Teamwork Made the Dream Work: Washington and Hamilton

One great example of the legendary collaboration between Washington and Hamilton during Washington’s presidency is in the written correspondence they shared in the summer of 1792.  Washington described concerns that were raised to him about the administration’s policy’s, most of which had been built and enacted by Hamilton himself.  In response, Hamilton (unsurprisingly) drafted a lengthy, 10,000+ word response that addressed each of the objections Washington presented.  I’ve included excerpts of some of the objections and Hamilton’s responses that I found most interesting below along with some commentary and analysis, but I encourage you to read the full letters, available from Founders Online.  You can find Washington’s July 29, 1792 letter here, and Hamilton’s August 18, 1792 response here.

Image from Mount Vernon

Washington wrote to Hamilton from Mt. Vernon about his conversations with others about the state of the government:

“On my way home, and since my arrival here, I have endeavoured to learn from sensible & moderate men—known friends to the Government—the sentiments which are entertained of public measures. These all agree that the Country is prosperous & happy; but they seem to be alarmed at that system of policy, and those interpretations of the Constitution which have taken place in Congress.”

Washington divided the concerns into twenty-one categories, and asked Hamilton to respond to those criticisms “as soon as you can make it convenient to yourself.”  Most of the criticisms focused on financial policy.  Hamilton responded about three weeks later with a lengthy point-by-point defense of the policies he had put into place.

The first and foremost concern Washington expressed was that the public debt was “greater than we can possibly pay” and that the amount of the debt had been miscalculated.  Summing up the criticisms he had heard, he wrote:

 “That the public debt is greater than we can possibly pay before other causes of adding new debt to it will occur; and that this has been artificially created by adding together the whole amount of the debtor & creditor sides of the accounts, instead of taking only their balances; which could have been paid off in a short time.”

First, Hamilton defended the amount of the debt:

“The public Debt was produced by the late war. It is not the fault of the present government that it exists; unless it can be proved, that public morality and policy do not require of a Government an honest provision for its debts.”

Hamilton responded, ridiculing the assumptions of the critics who had spoken to Washington:

“The thirteen States in their joint capacity owed a certain sum. The same states, in their separate capacities, owed another sum. These two sums constituted the aggregate of the public Debt. The public, in a political sense, compounded of the Governments of the Union and of the several states, was the debtor. The individuals who held the various evidences of debt were the creditors. It would be non-sense to say, that the combining of the two parts of the public Debt is adding together the Debtor and Creditor sides of the account. So great an absurdity cannot be supposed to be intended by the objection. Another meaning must therefore be sought for.”

Hamilton also discussed the general benefits of having a public debt:

“The general inducements to a provision for the public Debt are—I   To preserve the public faith and integrity by fulfilling as far as was practicable the public engagements. II   To manifest a due respect for property by satisfying the public obligations in the hands of the public Creditors and which were as much their property as their houses or their lands their hats or their coats. III   To revive and establish public Credit; the palladium of public safety. IV   To preserve the Government itself by shewing it worthy of the confidence which was placed in it, to procure to the community the blessings which in innumerable ways attend confidence in the Government and to avoid the evils which in as many ways attend the want of confidence in it.”

After an extensive justification of his financial policy, Hamilton responded to the political points raised by critics.  One of the objections Washington included was that Hamilton’s ultimate goal was to change the present republican form of Government.  Critics today have sometimes leveled the same criticism of Hamilton.

Hamilton’s response to the charge was very direct:

“To this there is no other answer than a flat denial—except this that the project from its absurdity refutes itself.

The idea of introducing a monarchy or aristocracy into this Country, by employing the influence and force of a Government continually changing hands, towards it, is one of those visionary things, that none but madmen could meditate and that no wise men will believe.

If it could be done at all, which is utterly incredible, it would require a long series of time, certainly beyond the life of any individual to effect it. Who then would enter into such plot? For what purpose of interest or ambition?

To hope that the people may be cajoled into giving their sanctions to such institutions is still more chimerical. A people so enlightened and so diversified as the people of this Country can surely never be brought to it, but from convulsions and disorders, in consequence of the acts of popular demagogues.

The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.”

