#timothy pickering

[veranodelmar]

i haven’t posted in awhile, so please take this G. Washington edit feat. the John Adams (2008) Cabinet members! 😸😸

[yr-obedt-cicero]

What were the founding fathers’ reaction to the Haitian Revolution?

Due to the Yellow Fever epidemic having a massive toll on the perception of Dominguans, initially Washington was dubious to support it. As it was believed that the Yellow Fever plague was brought to Philadelphia by ships carrying Dominguan refugees. Doctor Benjamin Rush was an eminent physician and abolitionist, but sincerely believed that the black population had immunity to the illness. And so also thought they had an obligation to attend to the afflicted. Which then created the Free African Society. Anyway, Rush was ultimately wrong; as black people died at a rate almost equal to that of the white's population.

So, while Washington was president (Until 1797), he wasn't supportive towards the Dominguans in rebellion. But this would change later on, when John Adams had been elected president. Following Joseph Bunel's arrival in 1798 - Toussaint L'Ouverture's diplomatic representative - Bunel had reportedly met with Adams and other government officials in 1798 or 1799 accompanied by his wife, Marie Bunel, who was a free Black creole.

This soon evolved into a political party dispute though. As - like many Federalists such as Hamilton, Pickering, and Washington - Adams saw supporting the rebellion as an opportunity to fighting against the common enemy, the French. Because the United States had been harassed by the French for years prior, and was then engaged in a Quasi-war with France. It was also seen as a chance to help the American trade, and merchants by gaining a valuable trading partner in the West Indies. Hamilton and Pickering convinced Adams to appoint Edward Stevens as the United States consul-general in Saint-Domingue. He sent Stevens to Haiti with instructions to establish a relationship with Toussaint and express support for his regime. The Federalist administration hoped to incite a movement toward Haitian independence, but Louverture maintained a colonial relationship with France. Stevens's title, “consul”, suggested a diplomat attached to a country, not a colony, reflecting the Adams administration's view of the Haitian situation. But overall, the Federalists rather saw it as an economic investment, and military enhancement.

But many Democratic-Republican's, or southern politicians/farmers, disagreed with the support to the Haitian revolution, particularly Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a slave owner with 600 enslaved people at his disposal. A great motive to his so-called “abolitionist” ideals, which was just that he wanted the slave trade system abolished and for black people to get deported, was the fear of the United States one day being faced with a slave rebellion. Especially since Jefferson lived in the south, where slavery was prominent. He believed that the black population should be deported as to protect planation owners. So, you can imagine that Jefferson's largest concern for the Haitian revolution was that it would inspire American slaves to revolt as well. Not to mention, Jefferson had initially urged the US government to support the French revolution for the common ideals of liberty, and patriotism. But the Federalists had argued they shouldn't cause riffs between America and Great Britain again, especially when their developing country and recovering militia was still all very fragile. Jefferson thought the support for the Haitian revolution was hypocritical, and endangering for the United States. This additionally sparked much slander of claiming the Federalists sided with monarchy and Great Britain, instead of more libertarian country's like France.

This also didn't go smoothly either, for soon relations between the two republics soured after Adams left office in 1800, and when Jefferson took charge, he refused to officially recognize Haiti until 1862.

[nordleuchten]

Hey, there! I was wondering if you had any accounts of Lafayette talking shit about people. If so, I would love to see.

Dear @clusterfuck-main,

Yes, there were instances where La Fayette expressed his … less than flattering opinion of somebody. La Fayette was by no means a rude person, he was not a man who swore frequently - but he also was not subtle. If he did not like you, you were probably aware of it. If you asked him openly for his opinion of you, he would have given you an honest answer. I would say that in roughly 70% of the time the people La Fayette was angry with did something to warrant that anger (maybe exclude the period of the French Revolution (or any other political Revolution for that matter) from the statistic).

The first letter is addressed to George Washington, December 30, 1777.

La Fayette was completely fed up with the Continental Congress.

There are open dissentions in Congress, parties who Hate one another as much as the Common Ennemy, stupid men who without knowing a single word about war undertake to judge you, to make Ridiculous Comparisons; they are infatuated with Gates without thinking of the different Circumstances, and Believe that attaking is the only thing necessary to Conquer. Those ideas are Entertained in their minds By some Jealous men and perhaps secret friends to the British Government who want to push you in a moment of ill Humour to some Rash enterprise upon the lines or against a much stronger army.

Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 1, December 7, 1776–March 30, 1778, Cornell University Press, 1977, p. 204-207.

The next letter is to Henry Laurens, January 26. 1778.

La Fayette was part of a planned expedition to Canada - an expedition that did not took place in the end because the whole endeavour was not properly planned and the obstacles had started to mount. General Conway was to be La Fayette’s second in command.

Amongs All the men who could be sent under me Mr. Connway is the most disagreable to me and the most prejudiciable to the cause. (…) How can I support the society of a man who has spocken of my friend [George Washington] in the most insolent and abusive terms, who has done, and does every day all his power to ruin him, who tries to spend the fire in every part of the army and the country? On the other hand I am very certain that every one who can find one single reason of refusing due respect and love to Gal. Washington will find thousand ones of hating me to death. Such sentiments would be attended with horrid circumstances and I do assure you that if any officer schould do in my army what he has done in this, he would be confined immediately, and cashiered by a court martial. I know that Connway will sacrify honor, truth, and every thing respectable to his own ambition and desire of making a fortune. What engages me to despise him more is that he is with me as submist, as complaisant, and low than he is insolent with those he do'nt fear.

Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 1, December 7, 1776–March 30, 1778, Cornell University Press, 1977, p. 253-265.

This letter to the Vicomte de Noailles, October 3, 1780.

La Fayette wrote this letter right after Arnold’s treason was discovered - this is only of many such letters.

Arnold's baseness and villainy surpass in their details all that I have ever read about that sort of thing. The anger I felt over it did not extend to his wife, with whom formerly I had been somewhat taken.

Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 3, April 27, 1780–March 29, 1781, Cornell University Press, 1980, p. 180-186.

The next letter is again to the Vicomte de Noailles, October 28, 1780.

La Fayette had spies obtain information on the enemy camp and was planning an attack based on this information. To carry out the attack his soldiers apparently needed boats. I let him tell you what (or what not) happened with these boats:

Do you know, my vicomte, that I have the finest reason in the world to hang myself? I have just met with the most vexing accident that can happen to an officer. I still cannot write you about it without swearing through my teeth, and you are going to pity your poor brother when you know what he missed. (…) A worthless fool of a quartermaster general and his assistants, who were no less fools than he, had been instructed by General Washington to have the boats at a certain place at a certain time. The curs were so stupid that, although we called for them sooner than we needed them, although I had prepared some fresh horses that they were not expecting, and although I met them halfway, they came too late. (…) My disappointmentwas followed by a little incident that made me laugh. My soldiers had heard talk that the boats had failed to come. On coming back they encountered these accursed boats, and as they passed alongside them you have no idea of the insults they hurled at the carters, the drivers, and everyone around these boats. I lost a delightful opportunity, my friend, and cannot think of it without resentment. I have settled my thoughts on the subject of those gentlemen, but that does not give me back what their stupidity made me lose. General Washington was no less irritated by it than I, because he had great hopes.

The quarter master in question was no other than Timothy Pickering.

Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 3, April 27, 1780–March 29, 1781, Cornell University Press, 1980, p. 209-2011.

The next letter is to Nathanael Greene, July 4, 1781. The quote is pretty self explanatory - and had me giggling for a solid quarter of an hour.

The Commissary departement is Headed By Mr. Brown to whom I Say every Morning that He Shall Be Hanged.

Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 4, April 1, 1781–December 23, 1781, Cornell University Press, 1981, p. 231-235.

Again a letter to Nathanael Greene, May 18, 1781.

During the War it was sometimes needed, that the two opposing generals exchanged letter concerning a temporary truce, the return of confiscated goods, the exchange and treatment of soldiers, the treatment of the wounded and what not. La Fayette steadfastly refused to correspond with Arnold and with that put him in an embarrassing situation.

A Correspondance With Arnold is So very Repugnant to My feelings that I Can Never Conquer them So far as to Answer His Letters. I am the More Averse to it as Arnold is A Very proud Correspondant, and I Can Not Submit to Such a Stile from the Rascal.

Idzerda Stanley J. et al., editors, Lafayette in the Age of the American Revolution: Selected Letters and Papers, 1776–1790, Volume 4, April 1, 1781–December 23, 1781, Cornell University Press, 1981, p. 110-114.

