The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• The Writings of George Washington.
• 1785.
• To James Warren.
• To Patrick Henry, Governor of Virginia,
• To George William Fairfax.
• To Lund Washington.
• To James Madison.
• To Alexander Hamilton.
• To the Trustees of the Alexandria Academy.
• 1786.
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To Samuel Purviance, Esq.
• To Cols. Fitzgerald and Gilpin.
• To Robert Morris.
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To John Jay.
• To Henry L. Charton.
• To James Tilghman.
• To Henry Lee, In Congress.
• To William Grayson, In Congress.
• To Wakelin Welch, Esq.
• To the Chevalier De La Luzerne.
• To Thomas Jefferson.
• To John Jay.
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To David Humphreys. 1
• To John Francis Mercer.
• To William Triplet.
• To Bushrod Washington.
• To George Augustine Washington.
• To Henry Lee, In Congress.
• To James Madison.
• To Bushrod Washington.
• To James Madison.
• To Fielding Lewis.
• To P. Marsteller.
• To James Madison.
• To Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia. 1
• To David Humphreys.
• To Henry Knox.
• 1787.
• To Bushrod Washington.
• To Henry Knox.
• To Charles Washington.
• To Mrs. Mary Washington.
• To Thomas Stone. 1
• To Colonel David Humphreys.
• To John Jay.
• To Major-general Benjamin Lincoln.
• To Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia.
• To James Madison, In Congress. 1
• To Henry Knox.
• To Henry Knox.
• To Lund Washington.
• Diary During the Constitutional Convention, May—september, 1787. 1
• To Thomas Jefferson.
• To David Stuart.
• To Alexander Hamilton.
• To Richard Henry Lee.
• To Patrick Henry.
• To Colonel David Humphreys.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Henry Knox.
• To Alexander Hamilton.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Mathew Carey.
• To Archibald Johnston.
• To Arthur Young.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Bushrod Washington.
• To Thomas Johnson.
• To David Stuart.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Colonel Thomas Lewis.
• 1788.
• To Thomas Jefferson.
• To Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia.
• To Colonel Frederick Weissenfels.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Charles Carter.
• To Jonathan Trumbull.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To the Chevalier De La Luzerne.
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To Alexander Spotswood.
• To Samuel Griffin.
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Samuel Hanson, Esq.
• To the Count De Moustier.
• To Henry Knox.
• To Charles Lee.
• To James Wilson.
• To Thomas Johnson.
• To the Marquis De Chastellux.
• To John Armstrong.
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To the Count De Rochambeau.
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To George Steptoe Washington. 1
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To James Madison.
• To John Jay.
• To William Smith, and Others, of Baltimore.
• To Henry Knox.
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To Richard Henderson. 1
• To Charles Carter.
• To Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To John Jay.
• To Noah Webster.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To George Steptoe Washington.
• To Charles Pettit.
• To John Beale Bordley.
• To the Count De Moustier.
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To Alexander Hamilton.
• To Thomas Jefferson.
• To Henry Lee, In Congress.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Alexander Hamilton.
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To Mathew Carey.
• To Arthur Young.
• To William Gordon.
• 1789.
• To William Pierce.
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To Samuel Powel.
• To Thomas Jefferson.
• To Harry Innes.
• To Captain Richard Conway.
• To Benjamin Harrison.
• To George Steptoe Washington.
• To James Madison, In Congress.
• To Thomas Green. 2
• To Henry Knox.
• To John Langdon.
• Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress, April 30th, 1789.
• Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives,
• Reply to the Answer of the Senate.
• Reply to the Answer of the House of Representatives.
• To Edward Rutledge.
• To James Madison.
• To Mary Wooster. 1
• To Count De Moustier. [confidential.]
• To Mathew Carey.
• To the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. 1
• To James Mchenry.
• To John Jay. [private.]
• To Charles Thomson.
• To David Stuart.
• To James Madison.
• Sentiments Expressed By the President to the Committee From the Senate, Appointed to Confer With Him On the Mode of Communication Between the President and the Senate Respecting Treaties and Nominations.
• To James Madison. [confidential.]
• To Benjamin Lincoln.
• To James Craik.
• To Mrs. Betty Lewis.
• To Benjamin Franklin.
• To Edmund Randolph.
• To Gouverneur Morris.
• To Thomas Jefferson.
• To Gouverneur Morris.
• To Gouverneur Morris.
• To John Hancock.
• To Beverley Randolph, Governor of Virginia.
• To James Mchenry. [confidential.]
• To Edmund Randolph.
• To Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury.
• To Jabez Bowen.
• 1790.
• Speech to Both Houses of Congress, January 8th, 1790.
• Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:
• Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:
• Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:
• To Catharine Macaulay Graham.
• To Charles Pinckney, Governor of South Carolina. [private.]
• To Thomas Jefferson.
• To Edmund Randolph, Attorney-general.
• To David Stuart.
• To the Marquis De La Luzerne. 1
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To David Stuart.
• To Clement Biddle.
• To the Marquis De Lafayette.
• To Henry Knox, Secretary of War.
• To Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury.
• To Tobias Lear.
• To Henry Knox, Secretary of War. [private.]
• To George Steptoe Washington.

