The Rupture of George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s Friendship and Its Importance [Abridged]

Author’s Note: In the more concise version of this post I will focus on an incident in 1800 that reveals much about how partisan America had become only 11 years after the Constitution came into force.  To read the longer version, please click on:  The Rupture of George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s Friendship and Its Importance

 

 

The election of 1800 pitted John Adams against Thomas Jefferson and was perhaps the most divisive election in American History.  Adams represented the Federalist Party set on continuing the policies begun in George Washington’s Administration.  Jefferson led the Democratic Republican Party (hereinafter the Republican Party), who campaigned on making fundamental changes to America’s economic and foreign policy courses.  Upon winning, Jefferson embarked on a tour to qualm the bitterness.  One of his first stops was Mount Vernon.  Martha Washington graciously received Jefferson in a call that lasted a little over an hour.  However, she was not pleased.  Afterwards, she supposedly said “that next to the loss of her husband, [Jefferson’s visit] was the most painful occurrence of her life.” [1]  A year later, Martha told Reverend Manasseh Cutler that Jefferson was “one of the most detestable of mankind” adding that his election was “the greatest misfortune our country had ever experienced.” [2]

So just why was Martha so unhappy about meeting Jefferson?  As it turns out, Washington and the president-elect were no longer on speaking terms, their once friendly relationship shattered by disparaging remarks Jefferson made maligning Washington’s character and patriotism.  Martha Washington’s expression of hers and her husband’s sentiments reflect a great deal about the politics of the early American Republic and the split that divided once unified American Founders over how to put revolutionary ideals into practice.

Founding a New Nation

Winning the Revolutionary War presented a unique opportunity to form a new government and Americans seemed well prepared.  They had long experience in self-governance via colonial legislatures.  Their education emphasized classical history and literature with extensive exposure to prominent philosophers and politicians of Athens and Rome.  Further, the Enlightenment produced groundbreaking writings on natural law and governance put into action through the Glorious Revolution.  From these influences, Americans established a common set of beliefs based on individual rights and limited government.  As with all human endeavors, transforming ideals into practice proved difficult.

The first attempt produced the Articles of Confederation.  The weak federal government proved unworkable in solving the problems that arose after the Revolutionary War.  To fight the war, states undertook debts that were difficult to repay due to the shortage of gold and currency.  Many states fell behind or simply failed to make payments at all.  The financial problems that arose created insecurity and strife exemplified by Shay’s Rebellion exposed the Articles government as totally inadequate (see: Shays’ Rebellion: A Little Revolt with Big Repercussions).  It became clear that a stronger federal government was necessary to prevent the new American nation from splintering to pieces.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and a few others convinced George Washington to leave retirement to participate in a convention in Philadelphia addressing problems with the Articles.  One convened, the delegates did much more than reform a flawed instrument.  Instead, they produced a new form of government framing the Constitution.

The states called conventions to consider whether to ratify the Constitution.  Ratification was relatively easy at first, but over time, two factions emerged.  The Federalists supported enacting the Constitution. Another group, the Anti-Federalists, spoke out against the new government.  The Anti-Federalists viewed new powers to tax, regulate interstate commerce and disputes, and maintain a standing army as unacceptable encroachments on local autonomy, creating the potential for a distant and tyrannical federal government.  Ultimately, Washington’s support for the Constitution and an implied promise to serve as president proved decisive.  Americans accepted a more potent central government headed by a man universally trusted to not abuse his power or usurp authority.

Implementing the New Government

Forming a government presented newly elected President Washington with obstacles and opportunities.  The Constitution did not specify how the president should set up his administration.  As general of the Continental Army, Washington preferred a staff of advisors who offered opinions allowing him to make an informed decision.  Accordingly, he created a cabinet to oversee important executive functions.  Washington chose cabinet members based on their qualities and abilities favoring intelligence and character without consideration of individual political views.

Alexander Hamilton received appointment to head the Treasury Department based on talents demonstrated in his long service in the Revolution.  Washington recruited Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State because of his authorship of important documents like the Declaration of Independence and practical experience as Governor of Virginia and as ambassador to France.  These two men embodied two very different positions on governance and economics which would shape the direction of Washington’s two terms.