If you’re interested in reading more on the relationship and collaboration between Washington and Hamilton, here are some suggested reading titles:

 

“I’m a General! Whee!”: Hamilton’s Role at Charles Lee’s Court Martial (Pt. 1)

This is the first of a two part series on Hamilton’s interactions with General Charles Lee.  Look out for part two next week!

The University of Virginia’s Washington Papers gives this background of the Battle of Monmouth:

On 28 June 1778 the British and American forces engaged near Monmouth, New Jersey. The battle occurred when Maj. Gen. Charles Lee retreated unexpectedly after briefly engaging with the British as the British removed themselves from the village of Monmouth Courthouse. When Lee’s troops retreated towards the main body of the American forces, the British troops under Gen. Sir Henry Clinton followed close behind. Despite the great confusion resulting from the unexpected retreat, the American forces repelled the British advances. The events surrounding Lee’s retreat and Washington’s reaction to that retreat precipitated Lee’s eventual court martial, as the Lee-Washington letters make clear.

On July 4, 1778, the court martial proceedings against Lee began.

Jeff Dacus, in the Journal of the American Revolution wrote:

The court martial proceedings began on July 4, chaired by Lord Stirling,  in a tavern at New Brunswick. The general officers present were Jedediah Huntington of Massachusetts, Enoch Poor of New Hampshire, William Smallwood of Maryland, and William Woodford of Virginia. None of these officers had been in the thick of the fighting on June 28.

The formal charges against Lee were:

  • First: For disobedience of orders, in not attacking the enemy on the 28th of June, agreeable to repeated instructions.
  • Secondly: For misbehavior before the enemy on the same day, by making an unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat.
  • Thirdly: For disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief, in two letters dated the 1st of July and the 28th of June

Hamilton testified against Lee twice, once on July 4, 1778 and then again on July 13th.

By Johann Michael Probst (1757-1809) engraver. – This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.3a45386

At the court martial, Lee was permitted to ask questions to challenge the witnesses against him.  Hamilton’s role in these proceedings is documented in his papers.

On July 4, Hamilton was asked questions centered on what orders from General Washington were communicated to Lee.  Hamilton had actually written the letter communicating Washington’s orders to Lee, and testified to his memory of the contents of the letter because no copy was available.

Hamilton stated that the orders he wrote to Lee were in the spirit of previous communications from Washington to Lee.  Lee had been ordered to detach a group of 600-800 men to skirmish with British troops to delay them so that other troops would have time to move forward:

“… the order directed that General Lee should detach a party of 6 or 800 men to lie very near the enemy, as a party of observation, in case of their moving off, to give the earliest intelligence of it, and to skirmish with them so as to produce some delay, and give time for the rest of the troops to come up…”

Hamilton expressed that Washington’s clear intent was to have Lee attack the British:

“from everything I knew of the affair, General Washington’s intention was fully to have the enemy attacked on their march, and that the circumstances must be very extraordinary and unforeseen, which, consistent with his wish, could justify the not doing it.”

At the second session of Hamilton’s testimony, on July 13th, Hamilton gave his perspective of what happened at the Battle of Monmouth, and the interaction between Washington and Lee on the field.

First, Hamilton stated that Lee’s troops had not attacked the enemy, except for small attacks by two small groups of troops, one of which Hamilton proposed to Lee.

Hamilton testified that he watched Washington give Lee a direct order to remain and fight.  Lee had accepted these orders and told Washington hat he would not be the “first man to leave the field.”  However, even after this exchange, Lee directed his troops to fall back.

“I heard General Washington say to General Lee, that it would be necessary for him (General Washington) to leave the ground and form the main body of the army, while I understood he recommended to General Lee to remain there, and take measures for checking the advance of the enemy; General Lee replied he should obey his orders, and would not be the first man to leave the field. I was some little time after this near General Lee, during which, however, I heard no measures directed, nor saw any taken by him to answer the purpose above-mentioned.”

Hamilton described the troops marching in retreat as “marching without system or design.”

“The corps that I saw were in themselves in tolerable good order, but seemed to be marching without system or design, as chance should direct, in short, I saw nothing like a general plan, or combined disposition for a retreat; in this, however, the hurry of the occasion made it very difficult to have a distinct conception.”

