1,82 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Krill Press
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 625
Ähnliche
THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON: VOLUME 10
Alexander Hamilton
FIREWORK PRESS
Thank you for reading. In the event that you appreciate this book, please consider sharing the good word(s) by leaving a review, or connect with the author.
This book is a work of nonfiction and is intended to be factually accurate.
All rights reserved. Aside from brief quotations for media coverage and reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced or distributed in any form without the author’s permission. Thank you for supporting authors and a diverse, creative culture by purchasing this book and complying with copyright laws.
Copyright © 2015 by Alexander Hamilton
Interior design by Pronoun
Distribution by Pronoun
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Volume 10
PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE
1792
to rufus king
to colonel edward carrington
to rufus king
to washington
to washington
to elias boudinot
to john adams
to william seton
to john jay (Private.)
to ——
to rufus king
to ——
to gen. c. c. pinckney1
to john steele1
to john adams
to john jay
1793
to richard harrison2
to william short1 (Private.)
to rufus king
to washington
to washington
to john jay
to john jay
to rufus king
to jefferson1
to ——1
to rufus king
to gen. otho h. williams (Private and Confidential.)
to washington
to one of the creditors of col. duer1
to rufus king1
to rufus king
to mrs. general greene
to jeremiah wadsworth
to miss angelica hamilton
to ——
to colonel olney1
1794
to the united states senate
to washington
to washington
to jay
to washington
to rufus king
to rufus king
to george matthews, governor of georgia
to oliver wolcott1
to rufus king
to a friend in europe
to thomas fitzsimmons
to washington
to washington
1795
to washington
to willink, van staphorst, & hubbard1
to washington
washington to hamilton
washington to hamilton
to washington
to washington (Private.)
to theodore sedgwick
to rufus king
to rufus king
to oliver wolcott
to rufus king
to william bradford1
to rufus king
to oliver wolcott
to rufus king
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to robert troup2
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to washington
to pickering
to rufus king
to washington
to timothy pickering
to washington
1796
to rufus king
to washington
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to william smith1
to rufus king
to washington
to washington
to washington
to washington
to washington
to rufus king
to washington
to rufus king
to rufus king
to rufus king
to oliver wolcott
to rufus king
to rufus king
to timothy pickering
to washington
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to james mchenry1
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to elias boudinot
to oliver wolcott
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to greenleaf2
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to washington
to washington
to washington
to phineas bond
to timothy pickering
to ——
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to washington
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to rufus king
to oliver wolcott
to theo. foster, esq.2
to oliver wolcott
1797
to william smith
to ——
to washington
to william smith
to theodore sedgwick
to washington
to timothy pickering
to timothy pickering
to timothy pickering
to rufus king
to oliver wolcott
to theodore sedgwick
to james mchenry.
to timothy pickering
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to william smith
to rufus king
to william smith
to oliver wolcott
to —— hamilton
to timothy pickering
to timothy pickering
to rufus king
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to timothy pickering
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
1798
to rufus king
to timothy pickering
to theodore sedgwick
to timothy pickering
to timothy pickering
to john jay
to james mchenry
to rufus king
to washington
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to rufus king
to timothy pickering
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to washington
to timothy pickering
to general duportail1
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to general dayton1
to benjamin stoddert1
to james mchenry (Private.)
(Draft above referred to)
to james mchenry
to washington
to oliver wolcott
to rufus king
to francisco miranda1
to francisco miranda1
to oliver wolcott
to james mchenry
to theodore sedgwick
to timothy pickering
to james mchenry.
to washington
to rufus king
to the count latour dupin gouvernet1
to william heth1
to harrison gray otis1
to theodore sedgwick
1799
to jonathan dayton1
to lafayette
to harrison gray otis
to theodore sedgwick
to timothy pickering
to washington (Private.)
to timothy pickering
to theodore sedgwick
to oliver wolcott
to general knox
to james mchenry (Private.)
to oliver wolcott1
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to washington (Private.)
to colonel taylor1
to james mchenry (Private.)
to josiah o. hoffman1
to washington
1800
to tobias lear1
to rufus king
to mrs. martha washington
to captain george izard1
to theodore sedgwick
to henry lee
to william smith
to oliver wolcott
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to general charles cotesworth pinckney (Private.)
to timothy pickering
to theodore sedgwick
to john jay
to theodore sedgwick
to theodore sedgwick
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to charles carroll1
to samuel dexter1
to john adams
to oliver wolcott
to james ashton bayard1
to james mchenry
to oliver wolcott
to john adams
to timothy pickering
to oliver wolcott
to oliver wolcott
to theodore sedgwick
to gouverneur morris1
to gouverneur morris
to james a. bayard
to john rutledge
1801
to james ross 2
to gouverneur morris
to gouverneur morris
to james a. bayard
to gouverneur morris
to theodore sedgwick
to mrs. hamilton
to mrs. hamilton
to mrs. hamilton
to ——
1802
to dr. benjamin rush1
to gouverneur morris
to gouverneur morris
to general charles cotesworth pinckney
to gouverneur morris
to james a. bayard
to rufus king
to the editor of the “evening post”
to oliver wolcott
to gouverneur morris
to general charles cotesworth pinckney
to timothy pickering1
1803-4
to rufus king
to governor george clinton
to governor george clinton
to governor george clinton
to governor george clinton
to talleyrand
to ——
to philip j. schuyler1
to james a. hamilton
to theodore sedgwick
to general john sullivan
to washington
a. burr to general hamilton
hamilton to burr
burr to hamilton
hamilton to burr
w. p. van ness1 to hamilton
van ness to major nathaniel pendleton1
pendleton to van ness
van ness to pendleton
remarks by hamilton on the letter of june 27, 1804
statement by hamilton as to his motives in meeting burr
to mrs. hamilton
to mrs. hamilton
rules for mr. philip hamilton
last will and testament of alexander hamilton
epitaph on a tablet, by the society of the cincinnati, in trinity church, new york
The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Volume 10
By
Alexander Hamilton
The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Volume 10
Published by Firework Press
New York City, NY
First published circa 1804
Copyright © Firework Press, 2015
All rights reserved
Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
About Firework Press
Firework Pressprints and publishes the greatest books about American history ever written, including seminal works written by our nation’s most influential figures.