Economic Turmoil in Early America

As challenging as forming a new government was, managing the economy would be much more difficult.  Washington had to find a way to address the problem of potentially crippling state debt while building institutions to create prosperity.  Hamilton came into office having already given these problems much thought.  In one of his first acts Hamilton proposed a comprehensive plan to bring the debt under control, raise revenue, and establish financial institutions to manage the economy.

First, the federal government would assume all state debt to ensure obligations were paid off in a timely fashion.  Second, Hamilton offered several proposals to raise revenue. Instead of extensive domestic taxation, the government would impose tariffs on imported goods which would solve part of the problem.  To generate the rest, the government would issue long term bonds.  These instruments allowed the government to take out loans that could be paid off over 30 years. Bonds would also bring in cash from outside the US via foreign investors.

Third, to manage the US economy, Hamilton proposed establishing the Bank of the United States (BUS).  The bank would oversee the issuance of bonds and make interest payments.  The BUS charter authorized loans to the federal government when necessary.  To increase investment in factories, commercial shipping, businesses and infrastructure the BUS offered private loans.  As an additional tool to regulate economic activity, the BUS could issue bank notes as currency.

Hamilton’s ambitious financial plans did not receive universal approval.  Assumption created the first controversy.  Northern states carried much of the outstanding debt.  Southerners had largely paid off their obligations and were not enthusiastic about retiring another region’s debts.  Assumption would benefit northern commercial interests at the expense of the nation’s large population of farmers who had little interest in imports and exports or in building factories.

Farmers also disliked the more powerful federal government.  They preferred a weaker national government that would not interfere with local autonomy.  Banking and credit ran against their natural tendencies towards self-reliance.  They saw public debt as a mechanism for taxing farmers to fund northern businesses. 

Former Anti-Federalists in Congress began coalescing behind James Madison over debt assumption.  Jefferson returned to the US as Congress took up the assumption issue.  The new Secretary of State knew little of Hamilton’s plans and at Washington’s request tried to broker a compromise.  Jefferson invited Hamilton and Madison to a dinner to work out an accord.  Madison agreed to support the assumption and in exchange Hamilton acquiesced to establishment of the permanent capital on the Potomac River.

As bills for the BUS and other financial measures matured for congressional consideration, Jefferson became concerned with the implications of Hamilton’s plans.  Jefferson found himself in agreement with Madison’s preference for a weaker federal government more attuned to an agrarian economy.  Washington’s support for Hamilton’s initiatives put Jefferson in a difficult position.  He could not openly oppose Hamilton as a member of Washington’s administration.

Foreign Policy Complications

For Hamilton’s reforms to work, the US needed to engage European powers, with France and Britain being of primary importance.  American sympathies lay with the French for providing arms and troops that made the Revolutionary War victory possible.  Much had changed in France since the war ended though.

In 1789, the French people overthrew Louis XVI’s monarchy establishing a republic by 1792.  However, the transition was far from smooth.  The unrest and struggle for power created the Reign of Terror, a chaotic situation with widespread repression and frequent executions.

Other European monarchies feared the spread of the French Revolution’s radical rhetoric and a coalition declared war on France to restore the monarchy.  Surprisingly, the war went well for the French who gained territory.  In order to preserve their gains, France declared war on Britain in early 1793.  Both France and Britain wanted the US to join their side.

In addition to feelings of amity towards France, the US had a formal treaty that tied the two nations together.  However, the US was still recovering from the last war and could not afford a new one.  British imports and the income generated from tariffs dominated the American economy and war with Britain would be devastating.  Even worse, the British could invade the US from Canada or one of its other New World colonies.

To navigate a difficult course between the two ancient rivals, Washington held to a simple but practical guide in formulating foreign policy: “nations have no friends, only interests.”  In other words, all nations act according to their best interests without regard to sentiment.  The disadvantages of siding with France or Britain far outweighed any advantages.  Shortly after France declared war on Britain, Washington made a pragmatic decision issuing a formal declaration of neutrality in April of 1793.

Jefferson did not favor taking France’s side, but he strongly opposed dependence on Britain economically, politically and/or culturally.  He feared a commercial economy that would increase American interaction with Europe.  Instead, the US should rely on a limited government promoting individual liberties and a self-reliant agrarian economy.  Jefferson resented Hamilton’s increasing interference in foreign policy to promote economic ties with Britain.  It seemed that the declaration of neutrality served as cover to favor Britain over France.