The next letter was written by La Fayette in exile on October 18, 1799 to a close friends of his, César de la Tour-Maubourg:

Bonaparte thinks only of his own ambition, and until now has not found glory in serving liberty (…) He will risk no personal advantage for the sake of liberty; he has proved that his soul could quite happily watch and even cooperate in its violation. If, however, his fame and his ambition demand that he put himself forward in defence of the cause, he will do so.

English translation after Étienne Charavay, Le Général Lafayette, 1757-1834, Paris, 1898, p. 374.

This last example is from a letter La Fayette wrote to Thomas Jefferson on October 10, 1815:

We then Have Seen the Imperial destroyer [Napoléon Bonaparte] of french Liberty Reassuming a Republican Language, Bowing to [na]tional Sovereignty, allowing a free press, and altho’ Vindictive or Arbitrary acts too often Betray’d old Habits, persuading many patriots to Rejoice at His Conversion—Not So did I—But While I Shunned personal Communication with Him, I declared that, if a free Representation was Convened, I would Stand a Candidate—we were, my Son and myself elected. (…) He deserted His Soldiers [after the battle of Waterloo], and Determined to dissolve our Assembly, usurp dictatorial powers, prefering the chances of Confusion and involving destruction to those of firmness and patriotism. That part of the impending Evils was timely prevented.

“Lafayette to Thomas Jefferson, 10 October 1815,” Founders Online, National Archives, [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Retirement Series, vol. 9, September 1815 to April 1816, ed. J. Jefferson Looney. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012, pp. 67–69.]

I hope you have/had a beautiful day!

[filesunderwater]

My answers if the founding fathers asked to have sex with me

DON't read it this is creepy

Thomas Jefferson: I'D LOVE TO. I will DEFINITELY indulge what he asks

James Madison: no. but i won't mind some flirtation

James Monroe: PLZ. Mr. Monroe you are the only person in the world, dead or alive, that i m willing to bear a child for

Alexander Hamilton: NO. i don't even know i will slap him in the face or puke on him first

John Marshall: i will consider it. if he intended for marriage

John Adams: no. but i'd love to dance with him (tho i m taller than him)

John Laurens: sorry but who is he?

Timothy Pickering: no this post is already TRASH we don't need his comments

@ssshadowpppreacher i compel you to read this trash

[ssshadowpppreacher]

"A Pickering could never be happy in heaven, because he must there find and acknowledge a superior" - John Adams

@filesunderwater this quote is so hilarious I have to share it

[aswithasunbeam]

Some people think Hamilton and Ned Stevens were half brothers, what are your thoughts on that? I know for me personally it’s been potential fanfic fuel

It’s a really interesting theory! It traces back to an 1822 memorandum by former Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, who recalled his first meeting with Edwards Stevens:

At the first glance, I was struck with the extraordinary similitude of his and General Hamilton’s faces....When young children, they lived together in the family of the father of Stevens, and were sent together to New York for their education. (”Letters of Toussaint Louverture and Edward Stevens, 1798-1800″ American Historical Review v.16, p.62).

Pickering also published an interview with James Yard, Edward Stevens’ brother-in-law, who mentioned a “vague inference that Hamilton and Stevens had the same father.” (Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, p. 2).

Outside Pickering’s recorded gossip, however, there’s little else to suggest a familial relationship between Hamilton and Ned Stevens. Stevens does appear to have taken Hamilton in for a period of time, at which time he and Ned became close, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Hamilton was an illegitimate child. Hamilton always claimed James Hamilton as his father, keeping in touch with him over the years. Additionally, Hamilton’s propensity for taking in children in difficult circumstances may have come from a desire to pay forward Thomas Stevens’ kindness.

Interestingly, historian William Hissel has suggested based on historical records that Hamilton may have originally come to the Stevens house not as a ward, but as a servant: 

The Stevens [Family] had 3 sons and 2 daughters.  The 1769 Landlist for their residence tallied that number of boys in the family.  The enumeration, taken early in the year before the second son (Edward) went to New York to study at King’s College (see Fn. 69), also noted the presence of 2 “white male servants” [Danish:  karl]—possibly both Hamilton brothers, taken in after the death of Peter Lytton! The 1772 register shows 3 white boys in the family but no white servants, so Alexander Hamilton may have been “upgraded” in relationship.  His brother James was living elsewhere. (William F. Cissel, “Alexander Hamilton: West Indian Founding Father”, July 2004, p.32, note 108.)

[kafa1010]

Y E A H ⭐

[foundingfatherjohnlaurens]

Our favorite aide de camp writing letters. Picture it.