our commerce by its authority; and which are, in other respects, far from agreeable.24
It has been my constant, sincere and earnest wish, in conformity with that of our nation, to maintain cordial harmony, and a perfectly friendly understanding with that Republic. This wish remains unabated; and I shall persevere in the endeavour to fulfil it, to the utmost extent of what shall be consistent with a just, and indispensable regard to the rights and honor of our Country: nor will I easily cease to cherish the expectation, that a spirit of justice, candour and friendship, on the part of the Republic, will eventually ensure success.
In pursuing this course, however, I cannot forget what is due to the character of our Government and nation; or to a full and entire confidence in the good sense, patriotism, self-respect and fortitude of my countrymen.
I reserve for a special message, a more particular communication on this interesting subject.25
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives.
I have directed an estimate of the appropriations necessary for the service of the ensuing year, to be submitted from the proper department; with a view of the public receipts and expenditures to the latest period to which an account can be prepared.
It is with satisfaction I am able to inform you, that the revenues of the United States continue in a state of progressive improvement.26
A reinforcement of the existing provisions for discharging our public debt, was mentioned in my address at the opening of the last session.27 Some preliminary steps were taken towards it, the maturing of which will, no doubt, engage your zealous attention during the present. I will only add, that it will afford me a heart-felt satisfaction to concur in such further measures, as will ascertain to our country the prospect of a speedy extinguishment of the Debt. Posterity may have cause to regret, if from any motive, intervals of tranquillity are left unimproved for accelerating this valuable end.28
Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives.
My solicitude to see the Militia of the United States placed on an efficient establishment, has been so often, and so ardently expressed, that I shall but barely recall the subject to your view on the present occasion;29 at the same time that I shall submit to your enquiry, whether our Harbours are yet sufficiently secured.30
The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the Representatives of the People of the United States, naturally recals the period when the administration of the present form of Government commenced; and I cannot omit the occasion to congratulate you, and my country, on the success of the experiment; nor to repeat my fervent supplications, to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations, that his Providential care may still be extended to the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the People, may be preserved; and that the Government, which they have instituted, for the protection of their liberties, may be perpetual.
Go: Washington
D, DNA: RG 46, entry 47; Df, in the writing of Alexander Hamilton, DLC: Hamilton Papers; LB, DLC:GW; copy, DNA: RG 233, entry 28, journals; copy (extract), ViU. The extract consists of paragraphs fifteen through seventeen of the present document. On the LB, the following text precedes the salutation: “At twelve Oclock, the President attended by the heads of Department and Attorney General, went to the Chamber of the House of Representatives, where finding both Houses of Congress assembled, he delivered to them the following Speech.”
As early as July 1796, GW began to solicit ideas from his cabinet members for his eighth and final annual message to Congress. GW delivered this message two days after the opening of the second session of the Fourth Congress. In his letter to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering of 18 July, GW asked that he “note down all the subjects as they may occur, which may be proper to communicate to Congress at their next meeting” (see also GW to Pickering, 19 Oct. [first letter], source note). GW next approached Secretary of War James McHenry on the matter. He requested him to log “occurrences” in the War Department that he deemed vital for inclusion in the address. GW noted his intention to draft the annual message from “materials furnished by each Department, and the Memorandums taken by myself” (GW to McHenry, 8 Aug., found at McHenry to GW, 3 Aug. [second letter], n.5; see also GW to McHenry, 19 Oct., found at McHenry to GW, 14 Oct., n.1). GW made an almost-identical request of Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (see GW to Wolcott, 10 Aug.). The focus of the annual message on domestic and international issues explains GW’s reason for soliciting input from the secretaries of state, war, and the treasury. GW evidently did not seek suggestions from Attorney General Charles Lee, whose legal expertise was less pertinent for an annual message. GW drafted his own memoranda to prepare the present document, but those have not been found (see GW to Hamilton, 12 Nov.).
Of the cabinet secretaries, both McHenry and Pickering sent GW observations or other notes that contained suggested content for the annual message. McHenry’s submissions have not been found, but his letter to GW of 8 Oct. about the education of the corps of engineers and artillerists at West Point undoubtedly inspired GW’s advocacy of a military academy in his speech.