The Genet Affair

To make matters worse for Jefferson, the French made a grave error in sending Edmund Charles Genet serve as ambassador to the US.  He arrived in Charleston on April 8, 1793 and immediately began recruiting Americans to invade the Louisiana Territory; commissioning Americans as privateers to raid British shipping; and supporting pro-French Republican groups across the US.  A French warship captured a British merchantman named the Little Sarah which Genet outfitted with guns in Philadelphia and renamed the Petit Democrate.  The Petit Democrate then set sail and began capturing British ships in and around American waters.

Genet’s blatant violations of American neutrality outraged Washington and the Federalists who demanded the French recall their ambassador.  Jefferson had little choice but to comply.  Genet’s actions damaged American goodwill towards France further marginalizing Jefferson in Washington’s cabinet.  Just after Washington’s re-election, Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State.

The Jay Treaty

After Jefferson left office, Washington took affirmative steps to avoid war by cementing commercial ties with Britain sending Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate a treaty.  Jay succeeded returning with favorable terms.  The US received most favored status with Britain, expanding US trade rights to British Caribbean colonies.  The treaty also resolved some issues left open in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

When Republicans learned of the treaty, they viewed it as a betrayal of France believing the US would be forever beholden to the British crown and merchants.  Even though the Reign of Terror and Genet’s overbearing activities tempered support for France, the Jay Treaty was unpopular with the American people.  Republican opposition hardened and became more organized.  The Jay Treaty intensified the debate over America’s place in the world and came to define US politics for the next 20 years.

Newspapers supporting each side evolved in the early 1790s. John Fenno published the Federalists’ leading paper, The Gazette of the United States featuring the writings of John Adams, Noah Webster, Hamilton and others.  Philip Freneau opened The National Gazette for Republican writers.  Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin, published The Aurora which eventually replaced the Gazette as the leading Republican mouthpiece.

Both sides used the newspapers and pamphlets to advocate for policies and attack their political opponents.  Early on, Republicans avoided criticizing Washington directly, focusing instead on Hamilton and other Federalists.  A few mild complaints over Washington’s penchant for pomp appeared which critics claimed smacked of monarchism.  These exchanges were relatively mild when compared with those that erupted with the Jay Treaty.

As debates over the Jay Treaty began, Republicans sparked a war of words through newspapers and pamphlets.  The vitriol grew more and more bitter, often with little regard for facts, frequently descending into character assassination.  Both sides believed the other intended to destroy democracy with European tyranny.  Republicans charged Federalists with attempting to replicate English monarchy in America.  Federalists claimed Republicans sought to import the French Reign of Terror to the US.

Though unsuccessful in blocking ratification in June of 1795, Republicans would not let the issue die and the rancor continued into 1796.  Embittered Republicans found a new target for their anger in George Washington.  Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Aurora ran numerous articles denigrating Washington’s conduct, intelligence, education and character.  One writer named “Pittachus” even called for Washington’s impeachment claiming the Jay Treaty violated the Constitution and for other specious causes. [4]

Scipio summarized Republican criticisms pretending to be a friend offering advice:

“Retire immediately; let no flatterer persuade you to rest one hour longer at the helm of state.  You are utterly incapable to steer the political ship into the harbour of safety.  If you have any love for your country, leave its affairs to the wisdom of your fellow citizens . . . there are thousands of them who equal you in capacity and who excel you in knowledge.” [5]

Scipio’s commentary is revealing in what Republicans hoped to accomplish.  Calling the president ignorant, incompetent, greedy, unpatriotic, and even a traitor was intended to force Washington to retire.  Criticism of his character and patriotism stung Washington deeply and there is little doubt the unrelenting stream of vitriol made retirement eminently preferable to a third term.

Jefferson may not have written any of the invective, but he was actively communicating with allies with complaints about the Jay Treaty and other Federalist policies.  By 1796, he had emerged as undisputed leader of the Republican Party and was running for president against Federalist incumbent John Adams.

Amongst the many diatribes against Washington, one stood out as especially problematic for Jefferson.  On June 9, 1796, Bache printed a letter from an anonymous writer named “Paulding” which included confidential details from a 1793 cabinet meeting.  Washington frequently formulated questions for his cabinet to consider.  Paulding listed the questions Washington submitted regarding the merits of declaring neutrality; the legal status of the 1778 treaty of alliance with France; and how to deal with Citizen Genet.  He included his own commentary: “The text . . . [is] a stupendous monument of degeneracy.  It will almost require the authenticity of holy writ to persuade posterity, that it is not a libel ingeniously contrived to injure the reputation of “the father of his country.” [6]

For Washington, an invitation to serve in his cabinet was akin to joining his political family.  He did not mind dissent, but did expect the inner workings of his “family” to remain confidential.  Disclosure of those deliberations would undoubtedly be seen as a personal betrayal.