INTRODUCTION
UNFORTUNATELY, ONE OF THE BEST known aspects of Alexander Hamilton’s (1755-1804) life is the manner in which he died, being shot and killed in a famous duel with Aaron Burr in 1804. But Hamilton became one of the most instrumental Founding Fathers of the United States in that time, not only in helping draft and gain support for the U.S. Constitution but in also leading the Federalist party and building the institutions of the young federal government as Washington’s Secretary of Treasury.
One of the biggest battles was over the chartering of a national bank, a topic that seems trivial today given the size and scope of the federal government. At the founding, however, the Southern states and Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Party were skeptical of the necessity of a national bank, while Hamilton’s Federalists insisted that it would help the nation pay off its debts and manage its finances. Eventually Hamilton won out, but the First U.S. Bank, located in Philadelphia, was nonetheless run by a private company, ensuring limits on government control.
This edition of Hamilton’s Works: Volume 10 includes his Private Correspondence from 1792-1804, discussing the politics of the day with other Founding Fathers. It also includes his Last Will and Epitaph.
THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON: VOLUME 10
PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE
1792
TO RUFUS KING
Philadelphia,
July 25, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
I received, lately, a letter from you, in which you expressed sentiments according with my own on the present complexion of your party politics, as, if a letter of mine to you did not miscarry, you will have seen. I wished that Clinton and his party should be placed in a just light before the people, and that a spirit of dissatisfaction, within proper bounds, should be kept alive; and this for national purposes, as well as from a detestation of their principles and conduct.
But a resort to first principles, in any shape, is decidedly against my judgment. I don’t think the occasion will, in any sense, warrant it. It is not for the friends of good government to employ extraordinary expedients, which ought only to be resorted to in cases of great magnitude and urgent necessity. I reject as well the idea of a convention as of force.
To rejudge the decision of the canvassers by a convention, has to me too much the appearance of reversing the sentence of a court by a legislative decree. The canvassers had a final authority in all the forms of the Constitution and laws. A question arose in the execution of their office, not absolutely free from difficulty which they have decided (I am persuaded wrongly), but within the power vested in them. I do not fell it right or expedient to attempt to reverse the decision by any means not known to the Constitution or laws.
The precedent may suit us to-day; but to-morrow we may see its abuse.
I am not even sure that it will suit us at all. I see already publications aiming at a revision of the Constitution, with a view to alterations which would spoil it. It would not be astonishing, if a convention should be called, if it should produce more than is intended. Such weapons are not to be played with. Even the friends of good government, in their present mood, may fancy alterations desirable which would be the reverse.
Men’s minds are too much unsettled everywhere at the present juncture. Let us endeavor to settle them, and not to set them more afloat. I find that strong-minded men here view the matter in the same light with me, and that even Mr. Jay’s character is likely in a degree, to suffer by the idea that he fans the flame a little more than is quite prudent. I wish this idea to be conveyed to him with proper management. I have thoughts of writing to him.
You see, out of the reach of the contagion, I am very cool and reasonable. If I were with you I should probably not escape the infection.
Francis Childs1 is a very cunning fellow. In Philadelphia, in the person of his proxy, Freneau, he is a good Anti-federalist and Clintonian; in New York, he is a good Federalist and Jayite. Beckley and Jefferson pay him for the first, and the Federal citizens of New York for the last. Observe a paragraph in his Daily Advertiser of the 18th instant. These things ought, in a proper way, to be brought into view.
TO COLONEL EDWARD CARRINGTON
Philadelphia,
July 25, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
I have received and thank you for your two letters of the 11th instant.
When I asked your opinion concerning the most fit position for a branch of the bank, I had no idea that the question would have been decided with so much precipitation as has happened. After some loose conversation with individual directors,in which the comparative merits of different places were slightly discussed, and left, as I understood, for further information, I was surprised with an intimation that the place had been decided upon, that Richmond was that place, and that some day in August had been assigned for choosing directors. A predominating motive, though an insufficient one, appears to have been that most of the bank-stock held in Virginia is held by persons in and about Richmond.
The reasons assigned in your letter in favor of another place are prodigiously weighty. Without committing you, they shall be made known before the thing is finally finished. But I suspect it has gone too far.
Your observations concerning the temper of the people of your State are, as far as they go, consoling. Reflections according with them had arisen in my mind, though I could not be sure that I might not overrate circumstances. I shall wait with expectation for the further communication which you are so obliging as to promise.