A document docketed “Memoranda—for communications to Congress Nov. 1796,” in MHi: Pickering Papers, was likely among the submissions that Pickering transmitted to GW by mid-November (see GW to Hamilton, 12 Nov., and n.2 to that document). Much of that document, which contains numerous strikeouts and interlineations, was incorporated into GW’s annual message and appears to have formed a basis of several of its sections. The memorandum’s first three paragraphs contain almost identical wording to paragraphs six through eight of the final version of GW’s message. In the fourth paragraph of his memorandum, Pickering wrote: “Pursuant to the 2d article of the late treaty with Great Britain his Britannic Majesty has withdrawn all his troops and garrisons from all posts and places within the territory of the U. States; and such of the posts as appeared to require it, are now occupied by the troops of the United States.” GW discussed the British evacuation of the western posts in paragraph five of his speech. The first section of the memorandum’s fifth paragraph is nearly identical to the ninth paragraph of the annual message, but Pickering’s draft added the following text, which GW chose not to include in his message: “It appears by ⟨this⟩ Information, that the Consuls of the United States in the ports of Great Britain have been vigilant in relieving and protecting American seamen. A practice has indeed prevailed among our consuls to grant certificates of citizenship to our seamen, & to good ⟨officers⟩: but it is said that some abuses have been practised—which may render their certificates in general less available than they ought to be. The subject may require to be regulated by law. The formal grant of power to our consuls to give such certificates may be Expedient. It seems that the practice of granting them is not peculiar to our consuls, but common with the consuls of other nations.
“It appears to have been the intention of Congress, in the act before mentioned to have prescribed the kind of proof to be produced by American seamen of their citizenship, and the manner in which the proof should be authenticated: both were omitted. It was therefore necessary, that the act might not remain inoperative, to give positive instructions to the Collectors for their government in registering and issuing certificates to our seamen. A copy of the Instructions to be laid before Congress, who will doubtless supply the defects in the act here suggested.”
Pickering’s notes also contain nearly identical content to paragraph ten of the annual message and include the following sentence, which GW did not integrate into his speech: “The Explanatory article of the Treaty with Great Britain to be laid before Congress.” For the explanatory article to Article III of the Jay Treaty, see GW to the U.S. Senate, 5 May, and n.1 to that document. In the final phrase of his memoranda, Pickering wrote: “French affairs in relation to the U. States.” GW discussed Franco-American relations near the end of the annual message.
Along with the executive department heads, GW solicited ideas for his speech from other sources. For instance, he communicated with the D.C. commissioners about a national university and other matters (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 21 Nov., and n.1 to that document). GW above all requested Alexander Hamilton’s input, just as he previously had done for former messages to Congress (see, for example, Drafting GW’s Annual Address, 18–28 Nov. 1793, and the accompanying editorial note; see also GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 8 Dec. 1795, source note). GW had asked Hamilton to provide him with “fit subjects of communication” to Congress and cited his “custom to provide all the materials for the Speech in time” (GW to Hamilton, 10 Aug., found at Hamilton to GW, 30 July, n.2). GW and Hamilton corresponded on the matter in the late summer and early fall, and Hamilton began preparing a draft for the annual message by early November (see GW to Hamilton, 2 and 12 Nov., and Hamilton to GW, 4, 10, and 19 Nov.). Hamilton’s draft presented a number of the themes that GW later incorporated into his speech, including the importance of agricultural boards, a national university, a military academy, a navy, and congressional support for manufactures. Despite wording differences, some similarities remain, and Hamilton’s language is echoed throughout the present document. For Hamilton’s full draft, see , 20:382–88.