Jefferson must have been keenly aware that Washington would be angry and immediately wrote to disclaim any involvement.  In a June 19, 1796 letter, Jefferson denied releasing the confidential document in the strongest possible terms: “I attest every thing sacred and honorable to the declaration, that it [Washington’s policy questions] has got there neither thro’ me nor the paper confided to me.” [7]

Jefferson then turned to matters of agriculture.  Both men valued their status as farmers and this language was code intended to re-affirm common bonds as gentlemen planters and friends.  Jefferson had good reason to forestall anger.  Washington was still revered by many and a public accusation of betrayal might have crippled Jefferson’s presidential campaign.

Washington, as usual, took the high road writing back on July 6^th: “If I had entertained any suspicions before, that the queries Which have been published in Bache’s Paper proceeded from you, the assurances you have given of the contrary, would have removed them; but the truth is, I harboured none.” [8]  Washington went on to identify the parties he believed passed the confidential questions to Bache.  Next, Washington acknowledged rumors that Jefferson may have spoken against him, but he assured Jefferson: “My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered any thing in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions, in my mind, of his insincerity.” [9]

Like Jefferson, Washington never responded publicly to anonymous criticism he endured.  However, in the following paragraph, he defended his actions and confided the pain it caused: “while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, . . . and wished . . . to preserve this Country from the horrors of a desolating war, that I should be accused of being the enemy of one Nation, and subject to the influence of another; and to prove it, that every act of my Administration would be tortured, and the grossest, and most insiduous misrepresentations of them be made . . . in such exagerated, and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero; a notorious defaulter; or even to a common pickpocket.” [10]

Washington seemed to accept the denial at face value and concluded his letter with friendly discussion of his farming endeavors, a further sign that he still considered Jefferson a friend.  However, one might easily conclude Washington did not believe Jefferson.  Making an extensive defense of his conduct may have been Washington’s way of responding to the source of anonymous criticisms.

Jefferson avoided a public rift with Washington, but still lost the Election of 1796 to Adams.  He had no idea that he had already written a letter before Bache’s publication of the confidential questions that would destroy what was left of his relationship with Washington and do him lasting damage.

The Mazzei Letter

Italian born physician and merchant Philip Mazzei came to Virginia in 1773.  He and Jefferson became close friends and neighbors in Charlottesville.  In an April 24, 1796 letter with the controversy over the Jay Treaty still raging, Jefferson vented his spleen to his Italian friend writing:

“In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly thro’ the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance as they have already done the forms of the British government. . . . It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England.” [11]

Mazzei, for reasons unknown, made the letter public in Europe.  Eventually knowledge of the letter reached the US and Federalist Noah Webster published the text on May 7, 1797.  Federalists seized on the line “Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England” as an obvious insult directed at Washington.  Jefferson never publicly acknowledged the letter, but the damage was done.  Calling Washington an “apostate” who subverted American liberty to “the harlot England” ended the relationship forever.

Jefferson would later claim that Washington never spoke of the letter as if to imply he did not take the contents personally.  However, Jefferson conveniently avoided acknowledging that Washington never spoke to him again on any subject.  Martha Washington’s comments about Jefferson confirm Washington’s feelings on his former Secretary of State by the end of his life.

Conclusion

The Mazzei Letter haunted Jefferson the rest of his life.  Like many important men of his day, Jefferson fretted constantly about his reputation amongst his peers and future generations.  No other Founder wrote as much about his recollections and opinions as did Jefferson.  He was fortunate to outlive most of the Founders and structured his writings to vindicate himself and shape history to his favor.  Jefferson, for example, thoroughly trashed his old rival Patrick Henry inventing a slanderously false profile of Henry as poorly educated, unwise and lazy that tarred Henry for two centuries (see Revolutionary Slander: A Personal Grudge in Early American History and the Damage Done).