Lee was found guilty of the charges by the court martial and was suspended from the army for a year. Dacus writes:

The sentence of the court was Lee’s suspension from the army for a year. The sentence was forwarded to Congress. Congress agreed to the court’s decision by a close vote, thirteen to seven, on December 5, 1778.

After his court martial, Lee let his discontent simmer and publicly complained of Washington’s poor leadership.  He published a Vindication to the Public, with his version of events to defend his reputation.

Edward Bobins, writing in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography  provides some background:

Charles Lee subsequently published what he called a ‘ ‘ Vindication to the Public, ‘ ‘ which was an able bit of special pleading and convinced some readers that he was a martyr, but which otherwise fell flat.

This set the stage for a showdown involving Lee and Washington’s loyal aides and supporters, Hamilton and John Laurens.

Meet the Future Sister-in-Law: Hamilton’s Introduction to Peggy Schuyler

In February 1780, Hamilton wrote a letter to Eliza’s younger sister, Margarita (nicknamed Peggy) to introduce himself.  At this time, he hadn’t met Peggy, but he had heard about her from Eliza.

I venture to tell you in confidence, that by some odd contrivance or other, your sister has found out the secret of interesting me in every thing that concerns her; and though I have not the happiness of a personal acquaintance with you, I have had the good fortune to see several very pretty pictures of your person and mind which have inspired me with a more than common partiality for both.

He wrote:

You will no doubt admit it as a full proof of my frankness and good opinion of you, that I with so little ceremony introduce myself to your acquaintance and at the first step make you my confident.

Hamilton playfully described having “serious and henious” charges to make against Eliza because of her beauty and charm:

I have some things of a very serious and heinous nature to lay to her charge. She is most unmercifully handsome and so perverse that she has none of those pretty affectations which are the prerogatives of beauty.

Hamilton’s description is framed in the difference between Eliza and all other women in society, who Hamilton characterized as being frivolous and foolish.  His backhanded compliments wouldn’t be out of place in a modern day dating website.

Her good sense is destitute of that happy mixture of vanity and ostentation which would make it conspicuous to the whole tribe of fools and foplings as well as to men of understanding so that as the matter now stands it is ⟨very⟩ little known beyond the circle of these. She has good nature affability and vivacity unembellished with that charming frivolousiness which is justly deemed one of the principal accomplishments of a belle. In short she is so strange a creature that she possesses all the beauties virtues and graces of her sex without any of those amiable defects, which from their general prevalence are esteemed by connoisseurs necessary shades in the character of a fine woman.

Hamilton joked that Eliza was breaking hearts and turning heads all over Morristown.

I should never have done, were I to attempt to give you a catalogue of the whole, of all the hearts she has vanquished, of all the heads she has turned, of all the philosophers she has unmade, or of all the inconstants she has fixed to the great prejudice of the general service of the female world.

He told Peggy that Eliza’s influence was so strong, that to preserve the safety of the state and the army she needed to be removed from the neighborhood:

It is essential to the safety of the state and to the tranquillity of the army that one of two things take place; either that she be immediately removed from our neighbourhood, or that some other nymph qualified to maintain an equal sway come into it. By dividing her empire it will be weakened and she will be much less dangerous when she has a rival equal in charms to dispute the prize with her.

“The ladder of his ambition”- Hamilton, Burr, and the 1804 New York Gubernatorial Race

In 1804, as Thomas Jefferson was running for a second term as President of the U.S., the race to be governor of New York was heating up.  Burr (who was still the sitting vice president) ran against Morgan Lewis (a Democratic-Republican) on a Federalist platform.  Although Burr had previously run for political office as a Democratic-Republican, he tried to build Federalist support for his campaign.  (The popular sitting governor of New York, George Clinton, was replacing Aaron Burr in the presidential race as Thomas Jefferson’s choice for Vice President, and would be Vice President of the U.S. until his death in 1812… it’s a tangled web)

Morgan Lewis from Hall of Governors NY

Hamilton’s notes, from a February 10, 1804 speech at a Federalist meeting in Albany lay out eight reasons why the Federalists should not support Burr for Governor and should instead support a Democratic-Republican candidate.