What you remark concerning the non-execution of the excise law in North Carolina is very interesting. The probable effect of a continuance of the affair in the same posture is obvious. It has been the wish to win the object from time and reflection. But this can no longer be relied upon. The thing must be brought to an issue, and will be, as soon as the new arrangement respecting compensations is completed. If process should be violently resisted in the parts of North Carolina bordering on your State, how much could be hoped from the aid of the militia of your State?1
TO RUFUS KING
July 27, 1792.
Desirous of examining accurately the question decided by the canvassers, I will thank you for a minute of all the authorities which were consulted by you when you gave your opinion.1
I shall be glad to have them as soon as convenient.
TO WASHINGTON
Philadelphia,
July 30, 1792.
SIR:
I received the most sincere pleasure at finding in our late conversation, that there was some relaxation in the disposition you had before discovered to decline a re-election. Since your departure, I have left no opportunity of sounding the opinions of persons, whose opinions were worth knowing on these two points. 1st. The effect of your declining, upon the public affairs, and upon your own reputation. 2dly. The effect of your continuing, in reference to the declarations you have made of your disinclination to public life; and I can truly say that I have not found the least difference of sentiment on either point. The impression is uniform, that your declining would be to be deplored as the greatest evil that could befall the country at the present juncture, and as critically hazardous to your own reputation; that your continuance will be justified in the mind of every friend to his country, by the evidence necessity for it. ’T is clear, says every one with whom I have conversed, that the affairs of the national government are not yet firmly established—that its enemies, generally speaking, are as inveterate as ever—that their enmity has been sharpened by its success, and by all the resentments which flow from disappointed predictions and mortified vanity—that a general and strenuous effort is making in every State to place the administration of it in the hands of its enemies, as if they were its safest guardians—that the period of the next House of Representatives is likely to prove the crisis of its permanent character—that if you continue in office nothing materially mischievous is to be apprehended, if you quit, much is to be dreaded—that the same motives which induced you to accept originally ought to decide you to continue till matters have assumed a more determined aspect—that indeed it would have been better, as it regards your own character, that you had never consented to come forward, than now to leave the business unfinished and in danger of being undone—that in the event of storms arising, there would be an imputation either of want of foresight or want of firmness—and, in fine, that on public and personal accounts, on patriotic and prudential considerations, the clear path to be pursued by you will be, again to obey the voice of your country, which, it is not doubted, will be as earnest and as unanimous as ever.
On this last point, I have some suspicion that it will be insinuated to you, and perhaps (God forgive me if I judge hardly) with design to place before you a motive for declining—that there is danger of a division among the electors, and of less unanimity in their suffrages than heretofore. My view of this matter is as follows:
While your first election was depending, I had no doubt that there would be characters among the electors, who, if they durst follow their inclinations, would have voted against you; but that in all probability they would be restrained by an apprehension of public resentment—that nevertheless it was possible a few straggling votes might be found in opposition, from some headstrong and fanatical individuals—that a circumstance of this kind would be in fact, and ought to be estimated by you, as of no importance, since there would be sufficient unanimity to witness the general confidence and attachment towards you.
My view of the future accords exactly with what was my view of the past. I believe the same motives will operate to produce the same result. The dread of public indignation will be likely to restrain the indisposed few. If they can calculate at all, they will naturally reflect that they could not give a severer blow to their cause than by giving a proof of their hostility to you. But if a solitary vote or two should appear wanting to perfect unanimity, of what moment can it be? Will not the fewness of the exceptions be a confirmation of the devotion of the community to a character which has so generally united its suffrages after an administration of four years at the head of a new government, opposed in its first establishment by a large proportion of its citizens, and obliged to run counter to many prejudices in devising the arduous arrangements requisite to public credit and public order? Will not those who may be the authors of any such exceptions, manifest more their own perverseness and malevolence than any diminution of the affection and confidence of the nation? I am persuaded that both these questions ought to be answered in the affirmative, and that there is nothing to be looked for, on the score of diversity of sentiment, which ought to weigh for a moment.
I trust, sir, and I pray God, that you will determine to make a further sacrifice of your tranquillity and happiness to the public good. I trust that it need not continue above a year or two more; and I think that it will be more eligible to retire from office before the expiration of a term of election, than to decline a re-election.
The sentiments I have delivered upon this occasion, I can truly say, proceed exclusively from an anxious concern for the public welfare, and an affectionate personal attachment. These dispositions must continue to govern in every vicissitude one who has the honor to be, very truly and respectfully, etc.
August 3d. Since writing the foregoing, I am favored with your interesting letter of the 29th of July. An answer to the points raised is not difficult, and shall as soon as possible be forwarded.
TO WASHINGTON
Treasury Department,
Aug. 10, 1792.
SIR:
I have been duly honored with your letters of the 1st and 5th instant. A copy of the letter is inclosed according to your desire.
You may depend upon it, sir, that nothing shall be wanting in this department to furnish all requisite supplies for the army with efficiency and economy, and to bring to exact account all persons concerned in them as far as shall consist with the powers of the department. Hitherto moneys have been furnished to the War Department as they have been called for, for procuring all those articles which have not been objects of direct contract with the Treasury. And I learn from the Secretary of War that every thing is in great maturity.
Under the former system, provisions and clothing were the only articles which the Treasury had the charge of procuring; the receiving, issuing, and inspecting their quality belonged to the Department of War by usage.