GW’s final version was completed by 6 Dec., when the two houses of Congress reported quorums and appointed a joint committee to notify GW that Congress was “ready to receive any communications he may think proper to make to them.” GW informed the committee that same day “that he would meet the two Houses in the Representatives’ Chamber, at 12 o’clock” on 7 Dec. (, 9:6–7, , 9:5–6). Accompanied by his secretary George Washington Craik and his cabinet members, GW delivered his annual message to Congress on 7 Dec., at the appointed time and place. One report noted that the “hall [of the House of Represenatives] was filled at an early hour with the largest assemblage of citizens, ladies and gentlemen, ever collected on a similar occasion. The English, Spanish and Portuguese ministers had seats assigned them, and were present” (Gazette of the United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser, 9 Dec. 1796). Henrietta Marchant Liston, the wife of British minister Robert Liston, witnessed GW’s speech and described it in a letter to her uncle James Jackson, written on 9 Dec. from Philadelphia: “We are denied to Company for this week, but yesterday tempted me abroad to hear the Presidents Speech, at the opening of Congress, the last He may, probably, ever make in publick. the Hall was crowded & a prodigious Mob at the Door, about twelve OClock Washington entered in full dress (as He always is on publick occasions, black velvet, Sword &c.) followed by the three Secretarys, Secretary of State, of War, & of the Treasury; a group of people with white staffs, He was preceded by the Sergeant at Arms, with His Mace—He bowed on each side as He past to an arm chair upon a platform raised some steps from the ground & railed-in; after composing hims⟨elf⟩ He drew a paper from his pocket. Washington Writes better than He reads, there is even a little hesitation in his common speaking, but He possesses so much natural unaffected dignity, & is so noble a figure as to give always a pleasing impression. I happened to sit very near him, & as evry Person stood up at his entrance & again when He began to read I had an opportunity of seeing the extreme agitation He felt when He mentioned the French. He is, I believe, very much enraged, this is the second French Minister who has insulted him & the People” (StEdNL: Liston Papers).
Following his delivery of the message, GW “presented a copy of it to the President of the Senate, another to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The President and Members of the Senate retired and the Speaker resumed his chair. The address was then read” (Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser [New York], 9 Dec. 1796). A motion was raised in the Senate to print the speech, and both houses of Congress soon prepared responses to it (see , 9:15; U.S. Senate to GW, 12 Dec.; and U.S. House of Representatives to GW, 16 Dec.).
As McHenry and others circulated copies of GW’s annual message, it drew reactions from a number of people. Charles Carroll of Carrollton wrote McHenry on 12 Dec.: “I rec’d, by this day’s post, yr letter of the 9th, covering the Presidents speech, with wh I am much pleased, particularly the part relating to [Pierre-Auguste] Adet’s conduct, it contains a due mixture of temper & firmness.” In a letter to McHenry of 13 Dec., written from Annapolis, Philip Key, a member of the Maryland legislature, wrote in part: “The President’s speech is extremely satisfactory—and an additional evidence of his Paternal regard for the welfare & prosperity of our Country” (, 206–7). Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia congressman James Madison from Monticello on 17 Dec. that he had not yet read GW’s address but that it “must exhibit a very different picture of our foreign affairs from that presented in the Adieu [Farewell Address], or it will little correspond with my views of them. I think they never wore so gloomy an aspect since the year 83” (, 29:223–24).
The publication of the annual message in U.S. and European papers contributed to its circulation abroad by late January 1797. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, U.S. minister to France, praised GW’s speech (see Pinckney to GW, 25–28 Jan. 1797, and n.5 to that document). Rufus King, U.S. minister to Great Britain, offered his reactions in a letter to Pinckney written from London on 20 Jan. 1797: “I send you a few of the latest American Papers that I have received. They contain the President’s Speech to Congress, and the address of the two Houses in answer. They have afforded me much satisfaction, as I consider them as strong Testimonials … that the public opinion, taking the country at large, is sound and right” (, 2:134). The circulation of the speech abroad even prompted individuals, then unknown to GW, to address him in writing about the contents of the message (see James Scott to GW, 1 Feb. 1797).
1. In GW’s message to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, dated 8 Dec. 1795, he likewise had expressed gratitude “to the Author of all good” for the country’s blessings.
2. GW refers to the several acts passed during the first session of the Fourth Congress (7 Dec. 1795–1 June 1796) that called for presidential appointments or approvals (see Pickering to GW, 8 June, and the enclosure to that document). In accordance with those acts, GW made a number of recess appointments of federal officers, such as the surveyor general (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 21 Dec.). Another law had prompted GW to make directives pertaining to quarantine (see GW to Pickering, 4 July 1796, and n.4 to that document).