TO DAVID STUART.

New York, 26 July, 1789.

Dear Sir,

In the first moment of my ability to sit in an easy chair, and that not entirely without pain, I occupy myself in acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, and thanking you for it.

Although my time (before I was confined) had been and probably now will be much more engaged, yet your communications without any reserve will be exceedingly grateful and pleasing to me. While the eyes of America, perhaps of the world, are turned to this government, and many are watching the movements of all those, who are concerned in its administration, I should like to be informed, through so good a medium, of the public opinion of both men and measures, and of none more than myself; not so much of what may be thought commendable parts, if any, of my conduct, as of those which are conceived to be of a different complexion. The man, who means to commit no wrong, will never be guilty of enormities; consequently he can never be unwilling to learn what is ascribed to him as foibles. If they are really such, the knowledge of them in a well-disposed mind will go half way towards a reform. If they are not errors, he can explain and justify the motives of his actions.

At a distance from the theatre of action, truth is not always related without embellishment, and sometimes is entirely perverted, from a misconception of the causes which produce the effects that are the subjects of censure. 1. This leads me to think, that a system, which I found it indispensably necessary to adopt upon my first coming to this city, might have undergone severe strictures, and have had motives very foreign from those that govern me, assigned as causes therefor. I mean, returning no visits1 ; 2ly, appointing certain days to receive them generally, (not to the exclusion however of visits on any other days under particular circumstances;) and, 3ly, at first entertaining no company, and afterwards until I was unable to entertain any at all confining it to official characters. A few days evinced the necessity of the two first in so clear a point of view, that, had I not adopted it, I should have been unable to have attended to any sort of business, unless I had applied the hours allotted to rest and refreshment to this purpose; for by the time I had done breakfast, and thence till dinner, and afterwards till bed-time, I could not get relieved from the ceremony of one visit, before I had to attend to another. In a word, I had no leisure to read or to answer the despatches, that were pouring in upon me from all quarters.

And with respect to the third matter, I early received information through very respectable channels, that the adoption thereof was not less essential, than that of the other two, if the President was to preserve the dignity and respect, that was due to the first magistrate. For that a contrary conduct had involved the late presidents of Congress in insuperable difficulties, and the office, (in this respect,) in perfect contempt; for the table was considered as a public one, and every person, who could get introduced, conceived that he had a right to be invited to it. This, although the table was always crowded (and with mixed company, and the President considered in no better light than as a maitre d’hôtel), was in its nature impracticable, and as many offences given as if no table had been kept.