The act of the last session, entitled “An act making alterations in the Treasury and War Departments,” prescribes that all purchases and contracts for all supplies for the use of the Department of War, be made by or under the direction of the Treasury Department.
As much progress has been made in the preparation for the campaign, prior to the passing of this act, by the Secretary of War, I thought it best to continue the business under his immediate care for some time—till in fact all the arrangements begun should be completed. It is now, however, determined that on the first of September the business of procuring all supplies will be begun under the immediate direction of the Treasury, upon estimates and requisitions from time to time furnished and made by the Department of War.
The arrangement which is contemplated for this purpose is the following:—Provisions and clothing will be provided as heretofore, by contracts made by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to previous advertisements. Articles in the quartermaster’s department will be to be procured by him, or his agents or deputies; for which purpose, advances of money will be made to him directly, to be accounted for to the Treasury by him. Ordnance stores, Indian goods, and all contingent supplies, will be procured by an agent who will be constituted for the purpose, with an allowance of eight hundred dollars a year in lieu of commission. Accounts for his purchases, in every case in which it can conveniently be done (which will comprehend the greatest number of cases), will be settled immediately with the Treasury, and the money paid directly to the individuals. In other cases, advances on account will be made to the agent, to be accounted for directly to the Treasury.
A leading object of this arrangement is to exempt the officers, both of the War and Treasury Departments, from the ill-natured suspicions which are incident to the actual handling and disbursements of public money. None of the inferior officers of either department, except the Treasurer, will have any concern with it.
The supplies of every kind will be delivered to the order of the Department of War. The issuing of them and the accounting for the issues (except as to provisions, which are directly issued by the contractors to the troops, and which are proved to the Treasury upon vouchers prescribed for the purpose) appertain to the Department of War. The regulations which have been adopted for the purpose, will no doubt be eagerly reported to you by the Secretary of War, as well as those which have been concerted with the Treasury respecting the paying and accounting for the pay of the troops.
I beg leave to assure you, that, in the application of the general arrangement which you have adopted respecting the execution of the act concerning distilled spirits, the greatest attention will be paid to economy, as far as the precautions of the Treasury can insure it.
I presume it to have been you intention that the opinion of the Attorney-General should be taken as to the power of the President to appoint the supplementary officers contemplated during the recess of the Senate; which shall accordingly be done.
It affords me much satisfaction to observe that your mind has anticipated the decision to enforce the law, in case a refractory spirit should continue to render the ordinary and more desirable means ineffectual. My most deliberate reflections have led me to conclude, that the time for acting with decision is at hand; and it is with pleasure I can add, that an increasing acquiescence is likely to render this course the less difficult in the cases in which an uncomplying temper may finally prevail.
I shall without delay execute your directions respecting the officers of the cutters.
TO ELIAS BOUDINOT
Philadelphia,
Aug. 13, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
Some skirmishing having begun in the Gazette of the United States respecting Mr. Freneau’s receiving a salary from government, I mentioned in conversation with a friend all that I knew of the matter, and among other things, but without naming you, the information you had given me concerning Mr. Madison’s negotiation with Freneau. Upon this he founded a very pointed attack upon Mr. Freneau and Mr. Jefferson, which I dare say you have seen, as also Mr. Freneau’s affidavit denying all negotiation with “Thomas Jefferson, Esq., Secretary of State,” etc., etc. The gentleman has since applied to me to obtain, if possible, an authentication of the fact of the negotiation.
If I recollect right, you told me that this, if necessary, could be done; and, if practicable, it is of real importance that it should be done. It will confound and put down a man who is continually machinating against the public happiness.
You will oblige me in the most particular manner by obtaining and forwarding to me without delay the particulars of all the steps taken by Mr. Madison— the when and where—and with liberty to use the name of the informant. His affidavit to the facts, if obtainable, would be of infinite value. Care ought to be taken that nothing is asserted which is not unquestionable.
TO JOHN ADAMS
Philadelphia,
Aug. 16, 1792.
DEAR SIR:
I have been duly favored with your letter of the 4th inst. A warrant for one thousand dollars in your favor has issued. If any authorization from you had been sent to your son or any one else, your signature on the warrant would have been unnecessary. But as it is, it will be indispensable. Perhaps, however, the Treasurer may pay in expectation of it.
The question when the Vice-President entered on the duties of his office is open at the Treasury, though an opinion has obtained that the taking of the oath was the criterion. This has been founded on two considerations—analogy to the case of the President. The Constitution requires that he shall take an oath before he enters upon the execution of his office. He cannot enter upon the duties of it without entering upon the execution of it, and he cannot legally do the latter till he has taken the oath prescribed. The same injunction, however, is not laid upon the Vice-President, and therefore, except by analogy, resort must be had to the second consideration, namely, that the taking of the oath of office is the legal act of acceptance and may be supposed to date the commencement of service.
But this reasoning, it must be confessed, is not conclusive, and therefore the opinion of the Attorney-General will be taken, both as to the President and Vice-President, and I presume will guide in the adjustment.
Twenty thousand dollars have been appropriated, and the advances by anticipation may reach that limit.
You forgot that Mr. Clinton could feast upon what would starve another. He will not, however, have an opportunity of making the experiment, and I hope the starvation policy will not long continue fashionable.
Your confirmation of the good disposition of New England is a source of satisfaction. I have a letter from a well-informed friend in Virginia who says: “All the persons I converse with are prosperous and happy, and yet most of them, including the friends of the government, appear to be much alarmed at a supposed system of policy tending to subvert the republican government of the country.” Were ever men more ingenious to torment themselves with phantoms?