3. During the previous session of Congress and the subsequent recess, the United States had concluded two Indian treaties: one with the Seven Nations of Canada on 31 May 1796, and the other, the Treaty of Colerain, with the Creek Indians, signed on 29 June 1796 (see , 2:45–50; see also GW to the U.S. Senate, 4 Jan. 1797). Fears of potential hostilities between the Creeks and settlers in Georgia also had prompted GW and McHenry to direct military efforts toward the prevention of both Indian depredations on the Georgia frontier and settler intrusions on Indian land (see McHenry to GW, 2 May 1796; see also McHenry to GW, 8 and 29 Aug., and 28 Nov.). For 1796 laws on Indians, see 452–53, 469–74.
4. The 1796 Treaty of Colerain declared the earlier 7 Aug. 1790 U.S. treaty with the Creek Indians to be binding on both parties, with the exception of any new provisions specified in the Colerain treaty. The 1796 treaty further authorized the U.S. president “to establish a trading or military post” on the Altamaha River in Georgia (, 1:47).
For the conference held between the Georgia commissioners, the U.S. commission, and the Creek Indians, during which the Creeks refused to consider the sale of lands to Georgia, and which “terminated unfavourably,” see GW to McHenry, 22 July (second letter), and n.2 to that document; see also , 81–98.
5. The U.S. House had resolved on 30 April to pass the laws required to implement the 1794 Jay Treaty between the United States and Great Britain. On 6 May 1796, Congress passed an act to appropriate funds to execute that treaty (see Edward Carrington to GW, 9 May 1796, and n.1 to that document; see also 459).
6. Article II of the 1794 Jay Treaty proposed the British evacuation of western posts by 1 June 1796 (see , 246). The withdrawal was delayed by the House’s slowness in implementing that treaty and by the British request for the addition of an explanatory article to it. The article was meant to resolve the contradiction between Article III of the Jay Treaty and Article VIII of the 1795 Treaty of Greenville (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 5 May, and n.1 to that document).
Lord Grenville, British secretary of state for foreign affairs, had written to Phineas Bond, British charge d’affaires at Philadelphia, from London on 18 Jan. 1796 that “the period is now approaching in which His Majesty has stipulated that His forces should evacuate the Posts. …” Grenville explained that the evacuation could not be effected until the explanatory article to the Jay Treaty was added. Referring to that article, Grenville noted: “Whenever you shall have brought this matter to it’s issue … you are to transmit the earliest information of it … to His Majesty’s Governor General and to the Lt. Governor of Upper Canada [John Graves Simcoe]. … But as these officers are expressly restricted by their instructions … from delivering up the Posts unless information shall have been received from you that the point above mentioned has been satisfactorily explained agreably to His Majesty’s expectation, you will be very particular on this point” (, 106–10).
The Senate agreed to the explanatory article on 9 May 1796. The following day, McHenry wrote Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester, governor of the British provinces in North America, to inform him that the United States had met Britain’s requirements and that U.S. troops had been ordered to take possession of the posts (see McHenry to GW, 9 May). Gen. Anthony Wayne advised McHenry the following July about U.S. control of the posts at Detroit and Fort Miami. U.S. troops occupied Fort Miami on 11 July 1796 (see McHenry to GW, 8 Aug. 1796, and n.3 to that document; see also McHenry to GW, 27 June 1796, second letter).
On 7 Oct. 1796, Lord Grenville wrote Robert Liston, the British minister to the United States: “His Majesty has learnt … that the surrender of the Posts occupied by His Troops within the American Territory has been arranged in so satisfactory a manner” (, 122–23).