The citizens of this place were well knowing to this fact, and the principal members of Congress in both Houses were so well convinced of the impropriety and degrading situation of their President, that it was the general opinion, that the President of the United States should neither give or receive invitations; some from a belief, independent of the circumstances I have mentioned, that this was fundamentally right in order to acquire respect. But to this I had two objections, both powerful in my mind; first, the novelty of it I knew would be considered as an ostentatious show of mimicry of sovereignty; and, secondly, that so great a seclusion would have stopped the avenues to useful information from the many, and make me more dependent on that of the few. But to hit on a discriminating medium was found more difficult than it appeared to be at first view; for, if the citizens at large were begun upon, no line could be drawn; all, of decent appearance, would expect to be invited, and I should have been plunged at once into the evil I was endeavoring to avoid. Upon the whole, it was thought best to confine my invitations to official characters and strangers of distinction. This line I have hitherto pursued. Whether it may be found best to adhere to, or depart from it, in some measure must be the result of experience and information.

So strongly had the citizens of this place imbibed an idea of the impropriety of my accepting invitations to dinner, that I have not received one from any family (though they are remarkable for hospitality, and though I have received every civility and attention possible from them) since I came to the city, except dining with the governor on the day of my arrival; so that, if this should be adduced as an article of impeachment, there can be least one good reason adduced for my not dining out; to wit, never having been asked to do so.

One of the gentlemen, whose name is mentioned in your letter, though high-toned, has never, I believe, appeared with more than two horses in his carriage1 ; but it is to be lamented, that he and some others have stirred a question, which has given rise to so much animadversion, and which I confess has given me much uneasiness, lest it should be supposed by some, (unacquainted with facts,) that the object they had in view was not displeasing to me. The truth is, the question was moved before I arrived, without any privity or knowledge of it on my part, and urged, after I was apprized of it, contrary to my opinion; for I foresaw and predicted the reception it has met with, and the use that would be made of it by the adversaries of the government. Happily the matter is now done with, I hope never to be revived.1

The opposition of the Senate to the discrimination in the tonnage bill was so adverse to my ideas of justice and policy, that I should have suffered it to pass silently into a law without my signature, had I not been assured by some members of the Senate, that they were preparing another bill, which would answer the purpose more effectually without being liable to the objections and to the consequences, which they feared would have attended the descrimination, which was proposed in the tonnage law. Why they keep their doors shut, when acting in a legislative capacity, I am unable to inform you, unless it is because they think there is too much speaking to the gallery in the other House, and business thereby retarded.

Your letter is the first intimation I ever received of any defect in the title or of any claim to the land called Claiborn’s. It is hardly to be conceived that Philip Whitehead Claiborn, who was Brother (and as you say Executor) to William Claiborn, for the payment of whose debts it was sold, should have joined in the conveyance of land, to which he himself had a right by entail. Admit this, and bad motives must be ascribed to the action; viz., a knowledge that his son, if the entail was good, would not be barred by his conveyance, if no act of Assembly or writ of ad quod animum had previously docked it. Such a suspicion I cannot harbor of that Gentleman, because he possessed an exceeding fair character. To the best of my recollection there are some papers in the garret at Mount Vernon, which belong to the estate of Mr. Custis. In making a hasty arrangement of my own I came across and had them put into a trunk or box by themselves. From a cursory inspection they appeared altogether unimportant, or I should have sent them to you; and in another trunk in my study there are papers which relate to my accounts and transactions with that estate. Possibly (for it is not very probable,) you may find something in one or the other of those that may be useful. If in the first, I wish, if they are deserving of the carriage, that you would take them home. The others may be necessary for my own security, and therefore I would not have them removed. The decree of King William’s Court will not, I fear avail much, for I do not conceive that it could extend (if there was an entail in force) beyond the life of William Claiborn if then living, or that Phil. Claiborn’s act could bind his son. Your trouble in this and the other disputes with Mr. Custis’s estate I perceive will be very great. That your success may be correspondent I sincerely wish. We shall be anxious after the decisions to learn the result.

