Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO OLIVER WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. - The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

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

TO OLIVER WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798) [1892]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890). Vol. XIII (1794-1798).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 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.


TO OLIVER WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

August, 1795.1

At what time should Mr. F’s. letter be made known to Mr. R.?

What will be the best mode of doing it? In presence of the Secretaries and Attorney-General?

If the explanations given by the latter are not satisfactory, whether, besides removal, are any other measures proper to be taken, and what?

Would an application to Mr. A. to see the paragraphs in Nos. 3 and 6, alluded to in Fauchet’s letter, be proper? These might condemn or acquit unequivocally, and if innocent, whether R. will not apply for them if I do not?

If upon the investigation of the subject, it should appear less dark than at present, but not so clear as to restore confidence, in what light, and on what ground is the removal to appear before the public?

What immediate steps are necessary to be taken as soon as R. is resolved on, if that should be the case, with respect to the archives in that office?

If the letter of F. is the only evidence and that thought sufficient to the removal, what would be the consequence of giving the letter to the public without any comments, on the ground on which the measure of the Executive respecting the removal is founded? It would speak for itself; a part, without the whole, might be charged with unfairness. The public would expect reasons for the sudden removal of so high an officer, and it will be found not easy to avoid saying too little or too much upon such an occasion, as it is not to be expected that the removed officer will acquiesce without attempting a justification, or at least to do away by explanation the sting of the letter of accusation; unless he was let down easily, to do which I see no way; for if guilty of what is charged, he merits no favor, and if he is not, he will accept none; and it is not difficult to perceive what turn he and his friends will give to the act, namely, that his friendship for the French nation, and his opposition to a complete ratification have been the cause.1

[1 ]Late in March, 1795, a French corvette was captured by a British man-of-war off Pesmarque, and some of Fauchet’s despatches to his government were taken. These despatches were sent to the British minister in the United States, Hammond, and by him were given to Wolcott, 28 July, 1795. On the same day Wolcott showed one despatch to Pickering, and on the next day to the Attorney-General, when a decision was reached to summon Washington to Philadelphia. On the 31st Wolcott and Pickering waited upon Randolph, and urged him to write to Washington requesting his return. On this Randolph, voicing the opinion of the Cabinet, thought it expedient for the President to return to Philadelphia, at the earliest possible day, as some decisive step might be necessary in consequence of the communications from Mr. Hammond, then about to sail for England. And not satisfied with that, Pickering wrote a letter for Washington’s “own eye alone,” saying: “On the subject of the treaty I confess that I feel extreme solicitude; and for a special reason, which can be communicated to you only in person. I entreat, therefore, that you will return, with all convenient speed, to the seat of government. In the meantime, for the reason above referred to, I pray you to decide on no important political measure, in whatever form it may be presented to you.”

Washington reached the city on August 11th, and Pickering gave him an account of the intercepted despatch, and a translation of it made by Pickering was left with him. For some days the President considered the matter, and the best manner of bringing it before Randolph, and submitted to Wolcott, and probably to the other members of the Cabinet, the questions printed in the text.

The intercepted despatch was No. 10, dated 10 Brumaire (31 October, 1794), and purported to give some “precieuses confessions” of Mr. Randolph on the Western insurrection. After giving an account of the two political parties—the federalist and the anti-federalist—the fiscal interest and the agricultural—he asserted the preponderance of the treasury in government and in legislation. Under the influence of the French Revolution the anti-federalists became the republicans or patriots, and, attacking the treasury and its policy, suffered a momentary check. The popular societies formed a point of union and centralization, strengthened by the commercial stress, the subjection of navigation, and the audacity of Great Britain; and resolutions of censure were passed against the government. The growing complaints of the republicans came to a head on the passage of the excise law; and by the measures of repression, under the pretext of giving energy to the government, as Randolph had said, it was intended to introduce absolute power and mislead the President into paths that would conduct him to unpopularity. Of the measures of repression Hamilton was the adviser; Randolph favored pacific negotiation. “Two or three days before the proclamation was published, and of course before the Cabinet had resolved on its measures, Mr. Randolph came to see me with an air of great eagerness, and made to me the overtures of which I have given you an account in my No. 6. Thus with some thousands of dollars, the republic could have decided on civil war or on peace! Thus the consciences of the pretended patriots of America already have their prices! It is very true that the certainty of these conclusions, painful to be drawn, will forever exist in our archives! What will be the old age of this government if it is thus early decrepit!” The cause of all this was laid at Hamilton’s door, who had made of the whole nation a stock-jobbing, speculating, selfish people. Some patriots might be found, like Monroe, Madison, and Jefferson. The true question to be settled was the destruction or the triumph of the treasury policy. The President’s marching against the insurrection was an act of wisdom; the conduct of Hamilton was a piece of deep policy, to establish a more perfect intimacy with the President, whose name was alone a sufficient shield against attack.

The despatch is printed in full in Conway, Edmund Randolph, 272.

[1 ]On August 19th, in the presence of Wolcott, Pickering, and Bradford, Washington gave to Randolph the intercepted despatch, and the Secretary requested an opportunity to throw his ideas on paper. Instead of so doing, he sent in his resignation that evening. On the 22d Washington gave him a copy of Fauchet’s No. 10, and the ex-Secretary at once set out for Newport to see Fauchet, and obtain from him a denial of the insinuations contained in that despatch. In this he claimed to have succeeded. “I trust that I am in possession of such materials, not only from Mr. Fauchet, but also from other sources, as will convince every unprejudiced mind that my resignation was dictated by considerations which ought not to have been resisted for a moment; and that everything connected with it, stands upon a footing perfectly honorable to myself.”—Randolph to Washington, 15 September, 1795.