7. U.S. commissioner David Howell and British commissioner Thomas Henry Barclay were the first two members of the commission required under Article V of the Jay Treaty to determine the actual name of the river called Saint Croix in the 1783 definitive treaty of peace. They selected Egbert Benson as the commission’s third member (see Pickering to GW, 20 May 1796 [second letter], and n.6 to that document; GW’s first letter to the U.S. Senate, same date; GW to Henry Knox, 4 April 1796; and Pickering to GW, 20 Sept. 1796 [second letter]). The commission was established as a result of a longtime dispute between Britain and the United States over which of the two rivers flowing into Passamaquoddy Bay formed the boundary between the United States and Canada. An early inaccurate map used to draft the 1783 definitive treaty of peace erroneously represented the Saint Croix River, which did not exist. U.S. and British officials argued over whether the river denoted on the map as the Saint Croix was in fact the Schoodic or Magaguadavic rivers, whose sources created a vast difference in territory and therefore affected the potential boundary. The commission settled the dispute in 1798 (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 9 Feb. 1790 [first letter], source note; see also , 6:36; and Mark Weston Janis, America and the Law of Nations, 1776–1939 [Oxford and New York, 2010], 39).
The Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser for 15 Oct. 1796 reported the commissioners’ scheduled meeting “at St. Andrews [in what is now New Brunswick, Canada] on the third of October, having adjourned from Halifax to that time and place.”
The Oriental Trumpet (Portland, Maine) for 9 Feb. 1797 reported Benson’s arrival on 26 Sept. 1796 at “St. Andrews, near the mouths of the two rivers for which the parties contended as the boundary. … On the 5th of October, the Commissioners took the oath as required by the [Jay] treaty … the Agent for the United States filed his Memorial, requesting that the eastermost of the two rivers, called by the native Indians the Magaquadavic, should be declared to be the river of St. Croix, truly meant and intended, under that name, as the Boundary mentioned in the Treaty of Peace.” Conversely, the British agent declared the “Scoudiack” as the river that had been incorrectly named the Saint Croix. Since the commissioners were required to determine “which is the river truly intended as the St. Croix,” two surveyors (one American and one British) were selected to survey the two rivers. “Those artists returned from the business, on the last of November, having not then completed their work.” After an investigation into the labor needed to complete the surveys, the commissioners “adjourned to meet in Boston on the second Tuesday of August 1797.”
The Alexandria Advertiser for 31 Aug. 1797 printed an item dated 19 Aug. at Providence: “The commissioner[s] appointed … for ascertaining the St. Croix boundary, lately convened in Boston, have adjourned to meet in this town on the first Monday in June next. The extensiveness of the two rivers in dispute, and other difficulties attending the surveys … have rendered this adjournment indispensible.”
8. For the selection by lot of John Trumbull to the five-man commission authorized under Article VII of the Jay Treaty, see Pickering to GW, 15 Oct., and n.2 to that document; see also Henry Knox to GW, 21 Feb. 1796.
9. For the five-man commission appointed under Article VI of the Jay Treaty to determine the amounts owed British creditors for unpaid debts contracted before the 1783 definitive treaty of peace, see GW to the U.S. Senate, 31 March 1796; see also James Innes to GW, 17 Jan. 1797, and n.1 to that document.
The commission’s British members, Thomas Macdonald and Henry Pye Rich, met with U.S. members Innes and Thomas FitzSimons in Philadelphia in August 1797 in order to appoint the fifth commissioner and to fix the compensation owed British merchants for losses they had incurred. Unable to reach an agreement, the commission eventually disbanded, and the affair was not settled until 1802, when the United States agreed to pay the British government £600,000 sterling in three annual installments (see Macdonald to GW, 19 Aug. 1797, and the source note to that document, in 1:305–6; see also , 6:262–63).
10. Article III of the 1795 U.S.-Spanish Treaty of San Lorenzo called for each nation to appoint one commissioner and one surveyor to mark the boundary between the Spanish territories and the United States as defined in the treaty’s Articles II and IV. Article III further required the commissioners to meet at Natchez within six months of the treaty’s ratification. Exchange of ratifications took place at Aranjuez, Spain, on 25 April 1796. Article II of the same treaty stipulated that “if there should be any troops, Garrisons or settlements of either Party in the territory of the other … they shall be withdrawn from the said territory within the term of six months after the ratification” (, 318–22; see also , 341). By this treaty, Spain had agreed to evacuate its posts at Nogales, Natchez, and San Fernando de las Barrancas, and transfer them to the United States.