I am mistaken greatly, if I did not in the year 1778 convey both the King William and the King and Queen lands to Mr. Custis by deeds executed at Camp before Colonels Harrison, Mead, and many others as witnesses to prove it in the General Court, and this in the presence of Mr. Custis. If it was not received for want of due proof, I am ready to reacknowledge the same deed, or a copy of it, for I recollect (pretty well) taking the opinion of Col. Harrison upon the nature of the conveyance—and if my memory has not failed me you will find some mention of the matter in one of my letters to Mr. Custis which you called upon me some time ago to authenticate.

Mr. Dandridge gave me an order upon Mr. Brown (of Kentucky) for £800 to be applied if received to the credit of Mr. Custis’s Estate but the order was protested, and Mr. Dandridge had been advertised thereof.

Nothing would give me more pleasure, than to serve any of the descendants of General Nelson, of whose merits, when living, no man could entertain a higher opinion than I did. At the same time I must confess, there are few persons of whom I have no personal knowledge, or good information, that I would take into my family, where many qualifications are necessary to fit them for the duty of it; to wit, a good address, abilities above mediocrity, secrecy and prudence, attention and industry, good temper, and a capacity and disposition to write correctly and well and to do it obligingly.

Most clerkships will, I presume, either by law or custom, be left to the appointment of their principals in office. Little expectation therefore could Mr. Nelson, or any stranger, have from this source. This latter consideration, added to the desire I feel of serving the son of my old friend and acquaintance, has induced me at all hazards to offer Mr. Thomas Nelson, his son, a place in my family.

I shall not trouble you with legislative or any other accounts, which are detailed in the papers, but that I have sent you the journals of the Senate, as far as they have been published and handed to me. If the successor of Mr. Richards would get the Federal Gazette, published by Fenno, from this city, it would enable him to collect as much information of what is passing on the theatre of New York, as he could extract from all the other papers of the place (and they are very numerous), were he to go to the expense of them. My best wishes attend Mrs. Stuart and all the family; and I am, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and servant.1

[1 ]He seems to have made visits of ceremony before his inauguration.

[1 ]A report had gone abroad, that the Vice-President never appeared publicly except with a coach and six horses, which Dr. Stuart said was creating much excitement in Virginia, and was put forward by the opponents of the constitution as a proof of the monarchical tendency of the government.

[1 ]This paragraph relates to a scheme, which had lately been before Congress, respecting the titles by which the high officers of government should be addressed. “Nothing could equal the ferment and disquietude,” said Dr. Stuart, “occasioned by the proposition respecting titles. As it is believed to have originated with Mr. Adams and Mr. Lee, they are unpopular to an extreme.” The history of the proceedings on this subject is briefly as follows:

A committee was appointed by the Senate, April 23d, “to consider and report what style or titles it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States.” Richard Henry Lee was chairman. The next day a committee was appointed by the House of Representatives to confer with the committee of the Senate on the same subject. This joint committee reported, “That it is improper to annex any style or title to the respective styles or titles of office expressed in the constitution.” The report was unanimously adopted by the House, but was not agreed to by the Senate. The question was then taken in that body, whether the President of the United States should be addressed by the title of His Excellency, which passed in the negative, and the subject was referred to another committee, of which Lee, Ellsworth, and Dr. Johnson were members.

A proposal to the House of Representatives to confer with this second committee brought on a debate, which was conducted with considerable warmth, and was stopped by the previous question, which set the subject aside, and it was never again brought forward in that House. The committee of the Senate reported, however, that it was proper to style the President, His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of the Liberties of the same. In the meantime the House of Representatives had addressed the President, in reply to his inaugural speech, as President of the United States; and the Senate, for the purpose of preserving harmony with the other House, resolved, May 14th, to follow its example in an address about to be made to the President, and postponed the report of their committee; agreeing at the same time in the resolve, that, “From a decent respect for the opinion and practice of civilized nations, whether under monarchical or republican forms of government, whose custom is to annex titles of respectability to the office of their chief magistrate, and that, in intercourse with foreign nations, a due respect for the majesty of the people of the United States may not be hazarded by an appearance of singularity, the Senate have been induced to be of opinion, that it would be proper to annex a respectable title to the office of the President of the United States.” With this declaration of their opinion the Senate allowed the matter to rest, and it was never afterwards revived. Senator McClay was one of the most active opponents to titles, and has left the fullest record of the contest on this question.