The first reason centered on Hamilton’s belief that Burr was a calculated politician, governed by his own ambition rather than by set principles.  He wrote that Burr had been aligned with the Democratic-Republicans, either because he believed in those values (“from principle”) or because he thought that it would make it easier for him to win (“from calculation”).  If Burr’s decision was based on his principles, Hamilton stated that he would not change his principles at a time when the Federalist party was struggling.  If Burr had made a strategic decision, he was not going to “relinquish the ladder of his ambition” for the good of the Federalist party.

“Col Burr has steadily pursued the ⟨track⟩ of democratic policies. This he has done either from principle or from calculation. If the former he is not likely now to change his plan, when the federalists are prostrate and their enemies predominent. If the latter, he will certainly not at this time relinquish the ladder of his ambition and espouse the cause or views of the weaker party.”

Second, Hamilton described with begrudging respect that Burr was a talented politician who would be able to rally people around him

“it will be no difficult task for a man of talents intrigue and address possessing this chair of Government to rally the great body of them under his standard and thereby to consolidate for personal purposes the mass of Clintonians, his own adherents among the democrats and such federalists as from personal good will or interested motives may give him support.”

Hamilton also expressed his fear that Burr becoming governor would unite the democratic party:

 “The effect of his elevation will be to reunite under a more adroit able and daring chief the now scattered fragments of the democratic party and to reinforce it by a strong detachment from the federalists.”

Hamilton expressed the fear that Burr would capitalize on the tendency of popular governments to “dissolution and disorder” and would build up popular prejudices and vices.

If he be truly, as the federalists have believed, a man of irregular and insatiable ambition; if his plan has been to rise to power on the ladder of Jacobinic principles, it is natural to conclude that he will endeavor to fix himself in power by the same instrument, that he will not lean on a fallen ⟨and⟩ falling party, generally speaking of a character not to favour usurpation and the ascendancy of a despotic chief. Every day shews more and more the much to be regretted tendency of Governments intirely popular to dissolution and disorder. Is it rational to expect, that a man who had the sagacity to foresee this tendency, and whose temper would permit him to bottom his aggrandisement on popular prejudices and vices would desert this system at a time, when more than ever the state of things invites him to adhere to it?

Although Lansing was a political enemy and an anti-Federalist who had vigorously opposed the Constitution and ruled against Hamilton as a judge, Hamilton believed that Lansing’s strength of personal character would protect the office.

If Lansing is Governor his personal character affords some security against pernicious extremes, and at the same time renders it morally certain, that the democratic party already much divided and weakened will moulder and break asunder more and more. This is certainly a state of things favorable to the future ascendancy of the wise and good. May it not lead to a recasting of parties by which the fœderalists will gain a great accession of force from former opponents?

Burr ultimately lost the election, and Morgan Lewis became the Governor of New York.  Burr’s loss, in April 1804, happened just a few months before his duel with Hamilton in July 1804.

Hamilton’s Hurricane Experience

As people try to recover and rebuild from Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, the hurricane coverage brought to mind Hamilton’s experience as a teenager living in St. Croix when it was hit by a destructive hurricane in 1772.

Hamilton wrote on September 6, 1772:

It seemed as if a total dissolution of nature was taking place. The roaring of the sea and wind, fiery meteors flying about it in the air, the prodigious glare of almost perpetual lightning, the crash of the falling houses, and the ear-piercing shrieks of the distressed, were sufficient to strike astonishment into Angels. A great part of the buildings throughout the Island are levelled to the ground, almost all the rest very much shattered; several persons killed and numbers utterly ruined; whole families running about the streets, unknowing where to find a place of shelter; the sick exposed to the keeness of water and air without a bed to lie upon, or a dry covering to their bodies; and our harbours entirely bare. In a word, misery, in all its most hideous shapes, spread over the whole face of the country.

Hamilton’s letter was published by the Royal Danish Gazette the following month.