11. Andrew Ellicott was the U.S. commissioner appointed to run the boundary line between the Spanish territories and the United States. The Spanish commissioner designated to assist him was Francisco Luis Hector, Baron de Carondelet, the governor of Louisiana. Pickering sent Ellicott his instructions in mid-September (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 21 May 1796; see also Pickering to GW, 15 Sept. 1796 [first letter], and n.2 to that document).
A report from Pickering to President John Adams, dated 10 June 1797, detailed Ellicott’s travels to Natchez, where he had arrived in February of that year. Pickering wrote: “Although Mr. Ellicott left Philadelphia in September, 1796, to proceed, by the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, to the Natchez, … yet, owing to the lowness of the waters of the Ohio, he did not reach its mouth until the 19th of December. … On the 24th of February, Mr. Ellicott reached the Natchez.” Informed of Baron de Carondelet’s inability to serve with him at Natchez, Ellicott was told “that the whole business had devolved on him.” Pickering also reported the dispatch of U.S. troops to Natchez and delays in the Spanish evacuation of the posts (, Foreign Relations, 2:20–21).
12. Article XXI of the Treaty of San Lorenzo called for the appointment of three commissioners to decide on cases concerning “losses sustained by” U.S. citizens whose “vessels and cargoes” had been captured by Spanish ships “during the late war between Spain and France” (, 335–37). GW appointed Matthew Clarkson as the U.S. member of that commission (see GW to the U.S. Senate, 21 May 1796). The Gazette of the United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser for 18 May 1797 announced that Clarkson and Josef Ignacio de Viar, the commission’s Spanish member, “agreed on the choice of Samuel Breck, of the city of Philadelphia, as the third commissioner, to carry into effect the twenty-first article” of the treaty.
13. GW had appointed Silas Talbot and John Trumbull as the agents required under Congress’s 28 May 1796 “Act for the relief and protection of American Seamen” ( 477–78; see also GW to the U.S. Senate, 30 May). Trumbull declined the post, and GW in March 1797 nominated David Lenox as his replacement. Lenox was appointed to reside in Great Britain, while Talbot served in the West Indies (see Pickering to GW, 1 March 1797; and GW to the U.S. Senate, 2 March [first letter], and n.4 to that document).
After Trumbull’s declination of the post, Rufus King, the U.S. minister to Great Britain, wrote Pickering on 8 Sept. 1796: “Mr. Trumbull’s appointment as the fifth Commissioner in the capture question has prevented his acceptance of the agency for the relief and protection of our seamen. His duties must devolve on me for the present; and, I hope by a careful attention to the cases that shall come to my knowledge assisted by the several Consuls … that I shall be able to relieve many of our countrymen from the hardships and injustice to which they continue to be exposed” (, 2:85–86).
14. GW refers to U.S. efforts to provide the tribute owed Hassan Bashaw, dey of Algiers, in fulfillment of the 1795 U.S.-Algiers treaty (see GW to the Dey of Algiers, 3 Dec. 1796; see also Pickering to GW, 6 Jan. 1797).
15. For the agreement under which the American prisoners at Algiers were ransomed, see Pickering to GW, 27 July 1796; see also , 206–7.
16. The United States had concluded a peace treaty with Tripoli on 4 Nov. 1796 (see Gerardo Joseph de Souza to GW, 22 Nov., and n.2 to that document). A six-month truce between the United States and Tunis had been established on 15 June 1796, but a treaty was not concluded until 28 Aug. 1797 (see Pickering to GW, 5 Oct. 1796, and n.4 to that document; see also , 386–426).
17. GW alludes to the numerous captures of American vessels by both British and French privateers, despite U.S. neutrality.
18. GW recorded similar ideas in early memorandums he composed in preparation for the annual message (see GW to Hamilton, 12 Nov.). The persons recently “relieved” were the captives in Algiers.