While the subject was thus solemnly treated by Congress, it caused much excitement throughout the country. It was discussed in the gazettes, but the advocates of titles found few supporters. By these it was affirmed, however, that titles were as harmless as they were necessary, and that the President, as representing the majesty of the people, might even be styled His Majesty without reasonable offence to republican ears. Others said that His Excellency was not a proper title, because it was applied to officers below him, particularly in the diplomatic department. In some of the newspapers the President was called “His Highness, the President-General.” The Senate was denominated Most Honorable, and the same epithet was applied to the members of that body. For instance, it was published, that the Most Honorable Rufus King and the Most Honorable Philip Schuyler were appointed Senators. And when Mrs. Washington came to New York, she was accompanied by the “Lady of the Most Honorable Robert Morris.” The Representatives, and even the secretaries of the executive departments, were favored with no higher title than Honorable. In the debates on the subject, Mr. Clymer said that, “as soon as a man is selected for the public service, his fellow citizens with a liberal hand showered down titles upon him, either excellency or honorable; he would venture to affirm there were more Honorable Esquires in the United States than in all the world besides.” There appears not to have been a single member of the House of Representatives in favor of titles. The habit of bestowing them gradually subsided. It would be ludicrous at the present day to affix the superlative epithet to a senator’s name, and not less so to use the anticlimax Honorable Esquire, which prevailed during the Revolution. General Washington was scrupulous to give every man his official appellation, but was opposed to all titles as marks of rank in a republican government. A person sent to him a manuscript treatise on heraldry, the publication of which was suppressed by his advice, as he thought its tendency would be hostile to the sentiments of the people and unfavorable to liberty.

“Titles to both the President and Vice-President were formally and unanimously condemned by a vote of the House of Representatives. This, I hope, will shew to the friends of Republicanism that our new Government was not meant to substitute either monarchy or aristocracy, and that the genius of the people is as yet averse to both.”—Madison to Jefferson, 9 May, 1789. “The address is purged, you will observe, of all titles whatsoever, except the Constitutional one. This point had been previously determined by a Report from a joint committee originated by the Senate, for the purpose of settling what, or whether any, titles should be annexed to the President and Vice-President. The Report was unanimously agreed to by the House of Representatives previous to the address. I am sorry to find that the Senate do not concur in this principle of dignified simplicity. They have disagreed to the Report of the joint Committee, and have proposed another consultation on the subject. The House of Representatives will assuredly adhere to the first determination. The friends of titles in the other Branch are headed by the Vice-President, who is seconded with all the force and urgency of natural temper by R. H. L[ee].”—Madison to Pendleton, 10 May, 1789. The Senate used no title in its answer, an “imitation that was extorted. . . . The projected title was, his Highness the President of the United States and protector of their liberties. Had the project succeeded, it would have subjected the President to a severe dilemma, and given a deep wound to our infant Government.”—Madison to Jefferson, 23 May, 1789. “Honorary titles lead to permanent distinctions and hereditary establishments, these to monstrous taxes, and both to the ruin of liberty.”—Boston Gasette.

[1 ]The first appointment submitted to the Senate by the President was that of William Short to be in charge of the American legation in Paris, during the absence of Thomas Jefferson, the minister under the confederation. This nomination was made on June 16th, and confirmed on the 18th. On August 3d, a long list of appointments in the revenue service was submitted, and the Senate acted upon them, rejecting but one—the nomination of Benjamin Fishbourn as naval officer for the port of Savannah. In sending in the name of Lachlan McIntosh as his substitute, Washington showed that the rejection had not a little touched him. “Permit me to submit to your consideration, whether on occasions, where the propriety of a nomination appears questionable to you, it would not be expedient to communicate that circumstance to me, and thereby avail yourselves of the information which led me to make them and which I would with pleasure lay before you.” And he proceeded to give his reasons for naming Fishbourn.—Message, 6 August, 1789.