From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 22 December 1795
To Alexander Hamilton
Phila. 22d Decr 1795.
My dear Sir,
Have you seen or heard more of young Fayette since you last wrote to me on that subject?1 Where did he go to? Did you deliver him the letter I sent under cover to you for him?2 His case gives me pain, and I do not know how to get relieved from it. His sensibility I fear is hurt, by his not acknowledging the receipt of my letter to him; and yet, if considerations of a higher nature are opposed to a more uncovert countenance, it must be submitted to. If he wants money, I am ready to furnish it.
’Ere this, I presume you have seen the long promised vindication, or rather accusation.3 What do you think of it and what notice should be taken of it? You are fully acquainted with my Sentiments relative to the rival & warring powers of F. & E.; and have heard as strong sentiments from me with respect to both, as ever he did. His declaration that he was always opposed to the Commercial part of the Negociation is as impudent and insolent an assertion, as it is false, if he means more than that it was contingent (as the Instructions to Mr Jay declare)4 and to apply the knowledge of it to me. But if you have seen his performance, I shall leave you to judge of it, without any comments of mine. With much sincerity & truth I am always & affectly Yours
Go: Washington
ALS, DLC: Alexander Hamilton Papers; ADfS, DLC:GW.
2. GW’s letter to George Washington Motier Lafayette of 22 Nov. was enclosed with his letter to Hamilton of 23 November.
3. Edmund Randolph’s A Vindication of Mr. Randolph’s Resignation had been advertised for publication on 18 Dec. but apparently was published on 19 Dec. (Gazette United States [Philadelphia], 18 and 19 Dec.; Aurora General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 18 and 19 Dec.).
GW’s extensive notes summarizing Vindication are filed under 31 Oct. 1794 in DLC:GW. A report of a conversation with Timothy Pickering in which GW reacted angrily to the publication appears in 3:225–27.
4. For Randolph’s instructions to John Jay of 6 May, see ASP, Foreign Relations, 1:472–74. The third instruction stated that “It is referred to your discretion whether, in case the two preceding points should be so accommodated as to promise the continuance of tranquillity between the United States and Great Britain, the subject of a commercial treaty may not be listened to by you, or even broken to the British ministry.”