19. Congress had taken the first significant measures to establish a navy when, on 27 March 1794, it passed the “Act to provide a Naval Armament.” The act authorized GW “to provide, by purchase or otherwise,” four 44-gun ships and two 36-gun ships ( 350–51; see also Edmund Randolph to GW, 27 March 1794, both letters [letter 1; letter 2]; and GW to the U.S. Senate, 3 June 1794). Threats to U.S. shipping in the Mediterranean from Barbary corsairs, the longtime captivity of American seamen in Algiers, and hazards to shipping due to European warfare prompted the measure. GW, with advice from his cabinet, directed the construction of the six frigates. However, the law stipulated that a peace with Algiers would require that “no farther proceeding be had under this act.” The conclusion of the 1795 treaty with Algiers should have thus caused work on the frigates to be suspended. However, Congress passed a law in April 1796 that authorized GW to “continue the construction and equipment” of three frigates ( 453–54).
In response to GW’s recommendations for the “equipping of ships of war,” the U.S. House on 16 Dec. 1796 passed a resolution recommending “an enquiry … into the state of the naval equipment, ordered by former acts of Congress,” and the need for a naval force “for the protection” of U.S. commerce. The committee formed for that purpose made a report in 1797 with resolutions to appropriate funds to complete the frigates United States, Constellation, and Constitution; select a site for a naval yard; and purchase oak and timber (, 9:38, 102, 120, 180–89). The “Act making appropriations for the Military and Naval establishments,” 3 March 1797, appropriated $172,000 to finish construction of the three frigates ( 508–9). The United States, Constellation, and Constitution were launched later in 1797. Additional measures to realize the vision of GW and others for a permanent navy included the establishment of the Department of the Navy in April 1798 ( 553–54; Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 11 May 1797; Connecticut Gazette [New London], 20 Sept. 1797; Philadelphia Gazette & Universal Daily Advertiser, 30 Oct. 1797; and , 44–58).
20. GW had encouraged the promotion of manufactures in his first annual message of 8 Jan. 1790 (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that date). At that time, Congress promoted domestic manufactures by requesting then-Treasury Secretary Hamilton to prepare a plan on the matter, laying import duties on various articles, and passing laws that authorized patents for inventions in arts and manufacturing. For instance, Congress’s “Act for laying a Duty on Goods …,” 4 July 1789, imposed specified import duties on articles such as molasses, shoes, wine, and other items as “necessary for the support of government … and the encouragement and protection of manufactures” ( 24–27; see also 318–23; and GW to Thomas Jefferson, 12 July 1791, and n.3 to that document).
After GW delivered the present speech, the House resolved “That so much of the President’s Speech as relates to the encouragement of manufactures, be referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures” (, 4th Cong., 2d sess., 1671).
21. GW’s emphasis on the importance of agricultural boards was based on the recommendation of John Sinclair, the president of Britain’s board of agriculture. In his letter of 10 Sept., Sinclair had advised GW to propose “some Agricultural Establishment, on a great Scale” in the United States, with corresponding societies in each state capital. GW’s description of agricultural establishments as “cheap instruments” echoes Sinclair’s claim that such institutions would be a “trifling expence.” For the importance of Sinclair’s letter in the drafting of this section on agriculture, see GW to Hamilton, 2 November.
On 16 Dec., the U.S. House resolved to refer the section of the annual message on agriculture to “a select committee” (, 9:38). On 11 Jan. 1797, a member of the committee, Connecticut representative Zephaniah Swift, submitted a report to the House on the importance of a national agricultural society. Swift envisioned a national society composed of legislators and cabinet members, which would provide rewards for discoveries and experiments (see , Miscellaneous, 1:154–55). Though the committee proposed a resolution to create a society for the promotion of agriculture, no federal agricultural board similar to the British counterpart was established. The U.S. Department of Agriculture was not created until 1862.
In a letter to Sinclair dated 6 March 1797 from Philadelphia, GW assessed the reasons behind Congress’s inaction in creating agricultural boards: “this did not, I believe, proceed from any disinclination to the measure, but from their limited sitting, and a pressure of what they conceived, more important business” ( 1:13–15).
