Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO TIMOTHY PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE. - 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 TIMOTHY PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE. - 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 TIMOTHY PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Mount Vernon, 24 June, 1796.

Sir,

The information contained in a letter, of which the enclosed is a correct copy, (with a reservation only of names agreeably to the request of the writer,) may serve as a comment upon the conduct of the owner of the privateer Flying-Fish, and as a development also of the intentions of the French government, so far as it relates to the commerce of the United States with Great Britain.1 The communications in the last numbers of the Aurora, (that I have seen,) afford still further evidence of this system, and are calculated most evidently to prepare the public mind for this event, at the same time that they labor to make it appear, that the treaty with that country is the cause of such conduct in France.

The source from which the information comes cannot, as to its authenticity and knowledge of facts, be doubted; of course, if the persons through whom it has passed to the reciter are not mistaken in their details, the most entire credit is to be given to the account.

Under these impressions, and the serious aspect which they present, it is my request that you and the Secretaries of the Treasury and War would meet; consult the treaties, the laws of nations, and of the U. States, which have any relation to the subject; and, after mature deliberation, to report to me your opinions of the measures, which you conceive ought to be adopted under such information and circumstances particularly.

1. Whether immediate explanation should be asked on this subject from the minister of the French Republic in Philadelphia; and in that case, (which I am inclined to think is right,) to proceed, without the delay of sending to me, to make the requisition accordingly, unless, from the tenor of the answer to the letter you had drafted before I left Philadelphia respecting the capture of the Mount Vernon, it should in your judgment be unnecessary.

2. Whether there is power in the executive, and, in that case, whether it would be expedient in the recess of the Senate, to send an extra character to Paris to explain the views of this government, and to ascertain those of France; and, in the affirmative of these, to suggest for my consideration the names of such persons as in your opinions are best qualified to subserve these purposes.

I shall expect to hear fully from you on this interesting subject, and shall only add, that if, in the investigation of it, my presence in Philadelphia is deemed necessary, or if any other occurrence should require my return before the time I had allotted for it, I can and will set out for that place as soon as I am advertised of the necessity. I am, &c.1

[1 ]The Mount Vernon was an American vessel purchased by an Englishman, loaded in the name of Willing and Francis with English property, and captured by a French privateer, the Flying Fish. Adet would give no satisfaction, although Washington was very well disposed to favor him personally.

“Mr. Adet was as cordially, & as repeatedly asked to visit, Mount Vernon as either of the other foreign characters; but to me he never said he would come. La Fayette and Mr. Frestel however, the day before I left Philadelphia, understood him that he should set out on this visit in ten days after me; since which I have heard nothing of him.

“It was my determination, and so I acted, to place them all upon precisely the same ground; but as there are many who will not be disposed to think so, but on the contrary, will more than probably, represent it otherwise, it will be very agreeable to me, that you should see & express to him, on my behalf, the sentiments which are mentioned in your letter; predicated on the hope, raised in me, by the Gentlemen beforementioned.”—Washington to James McHenry, 11 July, 1796.

[1 ]The Cabinet replied that a direct explanation should be demanded of the French minister. “We are also of opinion that the Executive has not the power, in the recess of the Senate, to originate the appointment of a minister extraordinary to France; and that the recall of Mr. Monroe, by creating a vacancy, can alone authorize the sending of a new minister to that country. On the expediency of this change we are agreed. We think the great interests of the United States require that they have near the French Government some faithful organ to explain their real views and to ascertain those of the French. Our duty obliges us to be explicit. Although the present Minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris has been amply furnished with documents to explain the views and conduct of the United States, yet his own letters authorize us to say, that he has omitted to use them, and thereby exposed the United States to all the mischiefs which could flow from jealousies and erroneous conceptions of their views and conduct. Whether this dangerous omission arose from such an attachment to the cause of France as rendered him too little mindful of the interests of his own country, or from mistaken views of the latter, or from any other cause, the evil is the same. We therefore conceive it to be indispensably necessary that the present minister plenipotentiary of the U. S. at Paris should be recalled, and another American citizen appointed in his stead. Such being our opinion, we beg leave to name for your consideration Patrick Henry and John Marshall of Virginia, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and William Smith of South Carolina, either of whom would, we believe, so explain the conduct and views of the U. States as to gratify the French Republic and thereby remove the danger of a rupture or inconvenient controversy with that nation; or failing of this desirable effect, to satisfy the citizens of the United States that the fault was not to be imputed to their own government.

“In confirmation of our opinion of the expediency of recalling Mr. Monroe, we think the occasion requires that we communicate a private letter from him which came to our hands since you left Philadelphia. This letter corresponds with other intelligence of his political opinions and conduct. A minister who has thus made the notorious enemies of the whole system of the government his confidential correspondents in matters which affect that government, cannot be relied on to do his duty to the latter. This private letter we received in confidence. Among other circumstances that will occur to your recollection, the anonymous letters from France to Thos. Blount and others are very noticeable. We know that Montflorence was the writer, and that he was the Chancellor of the consul Skipwith; and from the connexion of Mr. Monroe with those persons, we can entertain no doubt that the anonymous letters were written with his privity.

“These anonymous communications from officers of the United States in a foreign country, on matters of public nature, and which deeply concern the interests of the United States, in relation to that foreign country, are proofs of sinister design, and shew that the public interests are no longer safe in the hands of such men.

“The information contained in the confidential communication you were pleased to make to us on the project of the French Government relative to the commerce of the U. States, is confirmed by the open publication of the same substantially and more minutely in the newspapers. Mr. Fenno’s in which it first appeared, we now enclose. The execution of the project even appears to have been commenced. The following article is in Mr. Fenno’s paper of the 28th ulto:

“ ‘New London, June 23d. Arrived by the Aurora, S. Wadsworth of Hartford, in fourteen days from Port-au paix. Left there sloop Crisis, Cook of Norwich, with mules; sloop Scrub, Williams of Middletown; and a brig from Philadelphia; all carried in by French privateers. It was not pretended to make prizes of them, but their cargoes were taken by the administration, at their own price, and due-bills given therefor. Those who go there to trade and those carried in, are all treated alike. Capt. Wadsworth received a due bill for 11,000 livres.’

. . . . . . . . .

“Timothy Pickering, “Oliver Wolcott, “James McHenry. Phila., 2 July, 1796.”