Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow JUDGE PETERS TO JAY. - The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 4 (1794-1826)

Return to Title Page for The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 4 (1794-1826)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

JUDGE PETERS TO JAY. - John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 4 (1794-1826) [1893]

Edition used:

The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston, A.M. (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890-93). Vol. 4 (1794-1826).

Part of: The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 4 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


JUDGE PETERS TO JAY.

Belmont, February 14, 1811.

Dear Sir:

. . . . . . .

You will see that I wish, in my “Plaister”1 book, though I had no premediated plan, to get among our farmers a memento of Washington’s private character. I touch nothing of public character but what is connected with private virtues. It was an affair of the heart. His character is the only plank left for sinking patriotism to keep itself afloat yet a little longer. I am always hurt when I hear anything which tends to break what remains of the charm his name once possessed. I would not lie to support any position, but I would not tell mischievous truths. You see I have glanced at his “Farewell Address.” It was meant to take off the edge of the unnecessary buzz that Hamilton wrote it. I do not believe he did more than dress it, and most likely weave in some good things. If I had it in his handwriting (Hamilton’s) I would burn it. What good does the development of this fact do? Hamilton has fame enough. He can get no more from those who admire him, of whom I am one. He will not gain a feather from his, or the enemies of Washington’s principles. But those principles would lose force by being ascribed to Hamilton and deducted from Washington. The circumstance of their being found in Hamilton’s writing is not complete proof. I know that they are also found in the General’s own hand writing. I aver that I have heard him in conversation express most of the sentiments; and what I say about the bundle of letters (never intended to see the light) is strictly true. Mr. King, it is said, has a copy in Hamilton’s writing. But I know there is also a complete copy in that of the General, as well as heads of most of the matter previous to composing it.

What I allude to in page v of the sketch, is the loss, by Genl. Greene’s well intended pertinacity, of Fort Washington, of which I have a full account in Genl. W’s letter. The instance of the foreign minister, who found fault with his want of graciousness, was that of Hammond.1

I knew Arnold to be a scoundrel; and detected him in pilfering the public stores. He hated me on this account. In Philadelphia I discovered his peculations, and gave orders (in conjunction, I believe, with Col. Pickering, who was then with me) to the staff departments, to supply him with only his rations. This was enough to raise his gall, you may be sure. When his villainy at West Point broke out, everybody was thunderstruck except Pickering and myself, to whom it was no surprise; tho’ we could not have prophesied where, or when, he would betray his trust. I mention this (not having took notice of it publickly) because both Pickering and myself thought it a very indiscreet confidence placed in Arnold. But I have a letter of the General’s [Washington], which completely exculpates him, in my mind. A most worthy and influential general officer and a Member of Congress, both of New York, recommended the measure very innocently; and they were presumed highly interested in the safety of the post. Neither they nor the General could have expected so horrid an abuse of the confidence. If Genl. W. ever explained this publickly, I never met with it. I believe he avoided any such exculpation of himself at other people’s expence, tho’ none were to blame. But I thought the affair of Fort Washington was enough.

I know that some of my friends do not believe the General was capable of composing, as I do. But this is an affair of critical taste, which I do not value myself upon. I had an early attachment to him. I remember Braddock’s army, or the remnants of it (when I was 10 or 11 years old) crossing the Schuylkill and encamping below our city, where there are now squares of elegant houses. My uncle was Secretary of the Province, and hospitable. The officers frequented our house. They (the candid part of them) spoke in high approbation of Col. Washington. They attributed their salvation to his prowess and conduct. I wondered that any but a redcoat could be a soldier; some of them used to provoke my boyish playfulness, and I told them it was a shame to let Frenchmen beat them. They replied that Frenchmen could not have done it, but the Indians did it. I had a mortal dread of Indians, and excused the British on that account. I had a great longing to see this provincial soldier. When I was afterwards gratified, it fixed an habitual admiration on a youthful mind.

Yours very affectionately,

Richard Peters.

[1 ]See vol. ii. of the “Memoirs of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture.” Judge Peters prefaced it with some personal recollections of Washington and extracts from his letters.

[1 ]Minister from England during negotiations of the Jay treaty, 1794.