22. GW had proposed the idea of a national university in his first annual message to Congress of 8 Jan. 1790. GW alluded to the establishment of a military academy in his message to Congress of 3 Dec. 1793. See also Drafting GW’s Annual Address, 18–28 Nov. 1793, editorial note. Little progress toward the creation of a military academy was made until 1798 and 1799 when Hamilton and McHenry both promoted the idea. The Military Academy at West Point, N.Y, was in operation by late 1801 and was established by law in March 1802 (see , 36–55).
23. On 16 Dec., the U.S. House passed a resolution directing an inquiry into potential “alterations … in the compensation allowed by law to the officers of the United States.” On 30 Dec., the House instructed the committee of commerce and manufactures to look into the matter as it related to revenue officers (, 9:38, 65). Ensuing reports and debates about salaries of federal officials contributed to Congress’s passage of the “Act to augment the Compensation of the Attorney General,” 2 March 1797 ( 497). The “Act making appropriations,” 3 March, also listed various salary amounts ( 498–501). For earlier resolutions about compensation for U.S. district attorneys, see , Miscellaneous, 1:152.
24. French minister Pierre-Auguste Adet’s letters of 27 Oct. and 15 Nov. to Pickering had announced a French decree threatening the capture of U.S. vessels (see GW to Hamilton, 2 Nov. 1796, and n.2 to that document; see also Hamilton to GW, 19 Nov., and n.5 to that document).
25. On 19 Jan. 1797, GW submitted to Congress Pickering’s letter of 16 Jan. to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, U.S. minister to France, which rebutted the charges stated in Adet’s 15 Nov. 1796 letter to Pickering (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 19 Jan. 1797).
26. The journal for the U.S. House records that on 16 Dec., “a letter and report” from Wolcott was laid before that body “accompanied with estimates of the sums necessary to be appropriated for … the year” 1797, and “also, a statement of the receipts and expenditures at the Treasury of the United States, for one year preceding the first of October” 1796 (, 9:36–37). Wolcott submitted the following documents: “the annual expenditures of the War Department, from the commencement of the present government” to 31 Dec. 1795; “laying and collecting direct taxes among the several states;” appropriations estimates for 1797; and Treasury receipts and expenditures “for one year, preceding” 1 Oct. 1796 (, 9:41). Some of these documents have not been identified, but for Wolcott’s statement pertaining to direct taxes and the nation’s revenue sources, see , Finance, 1:414–65. Wolcott also submitted to the House a statement showing drawbacks “paid on dutiable articles exported” in 1793, 1794, and 1795 (, Finance, 1:471–73). For the House list of appropriations for 1797, based on Wolcott’s report, see , 4th Cong., 2d sess., 1672, 2038–49. On 3 March 1797, Congress passed the “Act making appropriations for the support of Government” for 1797 and the “Act making appropriations for the Military and Naval establishments,” both of which undoubtedly were based on Wolcott’s report ( 498–501, 508–9).
28. Congress’s “Act making provision for the payment of certain Debts of the United States,” 31 May 1796, had authorized the commissioners of the sinking fund to borrow up to $5,000,000 “to be applied to the payment of the capital, or principal of any parts of the debt of the United States … to the bank of the United States, or to the bank of New York, or for any instalment of foreign debt” ( 488–89). The sinking fund commissioners transmitted a report to the Senate, dated 16 Dec. and signed by John Adams, that contained a statement “of the Purchases of Public Stock,” and other information about the public debt (, Finance, 1:465–67). For more on the sinking fund and other recent congressional acts concerning the debt, see 186–87, 507, 516–17.
29. GW had discussed the importance of the militia in previous annual messages to Congress, including those of 3 Dec. 1793 and 8 Dec. 1795.
30. On 16 Dec., the U.S. House appointed a committee to make an “enquiry … into the actual state of the fortifications of the ports and harbours of the United States.” The committee made a report, and on 20 Feb. 1797, the House agreed to a resolution appropriating $24,000 “for the purposes of fortifying the ports and harbours of the United States” (, 9: 38–39, 216). This provision was included in the 3 March 1797 “Act making appropriations for the Military and Naval establishments” ( 508–9).