TO WILLIAM SETON
August 17, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
Your letter mentioning certain particulars respecting the two banks has been received and will be duly attended to. I trust, however, that certain appearances have in no degree proceeded from any unkind disposition. The solution, I believe, is to be found in the necessity of sending here a considerable sum in specie. Large payments into the Bank of North America on account of the State of Pennsylvania, subscriptions to canals, etc., and large calls upon the Bank of the United States for the services of government, joined to liberal discounts, had produced a considerable balance in favor of the Bank of North America, which rendered it expedient to draw a sum of specie from New York, not to leave the National Bank in any degree in the power of the Bank of North America, which once manifested a very mischievous disposition, that was afterwards repaid by acts of kindness and generosity. The tide is now changing and must speedily reverse the balance, and I mention it in confidence, because I wish by explaining to cherish the confidence between the two institutions at New York so necessary to their mutual interest.
Inclosed, my dear sir, is a letter to Mr. Donald, of St. Vincents, which I beg your most particular care in forwarding. I presume he is a merchant there, but a gentleman lately mentioned to me that he thought the name of the Governor of St. Vincents was Donald. If so, he is probably the person intended. I received a letter from him giving me some information of my father. The letter to Mr. Donald covers one to my father, who, from a series of misfortunes, was reduced to great distress. You will perceive from this that I must be anxious for the safe conveyance of my letter. If there is any person of whom you can make previous inquiry concerning Mr. Donald, you will oblige me by doing it as a guide in forwarding the letter. I mean to send a duplicate from this place.
TO JOHN JAY (PRIVATE.)
Philadelphia,
Sept. 3, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
The proceedings at Pittsburgh which you will find stated in the inclosed papers and other incidents in the western parts of this State announce so determined and persevering a spirit of opposition to the laws, as in my opinion to render a vigorous exertion of the powers of government indispensable. I have communicated this opinion to the President, and I doubt not his impressions will accord with it. In this case, one point for consideration will be the expediency of the next Circuit Court’s noticing the state of things in that quarter, particularly the meeting at Pittsburgh and its proceedings. You will observe an avowed object is to “obstruct the operation of the law.” This is attempted to be qualified by a pretence of doing it by “every legal measure.” But “legal measures” to “obstruct the operation of a law” is a contradiction in terms. I therefore entertain no doubt that a high misdemeanor has been committed. The point, however, is under submission to the Attorney-General for his opinion.
There is really, my dear sir, a crisis in the affairs of the country which demands the most mature consideration of its best and wisest friends.
I beg you to apply your own most serious thoughts to it, and favor me as soon as possible with the result of your reflections. Perhaps it will not be amiss for you to converse with Mr. King. His judgment is sound—he has caution and energy.
Would a proclamation from the President be advisable, stating the criminality of such proceedings, and warning all persons to abstain from them as the laws will be strictly enforced against all offenders?
If the plot should thicken and the application of force should appear to be unavoidable, will it be expedient for the President to repair in person to the scene of commotion?
These are some of the questions which present themselves. The subject will doubtless open itself in all its aspects to you.
TO ——
Philadelphia,
Sept. 21, 1792.
DEAR SIR:
I take the liberty to inclose you the copy of a letter from a very respectable friend in New York. The contents surprised me—nor am I quite persuaded that the appearance of Mr. Burr on the stage is not a diversion in favor of Mr. Clinton.1
Mr. Clinton’s success I should think very unfortunate; I am not for trusting the government too much in the hands of its enemies. But still Mr. C. is a man of property, and in private life, as far as I know, of probity. I fear the other gentleman is unprincipled, both as a public and a private man. When the Constitution was in deliberation, his conduct was equivocal, but its enemies, who, I believe, best understood him, considered him as with them. In fact, I take it, he is for or against nothing, but as it suits his interest or ambition. He is determined, as I conceive, to make his way to be the had of the popular party, and to climb per fas aut nefas to the highest honors of the State, and as much higher as circumstances may permit. Embarrassed, as I understand, in his circumstances, with an extravagant family, bold, enterprising, and intriguing, I am mistaken if it be not his object to play the game of confusion, and I feel it to be a religious duty to oppose his career.
I have hitherto scrupulously refrained from interference in elections; but the occasion is, in my opinion, of sufficient importance to warrant in this instance a departure from that rule. I therefore commit my opinion to you without scruple; but in perfect confidence. I pledge my character for discernment, that it is incumbent upon every good man to resist the present design.
TO RUFUS KING
September 23, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
Though I had had a previous intimation of the possibility of such an event, yet the intelligence contained in your letter of the 17th surprised me. Even now I am to be convinced that the movement is any thing more than a diversion in favor of Mr. Clinton; yet, on my part, it will not be neglected. My attention, as far as shall be in any degree safe, will be directed to every State south of New York. I do not go beyond it, because other influences would be quite as efficacious there as mine.
A good use will be made of it in this State. I wish a letter could be written here, stating the plan, and Mr. Dallas’ assertion respecting Pennsylvania, which could be made use of without reserve. You well know who could write such a letter, and of course to whom it might be addressed. Mr. Lewis would be the most proper person to be written to. This is a matter of importance, and if practicable no time should be lost.