VIEW IN ANTIGUA: EFFECTS PRODUCED UPON THE HOUSE AT CLARK'S HILL BY THE HURRICANE IN 1772 (1775-6)

A contemporary newspaper account published by Will Johnson at the Saba Islander states:

“From the advices just come to hand from America, is selected the following melancholy account of the effects of the Great Storm on August 31st, at the Caribbean islands.—St. Eustatia, 400 houses on the higher grounds destroyed, or rendered untenantable ; many houses carried ten or twelve yards, and others quite into the sea. Plantation-houses all down, except two, and the canes on the ground all twisted up. The Dutch church blown into the sea.—At Saba, 180 houses blown down, and the cattle carried away from their stakes.- At. St.Martin’s scarce a house standing, all their plantations destroyed. —St. Croix a every house almost at Christianstad, and all the plantations and negro houses leveled. Only three houses left standing at Frederickstadt, and numbers of people killed. At St. Kitts’s, almost all the estates are destroyed, there being scarce a mill or boiling house left standing.”

Hamilton Papers Digitized on Library of Congress Website!!

In exciting news, the Library of Congress has digitized its extensive collection of Hamilton microfilm and made them publicly accessible.  This gives us all unprecedented access to original Hamilton documents that you would previously need to review and request on microfilm.

The Library of Congress description states:

The collection, consisting of approximately 12,000 items dating from 1708 to 1917, documents Hamilton’s impoverished Caribbean boyhood (scantily); events in the lives of his family and that of his wife, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton; his experience as a Revolutionary War officer and aide-de-camp to General George Washington; his terms as a New York delegate to the Continental Congress (1782-1783) and the Constitutional Convention (1787); and his careers as a New York state legislator, United States treasury secretary (1789-1795), political writer, and lawyer in private practice. Most of the papers date from 1777 until Hamilton’s death in 1804.

The Library of Congress finding aid has more information on all the information included in each of the reels.

The collection is organized into these eight categories:

  • General Correspondence, 1734-1804 (Reels 1-21)
    Hamilton’s correspondence begins with his boyhood employment with merchant Nicholas Cruger in St. Croix and continues through his service in the Revolutionary War, his participation as a New York delegate in the Constitutional Convention, and as treasury secretary. It ends with his last letters to his wife before his death in a duel with Aaron Burr in July 1804.
  • Speeches and Writings, 1778-1804 (Reels 21-23)
    Drafts, copies, and notes of reports; political essays, speeches, New York legislative acts, and more composed by Hamilton from the American Revolution until his death. Of note is an outline of the speech he delivered at the Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787; his notes on debates and speeches at New York’s ratifying convention, June 1788; drafts of the four major economic reports he wrote as treasury secretary (on public credit, creation of a national bank, establishment of a mint, and development of manufacturing); drafts of the speeches he wrote for George Washington, including Washington’s 1796 farewell address; notes he took at New York’s constitutional convention of 1787; and drafts of some of his political essays. None of Hamilton’s Federalistessays are included.
  • Legal File, 1708-1804 (Reels 23-29)
    Papers documenting Hamilton’s career as a lawyer, which began in 1782. Most of these are ordered alphabetically by case. Some of the landmark cases included in his papers are Rutgers v. Waddington, People v. Croswell, Hylton v. United States, and cases forming the LeGuen v. Gouverneur and Kemble litigation.
  • Financial Papers, 1782-1804 (Reel 29)
    The financial papers, which form the smallest segment of the collection, consist of two volumes of accounts relating to Hamilton’s law practice, and a folder of miscellaneous receipts. Some of the receipts are for money Hamilton paid engineer William Pearce on behalf of the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures to provide machinery for manufacturing cotton, 1791-1792.
  • Family Papers, 1737-1917 (Reels 29-31)
    Letters and other documents of members of the Hamilton, Schuyler, and related families, but not including Alexander Hamilton himself. The series contains letters from Angelica Church (Hamilton’s sister-in-law) and Philip Schuyler (Hamilton’s father-in-law) to Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton; from Philip Schuyler to his grandson, Philip Hamilton; and from Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton to her sister, Catherine Cochran, and to her son, Philip Hamilton. Through the marriage of Philip Hamilton to Rebecca McLane, several McLane family letters were incorporated into the papers. Most of the nonfamily correspondence of Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton relates to the management of her properties and to arrangements for the publication of Hamilton’s papers. Scattered letters addressed to Alexander Hamilton (Alexander and Elizabeth’s grandson), James A. Hamilton, John Church Hamilton, and to members of the McLane family are also included.
  • Miscellany, 1711-1820 (Reels 31-34)
    A mixture of original and copied documents. Included are certificates, military papers, legislative papers, newspaper clippings, writings, school exercises attributed to Hamilton, Hamilton family papers including Hamilton’s will, printed material, notes on the collection, and more.
  • 1998 Addition, 1780-1820
    This series, consisting of material acquired by gift and purchase since the collection was microfilmed in 1981, was added to the Hamilton Papers in 1998. Originals include a letter from Nicholas Everton to Hamilton concerning legal matters and a Treasury Department circular. Photocopied material includes letters by Hamilton, miscellaneous images, and a page from a church register recording his marriage.
  • 2017 Addition, 1790-1804
    This series consists of fifty-five letters, originally owned by Hamilton descendants, purchased by the Library of Congress at Sotheby’s in January 2017. Fifty-one of these, 1790-1804, are from Philip Schuyler (1733-1804) to his son-in-law Alexander Hamilton and daughter Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton. The remainder consists of two additional family letters, a letter from Charles Pierre L’Enfant to Hamilton, July 14, 1801, concerning L’Enfant’s renovation of City Hall in New York into Federal Hall, and a fragment of a will in Hamilton’s hand, [July 1795].
  • Oversize
    Correspondence, reports, annotated drafts of the Constitution, writings, deeds, agreements, contracts, financial papers, certificates, and printed matter. These items were microfilmed in their original locations before their physical removal to this series. Included here are samples of lace made by women in Ipswich, Massachusetts. The lace was collected for Hamilton as an example of American manufacturing as he wrote his “Report on Manufactures,” 1791.