Jefferson could not do the same to Washington.  Knowing Washington was too popular, the “Sage of Monticello” tended to be gracious and positive in his later assessments.  However, a letter by his hand harshly criticizing Washington tarnished Jefferson for posterity and he knew it.  Decades later, he was still protesting his innocence with unconvincing claims his letter was mistranslated. [12]  Washington stood above rancor and partisanship as a near mythological hero.  The Mazzei letter reduced Jefferson to a partisan squabbler, below Washington’s Olympian perch.  That is probably a fitting punishment.

Martha Washington’s words reveal much about the tumultuous first decade of the American Republic and the conflict between founding titans struggling to establish their visions of the course and character of the United States.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] Higgenbotham, Don. Virginia’s Trinity of Immortals: Washington, Jefferson, and Henry, and the Story of Their Fractured Relationships. Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Winter, 2003), p. 541

[2] Ibid, p.

[3] Schachner, Nathan, Alexander Hamilton. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.,(1946), p. 319

[4] Pittachus, the Aurora, November 18, 1795. The false claim Washington overdrew his salary first appeared in a letter written under the pseudonym “A Calm Observer” on October 29, 1795 in the Aurora. The baseless claim was repeated subsequently.

[5] Scipio, the Aurora, November 20, 1795. The individual editions of the Aurora can be found by date at this site: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=t_XbbNNkFXoC&dat=17950930&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

[6] Paulding, the Aurora, June 9, 1796

[7] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington dated June 19, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0091

[8] Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson dated July 6, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0107

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei dated April 24, 1796. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-philip-mazzei-0

[12] see Jefferson’s 29 June, 1824 letter to Martin Van Buren: https://wallbuilders.com/defending-thomas-jefferson-john-birch-society-v-jefferson/

 

Sources:

Adams, Donald R. “American Neutrality and Prosperity, 1793-1808: A Reconsideration.” The Journal of Economic History 40, no. 4 (1980): 713-37. www.jstor.org/stable/2119997.

Anonymous, “A Letter of Jefferson on the Political Parties, 1798”. The American Historical Review. 3 (3): 488–489. 1898. doi:10.2307/1833690. JSTOR 1833690

Anonymous, “The Founding Trio: Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton.”

https://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/FoundingTrio.html

Anonymous, “Jefferson’s Letter to Philip Mazzei—Editorial Note.” The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 29: 1 March 1796 to 31 December 1797, (Princeton University Press, 2002), 73-88

Davis, Joseph H.; Irwin, Douglas A., “Trade Disruptions and America’s Early Industrialization, The Vanguard Group and NBER, Dartmouth College and NBER, January 5, 2005, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/ip.pdf p. 3.

Jefferson, Thomas, The Anas of Thomas Jefferson, 1791-1809. http://www.archive.org/stream/completeanastho00sawvgoog/completeanastho00sawvgoog_djvu.txt

Jefferson, Thomas to George Washington dated June 19, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0091

Jefferson, Thomas to Philip Mazzei dated April 24, 1796. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-philip-mazzei-0

Pay, Bernard, Benjamin Franklin Bache, A Democratic Leader of the Eighteenth Century. American Antiquarian Society, 277-304. https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44806871.pdf

Peterson, Merrill D. “Thomas Jefferson and Commercial Policy, 1783-1793.” The William and Mary Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1965): 584-610. doi:10.2307/1922911.

Schachner, Nathan, Alexander Hamilton. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.,(1946).

Scherr, Arthur. “”Vox Populi” versus the Patriot President: Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Philadelphia Aurora and John Adams (1797).” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 62, no. 4 (1995): 503-31. Accessed January 7, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/27773848.

Sheridan, Eugene R. “The Recall of Edmond Charles Genet: A Study in Transatlantic Politics and Diplomacy.” Diplomatic History 18, no. 4 (1994): 463-88. Accessed January 29, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/24912307.

Simpson, Stephen, The Lives of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson: With a Parallel. Philadelphia, Henry Young (1833), p. 137.

Tagg, James D. “Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Attack on George Washington.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 100, no. 2 (1976): 191-230. Accessed January 30, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20091053.

Various Authors, the Aurora, (1795-1796) https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=t_XbbNNkFXoC&dat=17950930&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Washington, George, Farewell Address. 1796, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Washington, George to Thomas Jefferson dated July 6, 1796. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0107

 

All images are in the public domain and subject to Fair Use Laws.