I wrote Mr. Jay a long letter, which I fear reached New York after he had set out on the circuit, informing him that I had concluded to advise a proclamation; and my reasons for it, which included some material facts not before communicated, I have not leisure to repeat. The proclamation has been signed by the President, and sent to Mr. Jefferson for his counter-signature; I expect it here on Tuesday, and have taken correspondent measures. I believe all is prudent and safe.
TO ——
Philadelphia,
Sept. 26, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
Some days since I was surprised with the following intelligence in a letter from Mr. King, whose name I disclose to you in confidence.
“Burr is industrious in his canvass, and his object is well understood by our Antis. Mr. Edwards is to make interest for him in Connecticut, and Mr. Dallas, who is here, and quite in the circle of the Governor and the party, informs us that Mr. Burr will be supported as Vice-President in Pennsylvania. Nothing which has heretofore happened so decisively proves the inveteracy of the opposition. Should they succeed, much would be to be apprehended.”
Though in my situation I deem it most proper to avoid interference in any matter relating to the elections for members of the government, yet I feel reasons of sufficient force to induce a departure from that rule in the present instance.
Mr. Burr’s integrity as an individual is not unimpeached. As a public man, he is one of the worst sort—a friend to nothing but as it suits his interest and ambition. Determined to climb to the highest honors of the State, and as much higher as circumstances may permit, he cares nothing about the means of effecting his purpose. ’T is evident that he aims at putting himself at the head of what he calls the “popular party” as affording the best tools for an ambitious man to work with, secretly turning liberty into ridicule. He knows as well as most men how to make use of the name. In a word, if we have an embryo-Cæsar in the United States, ’T is Burr.
TO GEN. C. C. PINCKNEY1
Philadelphia,
Oct. 10, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
I duly received your letter of the 6th September, and have sent an extract to Mr. Church for the explanation which is necessary. I feel myself truly obliged by your friendly allusion to my unpleasant situation, and for the consolation which you are so kind as to offer me. The esteem of discerning and virtuous men must always support a mind properly formed under the pressure of malevolence and envy. I will not pretend that I am insensible to the persecution which I experience; but it may be relied upon that I shall desert no post which I ought to endeavor to maintain, so long as my own reputation or the public good may render perseverance necessary or proper. When it is not requisite, either to the one or the other, my friends will excuse me if I recollect that I have a growing and hitherto too much neglected family. It is to be lamented that so strong a spirit of faction and innovation prevails at the present moment in a great part of the country. The thing is alarming enough to call for the attention of every friend to government. Let me not be thought to travel out of my sphere, if I observe that a particular attention to the election for the next Congress is dictated by the vigorous and general effort which is making by factious men to introduce everywhere, and in every department, persons unfriendly to the measures, if not the constitution, of the national government. Either Governor Clinton, or Mr. Burr, of New York, both decidedly of the description of persons I have mentioned, is to be run in this quarter as Vice-President, in opposition to Mr. Adams. The former has been invariably the enemy of national principles. The latter has no other principles than to mount, at all events, to the full honors of the State, and to as much more as circumstances will permit—a man in private life not unblemished. It will be a real misfortune to the government if either of them should prevail. ’T is suspected by some that the plan is only to divide the votes of the Northern and the Middle States, to let in Mr. Jefferson by the votes of the South. I will not scruple to say to you, in confidence, that this also would be a serious misfortune to the government. That gentleman whom I once very much esteemed, but who does not permit me to retain that sentiment for him, is certainly a man of sublimated and paradoxical imagination, entertaining and propagating opinions inconsistent with dignified and orderly government. Mr. Adams, whatever objections may lie against some of his theoretic opinions, is a firm, honest, and independent politician. Some valuable characters are about to be lost to the House of Representatives of their own choice. I feared once that this would be the case with Mr. Smith,1 of your State; but I believe his present intention is rather to continue to serve. I trust there can be no doubt of his success, and I wish means to be used to determine his acquiescence. He is truly an excellent member—a ready, clear speaker, of a sound analytic head, and the justest views. I know no man whose loss from the House would be more severely felt by the good cause. The delicacy of these observations from me will, of course, occur to you; I make them without reserve, confiding equally in your friendship and prudence. Accept the assurances of the cordial esteem and regard with which I have the honor to remain.
TO JOHN STEELE1
Philadelphia,
Oct. 15, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
The letter which you did me the favor to write me, of the 19th of September, came to hand two days ago. The late symptoms of acquiescence in the duty on distilled spirits, which you announce in your quarter, are particularly satisfactory. If the people will but make trial of the thing, their good-will towards it will increase. This has hitherto happened everywhere, where the law has gone into operation. There certainly can be no tax more eligible or less burthensome. Though I impose on myself great circumspection on the subject of elections for the federal government, yet, in relation to the characters you mention, I feel myself more at liberty, and my entire confidence in you will not permit me to affect reserve. I take it for granted that in all the Northern and Middle States, the present President will have a unanimous vote. I trust it will be so in the South also. A want of unanimity would be a blot on our political hemisphere, and would wound the mind of that excellent character to whom the country is so much indebted. For Vice-President, Mr. Adams will have a nearly unanimous vote in the Eastern States. The same thing would happen in New York if the electors were to be chosen by the people; but as they will be chosen by the Legislature, and as a majority of the existing Assembly are Clintonians, the electors will, I fear, be of the same complexion. In Jersey, Mr. Adams will have a unanimous vote, and, according to present appearances, in Pennsylvania likewise. The parties have had a trial of their strength here for representatives, and though the issue is not finally ascertained, there is a moral certainty, from the returns received, that the ticket supported by the federal interest will prevail by a large majority. The electors nominated by the same interest will all, or nearly all, favor Mr. Adams. I believe the weight of Delaware will be thrown into the same scale. And I think it probable there will be votes for Mr. Adams in Maryland. I presume none in Virginia or Georgia. Of North Carolina, you can best judge. In South Carolina he will have votes, but I am at a loss to judge of the proportion.