Hamilton on the Death of John Laurens

On August 27, 1782, John Laurens was killed while leading a party of American soldiers in a skirmish against the British.  Hamilton and Lauren had been extremely close, and Hamilton struggled with the news as he began his Congressional career.

Hamilton and Laurens became friends when both were aides-de-camp to Washington during the Revolution, and the two had an extremely close bond.

In April 1779, Hamilton wrote:

“Cold in my professions, warm in ⟨my⟩ friendships, I wish, my Dear Laurens, it m⟨ight⟩be in my power, by action rather than words, ⟨to⟩ convince you that I love you. I shall only tell you that ’till you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value you had taught my heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well done. You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is my desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, and to keep my happiness independent on the caprice of others. You sh⟨ould⟩ not have taken advantage of my sensibility to ste⟨al⟩ into my affections without my consent. But as you have done it and as we are generally indulgent to those we love, I shall not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on condition that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue to merit the partiality, which you have so artfully instilled into ⟨me⟩.”

 

In 1779, Laurens left Washington’s service when he was elected to the South Carolina state legislature.  In that position, he attempted to win support for his plan for the enlistment of Black troops in the Continental Army.  On July 14, 1779, Laurens wrote:

Ternant will relate to you how many violent struggles I have had between duty and inclination—how much my heart was with you, while I appeared to be most actively employed here—but it appears to me that I shd be inexcusable in the light of a Citizen if I did not continue my utmost efforts for carrying the plan of black levies into execution, while there remains the smallest hope of success.

Image of John Laurens from Wikimedia

Just two weeks before Lauren died in South Carolina, Hamilton wrote him a letter on August 15, 1782 imploring him to join Congress and help him with the country’s next steps after the Revolution.

It requires all the virtue and all the abilities of the Country. Quit your sword my friend, put on the toga, come to Congress. We know each others sentiments, our views are the same: we have fought side by side to make America free, let us hand in hand struggle to make her happy.

Unfortunately, they never had that chance.  After Laurens’ death Hamilton wrote to his friend Nathaniel Greeene on October 12, 1782:

“I feel the deepest affliction at the news we have just received of the loss of our dear and ⟨inesti⟩mable friend Laurens. His career of virtue is at an end. How strangely are human affairs conducted, that so many excellent qualities could not ensure a more happy fate? The world will feel the loss of a man who has left few like him behind, and America of a citizen whose heart realized that patriotism of which others only talk. I feel the loss of a friend I truly and most tenderly loved, and one of a very small number.”