This statement will inform you that Mr. Adams is the man who will be supported in the Northern and Middle States, by the friends of the Government. They reason thus: “Mr. Adams, like other men, has his faults and foibles; some of the opinions he is supposed to entertain, we do not approve, but we believe him to be honest, firm, faithful, and independent—a sincere lover of his country—a real friend to genuine liberty, but combining his attachment to that with love of order and stable government. No man’s private character can be fairer than his. No man has given stronger proofs than he of disinterested and intrepid patriotism. We will therefore support him as far preferable to any one who is likely to be opposed to him.”
Who will be seriously opposed to him, I am yet at a loss to decide. One while, Governor Clinton appeared to be the man. Of late, there have been symptoms of Col. Burr’s canvassing for it. Some say one or both of these will be played off as a diversion in favor of Mr. Jefferson. I do not scruple to say to you that my preference of Mr. Adams to either of these is decided. As to Mr. Clinton, he is a man of narrow and perverse politics, and as well under the former as under the present government, he has been steadily, since the termination of the war with Great Britain, opposed to national principles. My opinion of Mr. Burr is yet to form—but, according to the present state of it, he is a man whose only political principle is to mount at all events, to the highest legal honors of the nation, and as much further as circumstances will carry him. Imputations not favorable to his integrity as a man rest upon him, but I do not vouch for their authenticity.
There was a time when I should have balanced between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams; but I now view the former as a man of sublimated and paradoxical imagination—cherishing notions incompatible with regular and firm government.
Thus have I opened myself to you with frankness; I doubt not I am perfectly safe in doing it.
You give me pain by telling me that you have declined serving in the House of Representatives after the third of March next, and that it is doubtful whether you will attend the next session. I anxiously hope that you will find it convenient to attend, and that you will change your resolution as to not serving in a future House. The ensuing session will be an interesting one, and the next Congress will either anchor the government in safety or set it afloat.
My apprehension is excited when I see so many valuable members dropping off. Mr. Lawrence1 and Mr. Benson2 will not serve again. Mr. Barnwell3 also declines. The House will, I fear, lose more of its talents than it can spare.
TO JOHN ADAMS
October, 1792.
I trust you are sufficiently convinced of my respect for you and attachment to you to render an apology for the liberty I am going to take, unnecessary. I learn with pain that you may not probably be here till late in the session. I fear that this will give some handle to your enemies to misrepresent, and though I am persuaded you are very indifferent personally to the event of a certain election, yet I hope you are not so as regards the cause of good government. The difference in that view is, in my conception, immense between the success of Mr. Clinton or yourself, and some sacrifices of feeling are to be made. But this is not the only relation in which I deem your early presence here desirable. Permit me to say it best suits the firmness and elevation of your character to meet all events, whether auspicious or otherwise, on the ground where station and duty call you. One would not give the ill-disposed the triumph of supposing that an anticipation of want of success has kept you from your post.
You observe, my dear sir, I speak without much ménagement. You will ascribe it to my confidence and esteem. It is not necessary in any view to multiply words. I forbear it; but allow me to add that it is the universal wish of your friends you should be as soon as possible at Philadelphia.1
TO JOHN JAY
Philadelphia,
Dec. 18, 1792.
MY DEAR SIR:
Your favors of the 26th of November and 16th inst. have duly come to hand. I am ashamed that the former has remained so long unacknowledged, though I am persuaded my friends would readily excuse my delinquencies could they appreciate my situation. ’T is not the load of proper official business that alone engrosses me, though this would be enough to occupy any man. ’T is not the extra attention I am obliged to pay to the course of legislative manœuvres that alone adds to my burden and perplexity. ’T is the malicious intrigues to stab me in the dark, against which I am too often obliged to guard myself, that distract and harass me to a point which, rendering my situation scarcely tolerable, interferes with objects to which friendship and inclination would prompt me.
I have not, however, been unmindful of the subject of your letters. Mr. King will tell you the state the business was in. Nothing material has happened since. The representation will probably produce some effect, though not as great as ought to be expected. Some changes for the better, I trust, will take place.
The success of the Vice-President is as great a source of satisfaction as that of Mr. Clinton would have been of mortification and pain to me. Willingly, however, would I relinquish my share of the command to the Anti-federalists if I thought they were to be trusted. But I have so many proofs of the contrary, as to make me dread the experiment of their preponderance.1
[1]Editor of the New York Daily Advertiser, and proprietor, with Freneau, of the National Gazette.
[1]This letter is now first printed from the original in the possession of the same gentleman to whom I owe another letter already given on page 230 of Vol. IX., and whose name I am unfortunately prevented from giving, as I have explained in a note on page 231.
[1]This letter, and those which precede, refer to one of the earliest and worst of our election frauds. Burr wished to run against Clinton, but was baffled by Hamilton, the result being that Jay was nominated, and, after a most heated canvass, elected. His election depended, however, on the votes of three counties, and the Clintonian board of canvassers threw out, on the most technical and flimsy grounds, the votes of these counties and burned them. There was great wrath and excitement over this “count out,” as it would now be called, and a convention and other violent measures were proposed, which Hamilton resisted. The Legislature, by a party vote, sustained the canvassers, and declared Clinton elected by a majority of 108 votes.
[1]This refers to the contest for the Vice-Presidency at the second national election. The struggle finally settled down to Clinton and Adams, and the latter was elected.
[1]General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina.
[1]Hon. Wm. Smith, South Carolina.
[1]Member of Congress from North Carolina, 1790 to 1793.
[1]John Lawrence, an Englishman by birth and a soldier in the Revolution, was an eminent lawyer of New York, at this time a member of Congress, and afterwards U. S. District Judge and Senator from New York.
[2]Egbert Benson, at this time a member of Congress from New York, and again in 1813. Attorney-General of New York, 1780–1789, and from 1794 to 1801 a Judge of the Supreme Court of the State.
[3]Robert Barnwell, member of Congress from South Carolina from 1791 to 1793.
[1]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, v., 92.
[1]Reprinted from Life of Jay, ii., 213.
1793
TO RICHARD HARRISON2
Philadelphia,
Jan. 5, 1793.
DEAR SIR:
Le Roy has not yet appeared with the powers and receipts mentioned in your letter of the 31st December. Every practicable facility will be given to the business when it comes forward. But I believe, according to the course of the Treasury, a certificate, not money, will be given for the balance. Your account is returned with directory remarks upon it. I am sorry you should have the trouble of so many different applications, but the course of public business requires it.
I am more sorry that we have been deprived of the pleasure of seeing you. Every friend I see from a place I love is a cordial to me, and I stand in need of something of that kind now and then.
The triumphs of vice are no new thing under the sun, and I fear, till the millennium comes, in spite of all our boasted light and purification, hypocrisy and treachery will continue to be the most successful commodities in the political market. It seems to be the destined lot of nations to mistake their foes for their friends, their flatterers for their faithful servants.
TO WILLIAM SHORT1 (PRIVATE.)
Philadelphia,
Feb. 5, 1793.
SIR:
The spirit of party has grown to maturity sooner in this country than perhaps was to have been counted upon. You will see a specimen of it in the inclosed speech of Mr. Giles, a member from Virginia. The House of Representatives adopted the resolutions proposed by him, nemine contradicente. The object, with a majority, was to confound the attempt, by giving a free course to investigation.
I send you, also, a printed copy of a letter from me to the House of Representatives, of yesterday’s date being the first part of an answer to those resolutions. The statements referred to in it could not yet be printed, but lest the thing should pass the Atlantic and be made an ill use of to the prejudice of our country, I send you the antidote, to be employed or not, as you may see occasion.
An investigation intended to prejudice me is begun with respect to the circumstances attending the last payment on account of the French debt, which, in its progress, may draw your conduct into question. I think, however, you need be under no anxiety for the result. Your hesitations, at a certain stage, were so natural, and your reasons so weighty for them, that they will give little handle against you, besides the coincidence in opinion here about the expediency of a suspension of payment. The popular tide in this country is strong in favor of the last revolution in France; and there are many who go, of course, with that tide, and endeavor always to turn it to account. For my own part, I content myself with praying most sincerely that it may issue in the real advantage and happiness of the nation.
TO RUFUS KING
Philadelphia,
April 2, 1793.
MY DEAR SIR:
When you are acquainted with all the facts, I think you will alter the opinion you appear to entertain. My application comes literally within your rule. The loan is necessary for the current expenditure, independent of any new advance to France, or of purchases of the debt. This has arisen from my having been under the necessity of remitting to Holland, for a payment in June of 1,000,000 guilders, as an instalment of the principal, and 470,000 guilders for interest of the Dutch debt.
Late advices rendering it problematical whether a loan could be obtained for the purpose of the instalment, it became necessary to make this remittance to avoid danger to the public credit.
Hence, without a loan from the bank, I ought to calculate upon a deficiency in the present quarter (remember we are in April) of 672,023 dollars and 26 cents, and in the next, of 325,447 dollars and 28 cents.
This is the result of as accurate a view of receipts and expenditures as can now be taken. You will anticipate that, by all the expenditures not falling actually within the periods to which they are applicable, the real deficiency would not be so great as the calculated; but you will, at the same time, perceive that the view given supposes a state of the Treasury which renders an auxiliary indispensable.
At the same time, I cannot but think that you apply your principle too rigorously. I ought not to be forced to divert for a length of time funds appropriated for other purposes, to the current expenditure. To compel this would be, in substance to withhold the means necessary for the public service; for it would oblige the Treasury to employ an adventitious resource, which ought not be so employed, and that too at a time when it could be employed advantageously, according to its original and true destination. I therefore think, independent of the real exigency, the bank ought to make the loan.
The loans to government stand on very different considerations from those to individuals. Besides the chartered privileges, which are the grant of the government, the vast deposits constantly on hand, and which ordinarily exceed the loans from the bank, frequently very greatly, are an advantage which, generally speaking, bears no proportion to the advantages of the dealings between individuals and the bank. Consider, too, what has been the state of things for some time past, and the real sacrifices which have been made not to distress the institution.
If for such accommodations equivalent services are not to be rendered, they could not easily be defended.
